Posted on 06/24/2017 6:13:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
For over two years now, environmental activists and anti-industry groups have been raging against the U.S. government, the European Union, and practically anybody else that would listen about the herbicide glyphosate.
Glyphosate is a weed killer and the main ingredient in RoundUp. Weed killers are obviously a critical tool for American farmers and farmers around the world. The left-wingers are attacking weed killers despite the chemical receiving a clean bill of health from both the EPA and Europe’s main food safety and chemical authorities.
PRI.org reported late last year that “in November 2015, the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, found that glyphosate was ‘unlikely’ to cause cancer in humans. In the US, the EPA released a report that also said glyphosate was unlikely to cause cancer. That report was posted online in late April, but disappeared three days later. The EPA says that, although the report was labeled ‘final’ on every page, it was prematurely released.” Yet the left wingers are protesting from California to France and have been marching in the streets and testing their own urine to get it banned or restricted.
The impact to consumers of the anti-weed killer mafia would be to ban glyphosate, the most widely-used agricultural chemical of all time. U.S. farmers use 300 million pounds of the stuff each year. While anti-glyphosate activists argue that all that use is a threat to public health, they now have a major problem in trying to make their story stick.
Reuters reported on June 14, 2017 in a bombshell article titled “The WHO's cancer agency left in the dark over glyphosate evidence,” that “When Aaron Blair sat down to chair a week-long meeting of 17 specialists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France in March 2015, there was something he wasn’t telling them. The epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute had seen important unpublished scientific data relating directly to a key question the IARC specialists were about to consider: Whether research shows that the weedkiller glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling RoundUp brand, causes cancer.” It appears that the one study that drives their entire campaign has been exposed as bogus.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found that the weed killer was “probably carcinogenic,” yet the review’s chairman ignored some evidence that contradicted that conclusion. In fact, and according to EcoWatch, Blair himself worked on the decades-long Agricultural Health Study (AHS), which debunked allegations of a link between glyophosphate exposure and cases of cancer. The scientist was part of a team that looked at health data from 89,000 U.S. farm workers and family members that dated back to the 1990s on. Earlier data from that study had already found no link between the two, and the latest findings only strengthened that case. And Blair testified that the data would have changed the IARC’s whole analysis.
For some reason, this report was never published. Results oriented scientific research has no place in this type of important analysis. This cuts the legs out of the protesters who are relying on this IARC “study” to work over governments to ban the popular weed killer. According to the Reuters story, one of Blair’s researchers emailed him before a 2015 meeting that “it would be irresponsible if we didn't seek publication of our NHL manuscript in time to influence IARCs decision." Three years later, that data has yet to be published because as Blair states, “you couldn’t put all that in one paper.”
One reason why Americans should be angry with results oriented scientific research is that they pay for it. American taxpayers’ money pays for IARC’s work through the World Health Organization and the United Nations, in addition to direct grants from the U.S. government.
In Europe, the head of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) came under attack by green campaigners because his researchers dared contradict IARC’s conclusion. For mild-mannered scientists, EFSA raised eyebrows for coming out swinging against what it called “Facebook science.”
The federal government and the states rely on IARC to make determinations of what substances can be linked to cancer. Sept. 11 first responders relied on the IARC to determine that 15 of the compounds present at the World Trade Center were known carcinogens. Yet, in this case the new revelations have spurred talk of withdrawing the IARC glyphosate monograph that is the underpinning of a pending case against RoundUp in California right now. The IARC needs to fix the deliberative process and stop suppressing scientific evidence that contradicts the finding they want to conclude. The public deserves an organization to produce an accurate judge of potential cancer hazards – the IARC has called into question whether they deserve to be that source for reliable scientific analysis.
That is not a bad idea...wonder if it would damage the roots of surrounding grass? Even so, might be worth it!
Still waiting on the tree stump removal guy...had hoped the guy would do it this weekend. I left 3 messages...These landscaping people can be so flighty!!
“Who is going to put roundup on a food crop? You can’t harvest/sell/eat dead veggies and fruit.”
Do your own research. Roundup is sprayed on genetically modified soybeans crops (and others). The weeds die, but the soy plant has been engineered to live through the application. Last I checked, soybeans were food, and added to many other foods as a filler.
How can I say THIS nicely, if you used to sell it, you certainly were not very well informed about its use tied to soybean production.
Here’s a link, but I encourage you to read up on it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean
Also, if you plan on replanting an area, be careful about using a salt-based mix because the salt can make it difficult to grow desirable plants, and grass after the weeds are killed. That’s not a problem with glyphosate as it degrades when it hits soil.
Current glyphosate-resistant crops include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets, and cotton, with wheat still under development.
By 2015, 89% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 89% of cotton produced in the US were genetically modified to be herbicide-tolerant.
That’s awesome!
From Center for Food Safety May 2015 Fact Sheet
GLYPHOSATE AND CANCER RISK: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
WHY IS THERE CONCERN ABOUT GLYPHOSATE AND CANCER?What Do We Really Know About Roundup Weed Killer?The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) cancer authorities – the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – recently determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”.
Glyphosate is the most heavily used pesticide in the world thanks to widespread planting of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, which are genetically engineered to survive spraying with it.
Use and exposure will increase still more if glyphosate-resistant turf grasses currently being developed for lawns, playing fields and golf courses are introduced.
Nearly all the corn, soy, and cotton now grown in the United States is treated with glyphosate. Its use skyrocketed after seeds were genetically engineered to tolerate the chemical.From 2014, MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025Because these seeds produce plants that are not killed by glyphosate, farmers can apply the weed killer to entire fields without worrying about destroying crops.
Between 1987 and 2012, annual U.S. farm use grew from less than 11 million pounds to nearly 300 million pounds.
“By far the vast use is on [genetically engineered] crops – corn, soy and cotton – that took off in the early to mid-nineties,” says Robert Gilliom, chief of surface water assessment for the US Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Assessment Program.
Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy.Lots of food crops are sprayed with Round Up and we eat it.Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity.
The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating.
A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.
Personally, I'd rather eat the stuff God makes. I've found that the closer to God I get, the better things are.
We’re giving it a shot. We’ll see.
Aspartame and Sucralose are two very different things.
Health Impact News is something I have never seen before, so if you go down to the bottom, they have other websites that share the same Cascading Style Sheets. They have one that is real big on coconut oil. I like coconut oil, but not that much! So they have an axe to grind. And as for 1/2 of all children being autistic by 2025, I guess by then, we will have forgotten that they said that when we already can see that not even 1/4 of all kids are autistic right now. Maybe it's one of those hockey stick things.
My intent with the links and quoted materials was to address the idea that Round Up is not sprayed on food crops.
It is.
And we eat those foods.
As to your specific counters to the quotes listed, I bet you could find research that would satisfy your standards.
There is a lot of material to sort through and it's worth the effort to see for yourself.
Round Up is likely not as safe as it's advertised to be and likely not as dangerous as some feel/claim, either.
Do what you want with you and yours, but I've read enough that I don't want that stuff around me and mine anymore.
I'm convinced that God's stuff is better to eat than what you can get from a lab.
Thank you.
Keyhopper,
Salt would keep anything from growing in its place, right?
Then my lawn would look like an B-52 had flown an Arc Light mission over it....
One shot glass of regular gas per lapsus calami post here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3563720/posts?page=121#121
would allow regular grass to grow in the weeds place, after having pulled out the dead weed...
Courtesy ping...
I use Groundclear. Stronger concentration and an additional herbicide.
Thx ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.