Posted on 10/21/2018 7:36:17 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX
The common weed killer Roundup (glyphosate) is back in the news after a US court ruled it contributed to a man’s terminal cancer (non-Hodgkin lymphoma). Following the court’s order for manufacturer Monsanto to compensate the former school ground’s keeper US$289 million, more than 9,000 people are reportedly also suing the company.
In light of this, Cancer Council Australia is calling for Australia to review glyphosate’s safety. And tonight’s Four Corner’s report centres around Monsanto’s possible cover-up of the evidence for a link between glyphosate and cancer.
Juries don’t decide science, and this latest court case produced no new scientific data. Those who believe glyphosate causes cancer often refer to the 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified the herbicide as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.
IARC’s conclusion was arrived at using a narrower base of evidence than other recent peer-reviewed papers and governmental reviews. Australia’s regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), reviewed the safety of glyphosate after IARC’s determination. It’s 2016 report concluded that
based on current risk assessment the label instructions on all glyphosate products – when followed – provides adequate protection for users.
The Agricultural Health Study, which followed more than 50,000 people in the US for over ten years, was published in 2018. This real world study in the populations with the highest exposure to glyphosate showed that if there is any risk of cancer from glyphosate preparations, it is exceedingly small.
It also showed that the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma is negligible. It is unclear to what extent this study was used in the recent court case.
(Excerpt) Read more at acsh.org ...
I have come to accept that Round-Up kills gut bacteria, when ingested.
This has serious health consequences.
Monsanto has financed a great many studies to try to demonstrate it is safe.
I trust them as much as the Vioxx studies.
So I personally avoid it.
This leaves more for those who want to use it.
Freedom involves choices.
But cancer and toe nail fungus are caused by global warming. /sarc.
It is true.
The liberal ijits crying about this would believe they are believers of science, not deniers.
They actually don’t believe science or respect it but worship a false reflection of it.
“The rodents are given oral doses of glyphosate for up to 89% of their life spans...”
If you want to drink Roundup for 89% of your lifespan, that is your choice.
First Google result: https://detoxproject.org/glyphosate/glyphosate-and-roundup-negatively-affect-gut-bacteria/
If you accept science, you accept that Roundup may or may not cause cancer.
A pretty comprehensive article on the subject.
Every time they come up with the latest scare about a pesticide, I wonder why professional exterminators aren’t dropping like flies (bad joke). I have not heard that people who have worked for years at this job have any higher rate of cancer or other diseases than anyone else.
The doses of these substances they give rats and mice would kill anyone. There are some foods that would kill at those amounts.
The headline is a glaringly anti-scientific statement and the group that put this piece out is deeply conflicted.
This may as well have been put out by Monsanto itself, for all the value it has to public discussion of the issue.
The big evil corporation MUST be at fault.
Thanks for the link! The real goal of environmentalists is to stop all progress and return society to a rather primitive standard of living.
Monsanto has money and power. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Round Up and other herbicides. It has long been shown to cause cancer among other problems including early breast development in young girls. Monsanto has developed Round Up Ready plants (seed) as well as genetic modified plants (GM plants). I do not trust Monsanto and their propaganda. Its all about money and power and to heck with humanity for Monsanto.
How are they conflicted? They are often accused of being financed by corporations when about 4% of their support comes from companies. The headline, like most headlines, is designed to get one’s attention.
Read the link in a previous comment about the review done by authorities in Australia. It concludes that if Roundup is a carcinogen, it is a weak one.
These types,of arguments are pure bullsh1t.
“Science” has been continually incorrect on a bunch of things we were told were not only okay, but healthy to do.
This is just the argument put forth by those who want no scrutiny or questioning.
This “American Council on Science and Health” literally exists for the purpose of promoting industry narratives.
They might even be correct, but only a fool would take words from those lips as authoritative.
I don't think it is looked at as a risk factor, when you contract any number of diseases that hinge on a strong immune system.
Or correct neurotransmitters.
Or leaky gut.
The issue that’s of concern to meis that Monsanto also has genetically engineered crops like corn and wheat to be resistant to it, so it can be sprayed over entire crop. So you won’t know if the food you eat has residue. Also humans live a lot longer than mice. 89% of a mouse’s life isn’t very long for a human.
I’m not saying I buy all what the alarmists are selling, but some caution is in order if it’s being used widely on our food.
Leaky Gut Syndrome:
Monsanto artificially increase the natural insecticides in plants to make them more resistant to pests.
Chemicals that are antagonistic to pests can also be antagonistic to humans.
By increasing the lectins to an unnatural degree, they make foods treated with glyphosate irritating to the intestinal villi. Continual irritation produces chronic inflammation, damage to the villi, and a porous condition in the lining, allowing partially-digested particles, especially protein fragments, to enter the blood stream, where they can produce an auto-immune reaction.
Just because a little of something once in a while is fairly harmless does not mean that a lot of it on a daily basis is good. (See: Alcohol.)
None of this has anything to do per se with cancer.
On the contrary, I subscribe to the ACSC daily newsletter. It is an excellent source for science news.
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.