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 ...
Many plants contain natural pesticides to protect themselves. Who knows what effects those have on humans? Perhaps we should just stop eating.
You sound like a climate change supporter and we know what fucking bull shit that is. I have read science studies that are not your view. One other thing, science has told many lies and is not an absolute. GMO food is bad also.
No, I am not. In fact I am skeptical of all the scare stories out there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with GMO foods. In fact, GMO foods are saving many poor people from starvation.
Reality? Have you even looked at the data or just read stories posted here and there? I been using Roundup almost daily during the Spring-Fall periods for near 8 years with no ill effects, never heard of anyone having any difficulties as a result. As have millions and millions of others.
The only people complaining are the anti-Monsanto, anti-chemical people, otherwise known as self-styled environmentalists, for whom Reality is whatever they are told to swallow by their Elite as seen on PBS and other media outlets.
IOW, the surfacant is the problem, not the glyphosate. Then you would need to find out how much surfacant gets absorbed into the plants and in what form. Then you would know if that part of the roundup is harmful.
.
Misdirected technology is not ‘science.’
The only ‘data’ that anyone should look at is the cases of the victims.
You have made yourself a dupe.
.
You should go to work for the Washington Compost.
You have the skillset they need.
I don’t know how you can post that crap without vomiting.
There are no ‘victims’, repeat: there are no ‘victims’, you are following a hoax, perpetrated to make lawyers wealthier and environmentalists gain still more power over our lives.
You might want to look that up. ACSH was formed by big money with a vested interest.
This is no longer a civil discussion.
There are some studies here along with commentary about how Monsanto pays off national licensers and environmental groups in order to allow Roundup to be used in their countries.
If Roundup was completely safe, why pay off these gov't officials? Why does Monsanto try to disparage studies and scientists? Why does Monsanto try to hide their own studies which show it's dangerous?
Got bias?
Linked below: Internal financial documents which demonstrate that ACSH depends heavily on funding from corporations that have a financial stake in the scientific debates it aims to shape.
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/acsh-financial-summary.pdf
Then maybe they shouldn’t have taken money from the firms they aim to defend...
Food grown in good dirt contains countless good bacteria. These good, living bacteria are siphoned up into the vegetables, fruits and nuts, herbs and seeds we eat. They are virtually alive with these living bacteria. When we eat fresh, alive vegetation these bacteria not only take up residency within our GI tracks, being very beneficial in many ways, they also are absorbed into our bodies. They bring life giving properties to our entire bodies. Our bodies become alive with them.
Soil that is treated with dead chemicles kill off the living properties within the soil. Plants will grow, but will now be essentially only a shadow of the living, thriving, live transferring plants that they should be. They can for a time sustain us in an unhealthy manner, but they cannot cause us to truly flourish.
Roundup isn’t a pesticide, its an herbicide... No exterminator is using it to kill bugs, at least not legally.
Monsanto is the same outfit that sues farmers because their proprietary genes wind up in those farmers field through cross pollination with fields grown by Monsanto customers...
Monsanto is EVIL... and the US Laws need reformed around some of the areas Monsanto has bought its legislation.
“Glyphosate has a half life of 3-4 days in the soil.”
I don’t eat soil.
you eat plants grown in that soil... there is always a micoscope soil residue on the plants
.
Nothing involving psuedo-science ever is civil.
Using one’s economic power to destroy one’s victims is pure evil.
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.