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 ...
That you label a study agitprop, instead of realizing it is a serious issue worth of study, likely means you need more Round-up to drink.
Your call. Freedom involves choice.
Not so much.
Roundup used improperly - not following the directions on the label does cause harm. This is not the fault of the product, but the user - like saying guns kill people and taking away guns;
This does not mean that used "properly" it is without harm.
8 people (as of last count) tried to commit suicide by drinking the concentrate: 7 had bad stomach aches’ One died;
Don't think anyone is talking about drinking it.
There is NO conclusive data on the effect of glyphosate on humans. Most data points to no effects - as glyphosate targets plant genes not human;
I am specifically talking about gut bacteria, which is affected and consequently, the human that relies on gut bacterial.
All stories found on the internet are just that: stories. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing, but is good ‘evidence’ useful for use winning law suits, scaring small children, and snowflakes
Anecdotal evidence is cause for study. Monsanto focuses on sci-prop to keep it from being revealed.
Drink as much as you like. I'll avoid it.
But of course, crops absorb it and consequently, humans ingest it.
I'm betting it is not good to breath the vapor either.
In other words, you’ve been programmed adequately, and are too stubborn to ever be impartial or educated.
Wait. You're saying bourbon needs a mixer??
Science?
I deny it!
(it’s just easier)
And have been, for over 2 decades, with no harmful effects. It has been, by far, the most common pesticide in farming all over the globe.
Try talking to farmers sometime... you know, the people who's lives and livelihoods depend on knowing what they put on their crops, which they also ingest, fresh from their own fields.
Stop being a victim to propaganda.
1. “with no harmful effects.
Prove your claim.
2. “It has been, by far, the most common pesticide in farming all over the globe.”
Unfortunately true. Also proves nothing.
3. “Try talking to farmers sometime... you know, the people who’s lives and livelihoods depend on knowing what they put on their crops, which they also ingest, fresh from their own fields.”
Farmers, who surround me, constantly spray, ingest, breathe, and are exposed to herbicides, pesticides, petrochemical fertilizers, etc.
They pollute the groundwater here, which now carries public health warnings, and harm they themselves and their families.
I suggest you talk to the medical professionals who treat them, the agencies who monitor ground water, and those of us who breath their pollutants as overspray.
4. “Stop being a victim to propaganda.”
Try seeing the whole picture, instead of clinging to faux reality.
My facts come directly from those who are studying it and are current as of a few months ago.
“This does not mean that used “properly” it is without harm. “
Yes it does. You are completely mistaken here.
“Don’t think anyone is talking about drinking it.”
It was mentioned several times - this is a current fact as to potency of glyphosate full strength vs store bought.
“I am specifically talking about gut bacteria, which is affected and consequently, the human that relies on gut bacterial.”
Sorry there is no data on that aspect. You are mistaken or have fallen for some misinformation. It has not been studied, so there is no way to come up with that idea.
“Anecdotal evidence is cause for study. Monsanto focuses on sci-prop to keep it from being revealed.”
Anecdotal evidence is not data and is no evidence at all - like hearsay in court - not admissible. If like believing rumors and spreading false information based on those rumors (hearsay, anecdotal) that’s up to you, but nothing you claim is supported in the literature.
Enjoy your weeds.
Best to STOCK UP on Round Up.
“Not that people will listen to reason or science. “
Before I listen to”reason or science” I want to know who paid for that “reason or science.”
We’ve seen enough examples of “science” being corrupted by government or corrupt foundations on the left (e.g., global warming) to where I’m suspicious of any study.
Ah, choices.
Link that includes 28 footnotes of research.
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/glyphosate-fact-sheet
Hard to get motivated to google up much for people that believe a coin only has one side, and deny it to the point they refuse to flip it over to see for themselves.
But freedom comes with choices and we each make our own.
I chose to look at research from both sides, as a conservative would. I concluded no one knows the consequences yet, but there are enough serious questions that we should be cautious.
I read the report. My pithy summation is accurate. Do you dispute any of the facts I mention? You do understand that the testing was a done using bacteria on slides to which Roundup was applied? I can also kill bacteria with a solution of sugar.
You should worry more about global warming.
“My pithy summation is accurate. Do you dispute any of the facts I mention?“
I realize you believe this, but I dispute that what you presented is the whole picture. And that’s OK.
You will have to eat extra glycophosphate to make up for me avoiding it.
Global warming is as “scientific” as a Monsanto study.
Same thing about DDT
You posted a link to an article and I commented on it. You cannot factually dispute my conclusions. So now you wish to shift to the “whole picture”. Then you is some passive agressive language to challenge me but tell me its “OK”. Sounds like you cannot make a reasoned argument supported by facts.
Let’s get back to the article you have the link to. Or, since you wish to now look at the “whole” picture, any other article that has scientific proof that Roundup causes cancer in humans.
Oh I see now. You have concerns and serious questions.
So is it the “Seriousness of the Questions” that matter? Not the factual consequences that are known but the ones that are unknown.
So you have serious questions about the unknown consequences.
I frequently respond like this when I hear about large jury awards. It will change on appeal because the jury is just a bunch of people, not a bunch of scientists or experts.
Actual science is beyond the scope of most people, myself included, but being in the chemical business, I think I know a little more than the average guy. (I’m an application trainer, not a chemist)
Users are told to review the Safety Data Sheet, which I personally believe is bad advice. SDS’s are written by safety people for safety people and are filled with acronyms and technical jargon. An untrained reader will logically jump to the conclusion that everything is dangerous. You should see the SDS for Dihydrogen Monoxide.
It’ll keep you from drinking water for the rest of your life.
A couple years ago, I read the SDS for Roundup. You would have to literally drink gallons of the concentrate every day for it to be harmful.
As I recall, the half life is measured in hours or days, so within a couple days, the chemical has done it’s work and is completely inert, allowing new plants to grow.
Yes and no.
There is enough research to raise questions as a counterweight to Monsanto's paid research.
And the consequences are huge.
I dispute that your "facts" proved anything.
Consequently, your "conclusions" are not significant.
If you prefer to believe they are significant, great. Drink more glycophosphate.
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.