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 ...
They were not my facts. They are facts from the article you posted. The test was done by placing bacteria on slides and putting Roundup on them. No animals were tested. Sugar can kill bacteria.
Which of these facts do you dispute? My conclusion was that the article is agitprop. My conclusion is an opinion which you are free to dispute. Maybe you have a different conclusion based not the facts as presented in that article.
But then again, you have serious questions about unknown consequences.
Do you have some research that is not “paid for”? Where is all that research that is done for free? Free lab time, free supplies, free scientist and researchers, it must be a wonderful thing.
I loved Vioxx.
Oh yeah.
Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide.
It certainly thinned the herd!
That's just a silly distortion of the main point - research that starts out with a conclusion, is not objective. Not climate change, not drug companies, and not Monsanto.
Good luck to you... spray away especially all those weeds around your house.
Here's a paper showing a particular benefit of lectins: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cf3d/b151d1c5829a9597f44d7385f7549e7dca7d.pdf Basically the opposite of what you stated. Also please provide a scientific reference on those "patented seeds" and their relation to lectins. There is a relationship with insecticides as explained in the paper. But not to any patented seeds. There are lectins occurring naturally in some beans that may make it difficult to absorb nutrients in our gut.
How many of them did you read? Here's one: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/51684338/j.etap.2009.06.00120170207-29239-1q7mwki.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1540229062&Signature=Alf%2FXWbjf5Rf%2Bt%2FtHWBBfOubDMg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DOxidative_stress_responses_of_rats_expos.pdf
It says glyphosate is generally not problematic except for raising cholesterol levels. The surficant in Roundup caused some problems as one might expect. Drinking detergent is generally going to cause problems. Glyphosate? Not so much.
Um, yes, sorry about that.
.
The fact is that it does massively cause much disease, including cancer.
That is what real honest ‘science’ has found to be true.
Legislated ‘science’ not so much.
This award is absolutely appropriate!
.
.
You’re right on the money on this.
Big Chem owns congress!
.
And you don’t think the organization at your link is supported by leftist, environmentalists and that they are not fully funded by special interests? OK....
And the incessant attack on chemicals is funded by people like Soros and Steyer. ACSH was formed by scientists who wanted to stop the scare mongering.
.
>> “Every time they come up with the latest scare about a pesticide, I wonder why professional exterminators aren’t dropping like flies” <<
They definitely are!
But many more are becomming vegetables from the strokes induced by pesticides. I don’t call that life, but who knows!
.
Please check out the link that a Freeper posted at comment #8.
The 28 are the tip of the iceberg.
But since you brought this up, I’ll add that my cholesterol is already high enough.
If you want a higher level for yourself, I support your right to ingest as much round up as it takes to get to your preferred level.
.
Keep your eyes covered, stomp your feet, and scream LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA.
Whatever you do, do not accept reality.
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.