U.N. Experts Find Weed Killer Glyphosate Unlikely To Cause Cancer

[angelatc]

Breaking - Experts from UN agencies FAO and WHO find glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer unlike the earlier presumed experts of another UN agency, IARC

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUSKCN0Y71HR

In a statement likely to intensify a row over its potential health impact, experts from the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) said glyphosate is "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans" exposed to it through food. It is mostly used on crops.

Having reviewed the scientific evidence, the joint WHO/FAO committee also said glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic in humans. In other words, it is not likely to have a destructive effect on cells' genetic material.

[donnay]

Does Glyphosate Cause Cancer?

Emily Cassidy, Environmental Working Group | May 10, 2016

When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released and then abruptly withdrew a draft document on the cancer risks posed by the pesticide glyphosate, Monsanto jumped at the chance to say that its signature chemical had been exonerated.

The EPA says it has more work to do. In the meantime, the Environmental Working Group took a closer look at the science underpinning the World Health Organization’s decision last year to classify glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.”

Here’s what we found: A growing body of research is finding a link between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, especially with some specific subtypes of the cancer.

In the now-retracted document, the EPA initially found insufficient evidence to classify glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, citing some studies that haven’t been able to associate glyphosate exposure with higher risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The trouble is, there are many kinds of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and by trying to link a whole group of different cancers to glyphosate exposure, the EPA draft may have missed associations with specific kinds of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

One such study, published in 2008 by Swedish researchers, found that exposure to glyphosate tripled the risk of a subtype of non-Hodgkin called small lymphocytic lymphoma.

This alarming link may be masked when the data is lumped in with other kinds of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that have different causes.

Moreover, there is often a lag time between exposure to a carcinogen and when people find out they have cancer. The same Swedish study found that a person’s risk of being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma began to rise more than 10 years after exposure.

This is disturbing, given that the use of glyphosate in the U.S. exploded 20-fold over the past two decades and most of the herbicide has been sprayed in just the past 10 years. We may be just beginning to see the public health consequences of this herbicide.

Studies that take a closer look at specific types of cancer show alarming evidence of the potential for glyphosate to increase cancer risk. They should not be ignored.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/10/monsa...hosate-cancer/

[presence]

Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../23756170


National Center for Biotechnology Information


by S Thongprakaisang - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 75 - ‎Related articles
Glyphosate - US Environmental Protection Agency

https://www.epa.gov/.../glyphosate-41...


United States Environmental Protection Agency


by I Page - ‎2015 - ‎Related articles
Jun 29, 2015 - INTERACTION WITH THE ESTROGEN, ANDROGEN OR THYROID .... evidence of potential interaction of glyphosate with the estrogen ...

[FindLiberty]

I'd be impressed if they demonstrated their confidence in the safety of this chemical
by adding it to their own drinking water, right there at those un, fao, and who buildings.

I bet they'd find it does not cause cancer after all. It might lead to other health problems,
but they could prove otherwise by simply consuming it in mass. Results may even take a few
decades to become meaningful and statistically significant, so they'd have to rinse and repeat.

[Danke]

UN experts. Well, that settles it.

[angelatc]

UN experts. Well, that settles it.

The anit-science libs regularly posts and repost the debunked UN report that says it causes cancer without actually presenting any evidence to support it: that was the only reason I posted this. They're only credible when they agree with a predetermined outcome?

[angelatc]

I'd be impressed if they demonstrated their confidence in the safety of this chemical
by adding it to their own drinking water, right there at those un, fao, and who buildings.

I bet they'd find it does not cause cancer after all. It might lead to other health problems,
but they could prove otherwise by simply consuming it in mass. Results may even take a few
decades to become meaningful and statistically significant, so they'd have to rinse and repeat.

Don't even bother pretending that would convince you. It's fairly obvious that no amount of evidence will sway your opinion.

[angelatc]

by I Page - ‎2015 - ‎Related articles
Jun 29, 2015 - INTERACTION WITH THE ESTROGEN, ANDROGEN OR THYROID .... evidence of potential interaction of glyphosate with the estrogen ...

Jesus . You intentionally left off the word No? If you have to lie to make a point, you don't have one.

For the estrogen pathway, while glyphosate showed estrogen receptor (ER) antagonism in vitrowith estrogen-dependent human breast cancer cells (Thongprakaisang et al., 2013), there was no evidence of potential interaction of glyphosate with the estrogen pathway in the EDSP Tier 1 invitro assays [i.e, ER binding, ER transactivation assay (ERTA), aromatase and steroidogenesisassays]. Additionally, glyphosate was negative in the Tier 1 in vivo mammalian assays (i.e.,uterotrophic or female pubertal assays). In the fish short-term reproduction assay (FSTRA), thenon-treatment-responsive decrease [only significant at mid-treatment] in vitellogenin (VTG) wasseen in isolation in the absence of any treatment-related effects in the other estrogen-relatedendpoints such as gonado-somatic index (GSI), gonadal staging, fecundity and fertilization. Inaddition, there were no notable gonadal histopathology. There were no treatment-related effectson female reproductive parameters in the existing glyphosate Part 158 mammalian or wildlifestudies (decreases in offspring body weight observed in one avian reproduction study).

Therefore, there is no convincing evidence of a potential interaction with the estrogen pathwayfor glyphosate.

And in any event, it's a troll response. Instead of discussing the report in the headline, just throw something else out there.

[donnay]

For Immediate Release, May 2, 2016

Contact: Nathan Donley, (971) 717-6406, ndonley@biologicaldiversity.org

EPA Uses Industry-funded Studies to Determine Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer

PORTLAND, Ore.— An EPA analysis relying heavily on unpublished, industry funded studies has determined that glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The EPA determination, released to the public on Friday, stands in sharp contrast to a finding last year by the World Health Organization’s cancer-research arm that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

“EPA’s determination that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic is disappointing, but not terribly surprising — industry has been manipulating this process for years,” said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The analysis done by the World Health Organization is more open and transparent and remains the gold standard.”

The EPA’s analysis relied heavily on industry-funded studies that have not undergone public scrutiny, while the WHO used publically available research for its analysis. Furthermore, the WHO took into account studies on actual products that are available on store shelves, while the EPA ignored those studies to focus solely on studies that tested glyphosate as a single ingredient. Most products containing glyphosate have other ingredients that can make the pesticide more dangerous.

“We shouldn’t gamble with the risk of cancer and must take appropriate precautions until we get a conclusive answer about the true dangers of glyphosate,” said Donley. “The indiscriminate drenching of farms, ball fields and backyards with glyphosate needs to end.”

The EPA’s industry-friendly determination comes amid a fierce debate in Europe and the United States over the safety of glyphosate.

In February 35 members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concerns regarding the potential negative health and environmental impacts of a pesticide, Enlist Duo, that combines glyphosate and 2,4-D. The agency is currently reanalyzing its decision to register the dangerous pesticide after it was revealed that the industry had withheld data on how the pesticides work in combination with other ingredients to have a stronger effect on the environment.

This finding comes as the EPA is in undertaking a “registration review” of glyphosate, a process designed to determine whether the chemical can safely be used in light of new scientific research. These documents will inform the agency’s decision on whether to allow glyphosate to be used for the next 15 years. The last time the EPA fully analyzed the threats posed by glyphosate was 1993.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...5-02-2016.html

[angelatc]

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...5-02-2016.html

THat isn't science. And it predictably has absolutely nothing to do with the report in the title.

[donnay]

THat isn't science. And it predictably has absolutely nothing to do with the report in the title.

WHO experts in sync with the EPA dismissal of glyphosate--what a coincidence.

[William Tell]

UN experts. Well, that settles it.

The UN experts + Monsanto experts would really settle it.

[presence]

given the choice to eat something I know is good for me or something not known to be good that might be bad for me...

I choose I know is good.

[Zippyjuan]

Like ice cream!

[Natural Citizen]

there was no evidence of potential interaction of glyphosate with the estrogen pathway in the EDSP Tier 1 invitro assays [i.e, ER binding, ER transactivation assay (ERTA), aromatase and steroidogenesisassays].

Hm. Well, let me ask this, then.

Was there any evidence that there was not potential interaction of glyphosate with the estrogen pathway in the EDSP Tier 1 invitro assays [i.e, ER binding, ER transactivation assay (ERTA), aromatase and steroidogenesisassays]? That's the simplest way I can think to ask in order to solicit a yes or no answer, I suppose.

As has been offered previously, absence of evidence is not in any way evidence of absence. This is a fundamental principle in the sciences or any given research where a scientific question is asked.

Do you agree, angela, that absence of evidence is not in any way evidence of absence?

To be clear, I've no intention or any desire to debate you on your thought on it. I'm just curious, I suppose. Mainly because you're often noted for adherence to the way science works. What science is and what it isn't. For instance, you'd mentioned to donnay in a previous posting here in the thread that something wasn't the way that science works.

So, again. I'm just asking you if you're of the position that absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence in any given scientific study/research/experiment?

Thanks!

[dannno]

Did they drink it yet?

[Ronin Truth]

Well it certainly doesn't do the plants any good.

This U.N. study result and recommendation is paid for and brought to you by the Monsanto Corp..

[donnay]

Did they drink it yet?

[FindLiberty]

WAIT, come back and have a glass full of water with only a few drops added to it!

It's a clean glass and clean water, so what's the problem?

lol

[osan]

Breaking - Experts from UN agencies FAO and WHO find glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer unlike the earlier presumed experts of another UN agency, IARC

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUSKCN0Y71HR

I take it, my dear, that you see the problem here, yes?

[angelatc]

I take it, my dear, that you see the problem here, yes?

Several, actually.

[angelatc]

WAIT, come back and have a glass full of water with only a few drops added to it!

It's a clean glass and clean water, so what's the problem?

lol

There is no evidence that it is harmful. It is less toxic than vinegar. It is far less toxic than the chemicals the organic farmers put on their crops. There is already a video of a guy drinking it.

It reacts to an enzyme that plants have. People do not have that enzyme. The principle behind it really isn't all that hard to comprehend.

[phill4paul]

The same U.N. "experts" that are pushing the climate change agenda?

[angelatc]

given the choice to eat something I know is good for me or something not known to be good that might be bad for me...

I choose I know is good.

Wait - I am still waiting for you to tell me why you intentionally distorted and misrepresented what the report you posted said. Being that you know stuff, and all .......

[angelatc]

Well it certainly doesn't do the plants any good.

This U.N. study result and recommendation is paid for and brought to you by the Monsanto Corp..

Do you have evidence of that? And again, even it it's true, where's the facts to support the underlying contention that it's actually flawed science?

wheres the evidence to support your implied contention that it's somehow dangerous?

[angelatc]

The UN experts + Monsanto experts would really settle it.

So you do not have any evidence either, then.

[acptulsa]

There is no evidence that it is harmful. It is less toxic than vinegar. It is far less toxic than the chemicals the organic farmers put on their crops. There is already a video of a guy drinking it.

What does that prove? There are also videos of people consuming tobacco. Does this prove it isn't a carcinogen? Really?

I believe all this proves is that world government is just as prone to make blanket statements about what is and isn't healthy, then change its collective mind and reverse its earlier prognosis, as the federal government has always been. If it proves anything more, you can't prove it by me.

There's a video of someone drinking it and it's less toxic than vinegar, so it can't possibly cause cancer. Come on, now. Don't we have enough people running around here insulting our intelligence at the moment?

[Ronin Truth]

Do you have evidence of that? And again, even it it's true, where's the facts to support the underlying contention that it's actually flawed science?

wheres the evidence to support your implied contention that it's somehow dangerous?

Is glyphosate a constituate chemical in Monsanto's Roundup?

[Zippyjuan]

The controversial study which claimed that glyphosate caused cancer in rats prone to cancer (and left off the data for their control group) showed that rats who had glyphosate added to their water lived longer than other rats.

[oyarde]

Like ice cream!

Exactly .