General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWHO cancer agency publishes Q&A on carcinogenic glyphosate - Gag me with a GMO cocktail
Glyphosate is the poison used with over 80% of GMO crops, and manufactured by many of the most aggressive GMO corporations. By now glyphosate has infested vast parts of the industrial agriculture wasteland, and is turning up in all sorts of places where it ought not to be, such as in beer and tampons.
Ignore the relentless, insidious corporate propaganda flung hither and yon on the intertubes, and instead read the actual unbiased science in this Q & A from WHO (World Health Organization).
Stand strong for your basic human right to know what strange unnatural substances are in the food the GMO-Chemical-Pharmaceutical corporations want to continue to secretly (without labels) serve up to you and your children.
The World Health Organizations cancer agency IARC has published a Q&A on the probable carcinogen and Worlds most used herbicide glyphosate.
The Q&A makes it clear that glyphosate alone is both a probable human carcinogen and is genotoxic.
https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Q&A_Glyphosate.pdf
AxionExcel
(755 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)I hope I live to see Monsanto bite the big one in court.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)She was a Roundup-Ready soybean farmer for about 30 years.
AxionExcel
(755 posts)"Rural residents who drink water from private wells are much more likely to have Parkinsons disease, a finding that bolsters theories that farm pesticides may be partially to blame, according to a new California study."
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/parkinsons-and-pesticides
AxionExcel
(755 posts)*the poisonous corporate industrial chemical brew poured out upon Farm Fields, inc. from sea to sea includes not just pesticides, but also giga-gallons of glyphosate goo.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parkinsons-disease-and-pesticides-whats-the-connection/
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) has been described as the most powerful study, but this is not correct. The AHS collected data on cancer and pesticide use in more than 50 000 farmers and pesticide applicators in two states in the USA. The weakness of the study is that people were followed up for a short period of time, which means fewer cases of cancer would have had time to appear. This factor can limit the ability of a study to detect an association if one truly exists. Therefore, although the AHS is a large, well-conducted study, its results on glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk do not outweigh those of other studies.
The IARC Working Group also conducted an objective statistical analysis of the results of all of the available studies on glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which included the AHS and all of the case control studies. The data from all of the studies combined show a statistically significant association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to glyphosate.
If your salad dressing has soybean oil and it's not labeled organic/non gmo you're eating GMO. And you will Like it. Or the Flying Monkey Brigade will call you a climate change denier.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)rely primarily on industry data from toxicological studies that are not available in the public domain."
How can research that is not available to the public, be peer reviewed?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)One study (of) community residents reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby, the report said.
Keith Solomon, a University of Guelph professor emeritus and a globally recognized authority on pesticides, said the conclusion is totally wrong.
Solomon should know because he wrote the Colombian study.
They stated there was evidence of genotoxicity and they quoted one paper to support that statement, Solomon said.
Theres no evidence that glyphosate is genotoxic.
http://www.producer.com/daily/toxicologist-pans-un-glyphosate-report/
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)"Solomon and an international team of scientists conducted a study on glyphosate in Colombia in the early 2000s as part of a Colombian government program to destroy illegal coca fields in the countryside."
That positively reeks of bias.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)"The IARC Monographs evaluation is based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests. It follows strict scientific criteria, and the classification system is recognized and used as a reference all around the world. This is because IARC evaluations are based on independent scientific review and rigorous criteria and procedures.
To reach these conclusions, IARC reviewed about 1000 studies. Some of the studies looked at people exposed through their jobs, such as farmers. Others were experimental studies on cancer and cancer- related effects in experimental systems."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7670342
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)This comes directly from the IARC:
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf
They relied on one study for their conclusion regarding the genotoxicity of glyphosate. The author of that study says the IARC misinterpreted the results of that study. Without evidence of genotoxicity, the IARC's poorly derived theory on the causal mechanism for cancer is fundamentally flawed and the rest of their conclusions fall like the house of cards they always were. The vast majority of those "about 1000 studies" you mentioned support the exact opposite conclusion the IARC reached on correlation between glyphosate and cancer.