U.N. committee finds weed killer glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer

[WhiteTara]

Source: Reuters

The weed-killing pesticide glyphosate, made by Monsanto and widely used in agriculture and by gardeners, probably does not cause cancer, according to a new safety review by United Nations health, agriculture and food experts.

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.

The conclusion contradicts a finding by the WHO's Lyon-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which in March 2015 said glyphosate is "probably" able to cause cancer in humans and classified it as a so-called Group 2A carcinogen.

snip

Diazinon and malathion, two other pesticides reviewed by the WHO/FAO committee, which met last week and issued its conclusions in a statement on Monday, were also found to be unlikely to be carcinogenic.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y71HR

---

Past time to grow all your own food!

[snort]

1. Just built a Greenhouse in my backyard.

I'm going to try and grow as much as possible. I don't trust the food industry.

[wordpix]

64. good, NIH research contradicts UN finding

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240

Abstract

Arch Toxicol. 2012 May;86(5):805-13. doi: 10.1007/s00204-012-0804-8. Epub 2012 Feb 14.

Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells.

snip: Recent findings indicate that G exposure may cause DNA damage and cancer in humans. Aim of this investigation was to study the cytotoxic and genotoxic properties of G and R (UltraMax) in a buccal epithelial cell line (TR146), as workers are exposed via inhalation to the herbicide. snip

Comparisons with results of earlier studies with lymphocytes and cells from internal organs indicate that epithelial cells are more susceptible to the cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of the herbicide and its formulation. Since we found genotoxic effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture, our findings indicate that inhalation may cause DNA damage in exposed individuals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25058560

Aquat Toxicol. 2014 Oct;155:213-21. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2014.06.007. Epub 2014 Jul 9.

Are DNA-damaging effects induced by herbicide formulations (Roundup® and Garlon®) in fish transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure?

Guilherme S1, Santos MA2, Gaivão I3, Pacheco M2.

Abstract

snip: The genotoxic potential of both herbicides [Roundup and Garlon] was confirmed, concerning the exposure period. In addition, the involvement of oxidative DNA damage on the action of Roundup(®) (pointed out as pyrimidine bases oxidation) was demonstrated, while for Garlon(®) this damaging mechanism was less evident. Fish exposed to Garlon(®), though presenting some evidence towards a tendency of recovery, did not achieve a complete restoration of DNA integrity. In what concerns to Roundup(®), a recovery was evident when considering non-specific DNA damage on day 14 post-exposure. In addition, this herbicide was able to induce a late oxidative DNA damage (day 14). snip

snip: Overall, the present findings highlighted the genetic hazard to fish associated to the addressed agrochemicals, reinforcing the hypothesis of long-lasting damage.

[snort]

68. Thanks for the post.

[HuckleB]

70. Cherry picked fear mongering posts are so valuable.

Oh, wait.

The same poster linked to Seralini below.

[wordpix]

73. oh, wait, NIH and Scientific American aren't good enough sources for you?

mm hmmm, and who do you work for? Monsanto, perhaps?

[HuckleB]

78. Single studies and pop 'zines?

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 11:01 AM - Edit history (1)

You do realize that both of those sources also have plenty of papers/articles that show your propaganda to be baseless.

The reality is that you failed to respond to the comment about the type of study you posted, which shows that you don't understand the first thing about how science works.

Using the shill gambit shows that you have nothing to offer at all. Why are you spreading misinformation?

[HuckleB]

87. Speaking of NIH and SciAm...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3615871/

[HuckleB]

69. Cherry picked studies don't change the consensus.

Almost anything kills cells in a lab, and yet you didn't know the reality.

[scscholar]

80. Exaclty, we all know it does

[HuckleB]

82. It does what?

Outside of a Petri dish... ?

[liberal N proud]

2. It is mostly used on crops?

If farmers are not growing crops for food, what are they growing them for?

[Nitram]

11. I think the point they may habe been tyrying to make is taht it isn't sprayed on the food itself,

but on the growing plants.

[Redwoods Red]

12. Coca. The Colombian government used glyphosate to eradicate coca crops.

With backing from the US.

Until last year, when that UN report saying it was carcinogenic came out.

[forest444]

49. The best part was that it seems to kill everything BUT coca.

Thus forcing even more farmers into the racket.

When things look that deliberate, they usually are.

[Igel]

13. Lots of people use the stuff for non-crop purposes.

I use it as a weed killer for my pretty-much non-GMO yard. Kills what it gets sprayed on, doesn't kill desirable plants that grow in the dirt those sprayed-on plants grow in.

Not so useful for some Ipomoea species.

[RKP5637]

27. I use it for weed control here around my house. It's fully landscaped and whatever I do the

weeds are so invasive they just settle in on the top of anything I used ... mulch, rock, etc. It's recommended here by the state and universities as the safest to use.

[wordpix]

65. damages cells up to 100,000x more dilute than shelved products

so, I hope you don't drink from a well.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

snip: Seralini’s team, however, did study multiple concentrations of Roundup. These ranged from the typical agricultural or lawn dose down to concentrations 100,000 times more dilute than the products sold on shelves. The researchers saw cell damage at all concentrations.

snip: Most research has examined glyphosate alone, rather than combined with Roundup’s inert ingredients. Researchers who have studied Roundup formulations have drawn conclusions similar to the Seralini group’s. For example, in 2005, University of Pittsburg ecologists added Roundup at the manufacturer’s recommended dose to ponds filled with frog and toad tadpoles. When they returned two weeks later, they found that 50 to 100 percent of the populations of several species of tadpoles had been killed.snip

The groups claim that the laws allowing manufacturers to keep inert ingredients secret from competitors are essentially unnecessary. Companies can determine a competitor’s inert ingredients through routine lab analyses, said Cox.

“The proprietary protection laws really only keep information from the public,” she said.

[HuckleB]

66. Seralini?

Really?

[wordpix]

71. what's the problem? you don't state it

[HuckleB]

72. I did.

That topic is dead. Posting Seralini is a confession that you don't care about reality.

[wordpix]

74. not answering questions about Seralini is a confession you work for Monsanto

[HuckleB]

77. And the shill gambit is utilized.

Thus, you must work for Big Organic.

[HuckleB]

28. There are no GMO seeds/plants sold to the general public.

Of course, the companies who label their seed packets sold as "non-GMO" don't want anyone to know that reality. Nor do the nurseries want you to know that all those "non-GMO" plants they're selling are exactly the same as any not labeled as such.

[harun]

44. So now you don't count corn farmers as the general public?

And nurseries are just responding to public demand to know one way or the other. They are hardly the party to be complaining about in this fight.

[HuckleB]

48. LOL! Nice spin.

You know exactly what I meant by that. No GMO seeds are sold for household gardens, etc... and yet you thought you had some point or another. And nurseries are just piling on with the fear mongering, creating the fear that leads to the baseless "demand." It's pretty funny how you miss all of that.

[mopinko]

88. i bought a couple bags of non-gmo potting soil

at a local garden center. really?

[HuckleB]

89. Wow! I haven't seen that, yet.

I'm tempted to go in and ask for some GMO seeds, and see what kind of response I get.

:face palm:

[yellowcanine]

52. Actually corn farmers are not the "general public."

Your point seems more than a bit obtuse to me.

[LeftyMom]

84. Not for this purpose, no.

Corn farmers could also order, say, fertilizer by the ton. If a member of the general public did so the SWAT team would break a land speed record on the way to their house.

[HuckleB]

85. Shhhhhh.

Oh, wait. It is good to inform others at DU.

[GreatGazoo]

22. Answer: bio fuels, cut flowers, landscaping, carbon sequestering and medicine

[TexasBushwhacker]

62. The use has gone up with the popularity of "Roundup" ready crops

Say a farmer is growing corn. He wants the corn to grow but not weeds. With "Roundup Ready" seeds from Monsanto, they can plant the corn and when the weeds start to be a problem the can spray the field with Roundup, an herbicide. It will kill the weeds but not the corn.

The question is, is this residue from the Roundup (glyphosate) safe. Not only is it on the crops it is sprayed on, its in the runoff from farms that use it. They are finding glyphosate residue in EVERYTHING, even in some organic food.

[HuckleB]

63. The reality is that it is safer than what was used before.

The desire for GMO-free sugar is leading to increased herbicide use of much more toxic products, but the propagandists don't want you to know that.

[ReRe]

3. Sorry...

"unlikely" and "probably" doesn't convince me.

[HuckleB]

10. So you don't understand how science works.

Because that's as good as it gets for just about anything.

[ReRe]

17. Science is not wishy-washy, HuckleB

Science is real. It is measurable. No ifs, and or buts about it. If I turned in a chem lab test with "probably" or "unlikely" or "might be" before the chemical equation, even if I lucked out and it was right, the Prof would have given me and F for putting one of those words in front of my answer. Guessing isn't allowed.

[HuckleB]

19. In other words, you really don't understand how it works.

Last edited Mon May 16, 2016, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)

You can just pretend that you do by talking about simple chemistry, but you're showing that you don't even know the language of science, and you certainly don't know what it means.

BTW, do you understand these concepts, from the article?

"In a question-and-answer document issued alongside the joint FAO/WHO statement, the WHO denied that the conclusions by the joint group and by IARC were contradictory. It said they were "different, yet complementary", with the IARC assessment focussed on hazard while the other looked at risk.

"IARC reviews published studies to identify potential cancer hazards," the WHO said. "It does not estimate the level of risk to the population associated with exposure to the hazard."

In contrast, it said, the joint FAO/WHO committee looks at published and unpublished studies to assess the health risk to consumers from dietary exposure to pesticide residues in food."

[ReRe]

23. Run down to post #9 this thread...

... and learn the science of the money trail. And leave off the snide remarks about my inability to "understand" science. I've had a few science classes in my time and can read a report and get the gist of what is said. How many hours of science did you have in college?

[HuckleB]

24. You showed a clear lack of understanding, so it's not snide in any way.

Why don't you look into the money trail of the anti-GMO crusaders, and get back to me. (I noticed that most of your links are from propaganda outfits funded by the anti-GMO/organic industry, which is hilarious, quite frankly.)

And why can't you admit the reality that you jumped to conclusions regarding science language you don't understand?

And it's funny that post number nine shows the reality that you apparently want to ignore, so, yes, please take a look at it.

Meanwhile, the science is clear, whether you like it or not. Going with fictions aimed at causing baseless fear only causes damage. We are now looking at the reality that that anti-GMO crusade will do real world harm, for example.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/05/as-consumers-shift-to-non-gmo-sugar-farmers-may-be-forced-to-abandon-environmental-and-social-gains/

and...

http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2016/05/hershey-little-gmo-secret.html

[ReRe]

25. You and I could haggle all day and night and NEVER...

... come to any semblance of an agreement, so I'm going to shut this down now for my sake at least. You run along and pick a fight with someone else. Peace.

[HuckleB]

26. I'm not surprised.

That's the usual response from someone who clearly does not care about the evidence base. Run along and protect your preconceived notions from reality!

People who care about the world act differently. The evidence matters to them. See Mark Lynas, for an example.
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/

PS: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

[ReRe]

33. You can eat that shite...

... if you want, feed your wife and kids and grandkids and friends all you want. But I'm doing my best to stay away from it. I do have a garden, and I'm a seed saver, and I use NONE of their chemicals. I'm an eagle-eye label reader too. You can't even agree to disagree.

[HuckleB]

35. Ah, the usual "you can eat..." response.

Always the response of someone who is working to scare others from eating food that is good, safe, and environmentally friendly, in the first place, because, well, fear mongering has already worked its magic upon him/her. Nevermind that doing so is not ok. Ethics do matter.

It only serves to show, again, that you don't understand any of this. You're just very fearful, and so you have been conned into spending much more money on food than you need to do so. Money that goes to the very corporations who scared you. And your chemophobia response is rich. Wow!

BWT... http://bigthink.com/the-proverbial-skeptic/lets-agree-to-disagree-i-dont-agree-to-that

The reality is that you can't support your claims. I can support mine. So no, I have nothing upon which to agree with you.

[harun]

54. You are completely devoid of critical thinking and reasoning skills

Only good thing about GMO's is that they allow an entity to "own" them and get a proceed/royalty for all derivative organisms.

So it is only good for profit, so fuck GMO's.

[HuckleB]

56. Any type of seed can be patented, and profit can be made from selling it.

Your lack of knowledge in this area appears to show that you haven't even tried to get to the critical thinking stage, so your baseless attack, in the face of all evidence, is rather silly.

[wordpix]

75. don't bother---this person is no doubt a Monsanto or Dow employee

or maybe FDA/EPA/Dept. of Ag. revolving door shill

[HuckleB]

79. You can't prove me wrong, so you go with the shill gambit.

That's not ok.

[wordpix]

76. "bigthink" is a better source than NIH or Sci. American? bwahahaha

good luck with that

[HuckleB]

81. Prove the content is off base.

How many logical fallacies can you employ in one thread?

Single studies are almost meaningless. Pay attention. The NIH and SA both show the safety of glyphosate via consensus. Ignoring that reality with the type of deception you are trying here is not ok.

[HuckleB]

83. Still waiting for you to prove that your assertions are valid.

[HuckleB]

86. National Academy of Sciences Report on GMOs

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-academy-of-sciences-report-on-gmos/

[RKP5637]

29. Same here. I spent my life in the sciences. For the most part it's black and white unless

working in high energy physics, etc. and even then it's sort of black and white the more we learn. If I had submitted "iffy" I never would have come close to graduating from the universities.

[HuckleB]

30. And yet "unlikely" is as good as many very valuable studies can ever get, because science isn't ...

about making statements that don't actually follow definitively from the evidence. There is a difference in the types of things students turn in and these types of studies, as well.

[RKP5637]

31. Yes, "unlikely" is valid IMO because everything is generally relative to some frame of reference.n/t

[HuckleB]

32. It's not to the poster above, however.

[ReRe]

37. Profuse thanks...

... for chiming in. That fellow may be a Monsanto cheerleader, but he sure didn't convince me that he knows anything about science. But that's what big Corps do... the one who knows the least is over the entire Department, and knows nothing about what everyone under him is doing.

[HuckleB]

38. You apparently missed the follow-up conversation, while you were offering up this ad hominem.

No one can convince someone who does not care about the actual evidence base. The fact that you are proud of your choice to ignore the science is rather sad, and not something to be proud about.

[ReRe]

39. Why don't you let RKP speak for himself? n/t

[HuckleB]

40. He already did.

And it really doesn't matter. You don't understand what "unlikely" means as a conclusion in science. This is not going to be changed by anyone else.

It is odd that you seem to need a pat on the back to support you, when you've made it clear that you don't care about evidence.

[NuclearDem]

43. Yeah, you really don't know what you're talking about.

The scientific method rarely results in black-and-white, definitive, clear-cut answers. You can't give a 100% yes or no answer about how something like glyphosate will interact with a genetically-diverse species like humans simply because it's extraordinarily difficult to account for all possible outcomes.

[ReRe]

45. I'm sorry...

... I don't agree. You damn sure can. I did it. Everything has to be correct down to the molecule, or you flunk out and have to find something else to major in.

[NuclearDem]

47. Findings of the scientific community work differently than college homework.

[yellowcanine]

55. Scientific results are reported as probabilities. "Unlikely" and "probably" are simply

layman's terms for highly statistically significant. And, yes, it applies to chemical equations also. Just because a reaction is probable doesn't mean it is certain. Your chemistry professor would probably give you an F for not knowing that.

[HuckleB]

61. You must have failed chemistry 101!

[Ford_Prefect]

4. Who is paying off the committee members?

[geomon666]

7. From Greenpeace:

Industry ties raise questions about UN body assessing glyphosate cancer risk

[ReRe]

20. Now THAT is a report I can believe in...

... follow the money trail. It'll give you the correct answer every single time. Money doesn't lie.

[proverbialwisdom]

21. Read more.

http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16947-industry-ties-raise-questions-about-un-body-assessing-glyphosate-cancer-risk

Industry ties raise questions about UN body assessing glyphosate cancer risk
Published: 16 May 2016

At least two members of the JMPR panel that concluded glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk have ties to industry.

A detailed rundown on the conflicts of interest of JMPR panel members Alan Boobis and Angelo Moretto is in this report: http://earthopensource.org/earth-open-source-reports/europes-pesticide-and-food-safety-regulators-who-do-they-work-for/

http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2016/Industry-ties-JMPR-glyphosate/

Industry ties raise questions about UN body assessing glyphosate cancer risk
Greenpeace, May 16, 2016

<>

Alan Boobis and Angelo Moretto (please see more information below) have ties to the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). ILSI Europe receives a majority of its operating and research funding from private companies, including glyphosate producers Dow and Monsanto. ILSI’s Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) is primarily funded by private companies, including glyphosate producers Dow, Monsanto and Syngenta.

Most scientists involved in the glyphosate assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which also contradicted the WHO cancer warning, refused to be named.

Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg said: “The agencies contradicting the WHO cancer warning seem to either rely on officials who prefer not to be named, or lack a watertight policy to protect their impartiality. Any decision affecting millions of people should be based on fully transparent and independent science that isn’t tied to corporate interests. It would be irresponsible to ignore the warnings on glyphosate and to re-licence this pesticide without any restrictions to protect the public and the environment.”

<>

MORE: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf

[wordpix]

67. not surprised, and these industry ties extend to Dept. of Ag, EPA, FDA, etc

[Igel]

14. It's more a case of the IARC having conflicts of interest.

The president at the time the decision was being formulated had a vested interest in the conclusion, and testified in favor of glyphosate being deemed carcinogenic.

Org head, researcher, judge, witness rolled into one.

[HuckleB]

36. The committee members are only agreeing with the rest of the world's scientists.

The IARC report, on the hand, is a mess. It should be a serious scandal.
https://risk-monger.com/2016/04/09/iarc-gate-how-not-to-represent-science-at-the-international-level/

[Ford_Prefect]

51. Conflatory hogwash!

From a journalist who has no sense of the global warming issues, who defends the globalist GMO profiteers without pause to look at their financial agendas, their rampant bribery and their aggressive political and militarist overreach. He never discussed the way the pesticides are used in the real world of industrial Agriculture. The degree of overuse is stunning. What use is the industry supplied lab research when the real world results tell a different story?

The great apologist speaks!

[HuckleB]

53. Nice try.

I like how you ignore the science, pretend that others ignore other science when they're not, and offer nothing but anger.

The fact that you and I both know you can't support your claim that this is just supporting what the rest of the world's science bodies have discovered is all we both need to know.

[Ford_Prefect]

57. So you have done the field work in this area? You can quote the data and interpret it?

My sister does direct research in this field looking for low impact methods to control weeds and invasive grasses in the Rocky Mountain states environment for the Department of Agriculture and the state of Montana. She has had some interesting things to say about Monsanto and their methods.

They talk about levels of application that no one in agribusiness actually uses. They ridicule any study that does not speak their company line about their products, potential human contamination, and results. They have harassed researchers who questioned the official company line on soil and water contamination, persistence in the food chain, and possible human and animal side effects. They fund their own pet researchers and institutions who have reflected the company propaganda in the reports they crank out. Monsanto sounds and acts much like Big Tobacco.

For a company with nothing to hide they sure do play rough, too.

I didn't say their products do not work. Others have asked what happens when they are used to the extent they have been in the real working world. I did not assert they made a dangerous product. Others with more experience and much better perspective have been asking for decades why Ag field workers exposed to the products have high rates of cancer and other diseases. I do not think that Monsanto and the others spend the millions they do on political lobbying and political campaigns simply because they to need be heard in governments around the world. Spending on that scale has the look of another kind of politics.

So when I see this kind of whitewash going on I have a few ideas about who, what, where, when, and why.
The amount of money Monsanto applies has an effect and it is cumulative, as their product residues are.

[HuckleB]

58. So you think an Internet anecdote about Monsanto and a sibling changes the science on GMOs?

How is it that you fail to see that you are ignoring a consensus of science that is as profound as for that regarding vaccines, climate change, etc... ?

There is no whitewash. There is an ugly fear mongering campaign that appears to have conned you with its fictions.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/

And here is what the anti-GMO crusade is doing. It is leading to real world harms to the environment.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/05/as-consumers-shift-to-non-gmo-sugar-farmers-may-be-forced-to-abandon-environmental-and-social-gains/

BTW, your rant offered no evidence that the world's scientific bodies agree with the IARC, highly questionable "findings." Of course, if you had read the article in the OP, you might realize that the IARC doesn't have the job the anti-GMO crusaders pretend it does. BTW, to reiterate, the world's scientific organizations agree with the WHO's findings here, even though you wish things to be different. Why the real world is not enough for you is something you'll have to figure out for yourself.

[Ford_Prefect]

59. Monsanto's behavior is not rumor or fiction, nor are the millions they have spent in bribery.

There may be open questions about pesticide use and product side effects. There are reasonable differences of opinion about GMO and how it is or may not be safe, or perhaps safe enough.

Monsanto has insisted there are no reasonable questions at all. There are many witnesses to their corporate thuggery.

I did not say there is no useful science in GMO foods, or that it ought to be banned as such. My concern is that Monsanto and the others invested in it have been rather careful to avoid reasonable debate. Where they can they have purchased opinion and research. That is fact.

[HuckleB]

60. So, you want to change the topic to Monsanto.

Last edited Mon May 16, 2016, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)

And you want to pretend that there are more questions about GMOs than about other types of seed development technology. You seem to be simply repeating a litany of anti-GMO propaganda, without even bothering to look at the actual reality of the science and evidence. It appears that you're working very hard to remain ignorant of the actual evidence base, while still responding with posts that have some vague relation to the topic at hand, but actually say nothing.

If you can respond to the content of the my last post, then we might have something to talk about. In the meantime, your make-it-up-as-you-go-along Internet platitudes are not viable.

FYI number one: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302

FYI number two: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roundup-and-risk-assessment

FYI number three: http://acsh.org/news/2015/03/23/iarcs-ruling-on-glyphosate-ignores-the-science/

[blackspade]

5. Profit over people.

[Ghost Dog]

6. Says Thomson-Reuters. The committee's summary report actually says:

Several epidemiological studies on cancer outcomes following occupational exposure to glyphosate were available. The evaluation of these studies focused on the occurrence of NHL (non-Hodgkin lymphoma). Overall, there is some evidence of a positive association between glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL from the case–control studies and the overall meta-analysis. However, it is notable that the only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level... The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. - http://www.who.int/entity/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1

More info: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/chemical-risks/jmpr/en/

[Earth_First]

8. Just in time for a Bayer buyout...

How convenient.

[proverbialwisdom]

15. More.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-12/bayer-said-to-explore-bid-for-40-billion-seed-company-monsanto

Bayer Said to Explore Bid for $40 Billion Seed Company Monsanto

by Ruth David, Aaron Kirchfeld, Dinesh Nair
May 12, 2016 — 4:42 AM PDT

Bayer AG is exploring a potential bid for U.S. competitor Monsanto Co. in a deal that would create the world’s largest supplier of seeds and farm chemicals, according to people familiar with the matter.

The German firm has held preliminary discussions internally and with advisers about buying Monsanto, which has a market value of about $43 billion, said the people, who asked not to be named because the deliberations are private.

Bayer, which is valued at about 79 billion euros ($90 billion), has discussed how to finance a deal including potential asset sales, the people said. No final decision has been made and the Leverkusen-based company could decide against a bid or pursue other transactions with Monsanto, including joint ventures or asset sales, the people said.

<>

Putting the world’s largest seed maker together with the German company that invented aspirin would bring together brands such as Roundup, Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide, and Sivanto, a new Bayer insecticide lethal to aphids and whiteflies but not to bees, as well as seeds for crops ranging from corn to sugar cane.

<>

In crop chemicals, competition authorities are investigating the $130 billion merger between Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co., while national security officials in the U.S. are weighing China National Chemical Corp.’s bid to acquire Syngenta AG of Switzerland for $43 billion.

<>

[AtheistCrusader]

9. I like how we trust the science when it's favorable to our positions, and disregard it when it is no

t.

The problems with Glyphosate aren't the chemical itself, but rather our policies in deploying it. Get over it.

[proverbialwisdom]

18. Seriously? "Human contamination" is the issue & the impact on overall health including reproduction.

http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16933-high-levels-of-glyphosate-found-in-portuguese-volunteers-urine

High levels of glyphosate found in Portuguese volunteers’ urine
Published: 11 May 2016

Portugal must “face the problem” and reduce human contamination, says Portuguese No GMO Coalition

Tests carried out by the Portuguese No GMO Coalition in cooperation with the Detox Project have revealed high levels of glyphosate (commonly sold as Roundup) in the urine of Portuguese volunteers, according to a report released by the Coalition.

In 26 volunteers, glyphosate was detected in 100% of the urine samples. By comparison, in Switzerland in 2015, a similar testing programme detected glyphosate in just 38% of cases and in 2013, sampling carried out by Friends of the Earth in 18 European countries showed 44% of the urine samples to be contaminated.

The average value of glyphosate in the urine of the Portuguese samples was 26.2 ng/ml (nanograms per milliliter or parts per billion – ppb).

The limit allowed in drinking water in the EU is 0.1 ng/ml, so the average amount of glyphosate detected in the Portuguese samples is 260 times above the maximum legal limit.

<>

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Thank you for reinforcing my point about policy/application.

You have been most helpful.

[progressoid]

16. Where are all these people going to grow their own food?

Last edited Mon May 16, 2016, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Edited: 80% of Americans live in urban areas.

And I dare say that most of them can't even keep a ficus alive, let alone feed themselves.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Allow me to suggest a re-phrase.

'80% of Americans live in urban areas'

[progressoid]

46. Good suggestion!

To be honest, this American (who lives in a suburban area), could grow more of his own food. I love fresh veggies from the garden. We have a small garden which could be expanded. But I don't have the time, or energy to do so. I was up till 2 this morning working. And after a small vacation next week (the first I've had in years), I'll be back at 10 and 12 hour days for most of the summer.

Speaking of which. My lunch break is over and it's back to work.

[HuckleB]

50. Plus all those bugs, ...

... and weeds! I'm sure they'll all be out spending every free moment taking care of things, so they can produce as much food per square yard as an actual farmer.

Oh, wait.

[HuckleB]

34. Special Report: How the World Health Organization's cancer agency confuses consumers

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-iarc-special-report-idUSKCN0XF0RF