Scientist defends WHO group report linking herbicide to cancer

[Ichingcarpenter]

(Reuters) - A World Health Organization group's controversial finding that the world's most popular herbicide "probably is carcinogenic to humans" was based on a thorough scientific review and is a key marker in ongoing evaluations of the product, the scientist who led the study said Thursday.

"There were several studies. There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations ... and damaged chromosomes," Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute, said in an interview.

Blair chaired the 17-member working group of the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which rocked the agricultural industry on March 20 by classifying glyphosate as "probably" cancer-causing.

Monsanto Co , which has built a $15 billion company on sales of glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide and crops genetically engineered to tolerate being sprayed with Roundup, has demanded a retraction and explanation from WHO.

Monsanto officials have accused the IARC group of relying on "junk science" and basing conclusion on politics rather than sound science. Company officials say glyphosate has been proven safe for decades.

"We are in the process of determining the best path forward," Monsanto spokesman William Brennan said. "Monsanto would like to understand how this conclusion could be reached and how the IARC process differs from other scientific reviews."

But Blair said Thursday the classification is appropriate based on current science. There have been hundreds of studies on glyphosate, he said, with concerns about the chemical growing over time. The IARC group gave particular consideration to two major studies out of Sweden, one out of Canada and at least three in the United States, he said.

He stressed that the group did not classify glyphosate as definitely causing cancer.


http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/us-monsanto-herbicide-idINKBN0MM2JR20150326

[Nihil]

1. K&R

> Monsanto officials have accused the IARC group of relying on "junk science" and
> basing conclusion on politics rather than sound science

Funny ... that sounds exactly like certain people around here whenever there is a GMO or Monsanto
discussion thread ... what an interesting coincidence!

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. coincidence?

[ybbor]

3. Yes it is odd

Makes you wonder if perhaps they read the same talking points?

[Enthusiast]

5. Yes. Interesting coincidence.

When it comes to sockpuppets there are no coincidences. They pop up whenever a specific subject is addressed. Since my earliest days on the internet I have witnessed this phenomenon. They are paid to steer public opinion. Certain words or phrases serve as an alert system.

Ask yourself, what would possibly motivate a poster to so vigorously defend the product of a corporation? These defenders display a great deal of passion in their defense of GMOs. Why?

[Scuba]

6. +1,000 I dealt with one yesterday.

[knightmaar]

7. No, I don't get talking points

When you have studies like this one, indicating a probable link between a chemical and cancer, I want that chemical thoroughly tested to change "probable" into "definite" or I want an explanation for how they accidentally got "probable". I want to know if the chemical survives and shows up on the grocery shelf, or it gets washed away before then. Is it a threat to the consumer, or the people living near the field in question? How much does it affect my odds of getting cancer?

But when someone stokes fears about "GMO"s, I know what that term actually means and I'm going to ignore it and move on to the next article.

[Enthusiast]

13. Washed away to where? Where is this magical place where toxins have no effect on the food chain?

Why do you defend GMOs? What is your motive? Why would you spend your time and effort defending GMOs even if you have the conviction that GMOs are safe?

[knightmaar]

15. Because it's scientific nonsense.

It's like fearing formaldehyde in vaccines.

Everything you eat is genetically modified. Good luck living without a genetically modified cow, potato, wheat grain or head of cauliflower.

It just doesn't make sense to freak out about this.

[Enthusiast]

21. So you pound the keyboard in defense of GMOs? Sorry, I'm not buying it or you.

[knightmaar]

23. You're calling me a fraud of some kind?

Good work.

I'm typing short messages on this keyboard because there's no valid reason to worry about GMOs.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Wasting your time.

Notice how within just a couple of comments, he dropped into the 'everything is genetically modified' talking point so beloved of the pro-Monsanto posters.

[Nihil]

14. It appears that you don't "get" threads either as you are referencing terms from someone else's post

But, as you are here anyway ...

> But when someone stokes fears about "GMO"s, I know what that term actually means and
> I'm going to ignore it and move on to the next article.

I know what that term actually means as well.

I am also neither paid to support the industry nor paid to attack it.
As a result, I will read the article to determine whether those "fears" are valid, exaggerated or
totally fictitious and respond appropriately rather than just blindly taking a binary approach
from a position of dogmatic faith.

That arises from a scientific & technological background coupled with a lifelong desire to learn.

One thing I don't have though is a sleeper sockpuppet account to use while playing hide & seek.

[knightmaar]

17. Sleeper sockpuppet?

I thought we weren't supposed to say things like that?

[Buzz Clik]

10. Anyone contesting the potential toxicity of glyphosphate is a fool.

It's been known for years.

Until the development of Roundup-Ready crops, glyphosate was never sprayed directly on the crops. That's the problem.

[Enthusiast]

4. It's very simple. But it's not so simple.

It isn't genetic modification that makes GMO plants inherently so dangerous to humans. It is the huge glyphosate residue that is generated when farmers take advantage of the GMO plants ability to survive what is essentially an overdose of glyphosate. Humans and animals then have to eat that residue. And the surrounding land and life chain has to somehow absorb the waste glyphosate. This could have all sorts of negative repercussions like cancer in the long run.

[knightmaar]

8. So you realize the genetic modification isn't actually dangerous?

It's the pesticide we spray on the plant, taking advantage of the mutation, that's the problem?

Good.

[Enthusiast]

12. It's a HUGE problem.

It has ancillary effects above and beyond human cancer that Monsanto's best scientists cannot possibly anticipate.

It would be far better to allow mother nature to take control.

Humans should limit genetic manipulation to selective breeding.

[knightmaar]

16. Because selective breeding has never caused problems?

Right?

That's your argument? Randomly taking whatever genes happen to be tagging along with your "selective breed" is automatically a good idea?

Ha.

[Enthusiast]

20. Selective breeding has taken wild cattle and transformed them into the Holstein that

can produce an amazing amount of milk. Selective breeding has made the incredible beef cattle of today. The same can said for all domesticated animals. Selective breeding has been very successful with both plants and animals.

Molecular genetic modification on the other hand is brand new, unproven with potentially dangerous unforeseen consequences.

Ha.

[knightmaar]

24. Selective breeding has problems too

Like those dogs with terrible back problems.

And those poisonous potatoes.
http://www.tested.com/science/weird/454414-dangerous-genetically-modified-potato/

At least with intentional genetic modification, you're getting what you wanted, not a bunch of accidental byproducts.

[Enthusiast]

25. Contrary to your assertions the long term ramifications of molecular genetic modification

are unpredictable. The claim that with intentional molecular genetic modification "you are getting what you wanted" is unsupported.

Why the passionate defense for genetic modification? What is your strong motive? Where does it come from. Maybe you a warrior for justice that just hates the poor corporations to be maligned? Yeah, that's it.

[knightmaar]

28. Again, you're being rude.

I ma having a discussion about genetic modification and it's safety and the evidence for and against.

You are asserting that I have ulterior motives and you have no evidence for that insult. Is it just because you have such a long posting history that you believe you get to insult people this way?

I could just as easily ask why scientists defend vaccines so much.
Why are you so crazy about the earth not being flat?
Why the passionate defense of eating food and breathing air? You must be a shill for corporate food!

[madokie]

9. last summer after seeing all the dandelions in my yard I could stand

I bought a gallon of roundup ready to spray in a gallon jug with a sprayer and took to the task of getting rid of the thousands of dandelions in my yard. A few days after I started this treatment of spraying each plant with the poison I got a sore throat and after a few days of my throat getting worse I took to google and found that others who used the shit from monsanto were having the same problem. I quit using it and in about a week my sore throat went away. I'm convinced it was the gyphosate and will never use the shit again. I found a recipe for a weed killer that uses Vinegar, soap and epson salt and make up a gallon of it and guess what it worked better than the poison did and wasn't killing me in the process.

[Enthusiast]

11. There ya go. It worked better than the commercial stuff.

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)

I bet there are many such alternatives to poisoning the planet.

[NickB79]

18. The odd thing is, cancer deaths in the US have fallen dramatically in the past 30 years

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-cancer-deaths-fell-22-since-1991/

Granted, a very large proportion of this is due to plummeting smoking rates and better early detection. But given the ubiquitous nature of Round-Up in every Home Depot or Walmart in the nation, it does make one wonder where these glyphosate-related cancers are occurring.

I'm wondering if the carcinogenic effects don't show up until a certain threshold is reached (in farm laborers, for example, using massive amounts of it), vs. a guy spraying weeds in his yard.

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. There were several studies

"There were several studies. There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations ... and damaged chromosomes," Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute, said in an interview

[NickB79]

22. Yes, I saw that, but it doesn't answer my question

And that's why I asked if the carcinogenic effects were dose-dependent. We aren't seeing a wave of glyphosate-related cancers in average homeowners spraying dandelions in the backyard, as far as we can see in cancer stats, so that's why I postulated that low exposure at home wasn't enough to be clearly carcinogenic.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. We've gotten a lot better at treating cancer over the last 30 years as well.

So maybe people who have cancer are now dying of other things?

[GreatGazoo]

29. The incidence of cancer is higher and still increasing

Cancer is exploding, as is kidney failure:

Worldwide cancer cases expected to soar by 70% over next 20 years
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/03/worldwide-cancer-cases-soar-next-20-years

Why? Most evidence points to Longevity and diet:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-increasing/

Kidney disease increasing, tied to diet, lifestyle:

An analysis of federal health data published last November in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 13 percent of American adults — about 26 million people — have chronic kidney disease, up from 10 percent, or about 20 million people, a decade earlier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/health/18kidneydisease.html?ref=health&_r=0

Also

In an investigation worthy of the great Sherlock Holmes, a scientific sleuth from Sri Lanka, Dr. Channa Jayasumana, and his two colleagues, Dr. Sarath Gunatilake and Dr. Priyantha Senanayake, have put forward a unifying hypothesis that could explain the origin of the disease. They reasoned that the offending agent had to have been introduced into Sri Lanka within the last 30 years, since the first cases appeared in the mid-1990s. The chemical also needed to be able to form stable complexes with the metals in hard water and to act as a shield, protecting those metals from metabolism by the liver. The compound would also need to act as a carrier and be able to deliver the metals to the kidney.

We know that political changes in Sri Lanka in the late 1970s led to the introduction of agrochemicals, especially in rice farming. The researchers looked for likely suspects. Everything pointed to glyphosate. This herbicide is used in abundance in Sri Lanka. Earlier studies had shown that once glyphosate binds with metals, the glyphosate-metal complex can last for decades in the soil.

Glyphosate was not originally designed for use as an herbicide. Patented by the Stauffer Chemical Company in 1964, it was introduced as a chelating agent. It avidly binds to metals. Glyphosate was first used as a descaling agent to clean out mineral deposits from the pipes in boilers and other hot water systems.

It is this chelating property that allows glyphosate to form complexes with the arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals found in the groundwater and soil in Central America, India and Sri Lanka. The glyphosate-heavy metal complex can enter the human body in a variety of ways. The complex can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Glyphosate acts like a Trojan horse, allowing the bound heavy metal to avoid detection by the liver, since the glyphosate occupies the binding sites that the liver would normally latch onto. The glyphosate-heavy metal complex reaches the kidney tubules, where the high acidity allows the metal to break free of the glyphosate. The cadmium or arsenic then damages the kidney tubules and other parts of the kidneys, ultimately resulting in kidney failure and, most often, death.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24876-monsantos-herbicide-linked-to-fatal-kidney-disease-epidemic-will-ckdu-topple-monsanto

[NickB79]

30. Yes, worldwide it's exploding. Here in the US, not so much

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/30/us-cancer-rates-usa-idUSKBN0MQ25K20150330

The analysis, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, is the latest in a series of annual reports on cancer compiled since 1998 by the NAACCR, the ACS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute.

The organizations found decreases over the past 20 years in the number of new cases for several of the major cancers diagnosed among men, including prostate, lung, colon, stomach, brain and throat cancers. There were also decreases among colon, ovary, cervix, oral and stomach cancers among women.

Overall, cancer diagnoses decreased by 1.8 percent each year between 2007 and 2011 among men, and remained stable among women.

Which is why I asked about cancer incidents in the US, where Round-Up has been used the longest, in the largest volumes, is widely available in every home improvement store, and is used by millions of homeowners every summer.

My guess is that glyphosate IS indeed carcinogenic, but only when exposure levels are quite high, such as farm workers exposed on a daily basis. And since farm workers are a very small fraction of the US population, we aren't seeing any cancer spikes in the statistics.