Has science shown Roundup to be safe?

[Will Wiley]

We were getting too off topic in another thread one one person kept spamming the thread with glyphosate studies rather than Roundup studies.

So..I'm interested if anyone can point to studies of Roundup, not glyphosate, that sows that Roundup with all it's adjuvants has been shown to be safe.

Now can I please ask people not to post glyphosate studies as glyphosate is not roundup, and Round up contains other chemicals.

So I am interested in what science can tell us about Roundup. Thank you

Roundup is the most widely used weed killer on the planet so this is an important question for us all.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We were getting too off topic in another thread one one person kept spamming the thread with glyphosate studies rather than Roundup studies.

So..I'm interested if anyone can point to studies of Roundup, not glyphosate, that sows that Roundup with all it's adjuvants has been shown to be safe.

Now can I please ask people not to post glyphosate studies as glyphosate is not roundup, and Round up contains other chemicals.

So I am interested in what science can tell us about Roundup. Thank you

Glyphosate and Roundup is the same thing. Roundup is just Monsanto's brand name for it as a product. If it's important to you that the studies are specifically on Roundup, you can just take any study on Glyphosate and just replace the word "Glyphosate" with "Roundup" .

The rest of the stuff in Roundup are not active chemicals. They're just there to keep it from deteriorating in transport, and to make sure it gets dispersed correctly when used.

 

[bigfield]

Bilby captured the nuttiness of this thread before it even began:

Do you have any studies showing Roundup is safe. Not glyphosate studies, but Roundup studies?

Do you have any studies showing that Disprin is safe? Not aspirin studies, but Disprin studies?

Do you understand enough chemistry to grasp why your question implies that you are either ignorant, disingenuous, or both?

Is anyone really able to care as much about a subject as you appear to care about this one, while still remaining as badly informed as you appear to be?

So many rhetorical questions.

 

[Will Wiley]

We were getting too off topic in another thread one one person kept spamming the thread with glyphosate studies rather than Roundup studies.

So..I'm interested if anyone can point to studies of Roundup, not glyphosate, that sows that Roundup with all it's adjuvants has been shown to be safe.

Now can I please ask people not to post glyphosate studies as glyphosate is not roundup, and Round up contains other chemicals.

So I am interested in what science can tell us about Roundup. Thank you

Glyphosate and Roundup is the same thing. Roundup is just Monsanto's brand name for it as a product. It's 100% Glyphosate. If it's important to you that the studies are specifically on Roundup, you can just take any study on Glyphosate and just replace the word "Glyphosate" with "Roundup" .

The rest of the stuff in Roundup are not active chemicals. They're just there to keep it from deteriorating in transport, and to make sure it gets dispersed correctly when used.

Wrong. Roundup contains glyphosate and it also contains other chemicals to activate the glyphosate. Can you please not spam this thread with nonsense. Thank you

 

[DrZoidberg]

Glyphosate and Roundup is the same thing. Roundup is just Monsanto's brand name for it as a product. It's 100% Glyphosate. If it's important to you that the studies are specifically on Roundup, you can just take any study on Glyphosate and just replace the word "Glyphosate" with "Roundup" .

The rest of the stuff in Roundup are not active chemicals. They're just there to keep it from deteriorating in transport, and to make sure it gets dispersed correctly when used.

Wrong. Roundup contains glyphosate and it also contains other chemicals to activate the glyphosate. Can you please not spam this thread with nonsense. Thank you

ha ha ha ha. On the topic of spamming with nonsense.

Don't you know a chemist you can ask or something?

 

[Will Wiley]

Can a moderator please remove the posts which make no attempt to rely on science but which are just disrupting the thread..
I want to know about the scientific study of Roundup. Thank you.

I am asking a serious question about science and Roundup.

what is this forum for if we can't discuss science???

 

[Will Wiley]

Wrong. Roundup contains glyphosate and it also contains other chemicals to activate the glyphosate. Can you please not spam this thread with nonsense. Thank you

ha ha ha ha. On the topic of spamming with nonsense.

Don't you know a chemist you can ask or something?

Do you have a question that relates to science or can post a scientific study? If so ask it or please stop spamming.

 

[bilby]

Can a moderator please remove the posts which make no attempt to rely on science but which are just disrupting the thread..
I want to know about the scientific study of Roundup. Thank you.

I am asking a serious question about science and Roundup

Not only are you not asking a serious question; You are apparently incompetent to recognise that your question is not one that a competent person could take seriously.

This is the study you need to read before going any further.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wrong. Roundup contains glyphosate and it also contains other chemicals to activate the glyphosate.

Wow. THat's fascinating.
What chemicals are necessary to activate glyphosate?
What do you mean by 'activate?'
How do you know this?
How do they make a study about glyphosate invalid with respect to Roundup^TM?

 

[Malintent]

I love watching people make fools of themselves.

Will, let me help you... your next move should be to claim that the additives and preservatives in Roundup brand glyphosate serve to counteract the harmful effects of the poison in humans - but no one wants to research that because of... um... because of politics... ya, that's it.. that's the ticket...
...Like the flame retardants they put in Vaseline to make the petroleum not explode out of the jelly... exactly like that, actually.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...4/monsantos-roundup-cancer-warning-label.aspx

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), reclassified glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen" (Class 2A).^1,2
The decision was based on "limited evidence" showing the weed killer can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with "convincing evidence" linking it to cancer in animals.
The IARC is considered the global gold standard for carcinogenicity studies, so its determination was of considerable importance. It's also one of the five research agencies from which the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) — the California agency of environmental hazards — gets its reports to declare carcinogens under Prop 65.
Monsanto has vigorously pursued a retraction of the IARC's damning report,³ to prevent California from pursuing a cancer warning on Roundup and other, newer weed killers in the pipeline, designed for use on the company's latest genetically engineered (GE) crops.
[h=2]....[/h]
CropLife America certainly isn't the only industry group fighting for Monsanto's right to poison the unaware.
In January, a group called Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research¹² (CAPHR) was formed, but contrary to its stated mission, this industry front group is pushing an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with promoting "credible, unbiased and transparent science as the basis of public policy decisions."
The group was formed by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), whose members include Monsanto, and as noted by Gillam with USRTK, CAPHR's "express purpose is to discredit the IARC,"¹³ which notably consists of independent scientists from around the world.
More to the point, CAPHR clearly states it "will seek reform" of the IARC Monographs Program, which evaluates and determines the carcinogenicity of chemicals.

"Monsanto and friends have been harassing IARC … through a series of demands, threats and legal maneuvers, including lobbying the U.S. House of Representatives to cut funding for IARC," Gillam writes. "The new campaign takes the assault further.

[P]

Do we really want to ignore the possibility that Rounduo et al are not really healthy?

[/P]







​

 

[bigfield]

The WHO and FAO released this report in 2016, which address the NHL risk mentioned in the 2015 IARC report:

Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide. Several epidemiological studies on cancer outcomes following occupational exposure to glyphosate were available. The evaluation of these studies focused on the occurrence of NHL. 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. Glyphosate has been extensively tested for genotoxic effects using a variety of tests in a wide range of organisms. The overall weight of evidence indicates that administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as 2000 mg/kg body weight by the oral route, the route most relevant to human dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. Several carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats are available. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet. The Meeting reaffirmed the group ADI for the sum of glyphosate and its metabolites of 0–1 mg/kg body weight on the basis of effects on the salivary gland. The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acute toxicity.

(bold added for emphasis)

 

[bigfield]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...4/monsantos-roundup-cancer-warning-label.aspx

Did you realise that the author of this article, Joseph Mercola, is an anti-science con-man?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

Mercola criticizes many aspects of standard medical practice, such as vaccination and what he views as overuse of prescription drugs and overuse of surgery to treat diseases. On his website mercola.com, Mercola and colleagues advocate a number of unproven alternative health notions including homeopathy, while promoting anti-vaccine positions.

 

[Will Wiley]

So....no one can point to any study where Roundup was tested?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So....no one can point to any study where Roundup was tested?

So, no one can point to a good reason that Roundup needs to be tested independently of it's components?

 

[DrZoidberg]

So....no one can point to any study where Roundup was tested?

What you need to come up with is a reason why we should? All I've seen from you is pseudo-scientific waffling.

 

[Malintent]

So....no one can point to any study where Roundup was tested?

"Roundup" is a registered trademark for a line of products . "Roundup Ready" soy beans is also a registered trademark.
A Professional study should not relate to the registered trademark of a product, but to the product itself.

I am sure there have been many studies on Petroleum Jelly, but not Vasoline.
There have been studies on "Sweet Carbonated Beverages", but not "7-Up".

You site studies relating to "GMO-crops", but none to "Roundup-Ready soy beans".. is that a fair criticism? Note, "Roundup-ready" soy beans ARE GMO-crops.

 

[bilby]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...4/monsantos-roundup-cancer-warning-label.aspx

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), reclassified glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen" (Class 2A).^1,2
The decision was based on "limited evidence" showing the weed killer can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with "convincing evidence" linking it to cancer in animals.
The IARC is considered the global gold standard for carcinogenicity studies, so its determination was of considerable importance. It's also one of the five research agencies from which the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) — the California agency of environmental hazards — gets its reports to declare carcinogens under Prop 65.
Monsanto has vigorously pursued a retraction of the IARC's damning report,³ to prevent California from pursuing a cancer warning on Roundup and other, newer weed killers in the pipeline, designed for use on the company's latest genetically engineered (GE) crops.
[h=2]....[/h]
CropLife America certainly isn't the only industry group fighting for Monsanto's right to poison the unaware.
In January, a group called Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research¹² (CAPHR) was formed, but contrary to its stated mission, this industry front group is pushing an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with promoting "credible, unbiased and transparent science as the basis of public policy decisions."
The group was formed by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), whose members include Monsanto, and as noted by Gillam with USRTK, CAPHR's "express purpose is to discredit the IARC,"¹³ which notably consists of independent scientists from around the world.
More to the point, CAPHR clearly states it "will seek reform" of the IARC Monographs Program, which evaluates and determines the carcinogenicity of chemicals.

"Monsanto and friends have been harassing IARC … through a series of demands, threats and legal maneuvers, including lobbying the U.S. House of Representatives to cut funding for IARC," Gillam writes. "The new campaign takes the assault further.

[P]

Do we really want to ignore the possibility that Rounduo et al are not really healthy?

[/P]







​

I don't know about that; But as I value reality, and my health, I certainly want to ignore Mercola.

IARC Class 2A status is not, in itself, an indication of a problem worth worrying about for a foodstuff. For a material not intended for routine human consumption, it's not worth worrying about at all. (But it is a great story for charlatans to tell their marks, if they want to scare ignorant people into supporting their causes and buying their products - Hence Mercola's involvement).

In addition to Glyphosate, other IARC Class 2A 'Probable carcinogens' include red meat, and hot beverages (above 65℃); And Glyphosate is pretty short-lived in the environment, so let's not get too exited about something that is present in only the minutest traces on our food, if at all.

 

[Peez]

So....no one can point to any study where Roundup was tested?

Can you point to any study where dihydrogen monoxide was tested?

Peez

 

[Kharakov]

So....no one can point to any study where Roundup was tested?

Can you point to any study where dihydrogen monoxide was tested?

Peez

I remember reading about a study in which glyphosate was mixed with dihydrogen monoxide and applied to plants. Can't recall the name of the study though. Sorry.