Roundup probably causes cancer

[tupac chopra]

According to the World Health Organisation.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8/abstract (subscription to see full paper needed but it's a fairly easy process.)

Something like 80% of GMO crops are designed to grow even with this toxic pesticide grown on them. You probably ate some today.

If you live in some places it's probably too late. They've been getting it into your body for quite a while now.
http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2013/06/13/study-youre-in-trouble-roundup/

Europe may be skeptical of genetically modified crops — fearing they may contaminate traditional species and require more pesticides — but a new study shows that tests of urban Europeans’ urine already spell M-O-N-S-A-N-T-O.

A network of environmental groups, Friends of the Earth International, tested the urine of 182 European city dwellers, from 18 countries, and found traces of the potentially-dangerous herbicide glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, in 44% of samples. The leading producer of this herbicide is Monsanto Co.MON +0.68%, a company whose name has become almost synonymous with the genetically modified organisms it produces.

You're probably eating some now.

Personally I can't believe that it could possibly be true that Monsanto would be yet again be filling the world with a toxic (and cancer causing) chemical and claim it was safe. That could not possibly be true.

 

[bilby]

Almost everything 'probably' causes cancer.

There is nothing to see here except a beat-up by anti-Monsanto crusaders.

The only thing that surprised me about this is that it took you so long to post it - I have been expecting you to pass on this gem of misinformation for a while now.

So, besides glyphosate, what other things are included in that classification? The following things have also been included in the 2A classification: manufacturing glass, burning wood, emissions from high temperature frying, and work exposure as a hairdresser.

But what’s even more revealing are the things that have been classified in Group 1, things that do cause cancer: drinking alcohol, formaldehyde, radon, solar radiation, wood dust, and estrogen. So these are things that will cause cancer, while glyphosate (according to IARC) might cause cancer.

http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/03/glyphosate-as-a-carcinogen-explained.html

 

[bilby]

Worrying about Glyphosate without even considering any other environmental chemicals is mind-bogglingly stupid.

Of all the pesticides in the world, Glyphosate is one of the least dangerous. Worrying about glyphosate residue in your food is a bit like worring about being hit by a crashing airliner while driving at high speed down a busy freeway talking on your mobile. Except that the plane crash scenario has actually happened, but nobody has ever been recorded as dying from glyphosate residue in their food.

There are huge numbers of pesticides we are exposed to all the time; artificial ones are a minority both in frequency of exposure and in size of dose.

The list is very long. In 1990, Bruce Ames published a paper entitled “Dietary pesticides (99.99 percent all natural)”. In it, he and his coauthors outline that we eat an estimated 1.5 grams of natural pesticides a day, “which is about 10,000 times more” than the amount of synthetic pesticide residues we consume. This amount would be significantly higher in vegetarians and vegans. As an example, the authors provide a list of 49 different pesticides found in cabbage alone. The concentrations of these pesticides are in parts per thousand or parts per million, whereas the amount of synthetic pesticides we find on our food are in the parts per billion range.

Despite the vast amount of toxins in our diet, only a handful of these have ever been tested (note that the paper was written in 1990, but the point still stands). Of all the chemicals tested for chronic cancer tests in animals, only 5 percent have been natural pesticides and half of these were carcinogenic.

Think about that for a moment. While there’s an uproar about parts per billion amounts of synthetic pesticide residues on our food, there are more concentrated compounds in fruits and veggies actually known to cause cancer. In addition, some of the more commonly used pesticides in agriculture have mechanisms of action that are specific to the pests their targeting, making them far safer than many natural pesticides, which is on reason why they’ve gained popularity in the past half century.

For example, glyphosate, which is often paired with herbicide resistant GMO crops, shuts down a biochemical pathway in plants that simply doesn’t exist in mammals. In contrast many of the natural toxins found in plants can be harmful to mammals. Yet we’re far more concerned about glyphosate residues than we are about natural formaldehyde in pears.

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/myth-busting-are-synthetic-pesticides-used-with-some-gmos-more-dangerous-than-natural-ones/

 

[tupac chopra]

Almost everything 'probably' causes cancer.

There is nothing to see here except a beat-up by anti-Monsanto crusaders.

Like Who.

The only thing that surprised me about this is that it took you so long to post it

Nothing surprises me about you, except the inordinate amount of time you spend pontificating on internet forums? Did the sun come out where you were today?

But yes, you are of course right. If Roundup was dangerous then Monsanto will tell us not WHO
Because the WHO are ratbags, while Monsanto are our friends.

But now that you have dug your heels in in defence of GMO's just keep defending. Keep defending, otherwise you'll have to admit you are wrong, and that unfamiliar stance might scare you. But it;s all ok.

 

[tupac chopra]

As if Monsanto could possibly be spreading something that caused cancer all over the world and telling everyone that it was safe.
That's ridiculous.

I look forward to the pro GMO cheerleaders giving us vague details of "studies", that "prove" Roundup is safe, without going into the details of any of these studies.

That's what usually happens.

Added in edit.
Someone already did it. . Some vague pronouncements but no details of anything that shows Roundup, which is used throughout the world to be safe

 

[bilby]

Like Who.

The only thing that surprised me about this is that it took you so long to post it

Nothing surprises me about you, except the inordinate amount of time you spend pontificating on internet forums? Did the sun come out where you were today?

But yes, you are of course right. If Roundup was dangerous then Monsanto will tell us not WHO
Because the WHO are ratbags, while Monsanto are our friends.

But now that you have dug your heels in in defence of GMO's just keep defending. Keep defending, otherwise you'll have to admit you are wrong, and that unfamiliar stance might scare you. But it;s all ok.

Not WHO as such; rather the part of WHO called IARC.

From the article I posted earlier (which you didn't read, presumably because you are as averse to being wrong as you wrongly accuse me of being):

(Source: IARC Mission Statement) One important piece of what IARC does is determine which substances in our environment have the potential for causing cancer. IARC does not conduct any original research; it only reviews studies and research already published to determine carcinogen status. You can read a little more about how they make these type of determinations here.

Nor is IARC the only agency or organization in the world that conducts such reviews and classifies carcinogens. Most advanced countries have similar bodies. What should be mentioned is the contrasting process that IARC employed to make their determination. IARC’s review of glyphosate came after just a week of the agency looking at available data about glyphosate and several other chemicals. On the other hand, reviews of glyphosate by regulating bodies in the United States, Canada, Germany, and other parts of the world take up to 5 years.

 

[Metaphor]

Like Who.

The only thing that surprised me about this is that it took you so long to post it

Nothing surprises me about you, except the inordinate amount of time you spend pontificating on internet forums? Did the sun come out where you were today?

But yes, you are of course right. If Roundup was dangerous then Monsanto will tell us not WHO
Because the WHO are ratbags, while Monsanto are our friends.

But now that you have dug your heels in in defence of GMO's just keep defending. Keep defending, otherwise you'll have to admit you are wrong, and that unfamiliar stance might scare you. But it;s all ok.

Monsanto's patents on Roundup expired in 2000, and it's not a GMO.

Ironically, even if Roundup were a carcinogen (and what isn't?), what makes you think the decrease in quality of life and total deaths from Roundup-related cancer would be worse than worldwide food shortages and spikes in food price, causing who knows how many deaths, if Roundup had never existed?

 

[tupac chopra]

Of all the pesticides in the world, Glyphosate is one of the least dangerous.

mind-bogglingly stupid.

Still no science? Oh well....you're the expert I guess.

 

[tupac chopra]

Ironically, even if Roundup were a carcinogen (and what isn't?), what makes you think the decrease in quality of life and total deaths from Roundup-related cancer would be worse than worldwide food shortages and spikes in food price, causing who knows how many deaths, if Roundup had never existed?

You're evil You know that don't you?

 

[bilby]

But yes, you are of course right. If Roundup was dangerous then Monsanto will tell us not WHO
Because the WHO are ratbags, while Monsanto are our friends.

I am right; but I didn't say any of the shit you attribute to me here; if you want to talk about what I say, that's fine, but don't make implications that attribute to me things I have not said.

For the record, WHO does excellent work; but IARC are not the appropriate body to look at for safety assessments on pesticide residues. Some more appropriate sources are linked in the articles I have already referenced in this thread (for the benefit of those who are not too ideologically hidebound to read them).

Monsanto probably would cover up any problems with their products if they could. But they can't. There are too many independent and government agencies watching them.

 

[tupac chopra]

For the record, WHO does excellent work; but IARC are not the appropriate body to look at for safety assessments on pesticide residues. .

Monsanto is, I know

 

[tupac chopra]

Monsanto probably would cover up any problems with their products if they could. But they can't. There are too many independent and government agencies watching them.

I'm so with you. We know what's going on.
It would be impossible....and as it's impossible let's just...oh look there is a cat!

 

[bilby]

mind-bogglingly stupid.

Still no science? Oh well....you're the expert I guess.

Of course there is still no science; you don't post any, and you don't read the stuff I link to.

- - - Updated - - -

For the record, WHO does excellent work; but IARC are not the appropriate body to look at for safety assessments on pesticide residues. .

Monsanto is, I know

Hmm. You really don't think that misrepresenting what I say by quote mining adds to your credibility do you?

Nobody would be that idiotic, surely?

 

[bilby]

Monsanto probably would cover up any problems with their products if they could. But they can't. There are too many independent and government agencies watching them.

I'm so with you. We know what's going on.
It would be impossible....and as it's impossible let's just...oh look there is a cat!

If you would address what I said - for example with some kind of rebuttal - we could have a grown up discussion. If not, you probably shouldn't bother responding at all, lest people think you infantile.

 

[Metaphor]

Ironically, even if Roundup were a carcinogen (and what isn't?), what makes you think the decrease in quality of life and total deaths from Roundup-related cancer would be worse than worldwide food shortages and spikes in food price, causing who knows how many deaths, if Roundup had never existed?

You're evil You know that don't you?

For someone to know something, it means

i) They believe it
ii) They have good reasons to believe it; and
iii) It's true.

None of those conditions are met for me to 'know' I'm evil.

 

[tupac chopra]

I am right;

You really could get a life? I posted a thread here and like some sad fool you have said you were already waiting for it, and have gone on and on as usual without linking to any science Can you get a life Bill?

 

[scombrid]

Glyphosate is the primary herbicide used to control invasive floating plants around here, including in the surface water supply for Melbourne and Cocoa/Rockledge. The chemical isn't showing up in the tap. A much bigger concern is the stuff pissed into septic tanks that is going into the ground water supply.

Roundup is ubiquitous in the landscape around here and exposure from food is pretty much non-existent compared to general environmental exposure. Roundup and generics are a lot safer than alternatives in agriculture. I'd rather eat a crop that is treated with Roundup to control weeds than live near a farm that does not use Round-up ready but that sterilizes the field before planting. Breathing the sterilant bound to dust blowing from the field and the risk of that stuff getting into my well is pretty bad compared to roundup.

Have any of your sources tested the actual food products from Roundup Ready corn for the levels of roundup or roundup derivatives? Surely with your crusading you could provide that information if it is such a massive risk.

Did you know that they spray Rodeo over red potatos to kill the plant and redden the skin on the potato before digging? That worries me more than round up on a corn field.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Glyphosphate The New Boogeyman

HERE is the expert reaction to the carcinogen classification. TLDR: There's controversy surrounding the classification, PESTICIDES in general could cause cancer and we should be careful, everything could cause cancer.

For context, HERE is the WHO list of carcinogens. All are classified into groups; "known" (group 1), “probable” (group 2A), and “possible” (group 2B). Sunshine, alcoholic beverages, wood dust, and outdoor pollution are “known” carcinogens. The “probable” group includes wood smoke and working night shifts. Seriously.

Try not to get your knickers all in a wad, and also, what is the deal with the incredible demonization of Monsanto? I know it's a "thing" but really, Monsanto the roundup manufacturer is not even a big company. It's not even very large by biotech corporate standards with regards to GMO or pesticides. It really makes those that may have valid concerns look like know nothing hippies that just want to like, "eat natural man." As are calls for others to "get a life". You're doing yourself no favors here.

 

[dismal]

what is the deal with the incredible demonization of Monsanto?

I understand Monsanto products contain dihydrogen monoxide in spite of the thousands of people that have died from DHMO inhalation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

According to the World Health Organisation.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8/abstract (subscription to see full paper needed but it's a fairly easy process.)

Something like 80% of GMO crops are designed to grow even with this toxic pesticide grown on them. You probably ate some today.

If you live in some places it's probably too late. They've been getting it into your body for quite a while now.
http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2013/06/13/study-youre-in-trouble-roundup/

Europe may be skeptical of genetically modified crops — fearing they may contaminate traditional species and require more pesticides — but a new study shows that tests of urban Europeans’ urine already spell M-O-N-S-A-N-T-O.

A network of environmental groups, Friends of the Earth International, tested the urine of 182 European city dwellers, from 18 countries, and found traces of the potentially-dangerous herbicide glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, in 44% of samples. The leading producer of this herbicide is Monsanto Co.MON +0.68%, a company whose name has become almost synonymous with the genetically modified organisms it produces.

You're probably eating some now.

Personally I can't believe that it could possibly be true that Monsanto would be yet again be filling the world with a toxic (and cancer causing) chemical and claim it was safe. That could not possibly be true.

So the OP links to a paper which offers a description but not a single letter as to the findings of the meeting. I'm all for looking over the data, but the OP doesn't offer me any to base a conclusion.