Roundup probably causes cancer

[bilby]

Actually, I believe Roundup is fatal.

The public doesn't need to worry about Roundup unless it is delivered to them in their food. So these websites are relevant.

It is already very prevalent.
http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf

Can you show us any evidence that one part per billion or less of glyphosate in urine represents any cause whatsoever for concern?

Or are we supposed to be surprised that it is present at all? I would expect to see similar concentrations of all kinds of chemicals in people's urine; nothing in the world is 'clean' when you measure down to levels of a few hundreds of parts per trillion.

 

[tupac chopra]

It is already very prevalent.
http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf

Can you show us any evidence that one part per billion or less of glyphosate in urine represents any cause whatsoever for concern?

Irrelevant. Some people will be exposed to more than others. Not everyone uses it in their garden as you do. You'll no doubt have more of it. Good luck with that.

WHO are concerned that it probably causes cancer in humans. You on the other hand have droned on a and on that it is safe. Yet you seem to be so embarrassed by the quality that of evidence that underpins your belief that you won't show us what it is.

 

[bilby]

Can you show us any evidence that one part per billion or less of glyphosate in urine represents any cause whatsoever for concern?

Irrelevant. Some people will be exposed to more than others. Not everyone uses it in their garden as you do. You'll no doubt have more of it. Good luck with that.

WHO are concerned that it probably causes cancer in humans. You on the other hand have droned on a and on that it is safe. Yet you seem to be so embarrassed by the quality that of evidence that underpins your belief that you won't show us what it is.

I have done so previously, and you have completely ignored it; I have no doubt that you will do so again. It is trivial to search Google Scholar for relevant papers; However if you lack the skills to read or interpret those papers, it is a futile exercise.

Still, for the sake of those reading this thread who might actually bother to read, consider, and adjust their beliefs based on evidence, here are a couple of papers to get you started (bolding mine):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715

Reviews on the safety of glyphosate and Roundup herbicide that have been conducted by several regulatory agencies and scientific institutions worldwide have concluded that there is no indication of any human health concern. Nevertheless, questions regarding their safety are periodically raised. This review was undertaken to produce a current and comprehensive safety evaluation and risk assessment for humans. It includes assessments of glyphosate, its major breakdown product [aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)], its Roundup formulations, and the predominant surfactant [polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA)] used in Roundup formulations worldwide. The studies evaluated in this review included those performed for regulatory purposes as well as published research reports. The oral absorption of glyphosate and AMPA is low, and both materials are eliminated essentially unmetabolized. Dermal penetration studies with Roundup showed very low absorption. Experimental evidence has shown that neither glyphosate nor AMPA bioaccumulates in any animal tissue. No significant toxicity occurred in acute, subchronic, and chronic studies. Direct ocular exposure to the concentrated Roundup formulation can result in transient irritation, while normal spray dilutions cause, at most, only minimal effects. The genotoxicity data for glyphosate and Roundup were assessed using a weight-of-evidence approach and standard evaluation criteria. There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic. Glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA were not teratogenic or developmentally toxic. There were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with glyphosate. Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or subchronic studies. Results from standard studies with these materials also failed to show any effects indicative of endocrine modulation. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. For purposes of risk assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA. Margins-of-exposure for chronic risk were calculated for each compound by dividing the lowest applicable NOAEL by worst-case estimates of chronic exposure. Acute risks were assessed by comparison of oral LD₅₀ values to estimated maximum acute human exposure. It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3435746?sid=21106407614353&uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide that is one of the most frequently applied pesticides in the world. Although there has been little consistent evidence of genotoxicity or carcinogenicity from in vitro and animal studies, a few epidemiologic reports have indicated potential health effects of glyphosate. We evaluated associations between glyphosate exposure and cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a prospective cohort study of 57,311 licensed pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina. Detailed information on pesticide use and other factors was obtained from a self-administered questionnaire completed at time of enrollment (1993-1997). Among private and commercial applicators, 75.5% reported having ever used glyphosate, of which > 97% were men. In this analysis, glyphosate exposure was defined as a) ever personally mixed or applied products containing glyphosate; b) cumulative lifetime days of use, or "cumulative exposure days" (years of use × days/year); and c) intensity-weighted cumulative exposure days (years of use × days/year × estimated intensity level). Poisson regression was used to estimate exposure-response relations between glyphosate and incidence of all cancers combined and 12 relatively common cancer subtypes. Glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall or with most of the cancer subtypes we studied. There was a suggested association with multiple myeloma incidence that should be followed up as more cases occur in the AHS. Given the widespread use of glyphosate, future analyses of the AHS will allow further examination of long-term health effects, including less common cancers.

So a study of 57,311 people showed no detectable increase in cancers; Some uncommon cancers, such as multiple myeloma, occurred in the study group, but with a sample of only 57,311 people, the size of the study was too small to tell if this was an effect of the herbicide, or just statistical 'noise'. (By comparison, the Seralini 'study' used 10 Sprague-Dawley rats per group. For the hard-of-thinking, I will point out that 10 is rather less than 57,311; and that rats are not as good an analogue for humans as humans are).

So despite your being the one with the burden of proof - which you have yet to make a convincing attempt to address - I have done some of your homework for you.

If you seriously want to know more, try http://scholar.google.com.

 

[ZiprHead]

Urine is pretty much safe to drink (there are nutters who actually do this for "health" reasons). It doesn't cause cancer. But fuck if I'm gonna drink a glass!

Patrick Moore kind of walked into that one. He should have been aware of today's "gotcha" journalism, social media and the public's inability to think critically.

Agreed.

 

[tupac chopra]

So a study of 57,311 people showed no detectable increase in cancers; Some uncommon cancers, such as multiple myeloma, occurred in the study group, but with a sample of only 57,311 people, the size of the study was too small to tell if this was an effect of the herbicide, or just statistical 'noise'.

Just as I predicted though. You give no actual details of anything.
Without doubt these studies are largely funded by companies like Monsanto and make no real attempt to see if there is danger. You need to look at actual studies and see if these studies are any good and who funded them. Otherwise its just crap.
For some reason you think that Monsanto are really trying to see if their products are safe. The fact that they hide the raw data should at least make you a bit wary.

(By comparison, the Seralini 'study' used 10 Sprague-Dawley rats per group. For the hard-of-thinking, I will point out that 10 is rather less than 57,311; and that rats are not as good an analogue for humans as humans are).

Monsanto used 10 Sprague-Dawley rats per group too. Yet you have no qualms about their study
Seralini merely repeated Monsantos' experiment but actually tried to see if the stuff was safe.

 

[bilby]

So a study of 57,311 people showed no detectable increase in cancers; Some uncommon cancers, such as multiple myeloma, occurred in the study group, but with a sample of only 57,311 people, the size of the study was too small to tell if this was an effect of the herbicide, or just statistical 'noise'.

Just as I predicted though. You give no actual details of anything.

Oh, I am so sorry. I wasn't aware that I needed to transcribe the entire contents of the Internet in order to satisfy your demand that I shoulder your burden of proof.

If you want the details, read the papers. I gave you links to them. Click on the links, and magically, the details will appear.

Without doubt these studies are largely funded by companies like Monsanto

Oh, what a shame. The PERFECT opportunity for you to show how you are SO MUCH BETTER than you accuse me of being, by providing, you know, detail.

And you blew it.

No detail; No citation; No attempt to demonstrate anything; Just an empty assertion that Monsanto paid for these studies.

Oh, wait - not even that - No, just an empty assertion that "companies like Monsanto" "largely funded" these studies.

If you don't even have the ticker to make an outright accusation, I guess it is no shock to anyone that you don't back it up with anything.

and make no real attempt to see if there is danger. You need to look at actual studies and see if these studies are any good and who funded them.

So the two papers I linked and quoted above are not 'actual studies'? Is this the 'No true studies' fallacy?

Coming from someone who repeatedly cites Gilles-Eric Séralini and Stephanie Seneff, that is beyond ironic.

Otherwise its just crap

Sure. Sure it is. I am certain that everyone reading this agrees with you, and that none of them look at the vast gulf between the standards you uphold, and those you demand of others, and think "This guy hasn't got a clue".

 

[tupac chopra]

No detail; No citation; No attempt to demonstrate anything; Just an empty assertion that Monsanto paid for these studies.

Oh, wait - not even that - No, just an empty assertion that "companies like Monsanto" "largely funded" these studies.

You clearly didn't know that Monsanto is the largest funder in this area.
Monsanto is most common funder of GMO research

Yet, as I predicted you throw out a whole lot of information with no detail and assume it's all ok . Thats naive.

Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products

Abstract
Since the first commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops in 1994, the rapidly expanding market of genetically modified seeds has given rise to a multibillion dollar industry. This fast growth, fueled by high expectations towards this new commercial technology and shareholder trust in the involved industry, has provided strong incentives for further research and development of new genetically modified plant varieties. Considering, however, the high financial stakes involved, concerns are raised over the influence that conflicts of interest may place upon articles published in peer-reviewed journals that report on health risks or nutritional value of genetically modified food products. In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light (p = 0.005). While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results (p = 0.631), a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome (p < 0.001). We discuss these results by comparing them to similar studies on conflicts of interest in other areas, such as biomedical sciences, and hypothesize on dynamics that may help explain such connections.

 

[bilby]

No detail; No citation; No attempt to demonstrate anything; Just an empty assertion that Monsanto paid for these studies.

Oh, wait - not even that - No, just an empty assertion that "companies like Monsanto" "largely funded" these studies.

You clearly didn't know that Monsanto is the largest funder in this area.
Monsanto is most common funder of GMO research

Yet, as I predicted you throw out a whole lot of information with no detail and assume it's all ok . Thats naive.

You clearly don't know a damn thing about what I do or don't know.

And as I predicted, no amount of information will sway you from your established belief. Your opposition to Roundup, Monsanto, and GMOs is a faith based position; It isn't about knowledge, it is about tribal identity; It is, in a very real sense, who you are.

You can have the last word; I am comfortable that no innocent third-party will stumble upon this thread and leave with the false impression that you have a viable case to make against the use of Roundup.

Go for your life - preach your sermon on the evils of biotechnology, and of man meddling in things you don't want to understand.

Nobody cares any more.

 

[tupac chopra]

You clearly didn't know that Monsanto is the largest funder in this area.
Monsanto is most common funder of GMO research

Yet, as I predicted you throw out a whole lot of information with no detail and assume it's all ok . Thats naive.

You clearly don't know a damn thing about what I do or don't know.

Your responses are very predictable actually.

And as I predicted, no amount of information will sway you from your established belief. Your opposition to Roundup, Monsanto, and GMOs is a faith based position; It isn't about knowledge, it is about tribal identity; It is, in a very real sense, who you are.

Lame, personal attack noted

You can have the last word; I am comfortable that no innocent third-party will stumble upon this thread and leave with the false impression that you have a viable case to make against the use of Roundup.

Ok..WHO says it probably causes cancer...but you think it's safe. I'm sure people will listen to some anonymous guy on the internet rather than WHO.

Nobody cares any more

Hmmmm...just how long have you believed you speak for everyone? I think there is a word for that

 

[tupac chopra]

Monsanto knew of glyphosate / cancer link 35 years ago

Speaking for GM-Free Cymru, Dr Brian John says: "The evidence shows that by 1981 both Monsanto and the EPA were aware of malignant tumours and pre-cancerous conditions in the test animals which were fed small doses of glyphosate in the secret feeding experiments. Although concerns were expressed at the time by EPA committees, these concerns were later suppressed under the weight of conflicting evidence brought forward by Monsanto, some of it involving the inappropriate use of historical control data of dubious quality. None of these studies is available for independent examination (14). That is a scandal in itself. There has been a protracted and cynical cover-up in this matter (15). Glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen", as now confirmed by the WHO Working Group, and no matter what protestations may now come from Monsanto and the EPA, they have been fully aware of its potential to cause cancer for at least 35 years. If they had acted in a precautionary fashion back then, instead of turning a blind eye to scientific malpractice (16), glyphosate would never have been licensed, and thousands of lives might have been saved."
Retired Academic Pathologist Dr Stanley Ewen says: "Glyphosate has been implicated in human carcinogenesis by IARC and it is remarkable that, as early as 1981, glyphosate was noted to be associated with pre neoplastic changes in experimental mice. This finding was never revealed by the regulatory process and one might therefore expect to see human malignancy increasing on the record in the ensuing years. John Little (personal communication) has demonstrated an unexpected and alarming 56% upsurge in malignancy in England in those under 65 in the past 10 years.

 

[Perspicuo]

Actually, I believe Roundup is fatal.

The public doesn't need to worry about Roundup unless it is delivered to them in their food. So these websites are relevant.

It is already very prevalent.
http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf

Prestigious organization, publication or university? Meta-analysis? Effect sizes? Anything?

Therefore,
Invalid.

 

[Perspicuo]

Monsanto knew of glyphosate / cancer link 35 years ago

Link from pressure group....


Let's agree we already know there are pressure groups telling us about this subject (and homeopathy, and quantum consciousness, and creationism...).

Can we now get over that and select information from reputable sources? Thank you.

 

[tupac chopra]

Monsanto knew of glyphosate / cancer link 35 years ago

Link from pressure group....


Let's agree we already know there are pressure groups telling us about this subject (and homeopathy, and quantum consciousness, and creationism...).
Can we now get over that and select information from reputable sources? Thank you.

If you want to argue it's not reputable then go for it.
Monsanto and the EPA have some explaining to do.

There is a coverup ...though you seem quite happy that Monsanto can hide data and studies that quite possibly showed harm

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just as I predicted though. You give no actual details of anything.
Without doubt these studies are largely funded by companies like Monsanto and make no real attempt to see if there is danger. You need to look at actual studies and see if these studies are any good and who funded them. Otherwise its just crap.

Quick question. This stuff is in the general food supply which would imply that if it is dangerous, that we'd see a widespread increase in cancer across the nation. Have we? Have we seen children and infants (who'd be extraordinarily susceptible) have a notable increase of disease and cancer? Stuff has been in the system from a while now. We should be seeing the effects, if there is a notable danger.

 

[tupac chopra]

Just as I predicted though. You give no actual details of anything.
Without doubt these studies are largely funded by companies like Monsanto and make no real attempt to see if there is danger. You need to look at actual studies and see if these studies are any good and who funded them. Otherwise its just crap.

Quick question. This stuff is in the general food supply which would imply that if it is dangerous, that we'd see a widespread increase in cancer across the nation. Have we? Have we seen children and infants (who'd be extraordinarily susceptible) have a notable increase of disease and cancer? Stuff has been in the system from a while now. We should be seeing the effects, if there is a notable danger.

Excellent question. And I don't know nor do I necessarily trust statistics. According to the last link I posted there are some signs of this.

Retired Academic Pathologist Dr Stanley Ewen says: "Glyphosate has been implicated in human carcinogenesis by IARC and it is remarkable that, as early as 1981, glyphosate was noted to be associated with pre neoplastic changes in experimental mice. This finding was never revealed by the regulatory process and one might therefore expect to see human malignancy increasing on the record in the ensuing years. John Little (personal communication) has demonstrated an unexpected and alarming 56% upsurge in malignancy in England in those under 65 in the past 10 years.

I suspect I could go to a pro GMO site and see "evidence" that its not so and probably go to an anti GMO site and see the opposite "evidence"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Quick question. This stuff is in the general food supply which would imply that if it is dangerous, that we'd see a widespread increase in cancer across the nation. Have we? Have we seen children and infants (who'd be extraordinarily susceptible) have a notable increase of disease and cancer? Stuff has been in the system from a while now. We should be seeing the effects, if there is a notable danger.

Excellent question. And I don't know nor do I necessarily trust statistics.

See, that is a problem for me.

Your posts pretty much read like people who say fluoridation kills people, and rely on posting snippets from studies that allegedly show that it causes brain injury, yet they can't actually demonstrate a real world effect. You are trying to say this stuff is dangerous, yet when asked whether it actually has you respond you "don't know", but more importantly, that you wouldn't "trust statistics" either, which is a typical conspiracy theory method of dodging the test of falsifiability. IE, even if the statistics don't demonstrate your position, you will claim you don't trust the statistics, making it both impossible to prove or disprove your claim.

If this stuff was problematic, we should be seeing problems in children who'd be more susceptible to such poisons. It has been in the food chain long enough, yet you can't show any evidence of disease or cancer upticks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Excellent question. And I don't know nor do I necessarily trust statistics. According to the last link I posted there are some signs of this.

In other words "My mind is made up, don't bother me with the truth".

That's what "I don't trust statistics" normally translates as.

 

[fromderinside]

Excellent question. And I don't know nor do I necessarily trust statistics. According to the last link I posted there are some signs of this.

In other words "My mind is made up, don't bother me with the truth".

That's what "I don't trust statistics" normally translates as.

Well if the deciders don't have a dog in the fight why should I be concerned since I know that they do very good research and they are not the dogs of such as Monsanto.

 

[Perspicuo]

Link from pressure group....


Let's agree we already know there are pressure groups telling us about this subject (and homeopathy, and quantum consciousness, and creationism...).
Can we now get over that and select information from reputable sources? Thank you.

If you want to argue it's not reputable then go for it.
Monsanto and the EPA have some explaining to do.

There is a coverup ...though you seem quite happy that Monsanto can hide data and studies that quite possibly showed harm

I have ZERO intention of arguing reputability.

Reputation proceeds. I already gave info from VERY reputable sources, one from University of California. My jack trumps your 9. There's no discussing.

I never believe things through faith. So if you don't mind me sayin', I can see you're out of aces, For a taste of your whiskey, I'll give you some advice...

 

[arkirk]

If you want to argue it's not reputable then go for it.
Monsanto and the EPA have some explaining to do.

There is a coverup ...though you seem quite happy that Monsanto can hide data and studies that quite possibly showed harm

I have ZERO intention of arguing reputability.

Reputation proceeds. I already gave info from VERY reputable sources, one from University of California. My jack trumps your 9. There's no discussing.

I never believe things through faith. So if you don't mind me sayin', I can see you're out of aces, For a taste of your whiskey, I'll give you some advice...

Perspicuo: I think you are missing the point. These products are persistent in our environment. They don't have to be poisonous to you personally to kill the environment they are polluting and indirectly kill you. For instance, we are seeing a massive decrease in Monarch butterflies. Now they can eat roundup maybe but it kills milkweed...their food in their entire range and they are dying off. While we may not need Monarch butterflies, they are just one species being decimated by this herbicide. It is the overall condition this corporation produces that is the problem, not one single herbicide or other product. It is a matter of around 19,000 Indian farmers' suicides this year. It does not kill directly but Monsanto kills people. Roundup is part of this toxic formula.