Tampons, sterile cotton, sanitary pads contaminated with glyphosate - study

[tupac chopra]

Fortunately the authorities are onto this. Including the German Institute for Risk assessment.
The BfR has finalised its draft report for the re-evaluation of glyphosate

Unfortunately the report seems lacking.
The Glyphosate Renewal
Assessment Report
An Analysis of Gaps and Deficiencies
Dr. Peter Clausing

Conclusions
The current analysis demonstrated omissions and distortion of facts in the toxicology part of
the draft RAR that was submitted to the EFSA. The BfR which was in charge of this part of the RAR has full responsibility for these gaps and deficiencies. The identified neglect of
scientific publications, failure to apply state-of-the-art statistical methods to regulatory studies and distortion of facts in Volume 1 of the RAR (as compared to Volume 3, Annex B.6) fall altogether into areas related to the assessment of carcinogenicity. This weakening of
evidence by three different processes, i.e. neglect of studies, failure of analysis and distortion of facts, nourishes the suspicion that this was done on purpose.
In addition examples are provided that the opportunity for public comments of the RAR
merely represents an alibi event, because despite of the facts provided during the
commenting phase no change of assessment at all could be identified in the analyzed parts
of the RAR.
This Renewal Assessment Report needs to be subjected to a complete and thorough reanalysis by a group of truly impartial experts before a decision can be made about the
approval or non-approval of the glyphosate in the European Union.

 

[tupac chopra]

There is a WHO advisory panel that may review the recent classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic.
Unfortunately there seem to be some conflicts of interest.
Groups Urge WHO to Set Safety Standards for Herbicide Glyphosate it Classified as Carcinogenic

Groups Urge WHO to Set Safety Standards for Herbicide Glyphosate it Classified as Carcinogenic
They also call for investigation into apparent conflicts of interest on a WHO panel reviewing widely used herbicide

WASHINGTON (June 16, 2015) – A coalition of groups are urging the World Health Organization to swiftly set new safety standards for the world’s most widely used herbicide—glyphosate, often sold as “Roundup” – after a WHO cancer-evaluating arm recently classified it as a probable human carcinogen.

In a letter to the WHO, the coalition also raised concerns about conflicts of interest on an expert advisory panel that may review the cancer classification that could cloud its review. Researching public documents, the groups found three of eight panel members with financial and professional ties to the chemical industry, including Monsanto, the largest producer of glyphosate.

 

[bilby]

Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure

Abstract

Conclusion
Our results suggest that chronic exposure to a GBH in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system at an ultra-low, environmental dose can result in liver and kidney damage with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations.

Looking forward to further discussion.

I'll wait for someones to reproduce this before giving a damn.

(And: Environment health" has an impact factor < 3.)

This seems relevant.

Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka?

...

Why? Are women in the habit of flushing highly mineralised water over their sanitary products and then drinking the resulting solution?

Because if they are not, it cannot possibly be relevant.

Whether thresholds are correct is relevant and so is absorption. Please refer to previous post.

Why are these things relevant? How do you know that they are?

There is no reason (other perhaps than to a homeopath) why parts per Billion (with a 'B') of a chemical that is not known to cause ill effects in humans in even quite large doses, found on a material intended to be placed outside the skin, should cause any harm of any kind.

The very idea that it might is extraordinary, and as such requires more than just innuendo from a powerful lobby with a history of deceptive and misleading practices to be even considered.

If Glyphosate was so toxic that such tiny amounts applied EXTERNALLY could cause health problems, then the streets would be littered with corpses - Glyphosate is endemic in our environment, and yet there are no reliable reports of deaths or serious injuries from its effects, other than in massive doses taken as part of suicide attempts - indeed, many such attempts have failed, as the materials in question are not sufficiently toxic to kill. In the case of suicide attempts, it has been found that the surfactants used in commercial formulations (essentially these are detergent molecules similar to those in many household cleaning products) are the most toxic element of the formulation, and the Glyphosate doesn't kill anyone because they die of surfactant poisoning before it can.

Accidental ingestion of glyphosate formulations is generally associated with only mild, transient, gastrointestinal features. Most reported cases have followed the deliberate ingestion of the concentrated formulation of Roundup (The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.) (41% glyphosate as the IPA salt and 15% POEA). There is a reasonable correlation between the amount ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Advancing age is also associated with a less favourable prognosis. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults.

(Source.)

Everything is toxic in large enough doses. For Glyphosate to be toxic, you need a VERY large dose - it is considerably less toxic, weight for weight, than vinegar. If a few parts per Billion of acetic acid were detected on cotton products, would that be cause for alarm? Because if it isn't then nor should a few PPB of Glyphosate.

As I said before, it is impressive that they are able to detect such small traces. The idea that they might be harmful is laughable. To reach a toxic dose equivalent to 85mL of 41% Glyphosate solution from cotton products with 17 PPB of Glyphosate, you would need to eat over 2,000 metric tonnes of cotton.

Placing a few grams of cotton close to your skin is really not going to do anything at all.

 

[tupac chopra]

If Glyphosate was so toxic that such tiny amounts applied EXTERNALLY could cause health problems, then the streets would be littered with corpses - .

Not all health problems result in the streets being littered with corpses.

 

[bilby]

If Glyphosate was so toxic that such tiny amounts applied EXTERNALLY could cause health problems, then the streets would be littered with corpses - .

Not all health problems result in the streets being littered with corpses.

This one doesn't even result in people feeling mildly unwell; or in doctors detecting any problems at all in patients! This epidemic of exposure to very low levels of Glyphosate is resulting in a heath problem that is exactly as severe in its effects as NOTHING AT ALL!!

If you find that scary, I pity you.

Still, if you accidentally eat two thousand tonnes of tampons, I suggest you seek medical assistance.

 

[tupac chopra]

Everything is toxic in large enough doses. For Glyphosate to be toxic, you need a VERY large dose - .

Do you have any scientific studies to support that?
This seems to contradict you.

Conclusion
Our results suggest that chronic exposure to a GBH in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system at an ultra-low, environmental dose can result in liver and kidney damage with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations.

 

[bilby]

Do you have any scientific studies to support that?

What, like the PubMed study I linked to IN THE VERY POST OF MINE YOU ARE QUOTING?

No. No, I don't have any studies like that one, because apparently they are FUCKING INVISIBLE.

This is like arguing with a fucking Scientologist. I'm out - everyone reading the thread can see the level of intellectual honesty you are bringing to this discussion and decide for themselves whether to accept your results, given your one-eyed methodology.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Moscow bashing western products. They have a record of using trumped-up "safety" reasons for banning companies they don't like.

 

[Nexus]

Do you have any scientific studies to support that?

What, like the PubMed study I linked to IN THE VERY POST OF MINE YOU ARE QUOTING?

Your quoted study didn't show that long term exposure to minute glyphosate is safe. It simply said short term minute expose wouldn't cause serious acute complications. Just because you have to ingest large quantities of something to kill yourself doesn't mean its safe long term in trace amounts. Do you think tobacco is safe since it takes most people decades of use to even have a chance at developing cancer?

 

[tupac chopra]

Do you have any scientific studies to support that?

What, like the PubMed study I linked to IN THE VERY POST OF MINE YOU ARE QUOTING?

.

That is an abstract. Do you have the study?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure

Abstract

Conclusion
Our results suggest that chronic exposure to a GBH in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system at an ultra-low, environmental dose can result in liver and kidney damage with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations.

Looking forward to further discussion.

I'll wait for someones to reproduce this before giving a damn.

(And: Environment health" has an impact factor < 3.)

This seems relevant.

Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka?

...

Why? Are women in the habit of flushing highly mineralised water over their sanitary products and then drinking the resulting solution?

Because if they are not, it cannot possibly be relevant.

Whether thresholds are correct is relevant and so is absorption. Please refer to previous post.

Why are these things relevant? How do you know that they are?

They are relevant because this is the political forum. We can discuss human concerns here and we can mix in science as it informs us to make the right policy decisions.

There is no reason (other perhaps than to a homeopath) why parts per Billion (with a 'B') of a chemical that is not known to cause ill effects in humans in even quite large doses, found on a material intended to be placed outside the skin, should cause any harm of any kind.

Outside some skin but inside others.

The very idea that it might is extraordinary, and as such requires more than just innuendo from a powerful lobby with a history of deceptive and misleading practices to be even considered.

There isn't a lobby in this thread. We are educated people discussing things of interest because of concern.

If Glyphosate was so toxic that such tiny amounts applied EXTERNALLY could cause health problems, then the streets would be littered with corpses - Glyphosate is endemic in our environment, and yet there are no reliable reports of deaths or serious injuries from its effects, other than in massive doses taken as part of suicide attempts - indeed, many such attempts have failed, as the materials in question are not sufficiently toxic to kill. In the case of suicide attempts, it has been found that the surfactants used in commercial formulations (essentially these are detergent molecules similar to those in many household cleaning products) are the most toxic element of the formulation, and the Glyphosate doesn't kill anyone because they die of surfactant poisoning before it can.

Accidental ingestion of glyphosate formulations is generally associated with only mild, transient, gastrointestinal features. Most reported cases have followed the deliberate ingestion of the concentrated formulation of Roundup (The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.) (41% glyphosate as the IPA salt and 15% POEA). There is a reasonable correlation between the amount ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Advancing age is also associated with a less favourable prognosis. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults.

(Source.)

Everything is toxic in large enough doses. For Glyphosate to be toxic, you need a VERY large dose - it is considerably less toxic, weight for weight, than vinegar. If a few parts per Billion of acetic acid were detected on cotton products, would that be cause for alarm? Because if it isn't then nor should a few PPB of Glyphosate.

As I said before, it is impressive that they are able to detect such small traces. The idea that they might be harmful is laughable. To reach a toxic dose equivalent to 85mL of 41% Glyphosate solution from cotton products with 17 PPB of Glyphosate, you would need to eat over 2,000 metric tonnes of cotton.

Placing a few grams of cotton close to your skin is really not going to do anything at all.

Why are you focusing on a single toxic dose likely to cause death instead of ultra-low doses over a long period of time as illustrated in studies?

 

[barbos]

After that infamous french study I treat all GM&glyphosate studies as most likely trash science.
60 ppb is 60 milligrams per tonne.

 

[Juma]

They are relevant because this is the political forum. We can discuss human concerns here and we can mix in science as it informs us to make the right policy decisions.

There isn't a lobby in this thread. We are educated people discussing things of interest because of concern.

Obviously not educated enough.

Here is an articke explaining why WHO categorized it "possibly cancerogenic".
And why it is wrong to depend on single studies:
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/03/glyphosate-and-cancer-what-does-the-data-say/

 

[barbos]

What is a weight of a tampon? 10 grams maybe?
Lets assume you weigh 70kg and eat tampons daily and absorb all the glyphosate in it
that would give you 13e-9*10g/70kg = 1.85714285714286e-09 grams per kilogram of glyphosate.
That's 1.8 nanogram per kilogram of weight. This is roughly half of 4 nanograms/kg/day dose they were giving these poor rats in their study.
You have to eat these tampons twice a day and hope that all the stuff in it get absorbed to get any chance of cancer.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What is a weight of a tampon? 10 grams maybe?
Lets assume you weigh 70kg and eat tampons daily and absorb all the glyphosate in it
that would give you 13e-9*10g/70kg = 1.85714285714286e-09 grams per kilogram of glyphosate.
That's 1.8 nanogram per kilogram of weight. This is roughly half of 4 nanograms/kg/day dose they were giving these poor rats in their study.
You have to eat these tampons twice a day and hope that all the stuff in it get absorbed to get any chance of cancer.

Finally, someone gives some good calculations that could be used to estimate an upper bound on absorption.

Some questions.
(1) is that study actually about cancer?
(2) 13e-9 or 17e-9?
(3) why eat the tampons twice a day?
(4) what is the EPA cutoff?
(5) if we have this stuff all around us (food, clothing, water, tampons, etc) as someone claimed, then couldn't the level be at an unacceptable level? so tampons could be just a small part of a problem, no?

 

[Deepak]

(3) why eat the tampons twice a day?

You ever try to eat two in one sitting?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Proof that Monsanto wants to commit gendercide!

(I'm being sarcastic).

 

[Will Wiley]

Experts question glyphosate safety finding

24 September 2015 12:30 BST
Experts investigating UN scientists’ dispute over whether the world’s most widely used herbicide is carcinogenic appear to have backed the group arguing that it is.

The findings, published last week, could prove important in the EU, where regulators are currently considering the same question.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published on 29 June a study concluding that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence from animal tests.

But another WHO body, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), did not reach the same conclusion when it last evaluated glyphosate in 2011.

The WHO set up a taskforce to investigate this difference of opinion. The taskforce has recommended that the JMPR undertake a full re-evaluation of glyphosate and review its internal guidelines on the criteria for data inclusion or exclusion.

The taskforce found that IARC and JMPR had used “significantly different” databases and that “many studies, mainly from the published peer reviewed scientific literature", that had not been evaluated by JMPR were available to IARC.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is reviewing glyphosate’s EU licence based on a risk assessment carried out by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). It is likely to publish its findings in November. Like JMPR, BfR concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic.

Franziska Achterberg of Greenpeace said BfR drew on the JMPR’s research and took a similar approach to data selection.

The fact that the taskforce has declared the JMPR report obsolete takes away one of the most used arguments in favour of the position that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, she added.

EFSA says it will take the IARC study into account in its assessment.

The JMPR report which, naturally has been used to support the claim that glyphosate is safe, is now considered obsolete by experts.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They are relevant because this is the political forum. We can discuss human concerns here and we can mix in science as it informs us to make the right policy decisions.


There isn't a lobby in this thread. We are educated people discussing things of interest because of concern.

Obviously not educated enough.

Here is an articke explaining why WHO categorized it "possibly cancerogenic".
And why it is wrong to depend on single studies:
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/03/glyphosate-and-cancer-what-does-the-data-say/

(1) Is it being carcinogenic relevant to what I wrote? I recommend reading back to the post you had originally responded to.
(2) The article from weedcontrolfreaks.com does not explain why WHO rated it probably carcinogenic. The article is written by a person who is taking some data from a meta-analysis that Monsanto did in 2012. There are other studies from past 2011 that can be included. It isn't clear if Monsanto included all possible studies prior to 2012 either. WHO's finding is recent. See post above from Will Wiley.
(3) None of this seems to rely on a single study.
(4) The article is not peer-reviewed and contains some guesswork.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

(3) why eat the tampons twice a day?

You ever try to eat two in one sitting?

I'd like to know if there is an underlying assumption of no glyphosate retention being assumed and if that is reasonable. I think researchers may model these things as having "half-lifes."