Slashdot Mirror
WHO Report Links Weed Killer Ingredient To Cancer Risk
An anonymous reader sends word that a common weed killer may cause cancer according to the World Health Organization. "The world's most widely used weed killer can 'probably' cause cancer, the World Health Organization said on Friday. The WHO's cancer arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, said glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides, was 'classified as probably carcinogenic to humans.' It also said there was 'limited evidence' that glyphosate was carcinogenic in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma." Unsurprisingly, Monsanto, Roundup's manufacturer disagrees saying there is no evidence to support the findings and calls on WHO to hold a meeting to explain their conclusions.
Everything 'probably' can cause cancer.
Glyphosate has been off patent for years. It is a simple chemical that is cheap to make which is why it's in almost all herbicides now from every manufacturer under the sun.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Monsanto is evil.
Their herbicide is cancer causing.
Monsanto denies it.
And they probably think smoking cigarettes is beneficial to your health. Or maybe they are just greedy assholes who want money at the destruction of nature and everyone's health.
I can't be the only person who's sick and tired of celebrities pretending they know the first thing about science. Musicians should stick to playing music. Stop trying to save the world! Why does a band even have a "cancer arm"?
Consuming poison can kill you. WHO knew?
I had an Australian Shepherd that had to be put down due to getting eaten by lymph cancer at a relatively young age. After doing some research I'm fairly certain that it was due to my ex spraying copious amounts of Roundup over pavers on which the dog liked to lay/sun on to keep grass from growing from the spaces in between the pavers.
After talking to a couple of vets and researching on the intertubez there appears to be more than a casual connection between canine cancers and liberal use of the product in areas in which they live and play.
If you have pets or children DO NOT spray this poison in their play areas!
If you're that OCD about a few weeds, pluck them rather than turning your yard into a toxic dump...
Am I the only one reading the headline as WHO releasing a report linking the killer ingredient in weed, THC, to cancer?
"Unsurprisingly, Monsanto, Roundup's manufacturer disagrees saying there is no evidence to support the findings and calls on WHO to hold a meeting to explain their conclusions."
Seems like a reasonable request to me. "Your data is different from ours, explain your results."
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Saying it can "probably" cause cancer is pretty irresponsible. Does it, or doesn't it?
...one of the more frightening disasters of our time.
http://goo.gl/umm3MW
No bees, no food.
Tom Geller
Link to the actual fucking article:
http://www.thelancet.com/journ...
And to NBC, grow some balls and stop rolling over for blowjobs from advertisers. Monsanto is one of the largest agribusinesses in the world. its products are in everyones home, like it or not, in some form or another. For you to blatantly ignore a link to the article and dilute the fucking statement to a "probably" is nothing short of treasonous. Do your god damn job and stop worrying about the trolls.
Good people go to bed earlier.
wherein we find out that Monsanto has known it all along.
Probably they were hoping no one would find out until they' ready to market GMO humans that are resistant to it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you have pets or children DO NOT spray this poison in their play areas!
And next week I suspect you will be telling us not to use insecticide sprays in the kitchen when a bug is spotted? :-)
Actually had to have a conversation with grandma about that. Fortunately it was very easy to convince her to go for the bleach spray instead, look grandma you'll be getting the bugs and the germs.
Just deregulate pesticides and cancer will disappear, because invisible hand.
For a second there I thought I read "Google Roundup Ready" !!!!
For when you want to make those digital crab weeds go away!
Uhh, did you even bother READING the article you linked?
"The Working Group classified glyphosate as âoeprobably carcinogenic to humansâ (Group 2A)."
The "Working Group" is:
"In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate"
NBC had nothing to do with the word "probably". The group of EXPERTS that met on the topic did.
Further more, if you actually read the article, and more importantly, the scientific studies they cite, you would probably realize a couple of things:
1) The concern is not for end consumers or even joe-schmoe gardener, it's for factory and field workers that are exposed to higher concentrations in greater volume than anything joe-schmoe would ever see.
2) Some of the studies are a bit tenuous. Sure, if you put a rat on an LD50-1 diet of glyphosate for their whole life, freaky things are going to happen.
Don't get me wrong, Monsanto is the fsking devil, just not for their work on glyphosate. Their business processes, the way they exploit farmers, their enforcement of IP, etc... is more than enough to warrant the hate that they deserve. But glyphosate, even with the risks we know about it, is so much better than the alternatives.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Read the article and weep. Of course, there's no need to weep for Monsanto, who are slaughtering their way to the bank.
If you search all possible cancers for a connection with some chemical (e.g. sucrose) you will come up with several positives with a 95% confidence. Which is why you have to use statistical tests that account for all of the different targets.
Thus, at the very least the WHO needs to explain the stats rather than just the raw "probably causes cancer."
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I mean most herbicides specifically warn you not to spray where your pets roam, but in any case you would not spray your kitchen counter with roundup either, would you?
Who? Who? Are you a fucking owl?
Glyphosate causes cell cycle dysfunction which can result in cancer: Marc et al 2002, 2003. Of course cancer is not the only health risk: The Lethal Dangers of “Roundup” Made by Monsanto
Glyphosate was used by the US as a modern Agent Orange in Colombia: wikipedia
90-day, single generation study in rats vs 45-yr multi-generational in humans in the real world
In Monsanto's response, they point out that coffee, pickled vegetables, and cell phones, among other things not popularly considered cancer risks, are the in same WHO category. But the media and anti-Monsanto crowd are going to eat this right up regardless, right?
I had to read to differentiate
WHO reportS Weed: Killer Ingredient To cancer Risk
OR
WHO reportS Weed Killer Ingredient To cancer Risk
MMMMMM GMO!!!! Monsanto, they've been sued for 100's of BILLIONS with a B. No arrests, typical, what a scam.
They implement their toxic chemicals gnome inside GMO so their toxic chemical does not kill the GMO plant. And it's healthy...yeah, about that....
Experts reviewing the assessment conclude that there is no evidence for increased alarm.
http://www.sciencemediacentre....
Dr Oliver Jones, Senior Lecturer in Analytical Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, said:
"The study itself says that for all compounds, the evidence of human carcinogenicity was limited or considered inadequate."
...
"People might be interested to know that there are over 70 other things IARC also classifies as 'probably carcinogenic', including night shifts."
...
"While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence this does seem to me to be a precautionary rather than a reactionary change."
Prof Alan Boobis, Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology at Imperial College London, said:
"The UK Committee on Carcinogenicity has evaluated possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer on several occasions. It has found little evidence for such a link. At most, the evidence was inconsistent and was considered insufficient to call for regulatory action.
"These conclusions of IARC are important and should be taken into account when evaluating these pesticides, but that must also take into account how the pesticides are used in the real world. In my view this report is not a cause for undue alarm."
Prof Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology at Queen Mary University of London, said:
"The weight of evidence is against carcinogenicity"
...
"This assessment has looked at a group of 43 diseases lumped into one category, multiple pesticides with very different chemistry, and has failed to include critical data. There is nothing here to suggest that the variety of genetic changes in these diseases could be caused by these pesticides. This appears to be a rather selective review."
Prof David Coggon, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Southampton, said:
"Thus, when evaluating the epidemiological evidence, one is looking for a consistent pattern of increased risk for one or more tumour types, which is unlikely to be explained by biases (often unavoidable) in the study methods. It is clear from the summary table in the Lancet report that clear and consistent evidence of this type was not found for any of the pesticides that were considered"
...
"In contrast, studies in laboratory animals were judged to show clear evidence of carcinogenicity for four of the five compounds."
...
"The IARC report does not raise immediate alarms. However, I would expect regulatory authorities around the world to take note of this new evaluation, and to consider whether it indicates a need to review their risk assessments for any of the pesticides that they currently approve."
Prof Tony Dayan, Emeritus Toxicologist, said:
"In the present report the classification of glyphosate and malathion as carrying a Class IIA risk of causing cancer in humans reflects a variety of laboratory results with a small number of studies in man of varied quality and mixed conclusions. Detailed analysis of the nature and quality of the evidence overall does not support such a high level classification, which at the most should be Class IIB."
ONE expert made a very short remark saying that "study says glyphosate carcinogenic now" so gardeners should be careful when using pesticides.
Prof Andreas Kortenkamp, Professor in Human Toxicology at Brunel University London, said:
"IARC have carefully assessed new evidence about the cancer hazards of pesticides, and have now classified 5 pesticides as either 'probably' or 'possibly' carcinogenic to humans. The authorities in th
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
how we continue to buy into the propoganda of the great american lawn and chem agriculture. People shouldn't have to be convinced that chemicals in their living space and food chain are a bad idea. It should be a gut reaction and common sense.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf
A government body has finally caught up to .... NO SHIT!!!
Just saying.. but Weed Killer sounds like it'd be a pretty cool name for a rapper.
not emphasize enough:
Before roundup-ready plants who are immune against the plant killing effects of roundup were available, with spraying herbicides to reduce pressure from weeds, the cultured plants needed to be shielded from getting in touch with the herbicide.
Now,with roundup-ready plants, shielding is no longer necessary and the cultured plants get the full load of herbicide.
The aspect of GMO-modified plants with their "foreign" genes is the usually perceived bad thing about GMO.
The secondary effect of much higher exposure in plants to herbicide when consumed which I think is much more damaging to our health is undervalued in communications around GMO effects.
i'm screwed. i put that sh!t on everything. makes for a beautiful lawn and garden!
Scott
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/real-reason-for-toxic-wheat-its-not-gluten/
When farmers want to make a quick buck by spraying glyphosphate on the crops to get them to produce a little more and to allow them to store it longer, there is a problem. Especially when the FDA and USDA will look the other way because either they know people who benefit, they have received bribes, or they want the crops to keep making it to market and not upset the farmers.
I have used that stuff (the ground clearing grade at Home depot) to spray a field of weeds with a full MSA respirator, white painter's suit, goggles and gloves. That stuff is nasty. you always wind up breathing some in the air and you can feel a lump in the throat. It is really nasty stuff and that is just common sense.
I see my neighbors with no protection for the face, eyes or hands spraying that freely. bat shit crazy....
is that Monsanto and the GOVT have been working together for decades. I'm suprised that the WHO is going after them, because that would imply a breakdown in their agreements. if not, it's extremely bizarre. logically speaking,
While Monsanto had to back off of Roundup resistant GMO wheat, it doesn't mean farmers don't use it on their crops. If it is sprayed on just before harvest, the plants seem to recognize they are dying so they pump all they have into the seed heads. Yield is increased. Since it is done so close to harvest, the glyphosate stays on the wheat kernels and is now in your bread. BR> This would be ok if glyphosate was biologically destroyed as Monsanto claims. Unfortunately it appears to accumulate in the human body. It even shows up in mother's breast milk: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/bl... This article shows a possible mechanism for causing mammary tumors: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/bl... If those don't give you pause for thought, here is a URL that lists multiple abstracts and articles about the effects of glyphosate: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/to... I avoid glyphosate as much as possible, which is really hard to do.
Glyphosate is like the Betel Nut of herbicides, it is actually very nasty even if it is not directly toxic, because it takes a while before you realise the damage it has done and by then it is a bit late to do anything about it.
Not surprising that it is a cancer risk given the way it can disrupt hormonal and immune functions.
I seem to recall reading a post a while back where farmers in those areas would get cancer from their long term use of glyphosate.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
It makes no sense to spray glyphosate at the end of growing season, when the crops are nearing harvest. It is usually applied in the spring, when weeds are a few inches tall. By harvest time, only traces will remain.
I was told the reason you spray weed killer on wheat crops at the end of harvest is to create a more consistent crop. Some plants will rush to produce as many healthy seeds as possible if they sense they are dying so that the next generation will succeed. This means that if you spray it on a crop of wheat that is nearly ready for harvest, you will have more plants ready for harvest at the same time (rather than all plants varying slightly in the state of readiness).
If you need proof that it's common practice to spray round-up before harvest, this is directly from the roundup website:
"WHEAT
Registered products Roundup WeatherMAX® Roundup Transorb® HC
Crop Staging
Apply when the crop has 30% or less moisture content – the hard dough
stage. At this stage, a thumbnail impression will remain on the kernel.
This stage is typically 3 to 5 days before you would normally swath."
Source: http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20Staging%20Guide.pdf
If that was their immediate response, it must be true. Because any rational company would say that this needs to be investigated.
Monsanto's next product will be Roundup-ready Humans. They will survive the pesticide, but they will be sterile.
a whole bunch of non-scientists who know very little about cancer other than what they read on the web will automatically talk about terrible corporations putting profits above everything else, and automatically act like sheep and believe WHO.
At least have the decency to wait until some real facts actually come out to post an opinion.
Oh .. wait.. This is /. Sheeple rule!
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
I've seen a few articles linking this to "gluten intolerance", and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised in the least. The increase in celiac-type or gut conditions seems to trend nicely with the increased use of these pesticides, especially when you consider that it's not so prevalent in places where they're not used.
The Europeans still like their bread and pasta etc, and yet this is much less of a problem in Europe. Moreover, people who have issues with such foods in N America often report being able to eat them in Europe without getting sick. The difference: many of the chemicals used in North America are prohibited in Europe.
It seems that Glyphosate is a neurotoxin. That will affect you much sooner than any possible cancer.
--
You may tell a man "Thou art a fiend", but not "Your nose wants blowing".
The WHO is controlled by Europe. Bayer crop science is based in Germany and is Monsanto's competitor. I bet a few people in Europe have shorted a disproportionately large amount of Monsanto stock before this report was released.
Company patents expiring... Everyone can use the technology... Low cost alternatives to companies products. Company profits at risk! How to solve this? Plan: Make use of expired patents illegal. Trump up cancer causing claims to force glyphosate off market. Introduce new herbicide claim its better. Have new genetically modified seed available to work against new herbicide. Problem solved! Profits ensured for next 20 years... (just like Ozone Hole strategy it worked before...)
Very simple: if it's that safe, Monsanto officials should have no problem chugging a glass or two in front of cameras.