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.
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.
The chances are very good that the last piece of bread, pastry, gravy or soup thickened with flour you have had, would have roundup on it. Thanks to the crops being treated right before harvest.
Many farmers will use roundup a few days before harvest because it dries the wheat out. http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
vi +
Monsanto supplies crops that are engineered to be immune to glyphosate
Those crops are corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugarbeets, and alfalfa. None of these are vegetables or fruits that are eaten directly by consumers.
which would imply the use is more prolific than you know.
Glyphosate is a weed killer, and a slow one at that. When weeds are sprayed, it can take a week or two before they are fully dead. The reason to kill weeds is because they compete with the crop for water, nutrients, and sunlight. 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.
Btw, Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene patents started to expire this year. Soybeans have already gone off patent, and other crops will follow in the next few years.
glyphosate breaks down into what ?
It is basically an amino acid (glycine) with a phosphate group attached. It can be fully metabolized by soil bacteria into phosphorus, nitrogen, CO2 and water. It has a half-life in soil of about 50 days. It has a half-life in surface water of about 90 days. It can be toxic to fish, and runoff is a problem. It should not be applied if rain is expected.
Ever eaten edamame at a sushi restaurant or corn on the cob?
Those are different crops. Sweet corn is not Roundup Ready. Edamame is not made from the same Roundup Ready soybeans grown as a dry seed crop for oil and animal feed.
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
You might want to mention that to all of the people on street corners and swap meets selling corn in the husk that they managed to get their hands on
That is not Roundup Ready corn. The only corn that is Roundup Ready is field corn grown primarily as animal feed. Sweet corn (eaten as corn-on-the-cob) and popcorn, are not Roundup Ready, and are not sprayed with glyphosate.
Monsanto has been selling Roundup Ready sweet corn since 2011 through their Seminis subsidiary.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
The supposed use of Roundup as a desiccant is mostly a horseshit myth:
http://www.snopes.com/food/tai...
Why is there a stigma about being cautious about introducing GMOs the the ecosystem if we don't have an untouched backup of the ecosystem that sustains us. It's not as if we can un-introduce GMOs to the ecosystem once they are there so what is the problem with having strict controls over their deployment?
Because, if it was reasonable, the same caution would be applied to all new cultivars. Because we have tested quite a lot of them for quite a long time, and they don't seem to yield catastrophic results, yet it doesn't seem to change anybodies minds. Because people oppose golden rice, where most of the concerns people claim are their reason to oppose GMO does not apply. Because many of the groups opposing GMO are misrepresenting reasearch in order to make GMO seem more dangerous.
In short, because people opposing GMO does not act as they would if they had reasonable cautions about the ecosystem. In stead, they act as if they are dogmatically opposing a new technology for no other reason then it being new. That tends to draw a stigma.