Study: Monsato's Roundup herbicide probably causes cancer

[gollygee]

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/monsanto-herbicide-cause-cancer

Monsanto has assured the public over and over that its flagship Roundup herbicide doesn't cause cancer. But that may soon change. In a stunning assessment (free registration required) published in The Lancet, a working group of scientists convened by the World Health Organization reviewed the recent research on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup and the globe's most widely used weed-killing chemical, and found it "probably carcinogenic to humans."

The authors cited three studies that suggest occupational glyphosate exposure (e.g., for farm workers) causes "increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides." They also point to both animal and human studies suggesting that the chemical, both in isolation and in the mix used in the fields by farmers, "induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro"; and another one finding "increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage" in residents of several farm communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations.

Monsanto first rolled out glyphosate herbicides in 1974, and by the mid-1990s began rolling out corn, soy, and cotton seeds genetically altered to resist it. Last year, herbicide-tolerant crops accounted for 94 percent of soybeans and 89 percent of corn, two crops that cover more than half of US farmland. The rise of so-called Roundup Ready crops has led to a spike in glyphosate use, a 2012 paper by Washington State University researcher Charles Benbrook showed.

Benbrook told me the WHO's assessment is "the most surprising thing I've heard in 30 years" of studying agriculture. Though a critic of the agrichemical industry, Benbrook has long seen glyphosate as a "relatively benign" herbicide. The WHO report challenges that widely held view, he said. "I had thought WHO might find it to be a 'possible' carcinogen," Benbrook said. "'Probable,' I did not expect."

[bravenak]

1. This is scary.

It really is. Thanks goodness my allergies are so bad I have to hunt down food I can eat. The pesticides make my gums itch, but I can eat the same fruits if my mom grows them in her garden. Living in Alaska the variety is not up to par. I take suppliments and eat canned. I'd like Monsanto to go away so I can figure out why my allergies have orogressed to this point. My eyes itch right now.
Could just be my biology. But I get sad watching people eat fruit salad.

[gollygee]

4. What a bummer!

Is it hard to find organics up there?

[bravenak]

5. Yes and no.

I find them, but the cost is prohibitive. And I end up buying regular for my kids since they have no allergies at all.
One day, I'll find out why I keep busting out with a swollen face. I scratch and get sores on my neck sometimes. I need another epi pen, but I'm lazy. I know. That's stupid. I know.

[gollygee]

6. :(

They are expensive and I bet particularly so in Alaska.

[bravenak]

7. Yeah. 4 dollar Mangoes are a piss off.

[pnwmom]

9. You might want to check for mold in your home, because that can be a year round

problem for people with allergies. If mold is a problem and you can get rid of it, then your body might be better able to tolerate other allergens.

[bravenak]

10. Honestly, I had a mold problem in a previous apartment.

I moved 3 years ago and put all my stuff in storage. My seasonal allergies have improved over the years and my face is not as swollen anymore. My food allergies continues to increase. That's why I was thinking it may not just be mold. And that mold was BAAAD. I put something in the closet and it broke through the wall and it wall filled with mold and mildew from a leak from an upstairs apt. I moved way across town and got new furniture. Stayed sick all the time. But the doc said it was not the mold, but I don't believe he listened to one word I said.

[sabrina 1]

2. NOW will our government label GMOs? Not really surprised at all by this.

I guess WHO will be placed on the 'CT' list now along with all the other credible sources over the years!

[gollygee]

3. Well "who" and "woo" do rhyme.

Really, they sound a lot alike. LOL

[sabrina 1]

8. Yes, don't give them any ideas though. Monsanto is probably working on dismissing these findings

right now, so it may take a day or two before we start seeing the 'scientific' findings contradicting what most of us suspected anyhow, and I don't think this is the first such study.

[HuckleB]

23. The WHO says GMOs on the market are safe.

Hmm.

[yellowcanine]

11. Excerpts from Regulatory Authorities: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity (Glyphosate aka Roundup)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026408412

[SoLeftIAmRight]

14. How many Superfund sites are Monsanto responsible for?

I will make it easy - just guess within 30 of being correct.

[yellowcanine]

16. How does that relate to question at hand - whether glyphosate is a carcinogen?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

17. What do you think of the companies that make glyphosate?

Simple question.

I avoid companies (and their products) that do things I do not like.

Do you like monsanto?

[yellowcanine]

18. "Simple question." But not a relevant one.

If it makes you feel better, I don't particularly like Monsanto, just as I don't particularly like Bayer (which makes Neonicotinoids) or GM (which makes crappy cars). Big companies tend not to be very likable as they are profit driven. But that is irrelevant to the question as to whether glyphosate is a carcinogen or not. I kind of like the Hershey company because they provide homes for orphans and gives them a college education. But that doesn't mean it is a good idea to eat lots of their products loaded with refined sugar or high fructose corn syrup. I don't like the fact that they tried, along with other chocolate manufacturers, to change the definition of chocolate to include products which had partially hydrogenated vegetable oils substituted for cocoa butter. (They failed). But that doesn't mean I would not eat a small piece of Hershey's chocolate if it were offered to me. I do like the taste of their chocolate.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

20. wow - thank you for a very thoughtful responce.

making the direct link between a substance and cancer is not easy

i find it strange when someone does not err on the safe side of these issues

[yellowcanine]

48. "i find it strange when someone does not err on the safe side of these issues"

Better stay away from uncooked organic spinach then as it was the source of an e coli outbreak which infected 199 people in 26 states, causing hemolytic uremic syndrome a type of kidney failure in 31 people and three deaths in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_E._coli_O157:H7_outbreak_in_spinach

And again in 2012 - this time no one died but 33 people were infected in five states and two people had hemolytic uremic syndrome.
http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2012/O157H7-11-12/index.html

And just this month, frozen organic spinach was recalled as a precaution as a result of suspected infection with Listeria monocytogenes which is the third leading cause of death from a food borne illness.
http://www.today.com/health/amys-kitchen-frozen-spinach-recalls-linked-listeria-2D80567685

Unlike glyphosate, there is actual evidence that organic spinach is a serious health risk for humans.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

51. it goes to the agricultural system

which must be changed

[Major Nikon]

54. Banning organic spinach seems like the only reasonable course

At the very least it needs to be labeled

[GreatGazoo]

12. Round Up is more toxic than glyphosate alone

Round Up is only about 40% glyphosate. Adjuvants enhance the penetration and effectiveness of the poison and recent studies seem to show that Round Up is 3 to 125 times more toxic than glyphosate alone.

[yellowcanine]

13. "recent studies seem to show....." Need a link if you make a claim like that.

"Studies" are a dime a dozen. Who did the study, what were the conclusions, was the study peer reviewed? All questions we cannot answer when you put zip down as a citation.

[Major Nikon]

31. Séralini "study"

That should tell you all you need to know.

[whatchamacallit]

15. Where are all the "SCIENCE!" shills?

[yellowcanine]

19. So if we ask for good science, we are "shills?" Okay.

I will wear the badge of "Science Shill" with honor. Sure is a lot better than "Antivaxxer" etc.

[NuclearDem]

22. If you're ever confused as to what people here mean by "anti-science"

Just remember to bookmark this post of yours.

[whatchamacallit]

24. Well

I can assure you I trust science over faith and superstition. What I don't trust is self-congratulating internet laypeople calling me anti-science if I'm skeptical about the safety of ingesting Roundup. Yes, yes, we know, you saw a peer reviewed study... IMO, at this relatively early stage, anyone who believes there is nothing more to learn about the longterm effects of these products, is both foolish and... "anti-science".

[SidDithers]

26. Sure you do...

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

28. Oh yay, it's time for another episode of

Baseless Insinuations with your host SidDithers!

[yellowcanine]

49. "skeptical about the safety of ingesting Roundup." Who is suggesting you should ingest Roundup?"

No one. Nice strawman you made there. Congratulations on knocking him over.

[HuckleB]

21. This OP has been repeated over and over again, always with scary headlines, but no actual context.

GLYPHOSATE AS A CARCINOGEN, EXPLAINED
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/03/glyphosate-as-a-carcinogen-explained.html

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230012000943

Expert reaction to carcinogenicity classification of five pesticides by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/

Hmm.

[Zorra]

25. 3/20/15 W.H.O. IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides

and herbicides.

(pdf file)

Lyon, France, 20 March 2015
–
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized cancer agency of theWorld Health Organization,has assessed the carcinogenicity offiveorganophosphate pesticides
.
A summary of the final evaluations together with a short rationale have now been published online in The Lancet Oncologyand the detailed assessments will be published asVolume 112of the IARC Monographs.

What were the results of the IARC evaluations?

The herbicide glyphosate and the insecticides malathion and diazinon were classified as probably carcinogenic to humans
(Group 2A).

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

This popcorn has been certified Non-GMO Organic.

[whatchamacallit]

27. Sorry, only Merican science is valid

don'tcha know.

[Zorra]

29. Only Merican science funded by corporations is valid! All them Gubmint studies

is done by commies.

[yellowcanine]

50. Yep - you are correct. Only "Merican" studies here......

Excerpts from Regulatory Authorities: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity

German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)
“In epidemiological studies in humans, there was no evidence of carcinogenicity and there were no effects on fertility, reproduction and development of neurotoxicity that might be attributed to glyphosate.” Glyphosate Renewal Assessment Report, Germany as Rapporteur Member State for the European Renewal of Approval for Glyphosate (2015)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
“EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans.” 2013 Federal Register Notice (FR 25396, Vol. 78, No. 84, May 1, 2013).

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
“The APVMA currently has no data before it suggesting that glyphosate products registered in Australia and used according to label instructions present any unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and trade. … The weight and strength of evidence shows that glyphosate is not genotoxic, carcinogenic or neurotoxic.” Australian Government, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (2013)

Argentine Interdisciplinary Scientific Council
“…The epidemiological studies reviewed, showed no correlation between exposure to glyphosate and cancer incidence, nor adverse effects on reproduction, or Hyperactive-Attention Deficit Disorder in children. It is estimated that no significant risks would exist for human health regarding adverse effects on the genetic material. Under responsible use conditions for this herbicide, the intake of food and water would not imply risks for human health. “Evaluación De La Informacion Cientifica Vinculada Al Glifosato En Su Incidencia Sobre La Alud Humana Y El Ambiente,” (“Assessment of scientific information related to glyphosate and its incidence on human health and the environment”) (2009)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
“Several chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies…resulted in no effects based on the parameters examined, or resulted in findings that glyphosate was not carcinogenic in the study” and “Glyphosate does not cause mutations.” U.S. EPA. (1993) EPA: Glyphosate. EPA-738-F-93-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency
“Health and Welfare Canada has reviewed the glyphosate toxicology database, which is considered to be complete. The acute toxicity of glyphosate is very low. The submitted studies contain no evidence that glyphosate causes mutations, birth defects or cancer.” Doliner LH. (1991) Pre-Harvest use of glyphosate herbicide . Discussion Document D91-01. 98 pp. Pesticide Information Division, Plant Industry Directorate, Agriculture Canada.
-
“…The epidemiological studies reviewed, showed no correlation between exposure to glyphosate and cancer incidence, nor adverse effects on reproduction, or Hyperactive-Attention Deficit Disorder in children. It is estimated that no significant risks would exist for human health regarding adverse effects on the genetic material. Under responsible use conditions for this herbicide, the intake of food and water would not imply risks for human health. “Evaluación De La Informacion Cientifica Vinculada Al Glifosato En Su Incidencia Sobre La Alud Humana Y El Ambiente,” (“Assessment of scientific information related to glyphosate and its incidence on human health and the environment”) (2009)

[Major Nikon]

34. Interesting how IARC relied on Séralini's widely discredited rat study

...while simultaneously rejecting the overwhelming volume and weight of far more credible studies that came to the opposite conclusion.

http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/iarc-glyphosate-cancer-review-fails-on-multiple-fronts/

[Zorra]

36. Write them a stern letter and explain to them why their findings are all wrong. nt

[Major Nikon]

37. I'm sure they knew before they published it

[Zorra]

39. Nice try! But more fail. It does not even indicate that the IARC used the Seralini Study

at that questionable, possibly RW, source you linked you to.

Propaganda.



Foundation/Non-profit Links

American Council on Science and Health

What people are saying about ACSH

“On one issue after another in recent years, ACSH has stood as a bulwark against the contemporary Luddites who see the beginning of civilization’s end in every technological advance that reaches the market place.”
- Edwin Feulner, President The Heritage Foundation

[NuclearDem]

40. Review of Rachel Maddow's book Drift:

“People who like Rachel will love the book. People who don’t will get angry, but aggressive debate is good for America.”

- Fox News CEO Roger Ailes

Rachel Maddow was a rightwing plant all along!

[Zorra]

42. You are using a strawman to deflect from the fact that the Seralini Study was not

used in the IARC determination that glyphosphate probably causes cancer in humans.

Can you tell me who funds the Academics Review? Its primary function appears to defend the safety and use industrial products created and marketed by multinational corporations.

I can't find any information about their funding source.

Are they funded by the corporations whose products they represent?

[NuclearDem]

44. Oh, horseshit.

You tried to identify something as "possibly RW" with your damning evidence being that someone from the Heritage Foundation said something nice about it once. By that logic, Rachel Maddow is "possibly RW" as well given Roger Ailes' review of her book.

[Zorra]

45. Whatever, blahblahblah...Do you know what the funding sources for American Academics

are?

I can't seem to find them, and you appear to know something about the organization, so if you know, would you please tell me what their funding sources are?

If they are not funded by corporations or RW organizations, I promise I won't think they might possibly be RW anymore.

[Major Nikon]

53. Nah, that's even more solid

It would be more like someone posted a link to Maddow's web page, and that fact proved they were pushing RW propaganda.

[Major Nikon]

41. Sure. I failed because you said so

See danth's law for further reading



It's kinda hard for me to get through this without laughing hysterically, but here goes.

A) The Heritage foundation praised ACSH.
B) The Academics Review put a link to ACSH on their web page (along with many others).

A+B = The Academics Review is a RW Propaganda site!

Holy shit, batman, you just can't argue with "logic" like that.

Here's some more associative "logic" for you, which actually manages to more sense

A) God is love
B) Love is blind

A+B = Stevie Wonder is GOD!

[Zorra]

43. The point is you either deliberately lied when you said that the IARC relied on the Seralini

Study for it's findings, or you did not read the information correctly.

Your childish little strawman post is not funny and it is is not going to help you deflect the fact that you presented false information to try to prove your point.

[Major Nikon]

46. Wow, those are the only two options I get?

I see false dilemmas are also high on your list of worthless rhetoric.

[Octafish]

30. Something else: glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.

Toxicology. 2009 Aug 21;262(3):184-91. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006. Epub 2009 Jun 17.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines.

Gasnier C1, Dumont C, Benachour N, Clair E, Chagnon MC, Séralini GE.
Author information

1University of Caen, Institute of Biology, Lab. Biochemistry EA2608, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen cedex, France.

Abstract
Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most widely used across the world; they are commercialized in different formulations. Their residues are frequent pollutants in the environment. In addition, these herbicides are spread on most eaten transgenic plants, modified to tolerate high levels of these compounds in their cells. Up to 400 ppm of their residues are accepted in some feed. We exposed human liver HepG2 cells, a well-known model to study xenobiotic toxicity, to four different formulations and to glyphosate, which is usually tested alone in chronic in vivo regulatory studies. We measured cytotoxicity with three assays (Alamar Blue, MTT, ToxiLight), plus genotoxicity (comet assay), anti-estrogenic (on ERalpha, ERbeta) and anti-androgenic effects (on AR) using gene reporter tests. We also checked androgen to estrogen conversion by aromatase activity and mRNA. All parameters were disrupted at sub-agricultural doses with all formulations within 24h. These effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration. First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm. A real cell impact of glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed or in the environment has thus to be considered, and their classifications as carcinogens/mutagens/reprotoxics is discussed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684

[Major Nikon]

32. Only two references to Séralini "studies" so far in this thread

Seems like there should be more.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gilles-Eric_S%C3%A9ralini

[NuclearDem]

38. Please tell me you're not actually citing the Seralini paper.

And not even the 2012 paper, which you could actually claim is peer-reviewed.

[Major Nikon]

52. Even that isn't peer reviewed

The FCT pulled it once his fraud was revealed and the only other journal he could find to republish it did so without peer review.

[Wella]

33. Kick and recommend.

Good find.

[Cha]

35. No shite, sherlock! "monsanto .. assured.. doesn't cause cancer.."?! Brawaaaaa

https://www.facebook.com/Save.Hawai.from.Monsanto

mahalo gollygee

[U4ikLefty]

47. I purposely didn't read the posts yet. Has the "why do you hate science?1!!?" guy posted?

I'm sure they got the Monsanto bat-signal by now.

[whatchamacallit]

55. Yeah they're all over it

Pre$umably it'$ their love of $cience and penchant for educating that motivate$ them...

[NuclearDem]

57. Hey, looks like some more, oh, what are they called...

Oh, Baseless Insinuations.

[whatchamacallit]

58. Haha

Touché ND.

[bobclark86]

56. Better raise food stamps...

Because food costs would skyrocket if Roundup goes away.

[Major Nikon]

59. Let them eat cake