Roundup

[catjac1975]

Has anyone else seen the TV commercials about a class action lawsuit against the makers of Roundup now that it's been classified as a carcinogen?

Here is all I know only in regard to my own family, my parents, grandparents aunts and uncles. no cancer and all nice long lives. Yes are all going to die but the suffering from cancer is practically unparalleled. So far my 2 brothers out of us 5 children-gone from cancer. My sister works as a nurse in a small school system. The kids are sick with a myriad of very severe illnesses. And what about autism? What is causing this epidemic? Were they ANY autistic children in school when you were growing up? I do not buy the notion that it is just easier to diagnose. Money can't buy you love but it can sure buy you plenty of profits as those hired to protect us look the other way. If it is poison we should not be eating it. The studies I have read indicate that it may not be one toxin they we ingest that causes our health problems. But the sheer quantity of chemicals we are exposed to in many ways. Researchers call it the toxic soup.

 

[seedcorn]

Cancer runs in my mothers side so yes, I understand the agony of cancer.

Kids (& adults) being more sickly, I blame on diet-mainly hi sugar intake. Prepared foods, pop, fast food, commercial canned foods, candy, desserts, etc..... want to blame a few ounces of chemicals sprayed on a field meanwhile gorging on pounds in their food every day. Which has the highest probability of causing problems? Blaming our own lifestyle is not cool as it means we have to change OUR habits-much easier to blame someone else.

 

[baymule]

Drink the Roundup, eat a plate full of beets and you'll be A-OK!

 

[valley ranch]

Glyphosate has been found to be a Carcinogen in several countries. Still Monsanto doges and points elsewhere but it is clear to the people of several South American countries as in Europe and Asia.

It is just in America where the Monsanto Employees who work also in our government keep Glyphosate sales up, and pass laws protecting Monsanto. Other companies now are able to cash in on the sale of this, one of the cheapest and dirtiest poisons mankind has ever been exposed to.

Glyphosate does not degrade or go away as they once printed on their label. Glyphosate combines with minerals in our soil and seem to be there no longer, but it migrates, being water soluble it leaches and soon reaches the water table. Where it is recycled to you kitchen and bath.

Originally designed to clean industrial piping while in place~cheap enough to put into the piping full strength and spilled out on the soil when the job was over~then it was discovered that nothing grew where it was spilled.

You can't follow the directions Monsanto and Dow put on the label and keep yourself and you children safe~but

You can do good things for the Petrochemical Companies by saying maybe it's something else~look over there```

It attacks everything, every person in their weakest spot ~ is your families weakest spot your nervous system, lungs, are your more prone to cancer~ where is the least defended part or organ of those you love~

 

[seedcorn]

This is where we fail to communicate. No one ever says drink any chemical. That would be like an idiot saying avoid vegetables, just eat manure-contains pure nutrients before they are converted to sugars.

Reality, we want things-doctors, hospitals, internet, cars, ready made clothes, shoes, etc. IF we had to go back to everyone growing their own food-no importing-we would have NONE of those things. So we need food for the masses. Less weeds = more food. Chemicals means less weeds. (Please don't insult our intelligence that they could keep fields clean of weeds any other way as none of us can keep a small garden weed free.) In USA, politicians are voted in by the masses over cheap, controlled food. Let someone's food budget go over 7%, the media and people go be berserk. Yet we'll spend 10-20% on TV, internet, video games, etc..... IF we don't feed the non-rural people, anarchy will exist.
A side note, there would be NO government $$$$-welfare, assistance, social security, etc-as there would be no income to tax. No government, so no laws, no armed forces, so we would be over run by any country that wanted us.

 

[w_r_ranch]

Glyphosate has been found to be a Carcinogen in several countries. Still Monsanto doges and points elsewhere but it is clear to the people of several South American countries as in Europe and Asia.

That is a false statement.

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer

Glyphosate unlikely to pose risk to humans, UN/WHO study says


The simple fact is that RoundUp contains glycine, which is a natural amino acid & a component of every protein in our bodies, as well as phosphates, which is a plant nutrient.

This is just another lawsuit filed in the hopes of shaking money out of the tree & will fail (just like all before it) because it is not based on actual scientific facts, but on some paid researchers' pseudoscience & their cherry-picking what facts he/she uses to support their conclusions...

A Scientist Didn’t Disclose Important Data and Let Everyone Believe a Popular Weedkiller Causes Cancer


Anyone with any intelligence understands that designing any experiment or 'study' to support a contrived outcome is not objective, nor is it 'science'. At their absolute best, these 'studies' are purely tests of possible correlation. Everybody here should be able to understand that possible correlation is not causation (at least I would hope so).

For instance, let's talk about the use of lab rats: All rats are susceptible to tumors., however the Sprague-Dawley lab rats are bred specifically to have a relatively high incidence of cancer (this applies to other strains of lab rats as well, such as Fishcer 344 rats & Long-Evans).

A well designed study must have the statistical power needed to claim its conclusions. Among SD rats, 80% of male rats & 70% of female rats will develop cancer naturally (i.e., without any other intervention) over 2 years (the usual length of a study). That means 7-8 rats out of every 10 will get cancer anyway, no matter what. So how do you tell whether glyphosate increased the rate of cancer? Do you call it if 9 rats get cancer??? Or 10??? Or do you have to use 10,000 rats to reach a meaningful statistical power??? Think about that,

 

[bobm]

The simple fact is that RoundUp contains glycine, which is a natural amino acid & a component of every protein in our bodies, as well as phosphates, which is a plant nutrient.

This is just another lawsuit filed in the hopes of shaking money out of the tree & will fail (just like all before it) because it is not based on actual scientific facts, but on some paid researchers' pseudoscience...

Anyone with any intelligence understands that designing any experiment or 'study' to support a contrived outcome is not objective, nor is it 'science'.

 

[valley ranch]

It is a False statement to say Glycine is what people are objecting to.


Glycine and Glyphosate are very different animals~you know that from 1st year Chemistry !
Ethanol
Drug
Ethanol, also called alcohol, ethyl alcohol, and drinking alcohol, is the principal type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages. It is a volatile, flammable, colorless liquid with a slight characteristic odor. Wikipedia
-----------------------
Brand names: Microban, Germ-X, Sani-Gel, Isagel, Quik-Care, Virx, MORE
Formula: C2H6O
-----------------------------------------
Glycine
Amino acid
Glycine is the amino acid that has a single hydrogen atom as its side chain. It is the simplest possible amino acid. The chemical formula of glycine is NH₂‐CH₂‐COOH. Glycine is one of the proteinogenic amino acids. Wikipedia

Formula: C2H5NO2
--------------------------------------------

Glyphosate
Chemical compound
Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant. It is an organophosphorus compound, specifically a phosphonate. It is used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with crops. Wikipedia

Formula: C3H8NO5P




GLYPHOSATE and Glycine are not related.

 

[valley ranch]

Glyphosate and Cancer Buying Science

How industry strategized (and regulators colluded) in an attempt to save the world’s most widely used herbicide from a ban

In this report we show how Europe’s pesticide regulation, introduced in 2009, threatened the survival of glyphosate herbicides, the most widely used in the world, and how industry fought back to save its chemical from a ban. Chapter 1 describes the challenges that confronted manufacturers of glyphosate-based herbicides in 2012 when they had to apply for re-approval in the EU of their active ingredient, glyphosate. Under the 2009 law, pesticide active ingredients are not allowed to be marketed if they have the potential to cause cancer, damage DNA, or have toxic effects on reproduction. This is known as a hazard-based approach. It means that if the pesticide has these effects, in principle, it must be banned. The inherent properties of the chemical are crucial, rather than the – often difficult to predict – risk to humans under certain exposure scenarios. The reasoning that if the pesticide is properly used, people would only be exposed to “safe” doses – the “risk-based approach” – is not permitted for such substances. This change in law posed a problem for Monsanto and other companies that manufacture or market glyphosate herbicides, because several of the industry’s own animal studies show statistically significant and dose-dependent carcinogenic effects from glyphosate. Another aspect of the 2009 regulation also posed a problem for industry. In the past, the regulatory assessment of pesticide active ingredients has been based on industry-sponsored studies. These are generally unpublished and are kept hidden from the public and independent scientists on the grounds that they are commercial secrets. But the regulation mandated for the first time that studies from the peer-reviewed open scientific literature must be included in the dossier of documents that the industry submits to regulators in support of the approval of a pesticide. The challenge to the pesticide companies lay in the fact that while industry studies generally conclude that glyphosate is safe for its proposed uses, many studies conducted independently

Read Moree pesticide companies lay in the fact that while industry studies generally conclude that glyphosate is safe for its proposed uses, many studies conducted independentlyhttps://www.global2000.at/sites/global/files/Glyphosate_and_cancer_Buying_science_EN_0.pdf

 

[valley ranch]

European Chemicals Agency Protects Monsanto with Outrageous Glyphosate Report

Following in the footsteps of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has dismissed scientific evidence showing that the controversial weedkiller glyphosate could cause cancer.

The ECHA assessment, [URL='https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa']released Wednesday, could pave the way for a new 15-year EU licence for the world’s most heavily used weedkiller, which the World Health Organisation’s cancer research agency (IARC) has classified as a “probable” cause of cancer.

To reach its conclusion, ECHA rejected glaring scientific evidence of cancers in laboratory animals, ignored warnings by more than 90 independent scientists, and relied on unpublished studies commissioned by glyphosate producers, warned Greenpeace.

Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg said: “ECHA has gone to great lengths to sweep all evidence that glyphosate can cause cancer under the carpet. The data vastly exceeds what’s legally necessary for the EU to ban glyphosate, but ECHA has looked the other way. For the EU to make decisions based on science, it can’t distort the facts. If the EU doesn’t get this right, people and the environment will continue to be the lab rats of the chemical industry.”

Like the EFSA assessment, the ECHA opinion was based on an initial dossier prepared by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). BfR’s glyphosate assessment has been heavily criticised by NGOs and independent scientists, who said it contradicted the scientific evidence.

ECHA is responsible for the EU’s classification and labelling of hazardous chemical substances. Under EU criteria, a substance must be classified as a “presumed” carcinogen if it is shown to increase cancer rates in at least two separate studies conducted on the same species. IARC found evidence of increased rates in two mouse studies, supported by further evidence. However, ECHA dismissed the increased cancer rates observed in these studies, as well as in three additional mouse studies that were not available to IARC. ECHA also dismissed the “limited” evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, and evidence of two characteristics associated with carcinogens, all documented by IARC.

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/european-chemicals-agency-protects-monsanto-outrageous-glyphosate-report[/URL]