Does Glyphosate Really Cause Cancer?

Well, no.

Wired has an interesting article about it, explaining the confusion, and then the disinformation that came out of the IARC report last year.

The IARC studies whether chemicals can cause cancer under any possible situation—realistic or not—while the joint meeting’s report looks at whether glyphosate can cause cancer in real-life conditions, like if you eat cereal every morning made from corn treated with glyphosate. One of these reports is, by design, much more relevant to your life than the other.

Some may remember that the same group labeled bacon as carcinogenic too, again, real world scenarios weren't taken into account.

The IARC is also, by design, not supposed to make recommendations to the public. It assesses “hazard,” which in scientific jargon, means something very different than “risk.” David Eastmond, a toxicologist at the University of California, Riverside, uses sharks to illustrate the difference. If you have people gawking at sharks swimming around a tank in an aquarium, the sharks are a hazard, but they pose little risk. If you have a surfer on the beach with a shark, now that shark is both a hazard and a risk.

To the IARC, a shark has sharp teeth and powerful jaws, and the agency doesn’t care if you’re at the beach or at an aquarium. “The problem with using hazard is that it may bear no immediate relation to anything in the real world,” says Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

www.wired.com...

It doesn't cause health either

From ncib.gov

Glyphosate poisoning:

"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. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported occasionally; these effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel (benzisothiazolin-3-one). Severe skin burns are very rare. Inhalation is a minor route of exposure but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis, and superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate. Management is symptomatic and supportive, and skin decontamination with soap and water after removal of contaminated clothing should be undertaken in cases of dermal exposure."

Most of those major issues have come from deliberate ingestion.

So how do you test the effects over 20 years or so?

a reply to: Chadwickus

um...

a reply to: Chadwickus

articles.mercola.com...

An article published on Greenmedinfo.com4 last year reviewed several interesting studies relating to the profound toxicity of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup: “Back in Feb. of 2012, the journal Archives of Toxicology5 published a shocking study showing that Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications. This effect could not have been anticipated from the known toxicological effects of glyphosate alone.
The likely explanation is that the surfactant polyoxyethyleneamine within Roundup dramatically enhances the absorption of glyphosate into exposed human cells and tissue,” Sayer Ji writes. “If this is true, it speaks to a fundamental problem associated with toxicological risk assessments of agrichemicals (and novel manmade chemicals in general), namely, these assessments do not take into account the reality of synergistic toxicologies, i.e. the amplification of harm associated with multiple chemical exposuresoccurring simultaneously

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

articles.mercola.com...

Birth Malformation Skyrocketing in Agricultural Centers of Argentina Indeed, miscarriages, fertility problems and abnormal fetal development are all problems that are skyrocketing in Argentina, where many are exposed to massive spraying of herbicides. More than 18 million hectares in Argentina are covered by genetically engineered soy, on which more than 300 million liters of pesticides are sprayed. In the village of Malvinas Argentinas, which is surrounded by soy plantations, the rate of miscarriage is 100 times the national average, courtesy of glyphosate.
According to Dr. Medardo Vasquez, a neonatal specialist at the Children’s Hospital in Cordoba, featured in the documentary film People and Power — Argentina: The Bad Seeds: “Isee new-born infants, many of whom are malformed. I have to tell parents that their children are dying because of these agricultural methods. In some areas in Argentina the primary cause of death for children less than one year old is malformations.”

ecowatch.com...

Eager to sell more of its flagship herbicide, Monsanto also encouraged farmers to use Roundup as a dessicant, to dry out all of their crops so they could harvest them faster. So Roundup is now routinely sprayed directly on a host of non-GMO crops,including wheat, barley, oats, canola, flax, peas, lentils, soybeans, dry beans and sugar can

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


ecowatch.com...

Monsanto has falsified data on Roundup’s safety, and marketed it to parks departments and consumers as “environmentally friendly” and “biodegradable, to encourage its use it on roadsides, playgrounds, golf courses, schoolyards, lawns and home gardens. A French court ruled those marketing claims amounted to false advertising.

ADHD: In farming communities, there’s a strong correlation between Roundup exposure and attention deficit disorder (ADHD), likely due to glyphosate’s capacity to disrupt thyroid hormone functions.

Depression: Glyphosate disrupts chemical processes that impact the production of serotonin, an important neurotransmitter that regulates mood, appetite and sleep. Serotonin impairment has been linked to depress

a reply to: Chadwickus

Ok so the question we must ask ourselves is as a company with "certain corporate values/lack thereof"
does Monsanto get the benefit of the doubt. Now before everyone shoots me and states that companies like humans can change their spots, I highly doubt it.

They were responsible for creating agent Orange and are now compensating victims. It seems they have a long history of falsifying data and using selective inconclusive studies. More telling is their reach into the highest levels of Govt. Dare we trust a company with such and ethos?

www.globalresearch.ca...

Throughout his first term, President Obama has presided over the passage of several Monsanto-friendly legislative initiatives and has appointed numerous people associated with Monsanto to high-level positions

articles.mercola.com...

Seven years ago, Feb. 4, 1994, despite nationwide protests by consumer groups, Monsanto and the FDA forced onto the US market the world's first GE animal drug, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH, sometimes known as rBST). BGH is a powerful GE drug produced by Monsanto which, injected into dairy cows, forces them to produce 15%-25% more milk, in the process seriously damaging their health and reproductive capacity. Despite warnings from scientists, such as Dr. Michael Hansen from the Consumers Union and Dr. Samuel Epstein from the Cancer Prevention Coalition, that milk from rBGH injected cows contains substantially higher amounts of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1, and despite evidence that rBGH milk contains higher levels of pus, bacteria, and antibiotics, the FDA gave the hormone its seal of approval, with no real pre-market safety testing required.

All of the major criticisms leveled against rBGH have turned out to be true. Since 1994, every industrialized country in the world, except for the US, has banned the drug. In 1998, Canadian government scientists revealed that Monsanto's own data on feeding rBGH to rats, carefully concealed by the company and the FDA, indicated possible cancer dangers to humans.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
It doesn't cause health either

A half cup of concentrated weed killer is probably not going to do you a lot of good. Neither would a half cup of nutmeg. Not saying it's good for you, but that's not exactly a reasonable thing to do.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Even though I might survive the initial exposure to something doesn't mean I want it in my food. There of plenty of things I don't want added to something I eat or drink and Glyphosate is one of them. People should have a right to control what happens to their body (just ask abortion activists).

a reply to: Metallicus

Even though I might survive the initial exposure to something doesn't mean I want it in my food.

Then support farmers who don't use it. Go organic. While not entirely pesticide free. It's quite a bit "better."
www.smh.com.au...

a reply to: Phage

The government has been making it REALLY hard on those farmers, well at least in the US.

I'm not a fan of industrial farming, but it is being pushed towards that. Oh that and illegal labor in agriculture.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Well, no.

Wired has an interesting article about it, explaining the confusion, and then the disinformation that came out of the IARC report last year.

The IARC studies whether chemicals can cause cancer under any possible situation—realistic or not—while the joint meeting’s report looks at whether glyphosate can cause cancer in real-life conditions, like if you eat cereal every morning made from corn treated with glyphosate. One of these reports is, by design, much more relevant to your life than the other.

Some may remember that the same group labeled bacon as carcinogenic too, again, real world scenarios weren't taken into account.

The IARC is also, by design, not supposed to make recommendations to the public. It assesses “hazard,” which in scientific jargon, means something very different than “risk.” David Eastmond, a toxicologist at the University of California, Riverside, uses sharks to illustrate the difference. If you have people gawking at sharks swimming around a tank in an aquarium, the sharks are a hazard, but they pose little risk. If you have a surfer on the beach with a shark, now that shark is both a hazard and a risk.

To the IARC, a shark has sharp teeth and powerful jaws, and the agency doesn’t care if you’re at the beach or at an aquarium. “The problem with using hazard is that it may bear no immediate relation to anything in the real world,” says Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

www.wired.com...

Chad,
I don't think there are any simple answers to something simply put.
Back in the 70's my government department was awash with 245T used as a defoliant of course, and had been for ages, but it turned out in the manufacture there was also the by product of Dioxin because of faulty manufacturing without proper checks and balances. Back then I had to go and look up papers on the stuff as a health and safety officer for my branch of the civil service union. I did turn up some stuff..with difficulty, and found that one test, call it an experiment, came up with very disturbing results on monkeys. As I recall, they used the subject bodyweight percentage at that time as a measure, and the administered dose was to one hundred thousandths part of the body weight, the monkeys all developed multiple tumours and lesions and all of them died. I was horrified at the time, still am. I said to my district officer at the time that I would be telling any of the industrial workers not to even handle the stuff, or unload it when it came in...(strictly speaking, not my business as I was in admin) never mind actually using it in the leaky old backpacks they had then. After that, the stuff quietly disappeared from the acquisition manual.
Even today, a killer dose is a contentious matter, all according to who does what and why. PPM's are a bad measure for real safety.

Just to add, Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) probably all have disclaimers, for various reasons.

Much the same was found in Chaco, Argentina's poorest province. In 2012, two villages were compared, the heavily sprayed farming village of Avia Terai and the non-sprayed ranching village of Charadai. In the farming village, 31 percent of residents had a family member with cancer while only 3 percent of residents in the ranching village had one.

www.truth-out.org...

***SNIP***

In April of 2014, scientists at the IARC published their review of twenty-five years of research on the relationship between pesticide exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. They found a positive association between organo-phosphorus herbicides, like glyphosate, and this cancer. The B cell lymphoma sub-type, in particular, was strongly associated with glyphosate exposure.

I'm going to say yes. But it isn't just cancer that glyphosate is causing.

Monsanto also encouraged farmers to use Roundup as a dessicant, to dry out all of their crops so they could harvest them faster. So Roundup is now routinely sprayed directly on a host of non-GMO crops, including wheat, barley, oats, canola, flax, peas, lentils, soybeans, dry beans and sugar cane.

ecowatch.com...

Oh look at all you getting all huffed up.

Stamping your feet and getting all angry.

I bet you all still eat bacon though, don't you?

a reply to: Chadwickus

Does Glyphosate Really Cause Cancer?

To be honest your question/thread title as simple as it sounds is not "really" of the standard I would expect of a seasoned member of ATS.

"really" is an emotive sliding scale value judgement word. It appears that you don't allow a poster room to manoeuvre, but thats ok if you want to preach to the converted.

Glyphosphate can contribute to cancer in the body if consumed long term. It is consumed long term by most Americans now in amounts that can possibly lead to cancer. Add it to the chemical coctail in our foods and I am sure that it is contributing to a lot of possible diseases.

It is not completely safe, there are no statements out there by anyone saying it is complately safe.

We should actually be questioning if it is really needed.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Is glyphosate made to promote help and help human kind or is it made to make money for some fat cow.

That is the only question you need to ask your self, so go out there and try to find answer on that. Many people know the answer but apparently you don't know. Or you know but you have your own agenda ignoring it.

a reply to: saadad

But but we need it to feed the hungry world !!!!

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Chadwickus

um...

T H A N K Y O U !!!
When i read the topic, i entered just to leave this video here.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

Then you're as silly as vector.

The guy in the video is an idiot.

You should read the msds for roundup before thinking this is proof of anything, besides him being a moron.