"There are a number of independent, published manuscripts that clearly indicate that glyphosate ... can promote cancer and tumor growth," said Dave Schubert, head of the cellular neurobiology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. "It should be banned."
I wonder what studies he's talking about. The ones I'm aware of that show these effects are seralini study, or judy carman's pig study. And anybody with even a basic knowledge of science should be able to tell that they are lousy papers.
I find it interesting when there's research that doesn't happen to be funded (indirectly or otherwise) by industry, it often ends up exposing potential dangers that all the other studies somehow missed completely.
Then again, there's much less incentive to use industry-friendly, stunted methodologies when one doesn't have industry footing the bill directly or by proxy.
And, on that note:
"... Most US research on glyphosate, Benbrook added, has focused on the chemical in isolation. But in the real world, glyphosate is mixed with other chemicals, called surfactants and adjuvants, that enhance their weed-slaying power. Importantly, some of the research used in the WHO assessment came from outside the US and looked at real-world herbicide formulations. ... "
This is typical posturing from Monsanto - what else can they do, when confronted with the potential that they've been poisoning the earth with cancer-causing mass-profit-generationg chemicals, which form the basis of their stock value? It should come as no surprise that they are calling for this report to be retracted, as they must attempt to defend the value of their organization at all costs, regardless, or face the wrath of their masters - the shareholders - when the stock takes a hit.
There are, as mentioned, multiple reports and findings that put Monsanto in hot water on this issue. They deserve to have this dirty laundry aired, considering the massive investment they have made in covering up the problems with their products. This is not a company that will go lightly into the chambers of justice - it will fight all the way for its own position to be held in the public eye, because that is one of the things it does, as a company, to build the value it has achieved so far. Monsanto is not just a biological-product producer; they're also masters at manipulating public opinion, owning politicians, and defining their PR on their own terms. Just like they manipulate the genetics of organisms for their own gain, they manipulate the general publics point of view in the same light. It will take true science to defeat them, and this is a case where it looks like its happening. Finally.
They've certainly got lots of other herbicides in their pipeline... And, their glyphosate patents expired a while ago. Banning Roundup is good for them, because now they can sell a whole new herbicide/herbicide protection system.
If Monsanto was subjected to any meaningful penalties it might not be a win for them, but we all know the likelihood of that happening.
"Miller said the company provided scientific data to the IARC showing the safety of glyphosate, but that the agency largely ignored it."
Scientific data is a term that means nothing by itself.
You could double blind test that drinking a 200ml Roundup solution has no mutagenic effects on blood cells-from a one time measurement of blood drawn exactly 30 seconds after drinking the solution. There you have 'scientific data' that proves nothing.
I think government should not wait too long to go into discovery what had been known of this by Monsanto researchers and subsequently been suppressed.
tl;dr: the IARC report bases its conclusion on the potential hazard rather than the actual risk. Regulatory agencies like Germany's BfR which review a lot more data have concluded that there is no "carcinogenic or mutagenic properties"
7 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 23.1 ms ] thread"There are a number of independent, published manuscripts that clearly indicate that glyphosate ... can promote cancer and tumor growth," said Dave Schubert, head of the cellular neurobiology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. "It should be banned."
Then again, there's much less incentive to use industry-friendly, stunted methodologies when one doesn't have industry footing the bill directly or by proxy.
And, on that note:
"... Most US research on glyphosate, Benbrook added, has focused on the chemical in isolation. But in the real world, glyphosate is mixed with other chemicals, called surfactants and adjuvants, that enhance their weed-slaying power. Importantly, some of the research used in the WHO assessment came from outside the US and looked at real-world herbicide formulations. ... "
source:
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/monsanto-her...
There are, as mentioned, multiple reports and findings that put Monsanto in hot water on this issue. They deserve to have this dirty laundry aired, considering the massive investment they have made in covering up the problems with their products. This is not a company that will go lightly into the chambers of justice - it will fight all the way for its own position to be held in the public eye, because that is one of the things it does, as a company, to build the value it has achieved so far. Monsanto is not just a biological-product producer; they're also masters at manipulating public opinion, owning politicians, and defining their PR on their own terms. Just like they manipulate the genetics of organisms for their own gain, they manipulate the general publics point of view in the same light. It will take true science to defeat them, and this is a case where it looks like its happening. Finally.
If Monsanto was subjected to any meaningful penalties it might not be a win for them, but we all know the likelihood of that happening.
Scientific data is a term that means nothing by itself. You could double blind test that drinking a 200ml Roundup solution has no mutagenic effects on blood cells-from a one time measurement of blood drawn exactly 30 seconds after drinking the solution. There you have 'scientific data' that proves nothing.
I think government should not wait too long to go into discovery what had been known of this by Monsanto researchers and subsequently been suppressed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/03/20/march-mad...
tl;dr: the IARC report bases its conclusion on the potential hazard rather than the actual risk. Regulatory agencies like Germany's BfR which review a lot more data have concluded that there is no "carcinogenic or mutagenic properties"