boyoboy
Well-known member
not possible ? organic farming is booming in california...including corporate enterprises - there is hope... and its product is in high demand.
Last edited:
|
|
|
Anyone into gardening here?
- Thread starter shanekingsley
- Start date
not possible ? organic farming is booming in california...including corporate enterprises - there is hope... and its product is in high demand.
I agree with you. I’m just saying modern intensive farming practices don’t really allow for crop rotation or fallow. Organic produce is still just a small fraction of mainstream farming.
On another note, glyphosate used to be the world’s best selling chemical at one point. When the patent expired the company refused to see its cash cow diminish.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
That's very wrong. It literally is not how pesticide/herbicide evaluations and approvals are performed. Adjuvants and full formulations are required to be supplied to review agencies who evaluate their context and contribution in the evaluation.
Globalresearch.ca is trash (and it's all of your links); tied to pro-Russia disinformation as well.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
https://thewalrus.ca/why-google-has-a-responsibility-to-fight-fake-news/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...r-pro-russian-disinformation/article37015521/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/com...-the-fight-against-fake-news/article37073960/
Last edited:
boyoboy
Well-known member
Well, if you don't like globalresearch.ca you can still read the articles. I still watch CNN and FOX lol. The links are good to follow as you read and helps to get a general feel for the author based on the links provided. You learn the sources; not all references are good. Other links are very reputable. Lots of reading is req'd. May we agree to disagree?
EDIT- here is an article with links - the epa's own independant scientific panel found the testing of glyphosate by the epa flawed. EDIT- inserted the correct link now, sorry. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...t_03162017.pdf
I recall another article where monsanto refused to tell the epa all the chemicals in roundup - against the law, but nothing was done. There is about 80 articles but I will try to find it. All these lawsuits against monsanto...reminiscent of the tobacco industry as lawsuits mounted before the truth broke. The court ordered release of internal documents display an inappropriate relatsionship between the epa and monsanto. Many lawyers are calling it criminal collusion. Lots and lots of lawsuits are mounting...just like the tobacco industry had. Their own documents sunk them.
EDIT- here is an article with links - the epa's own independant scientific panel found the testing of glyphosate by the epa flawed. EDIT- inserted the correct link now, sorry. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...t_03162017.pdf
I recall another article where monsanto refused to tell the epa all the chemicals in roundup - against the law, but nothing was done. There is about 80 articles but I will try to find it. All these lawsuits against monsanto...reminiscent of the tobacco industry as lawsuits mounted before the truth broke. The court ordered release of internal documents display an inappropriate relatsionship between the epa and monsanto. Many lawyers are calling it criminal collusion. Lots and lots of lawsuits are mounting...just like the tobacco industry had. Their own documents sunk them.
Last edited:
kwtoxman
Well-known member
We're going to have to agree to disagree.
Going to the original report beyond the link you provided is quite different from that link and the press release spin on that report. Such reports are part of the scientific process, evaluation and review. People are using the system and cherry picking information to attack the the results. Disinformation sources and many with an agenda and little objectivity trash the process with such spin. Unfortunately, many people are ignorant of the scientific process and expect 100% consensus and that isn't the way things work.
That statement is misleading. This stuff shows how a model systematic open review process, with various stages and incorporated peer reviews gets warped and twisted. The report is much more than that quoted dog whistle statement; it's what misleading information sources use. The panel reported the debate it had over a number of issues/tasks, in detail. Some on the panel agreed, others did not and it happens. That's part of science evaluation and part of the review process. The objective is peer review and assessment of the science, then undertaking an evaluation of the overall weight of evidence.
Since that report was released, the staged process with the EPA has continued. the EPA has evaluated the panels recommendations and incorporated revisions based on that report. This is all part of the normal scientific process. The revised draft report incorporating comments and inputs is here, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0073. This is open science review and assessment in progress and for all to see. And the EPA still comes to the conclusion that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans”.
Lots of crap in globalresearch parroted news and links. Definitely keep reading and dig into the root studies.
What's your point? That link is a database of information from various sources. And it simply takes two paragraph quotes and provides it as a summary. There are have been a number of studies and reviews with a variety of information. Your link is simply a database with two paragraphs of information/quotes from two major toxicology information sources.
Sorry for all the edits. Multitasking galore here.
Going to the original report beyond the link you provided is quite different from that link and the press release spin on that report. Such reports are part of the scientific process, evaluation and review. People are using the system and cherry picking information to attack the the results. Disinformation sources and many with an agenda and little objectivity trash the process with such spin. Unfortunately, many people are ignorant of the scientific process and expect 100% consensus and that isn't the way things work.
That statement is misleading. This stuff shows how a model systematic open review process, with various stages and incorporated peer reviews gets warped and twisted. The report is much more than that quoted dog whistle statement; it's what misleading information sources use. The panel reported the debate it had over a number of issues/tasks, in detail. Some on the panel agreed, others did not and it happens. That's part of science evaluation and part of the review process. The objective is peer review and assessment of the science, then undertaking an evaluation of the overall weight of evidence.
Since that report was released, the staged process with the EPA has continued. the EPA has evaluated the panels recommendations and incorporated revisions based on that report. This is all part of the normal scientific process. The revised draft report incorporating comments and inputs is here, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0073. This is open science review and assessment in progress and for all to see. And the EPA still comes to the conclusion that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans”.
Lots of crap in globalresearch parroted news and links. Definitely keep reading and dig into the root studies.
All the big science sources and major reviews "publish data suggesting limited carcinogenicity in experimental animals" because it's part of the overall study record for glyphosate. AND THEN they take all of the information and studies and evaluate the quality of each them, and finally determine the overall weight of evidence. That's what's most important. Don't look at a tree at the front end or mid point of an evaluation, look at the forest at the end of an evaluation and the overall conclusions. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0073
What's your point? That link is a database of information from various sources. And it simply takes two paragraph quotes and provides it as a summary. There are have been a number of studies and reviews with a variety of information. Your link is simply a database with two paragraphs of information/quotes from two major toxicology information sources.
Sorry for all the edits. Multitasking galore here.
Last edited:
boyoboy
Well-known member
sorry about the mix up on the links. I was trying for the epa' scientific panel report on its testing of glyphosate. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/glyphosate-03-17-2017.php use first link or go directly with the link below if you prefer.
this article has for its own first link- a report commissioned by the epa itself. On page 47/48 some of the epa's own scientific panel members state that the epa's conclusion is flawed and that glyphosate should be classified as "suggestive of carcinogenic potential" The report by this scientific panel also reports that portions of the epa's testing of glyphosate are flawed. Page 47 and 48 are interesting. https://www.epa.gov/sites/productio...december_13-16_2016_final_report_03162017.pdf The whole report is a good read.
but, this is a report on the glyphosate testing by the epa - not roundup.
Last edited:
Actually the link appears to be a collection of basic MSDS data, which I’m sure you know what that is, and also seems to have individual study data from experimental animals. While glyphosate doesn’t seem to be anywhere nearly as bad as agent orange, it’s certainly not lacking in some toxicity when you parse the data. What’s more interesting to me is if the material accumulates and if it breaks down easily over time which the chemistry doesn’t appear to support. I know this because some of the materials I’ve made in the past are very similar and can be persistent and part of the structure of glyphosate is there to specifically avoid breaking a particular bond found in natural analogues (phosphoenol pyruvate, PEP, which is how glyphosate works in plants in a mechanism involving PEP). The reason that’s interesting is that most of the toxic reports in humans from the substance are from concentrated solutions of glyphosate (skin and eye irritation). So, the question would be...what concentrations can glyphosate accumulate to in a human with consistent exposure? I’m sure there are papers on this though.
Personally I don’t think it’s as nasty as most organophosphate pesticides (glyphosate is a herbicide) but if I had a choice, which we often don’t in Canada, I’d rather not have it on what I eat if possible.
boyoboy
Well-known member
I've replaced my link with the correct one, sorry-please review. glyphosate is known to be highly persistent.
But again, as stated earlier- I was referring to roundup-not glyphosate, which is a primary ingredient.
The lawyers and courts will get this sorted out-it has already started with a 289 million dollar court ordered award.
As for globalresearch.ca being all garbage I hope you don't mean to say the quotes by John F. Kennedy Jr. on the dangers and collusion between the EPA and Monsanto. more trash ? Dang pro russian lawyers lmao.
Last edited:
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Doesn't matter if it is Roundup or Glyphosate. As mentioned adjuvants are considered as part of the review. I had read that link already, and the original source EPA document, which had informed my prior responses. The very first sentence of the press release in that link with "sharp rebuke" language already is spin. The Center for Biological Diversity is a environmental advocacy organization that obviously is pushing their agenda of banning glyphosate. Don't look at all the spin articles. Look at the source documents.
Here's the EPA response to that panel report. This is how science and the review process works.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0072
And it's not JFK Jr, it's RFK Jr, who happens to be the lead attorney suing Monsanto with the $290 Million judgement. What do you expect him to say? That his lawsuit is wrong? Lmao.
No glyphosate is not "highly persistent", nor is it bioaccumulative. If you hate that then go after PBDEs, which are a true example of highly persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals.
EPA glyphosate fact sheet (including persistence discussion) http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html
EPA glyphosate information. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
EPA glyphosate draft review as of Dec 2017 https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-use...th-and-ecological-risk-assessments-glyphosate
IARC now has a new director and they are undertaking a review of their mission statement to try to improve their process. Their current focus only on hazard and not on risk is out of step and touch with all other major assessment agencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Controversies
https://www.europeanscientist.com/e...opportunity-to-get-back-to-scientific-rigour/
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/05/1...-new-iarc-director-elisabete-weiderpass-12975
News organizations investigating.
https://www.reuters.com/article/hea...s-your-weed-killer-carcinogenic-idUSL3N17I49H
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...carcinogenic-junk-science-conflicts-interest/
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/...rc-almost-alone-claims-it-could-cause-cancer/
https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/years-of-testing-shows-glyphosate-isnt-carcinogenic.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...cer-link-to-monsanto-weedkiller-idUSKBN1D916C
That study is here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29136183
If you're into third party news sources.
https://www.science20.com/david_zaruk/is_chris_portier_the_andrew_wakefield_of_pesticides-227402
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/pseudoscience/
https://risk-monger.com/2016/09/27/glyphosate-how-to-fix-iarc/
The EPA review has been open and transparent with full sharing of all information through all the steps. It's the IARC review which has been much more closed and obfuscated with intransigence and only limited sharing of information. Plus there have been some glaring issues with the information they shared in their assessment, such as irregular and poor treatment of evidence.
In a very ironic way, the state where the Monsanto court case and $290 million judgement occurred (California) has recently been blocked from using proposition 65 to require labeling Glyphosate as carcinogenic. The federal judge ruled that, “Given the heavy weight of evidence in the record that glyphosate is not in fact known to cause cancer, the required warning is factually inaccurate and controversial.”
https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles...rning-labels-for-glyphosate-judge-finds-again
Here's the EPA response to that panel report. This is how science and the review process works.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0072
And it's not JFK Jr, it's RFK Jr, who happens to be the lead attorney suing Monsanto with the $290 Million judgement. What do you expect him to say? That his lawsuit is wrong? Lmao.
No glyphosate is not "highly persistent", nor is it bioaccumulative. If you hate that then go after PBDEs, which are a true example of highly persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals.
EPA glyphosate fact sheet (including persistence discussion) http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html
EPA glyphosate information. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
EPA glyphosate draft review as of Dec 2017 https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-use...th-and-ecological-risk-assessments-glyphosate
IARC now has a new director and they are undertaking a review of their mission statement to try to improve their process. Their current focus only on hazard and not on risk is out of step and touch with all other major assessment agencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Controversies
https://www.europeanscientist.com/e...opportunity-to-get-back-to-scientific-rigour/
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/05/1...-new-iarc-director-elisabete-weiderpass-12975
News organizations investigating.
https://www.reuters.com/article/hea...s-your-weed-killer-carcinogenic-idUSL3N17I49H
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...carcinogenic-junk-science-conflicts-interest/
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/...rc-almost-alone-claims-it-could-cause-cancer/
https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/years-of-testing-shows-glyphosate-isnt-carcinogenic.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...cer-link-to-monsanto-weedkiller-idUSKBN1D916C
That study is here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29136183
If you're into third party news sources.
https://www.science20.com/david_zaruk/is_chris_portier_the_andrew_wakefield_of_pesticides-227402
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/pseudoscience/
https://risk-monger.com/2016/09/27/glyphosate-how-to-fix-iarc/
The EPA review has been open and transparent with full sharing of all information through all the steps. It's the IARC review which has been much more closed and obfuscated with intransigence and only limited sharing of information. Plus there have been some glaring issues with the information they shared in their assessment, such as irregular and poor treatment of evidence.
In a very ironic way, the state where the Monsanto court case and $290 million judgement occurred (California) has recently been blocked from using proposition 65 to require labeling Glyphosate as carcinogenic. The federal judge ruled that, “Given the heavy weight of evidence in the record that glyphosate is not in fact known to cause cancer, the required warning is factually inaccurate and controversial.”
https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles...rning-labels-for-glyphosate-judge-finds-again
Last edited:
More peer reviewed articles... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530
I will say though that glyphosate has a very high LD50 of about 5.6g/kg body weight for a rat. That’s huge (a good thing) comparing to say Tylenol which is 2.4g/kg body weight. LD50s aren’t everything though, they are measures of acute effects, not chronic.
I will say though that glyphosate has a very high LD50 of about 5.6g/kg body weight for a rat. That’s huge (a good thing) comparing to say Tylenol which is 2.4g/kg body weight. LD50s aren’t everything though, they are measures of acute effects, not chronic.
Last edited:
boyoboy
Well-known member
I like this part of your link-
We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities. We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
I must apologize for stating glyphosate is highly persistent. It was wrong, and was an assumption on my part after reading about the british parliament volunteers who had their blood tested and were found to have glyphosate in their blood. I stand corrected on that point. Thank-you.
I particularly like this part of your link - "we suggest that common commercial formulations of GBH's SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED for inclusion in government run testing programs..." This directly relates back to my original issue of glyphosate and roundup being two different products. KWtoxman statement, and I quote "Doesn't matter if it is Roundup or Glyphosate. As mentioned adjuvants are considered as part of the review." Yes they were considered, but NEVER TESTED. they were only considered. Seems ridiculous to me that it took this long for scientests to say "yeah, we should be testing the actual commercial formula (with its adjuvants)". Is common sense to me...
and further,
The full list of chemicals in most commercial GBHs is protected as “confidential business information,” despite the universally accepted relevance of such information to scientists hoping to conduct an accurate risk assessment of these herbicide formulations. The distinction in regulatory review and decision processes between ‘active’ and ‘inert’ ingredients has no toxicological justification, given increasing evidence that several so-called ‘inert’ adjuvants are toxic in their own right [42]. Moreover, in the case of GBHs, the adjuvants and surfactants, which include ethoxylated tallowamines, alkylpolyglycosides or petroleum distillates in most commonly used commercial formulations, alters both the environmental fate and residue levels of glyphosate and AMPA in harvested foodstuffs and animal feeds. They do so by enhancing the adhesion of glyphosate to plant surfaces, as well as facilitating the translocation of applied glyphosate from the surface of weed leaves into sub-surface plant tissues, where it exerts its herbicidal function and where rainfall can no longer dissipate the glyphosate.
The vast majority of GBH-toxicology studies used for regulatory assessments lack a sufficient range of dose levels to adequately assess adverse impacts that might be initiated by low, environmentally-relevant exposures6.
Last edited:
kwtoxman
Well-known member
WRT my statement on glyphosate vs Roundup, the regulatory evaluation process has always been a balance of determining the toxicology of ingredients as well as striving to account for mixtures/formulations, all of which occurs within the boundaries of the current state-of knowledge. The primary methodology of herbicide/pesticide evaluations has been developed to understand a chemical's effects. That's not possible from a formulation with a bunch of chemicals. So many of the evaluations are performed on all the ingredients in the mixture separately. It's often referenced as active ingredient(s) and inert ingredient(s) in the process and any labelling.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/inerts.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-can...lementation-guidance-document-dir2006-02.html
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/faqs.pdf
Individual chemical toxicological evaluations are performed and the results are compared with further evaluation towards understanding each constituent's effects and exposure assessment/pathways, as well as evaluating for similar toxicity effects or mechanisms. Formulations/mixture toxicity testing is challenging in many ways. There are many formulations/mixtures out there. Mixtures tend to change over time. Mixture compositions change in the environment and in different media. Mixture exposures can be different depending on exposure route (absorption differences, first pass metabolism, etc). A number of types of toxicity tests can't account for mixture changes from the environment to a target organ (e.g. cell line toxicity testing).
That's not to say that glyphosate formulations have not been evaluated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Glyphosate-based_formulations
Glyphosate formulations continue to be evaluated as well.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/glyphosate/index.html
On top of that a number of studies in the evaluation implicitly include formulations, such as the epidemiological assessments. Epidemiological studies have been able to tease out adverse health impacts from even minor changes in air quality but they have not been able to find any significant changes in cancer incidence even with high exposure farm populations.
The existing regulatory framework and methodologies for evaluating and approving herbicides and pesticides are very detailed, expansive and robust; they are built upon sound science and much history and experience and are often tailored in many ways to unique aspects or issues of a particular substance. There are periodic reassessment requirements for approved pesticides and herbicides. As new issues in these fields of study are identified processes and evaluations get modified.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-can...st-management/frequently-asked-questions.html
That peer reviewed article is one cherry-picked piece and dubious when one conclusion is "Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen." It's hard to not become critical of their other sweeping statements listed in the "conclusions". That article is basically an advocacy piece, and for what could be more research funding for them. Here's the PMRA review on glyphosate which includes an evaluation of endocrine disruption. A battery of endocrine disruption tests are required and it's a staged process depending on results (acknowledge to continue to the publication, http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/sc-hc/H113-28/H113-28-2017-1-eng.pdf )
Many people including Health Canada have noted the fact that "No regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be a carcinogenic risk to humans."
It's easy to always point to another study, another article, cherry pick it and then say look at this! It's also misleading and moving the goal posts. Especially in the context of comprehensive assessments that look at hundreds of studies.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/inerts.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-can...lementation-guidance-document-dir2006-02.html
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/faqs.pdf
Individual chemical toxicological evaluations are performed and the results are compared with further evaluation towards understanding each constituent's effects and exposure assessment/pathways, as well as evaluating for similar toxicity effects or mechanisms. Formulations/mixture toxicity testing is challenging in many ways. There are many formulations/mixtures out there. Mixtures tend to change over time. Mixture compositions change in the environment and in different media. Mixture exposures can be different depending on exposure route (absorption differences, first pass metabolism, etc). A number of types of toxicity tests can't account for mixture changes from the environment to a target organ (e.g. cell line toxicity testing).
That's not to say that glyphosate formulations have not been evaluated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Glyphosate-based_formulations
Glyphosate formulations continue to be evaluated as well.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/glyphosate/index.html
On top of that a number of studies in the evaluation implicitly include formulations, such as the epidemiological assessments. Epidemiological studies have been able to tease out adverse health impacts from even minor changes in air quality but they have not been able to find any significant changes in cancer incidence even with high exposure farm populations.
The existing regulatory framework and methodologies for evaluating and approving herbicides and pesticides are very detailed, expansive and robust; they are built upon sound science and much history and experience and are often tailored in many ways to unique aspects or issues of a particular substance. There are periodic reassessment requirements for approved pesticides and herbicides. As new issues in these fields of study are identified processes and evaluations get modified.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-can...st-management/frequently-asked-questions.html
That peer reviewed article is one cherry-picked piece and dubious when one conclusion is "Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen." It's hard to not become critical of their other sweeping statements listed in the "conclusions". That article is basically an advocacy piece, and for what could be more research funding for them. Here's the PMRA review on glyphosate which includes an evaluation of endocrine disruption. A battery of endocrine disruption tests are required and it's a staged process depending on results (acknowledge to continue to the publication, http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/sc-hc/H113-28/H113-28-2017-1-eng.pdf )
Many people including Health Canada have noted the fact that "No regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be a carcinogenic risk to humans."
It's easy to always point to another study, another article, cherry pick it and then say look at this! It's also misleading and moving the goal posts. Especially in the context of comprehensive assessments that look at hundreds of studies.
Last edited:
Actually the article I picked was randomly selected. It was the first authoritative peer reviewed hit in a google search with a neutral word search. That could be that it is a popular article for naysayers though. My only horse in this race is that it is my opinion that roundup is over applied and that technology has enabled more of the chemical to be used rather than less. I think most of the business model surrounding the chemical is built just to sell more of it (roundup ready crops).
kwtoxman
Well-known member
That wasn't directed to you. I have no horse in this race either other than wishing for good and quality science to prevail in public and government policy with methodologies and frameworks under continual improvement as science progresses.
In that context, looks like a few neonicotinoids are going to be phased out by the PMRA.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4387557/pesticides-bees-phased-out-2021/
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...hase-out-pesticides-linked-to-bee-deaths.html
In that context, looks like a few neonicotinoids are going to be phased out by the PMRA.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4387557/pesticides-bees-phased-out-2021/
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...hase-out-pesticides-linked-to-bee-deaths.html
Last edited:
Thats a good thing. I’m a scientist, I’m fully in favour of using new technology to enable us to live better and healthier lives. Where I have an issue is when the technology isn’t really doing that, it’s just lining the pockets of the few at the detriment of the many.
boyoboy
Well-known member
Roundup has not been tested as a mixture by the EPA.
You say it doesn’t matter. And that you cannot have a bunch (mixture) of chemicals together and test. They can and have been tested as a mixture; it depends on the methodology used.
Round up has other chemicals (adjudvants) that glyphosate doesn’t have. These are not tested as a mixture by the EPA. As you stated they are tested individually and considered. There are reputable studies showing that mixing these adjudavants with glyphosate increases the toxicity of the mixture in a significant manner. This includes the roundup mixture.
A peer review is submitted by another poster and you state that the peer review was cherry picked and go on to suggest they may be doing it for monetary gain (funding).
Link in question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/
The poster replied the peer review was a random choice using neutral words. This poster has stated he is a scientist.
As for your suggestion that that the esteemed professional authors who signed off on this document are doing it for monetary gain (funding) is speculative and insulting to the authors; And serves only to demean the authors.
There are more studies of this general nature available from reputable sources.
You have largely ignored this. As has the EPA.
and I suggest it would be reasonable to say that glyphosate cannnot be classified carcinogen, nor can it be classified as not a carcinogen as tested with the EPA's flawed and outdated methodologies. Most specifically- not testing it as a mixture (roundup).
studies have shown that glyphosate based pesticides tested as mixtures are carcinogenic. The EPA's panel that reviewed the epa's work on testing had concerns with how they chose and searched other review documents on glyphosate testing. Specifically that NOT ALL STUDY REVIEWS were considered, and that this could may introduce bias.
Authors:
John Peterson Myers,corresponding author Michael N. Antoniou, Bruce Blumberg, Lynn Carroll, Theo Colborn, Lorne G. Everett, Michael Hansen, Philip J. Landrigan, Bruce P. Lanphear, Robin Mesnage, Laura N. Vandenberg, Frederick S. vom Saal, Wade V. Welshons, and Charles M. Benbrookcorresponding author
Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville, VA, and Adjunct Professor, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA USA
Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, London, UK
Department of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA USA
The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Paonia, CO USA
L. Everett & Associates, Santa Barbara, CA USA
Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY USA
Department of Preventive Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY USA
Child & Family Research Institute, BC Children’s Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, Amherst, MA USA
Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO USA
Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO USA
Benbrook Consulting Services, 90063 Troy Road, Enterprise, OR 97828 USA
Environmental Health Sciences, 421 Park St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 USA
John Peterson Myers, Phone: (434) 220-0348, Email: gro.cishe@sreympj.
You say it doesn’t matter. And that you cannot have a bunch (mixture) of chemicals together and test. They can and have been tested as a mixture; it depends on the methodology used.
Round up has other chemicals (adjudvants) that glyphosate doesn’t have. These are not tested as a mixture by the EPA. As you stated they are tested individually and considered. There are reputable studies showing that mixing these adjudavants with glyphosate increases the toxicity of the mixture in a significant manner. This includes the roundup mixture.
A peer review is submitted by another poster and you state that the peer review was cherry picked and go on to suggest they may be doing it for monetary gain (funding).
Link in question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/
The poster replied the peer review was a random choice using neutral words. This poster has stated he is a scientist.
As for your suggestion that that the esteemed professional authors who signed off on this document are doing it for monetary gain (funding) is speculative and insulting to the authors; And serves only to demean the authors.
There are more studies of this general nature available from reputable sources.
You have largely ignored this. As has the EPA.
and I suggest it would be reasonable to say that glyphosate cannnot be classified carcinogen, nor can it be classified as not a carcinogen as tested with the EPA's flawed and outdated methodologies. Most specifically- not testing it as a mixture (roundup).
studies have shown that glyphosate based pesticides tested as mixtures are carcinogenic. The EPA's panel that reviewed the epa's work on testing had concerns with how they chose and searched other review documents on glyphosate testing. Specifically that NOT ALL STUDY REVIEWS were considered, and that this could may introduce bias.
Authors:
John Peterson Myers,corresponding author Michael N. Antoniou, Bruce Blumberg, Lynn Carroll, Theo Colborn, Lorne G. Everett, Michael Hansen, Philip J. Landrigan, Bruce P. Lanphear, Robin Mesnage, Laura N. Vandenberg, Frederick S. vom Saal, Wade V. Welshons, and Charles M. Benbrookcorresponding author
Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville, VA, and Adjunct Professor, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA USA
Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, London, UK
Department of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA USA
The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Paonia, CO USA
L. Everett & Associates, Santa Barbara, CA USA
Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY USA
Department of Preventive Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY USA
Child & Family Research Institute, BC Children’s Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, Amherst, MA USA
Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO USA
Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO USA
Benbrook Consulting Services, 90063 Troy Road, Enterprise, OR 97828 USA
Environmental Health Sciences, 421 Park St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 USA
John Peterson Myers, Phone: (434) 220-0348, Email: gro.cishe@sreympj.
Last edited:
Because the article was at the top of a google search may mean that it’s a popular article, not necessarily the best or most representative article covering the subject. It is still peer reviewed and recent though.
I think this glyphosate case and the recent Johnson’s baby powder cancer case are very similar. It’ll be interesting to see what happens. I’ll make a prediction, any damages awarded are going to be severely curtailed on appeal.
Robbo
Well-known member
Pull it and re-seed. Has always worked for me. I have even gone as far as to remove the neighbour’s crabgrass and weeds so they don’t spread to my lawn.
Always best to remove it before it goes to seed if you can.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
|
|