Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

yellowcanine

(36,825 posts)
50. Yep - you are correct. Only "Merican" studies here......
Wed Mar 25, 2015, 09:29 AM
Mar 2015


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)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This is scary. bravenak Mar 2015 #1
What a bummer! gollygee Mar 2015 #4
Yes and no. bravenak Mar 2015 #5
:( gollygee Mar 2015 #6
Yeah. 4 dollar Mangoes are a piss off. bravenak Mar 2015 #7
You might want to check for mold in your home, because that can be a year round pnwmom Mar 2015 #9
Honestly, I had a mold problem in a previous apartment. bravenak Mar 2015 #10
NOW will our government label GMOs? Not really surprised at all by this. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #2
Well "who" and "woo" do rhyme. gollygee Mar 2015 #3
Yes, don't give them any ideas though. Monsanto is probably working on dismissing these findings sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #8
The WHO says GMOs on the market are safe. HuckleB Mar 2015 #23
Excerpts from Regulatory Authorities: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity (Glyphosate aka Roundup) yellowcanine Mar 2015 #11
How many Superfund sites are Monsanto responsible for? SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #14
How does that relate to question at hand - whether glyphosate is a carcinogen? yellowcanine Mar 2015 #16
What do you think of the companies that make glyphosate? SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #17
"Simple question." But not a relevant one. yellowcanine Mar 2015 #18
wow - thank you for a very thoughtful responce. SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #20
"i find it strange when someone does not err on the safe side of these issues" yellowcanine Mar 2015 #48
it goes to the agricultural system SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #51
Banning organic spinach seems like the only reasonable course Major Nikon Mar 2015 #54
Round Up is more toxic than glyphosate alone GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #12
"recent studies seem to show....." Need a link if you make a claim like that. yellowcanine Mar 2015 #13
Séralini "study" Major Nikon Mar 2015 #31
Where are all the "SCIENCE!" shills? whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #15
So if we ask for good science, we are "shills?" Okay. yellowcanine Mar 2015 #19
If you're ever confused as to what people here mean by "anti-science" NuclearDem Mar 2015 #22
Well whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #24
Sure you do... SidDithers Mar 2015 #26
Oh yay, it's time for another episode of whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #28
"skeptical about the safety of ingesting Roundup." Who is suggesting you should ingest Roundup?" yellowcanine Mar 2015 #49
This OP has been repeated over and over again, always with scary headlines, but no actual context. HuckleB Mar 2015 #21
3/20/15 W.H.O. IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides Zorra Mar 2015 #25
Sorry, only Merican science is valid whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #27
Only Merican science funded by corporations is valid! All them Gubmint studies Zorra Mar 2015 #29
Yep - you are correct. Only "Merican" studies here...... yellowcanine Mar 2015 #50
Interesting how IARC relied on Séralini's widely discredited rat study Major Nikon Mar 2015 #34
Write them a stern letter and explain to them why their findings are all wrong. nt Zorra Mar 2015 #36
I'm sure they knew before they published it Major Nikon Mar 2015 #37
Nice try! But more fail. It does not even indicate that the IARC used the Seralini Study Zorra Mar 2015 #39
Review of Rachel Maddow's book Drift: NuclearDem Mar 2015 #40
You are using a strawman to deflect from the fact that the Seralini Study was not Zorra Mar 2015 #42
Oh, horseshit. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #44
Whatever, blahblahblah...Do you know what the funding sources for American Academics Zorra Mar 2015 #45
Nah, that's even more solid Major Nikon Mar 2015 #53
Sure. I failed because you said so Major Nikon Mar 2015 #41
The point is you either deliberately lied when you said that the IARC relied on the Seralini Zorra Mar 2015 #43
Wow, those are the only two options I get? Major Nikon Mar 2015 #46
Something else: glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Octafish Mar 2015 #30
Only two references to Séralini "studies" so far in this thread Major Nikon Mar 2015 #32
Please tell me you're not actually citing the Seralini paper. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #38
Even that isn't peer reviewed Major Nikon Mar 2015 #52
Kick and recommend. Wella Mar 2015 #33
No shite, sherlock! "monsanto .. assured.. doesn't cause cancer.."?! Brawaaaaa Cha Mar 2015 #35
I purposely didn't read the posts yet. Has the "why do you hate science?1!!?" guy posted? U4ikLefty Mar 2015 #47
Yeah they're all over it whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #55
Hey, looks like some more, oh, what are they called... NuclearDem Mar 2015 #57
Haha whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #58
Better raise food stamps... bobclark86 Mar 2015 #56
Let them eat cake Major Nikon Mar 2015 #59
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Study: Monsato's Roundup ...»Reply #50