General Discussion

marmar

(77,090 posts) Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:06 AM Mar 2015

Monsanto Weedkiller Is 'Probably Carcinogenic,' WHO Says

(Bloomberg) -- Monsanto Co.’s best-selling weedkiller Roundup probably causes cancer, the World Health Organization said in a report that’s at odds with prior findings.

Roundup is the market name for the chemical glyphosate. A report published by the WHO in the journal Lancet Oncology said Friday there is “limited evidence” that the weedkiller can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer and “convincing evidence” it can cause cancer in lab animals. The report was posted on the website of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, the Lyon, France-based arm of the WHO.

Monsanto, which invented glyphosate in 1974, made its herbicide the world’s most popular with the mid-1990s introduction of crops such as corn and soybeans that are genetically engineered to survive it. The WHO didn’t examine any new data and its findings are inconsistent with assessments from the U.S., European Union and elsewhere, Monsanto said.

“We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe,” Philip Miller, Monsanto vice president for global regulatory affairs, said in a statement. .........(more)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-20/who-classifies-monsanto-s-glyphosate-as-probably-carcinogenic-

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Monsanto Weedkiller Is 'Probably Carcinogenic,' WHO Says (Original Post) marmar Mar 2015 OP

Water is "probably carcinogenic." Archae Mar 2015 #1

Do you think drinking a glass of water would have the same effect as drinking a glass of Round Up? Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #4

Does the WHO classify water as a probable carcinogen? Does it come labeled or do we at least know when we're drinking it? pnwmom Mar 2015 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author 99Forever Mar 2015 #2

Looks like you've... 99Forever Mar 2015 #3

Oh right, anything "natural" is just fine. Archae Mar 2015 #5

You go right ahead and feed that poison to your family, if you please. 99Forever Mar 2015 #6

You want a good laugh? Go check out the "Washington Friends of Farms and Forests"! Rex Mar 2015 #15

And your degree is in what? newfie11 Mar 2015 #7

It's not harmless. HuckleB Mar 2015 #9

Indeed. But DU still doesn't understand that reality. HuckleB Mar 2015 #8

Science is a subtle process, in which scientists disagree with each other Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #10

That's the usual cop out for people who have vested interests in ignoring the science, or... HuckleB Mar 2015 #13

This message was self-deleted by its author JTFrog Mar 2015 #11

Wow, www.wafriends.org sure are some interesting folks! Rex Mar 2015 #14

you just used an example of acute toxicity Agony Mar 2015 #16

And the chemical industry apologists will arrive in 3...2...1... Rex Mar 2015 #17

Archae

(46,344 posts)

1. Water is "probably carcinogenic."

Reply to marmar (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:09 AM

Mar 2015

Should we ban water?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)

4. Do you think drinking a glass of water would have the same effect as drinking a glass of Round Up?

Reply to Archae (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:32 AM

Mar 2015

pnwmom

(108,991 posts)

12. Does the WHO classify water as a probable carcinogen? Does it come labeled or do we at least know when we're drinking it?

Reply to Archae (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:40 PM

Mar 2015

Response to marmar (Original post)

99Forever This message was self-deleted by its author.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)

3. Looks like you've...

Reply to marmar (Original post)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:17 AM

Mar 2015

.. already got a corporate shill here to defend the poisonous shit they put on foods they feed to people. Nice.

Thanks for the article.

Archae

(46,344 posts)

5. Oh right, anything "natural" is just fine.

Reply to 99Forever (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:45 AM

Mar 2015

Poison Ivy is "natural."

Poisonous mushrooms are "natural."

Puffer fish are "natural."

99Forever

(14,524 posts)

6. You go right ahead and feed that poison to your family, if you please.

Reply to Archae (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:56 AM

Mar 2015

This "natural" human being isn't buying the horseshit you're selling, I want labels that tell me when it's in there. Don't like that? Too effen bad. Fuck Monsanto.

Rex

(65,616 posts)

15. You want a good laugh? Go check out the "Washington Friends of Farms and Forests"!

Reply to 99Forever (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:52 PM

Mar 2015

http://www.wafriends.org/

Go look at their board of directors!

Sad to see big agro pimped here like it was unbiased information.

newfie11

(8,159 posts)

7. And your degree is in what?

Reply to Archae (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:07 PM

Mar 2015

Are you an MD or a chemist? What makes you so certain roundup is harmless, do tell, educates us?

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)

9. It's not harmless.

Reply to newfie11 (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:27 PM

Mar 2015

It kills weeds, after all.

However, compared to many other substances in common use, it is not the horror that the hyperbole presents it to be.

Here's a fair piece on the topic:

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)

8. Indeed. But DU still doesn't understand that reality.

Reply to Archae (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:25 PM

Mar 2015

An interesting piece on the reactions of scientists to this news.

Once again, we find that science is a subtle process, and political hype tends to give people the wrong picture.

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)

10. Science is a subtle process, in which scientists disagree with each other

Reply to HuckleB (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:31 PM

Mar 2015

When "scientists" are receiving funding from corporate donors that have a financial stake in the outcome, then it is no longer science that they are pursuing. The participation of vested corporate donors in the research process has corrupted the system.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)

13. That's the usual cop out for people who have vested interests in ignoring the science, or...

Reply to Art_from_Ark (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:41 PM

Mar 2015

... in pushing hyperbolic headlines that don't represent the reality of the story.

It's not a valid cop out. The peer review process works over time, and there is far more research done with neutral funding than those who push this cliche will ever acknowledge.

The point is that the hyperbole about this topic is not representative of the actual story. And since your response has nothing to do with the link I offered to Archae, I can only presume that ideology matters more than an actual discussion, to you.

Ideology has no place in the discussion, for those who actually care about science and the process.