I hope I live to see Monsanto bite the big one in court.

She was a Roundup-Ready soybean farmer for about 30 years.

"Rural residents who drink water from private wells are much more likely to have Parkinson’s disease, a finding that bolsters theories that farm pesticides may be partially to blame, according to a new California study."

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/parkinsons-and-pesticides

*the poisonous corporate industrial chemical brew poured out upon Farm Fields, inc. from sea to sea includes not just pesticides, but also giga-gallons of glyphosate goo.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parkinsons-disease-and-pesticides-whats-the-connection/

One of the key studies evaluated in the Monograph was the United States Agricultural Health Study (AHS). This study did not find an association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and glyphosate. Can this study alone outweigh the positive associations found in other epidemiological studies?


The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) has been described as the “most powerful” study, but this is not correct. The AHS collected data on cancer and pesticide use in more than 50 000 farmers and pesticide applicators in two states in the USA. The weakness of the study is that people were followed up for a short period of time, which means fewer cases of cancer would have had time to appear. This factor can limit the ability of a study to detect an association if one truly exists. Therefore, although the AHS is a large, well-conducted study, its results on glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk do not outweigh those of other studies.


The IARC Working Group also conducted an objective statistical analysis of the results of all of the available studies on glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which included the AHS and all of the case– control studies. The data from all of the studies combined show a statistically significant association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to glyphosate.





If your salad dressing has soybean oil and it's not labeled organic/non gmo you're eating GMO. And you will Like it. Or the Flying Monkey Brigade will call you a climate change denier.

rely primarily on industry data from toxicological studies that are not available in the public domain."

How can research that is not available to the public, be peer reviewed?

http://www.producer.com/daily/toxicologist-pans-un-glyphosate-report/

"Solomon and an international team of scientists conducted a study on glyphosate in Colombia in the early 2000s as part of a Colombian government program to destroy illegal coca fields in the countryside."

That positively reeks of bias.

"The IARC Monographs evaluation is based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests. It follows strict scientific criteria, and the classification system is recognized and used as a reference all around the world. This is because IARC evaluations are based on independent scientific review and rigorous criteria and procedures.
To reach these conclusions, IARC reviewed about 1000 studies. Some of the studies looked at people exposed through their jobs, such as farmers. Others were experimental studies on cancer and cancer- related effects in experimental systems."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7670342

This comes directly from the IARC:

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

They relied on one study for their conclusion regarding the genotoxicity of glyphosate. The author of that study says the IARC misinterpreted the results of that study. Without evidence of genotoxicity, the IARC's poorly derived theory on the causal mechanism for cancer is fundamentally flawed and the rest of their conclusions fall like the house of cards they always were. The vast majority of those "about 1000 studies" you mentioned support the exact opposite conclusion the IARC reached on correlation between glyphosate and cancer.