California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing

Post by notadoc » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #130

notadoc wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was mostly a joke, but I get your point and it's fair enough. Here is some interesting reading instead: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25801782/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=glyphosate+cancer http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/04/us/lawn-herbicide-called-c... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov…

It's not a joke. It's like the 4th comment you've posted on this thread claiming that people who disagree with you must be paid shills. As for your links: the ones actually about glyphosate are all based on IARC's assessment, which the WHO was later forced to walk back (see upthread). The remainder are about herbicides that aren't glyphosate. Nobody is arguing that all herbicides are safe. The discussion is about whe…

Post by hcurtiss » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:18 PM UTC

jly wrote: post #121

tptacek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's very little epidemiological evidence to suggest glyphosate is a human carcinogen. Millions of people are exposed to it, some in significant amounts on work sites. If there's any correlation between heavy occupational exposure to glyphosate and human cancer, it's very weak. Similarly: there's not a lot of first-principles logic to carcinogenicity of glyphosate. It's active in a metabolic pathway that animals d…

First, research is showing it has sub-lethal effects on many species of animals, particularly pollinators like bees where field-realistic doses can significantly reduce colony performance. Second, glyphosate persists and drifts easily from 'controlled' plants to nearby wild habitat, destroying and eroding critical forage. Glyphosate is hugely responsible for the conversion of massive amounts of land into corn and soy…

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:24 PM UTC

notadoc wrote: post #131

tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a joke. It's like the 4th comment you've posted on this thread claiming that people who disagree with you must be paid shills. As for your links: the ones actually about glyphosate are all based on IARC's assessment, which the WHO was later forced to walk back (see upthread). The remainder are about herbicides that aren't glyphosate. Nobody is arguing that all herbicides are safe. The discussion is about whe…

(nevermind)

Post by hcurtiss » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:25 PM UTC

notadoc wrote: post #131

tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a joke. It's like the 4th comment you've posted on this thread claiming that people who disagree with you must be paid shills. As for your links: the ones actually about glyphosate are all based on IARC's assessment, which the WHO was later forced to walk back (see upthread). The remainder are about herbicides that aren't glyphosate. Nobody is arguing that all herbicides are safe. The discussion is about whe…

(nevermind)

Post by Oletros » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

luckydude wrote: post #49

stinos wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand: we just don't know for sure. There is just no conclusive evidence saying 'humans exposed to this amount will have a higher risk at developing cancer'. That doesn't mean it's impossible, nor does it mean we will never know. That is probably what HN was trying to tell you (well, I hope it was, no other conclusions seem justified at this point - again, as far as I know from when I last read up on…

My understanding is that the EU is, or has already, going to label roundup as cancer causing. And California is now doing that. So what are they basing that ban on? If there is no evidence why would they do that? Has the EU or California made a practice of labeling stuff as cancer causing without any evidence? That seems pretty weird if that's true. Thanks for the tone of your answer, BTW.