>
> But I'd like to broaden the scope of discussion here by including
>the human and animal health effects of Roundup. It is both a carcinogen
>(non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) and an endocrine disruptor (inhibits
>steroidogenesis). The testing that revealed those two points looked at
>glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, by itself. The complete
>formulation is even more toxic.
In fact, this is a lie. The study that is pushed by the ecofundamentalist hysterics actually notes that Roundup does *not* cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. For some reason the hysterics repeat the findings from an early, incomplete preliminary study, but somehow magically forget to note the follow-up study by the *same* authors that concludes that the association falls out in multivariate analysis. In other words the authors of the article quoted here come to the opposite conclusion than that claimed here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
formatting link
the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Initially, so did a lot of other, nasty stuff that has since been removed from sale to the public. FIFRA and the EPA are not panacaeas for the proliferation of pesticides - only our best attempt to try to regulate and monitor the spread and effect of potentially toxic chemicals. Not that I am a huge fan of chemical pesticides (as most regulars here know) but this "report" is defnitely not an accurate assessment of the effects of glyphosate. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma has been linked (tentatively) only to organphosphates, of which substances glyphosate/RoundUp is not a member.
So, if the authors of the article state that there is not an association between Roundup and non-Hodgkins lymphoma under multivariate analysis, you should not claim that they say there is one.
In article , grdngal48 @comcast.net says... :) Non-Hodgkins lymphoma has been :) linked (tentatively) only to organphosphates, of which substances :) glyphosate/RoundUp is not a member. :) :) Glyphosate is considered an organophosphate..that is where they make the stretch.
Or not. You can speculate that it causes you to grow bunny ears and squeal like a pig if you want. Just note that it is pure speculation and that you are making it all up. There is no scientific evidence that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. There has been an entire thread devoted to this.
If you have a scientific article that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed, trot it out. Otherwise, I'll believe your bunny ears when I see them.
You're turning into quite the little ankle-biter, aren't you, Tom. First you cyberstalk, then you try to use sock puppets and anonymity, and now you follow me around from thread to thread.
OK, Tom, my challenge stands.
One single scientific article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
I guess I should have made myself a bit clearer :-)) While it may well be a derivative of phosphoric acid and therefore technically considered an organophosphate, it does not display any anticholinesterase activity which removes it from discussions regarding the potential neurotoxic effects of true organophosphates like malathion and chlorpyrifos. Even the EPA and EXTOXNET do not list it within the chemical class of organophosphates.The OP's statement was a little like saying that since bicycle riding without a helmet can lead to brain injuries, ANY bicycle riding without a helmet WILL lead to brain injuries - it simply isn't that direct a corollary.
Title: An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population Authors: Tye E. Arbuckle,1 Zhiqiu Lin,2 and Leslie S. Mery3 Author's Affiliation: 1Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health, Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
2Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario Canada; 3Cancer Bureau, Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Journal: Environ Health Perspect 109:851-857 (2001).
Abstract: "The toxicity of pesticides on human reproduction is largely unknown--particularly how mixtures of pesticide products might affect fetal toxicity. The Ontario Farm Family Health Study collected data by questionnaire on the identity and timing of pesticide use on the farm, lifestyle factors, and a complete reproductive history from the farm operator and eligible couples living on the farm. A total of 2,110 women provided information on 3,936 pregnancies, including 395 spontaneous abortions. To explore critical windows of exposure and target sites for toxicity, we examined exposures separately for preconception (3 months before and up to month of conception) and postconception (first trimester) windows and for early (< 12 weeks) and late (12-19 weeks) spontaneous abortions. We observed moderate increases in risk of early abortions for preconception exposures to phenoxy acetic acid herbicides [odds ratio (OR) =
1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-2.1], triazines (OR = 1.4; 95% CI,
1.0-2.0), and any herbicide (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9). For late abortions, preconception exposure to glyphosate (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9), thiocarbamates (OR = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), and the miscellaneous class of pesticides (OR = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) was associated with elevated risks. Postconception exposures were generally associated with late spontaneous abortions. Older maternal age (> 34 years of age) was the strongest risk factor for spontaneous abortions, and we observed several interactions between pesticides in the older age group using Classification and Regression Tree analysis. This study shows that timing of exposure and restricting analyses to more homogeneous endpoints are important in characterizing the reproductive toxicity of pesticides."
Scientists rarely are the heads of agencies, political appointments rarely go to scientists. Scientists are perhaps less likely to be dishonest, but are subject to the same pressures as everyone else. In my lectures this week I am talking about what happens when science "goes wrong". They are under the same political, social, economic pressures as everyone else.
formatting link
no incident points this out better than the search for the cause of AIDS. I show my students the movie "... and the band played on" but there are two books, one is the same title as the movie and the other is "Science fictions". Robert Gallo not only contributed nothing to the search for the cause of AIDS, but he may have well set research back by at least a year ... leading to the death of thousands of people.
Case in point: the French came up with a blood test 99.9% accurate in detecting those with the virus. Gallo came up with a blood test that was something like
90.9% accurate in detecting those with the virus, letting 10% of blood from infected people continue to contaminate the blood supply.
The French had the European patent and then applied for a US patent on their blood test 1 YEAR before Gallo, guess who got the patent? Gallo. The patent office is a government agency... above politics?
The blood centers and every>I'm not familiar with rBGH but it has been my experience that unlike
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
formatting link
the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Who do you think would be funding the research to find out IF roundup is dangerous?
Monsanto? they do the minimal kind of testing for short term toxicity, but they dont do the long term studies.
the government. nope, the gov does not do that kind of testing. they may (may) collect stats on cancer clusters after the fact.
independent agencies. well now they are hired by corps to do testing, and their income depends on who hires them... to many negatives and they lose their customers.
There is no middleman or "cut out" set up whereby the corporations come to a central clearing house who look at what kind of testing is needed, matches them with the independent labs that can do that kind of testing and randomly selects one to do it. This would remove the direct economic pressure from the independent testing labs.
As was pointed out about DDT. It was not that scientists didnt want to test properly... it was they didnt know AT THE TIME the right question to ask. Which was: does DDT accumulate in fat? What are the consequences to migrating species when DDT laced fats is rapidly metabolized? What are the long term consequences of the accumulation of fat laced with DDT in the food chain?
Nobody thought to ask these questi>If you have a scientific article that claims to show that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
formatting link
the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Northern Europeans do not pay most of their income for food and do not permit the kind of contamination of their food that we do in the US. Until recently GMO were banned, now they just MUST be labeled. Life expectancy in Japan is significantly longer than ours and they do not permit contamination of their food either. I would think it is abundantly clear (pun intended) that for our own health and well being food is already too cheap. The vast majority of americans dont NEED to be able to afford more food. This generation of obese US citizens is going to have much shorter life spans than slimmer citizens in other countries. The major "technological advance" in keeping 3rd world children alive is a 3 cent package of salts used in ERT or electrolyte replacement therapy.
All the dedicated civil servants in the world cant do squat if 1. there is no funding to do it, and 2. their boss is a political appointee OR, been bought and paid for by corporations. How the hell did we end up with an FDA regulation that specifically says that milk produced from cows injected with rBGH milk CANNOT be labeled to reflect its origin. The investigators and journalist have found a revolving door between the FDA and various companies like Monsanto et al. So after their "stint" at the FDA, the go to work for fabulous salaries at Monsanto.
LOL.. you obviously d>Yea Doc, it's all a big conspiracy. That's why you pay most of your income
To suggest that the dedicated civil
We have come a long way from the days when
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
formatting link
the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Title: The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) in Wistar rats.
Author: Dallegrave, Eliane; Mantese, Fabiana DiGiorgio; Coelho, Ricardo Soares; Pereira, Janaina Drawans; Dalsenter, Paulo Roberto; Langeloh, Augusto
Author Address Department of Pharmacology, Instituto de Ciencias Basicas da Saude, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Rua Sarmento Leite
500, Sala 202, 90046-900, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, BrazilDepartment of Pharmacology, Instituto de Ciencias Basicas da Saude, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Rua Sarmento Leite 500, Sala 202, 90046-900, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Published in: Toxicology Letters (Shannon), volumn 142, pages 45-52, (2003).
Abstract: "The aim of this study was to assess the teratogenicity of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) (as commercialized in Brazil) to Wistar rats. Dams were treated orally with water or 500, 750 or 1000 mg/kg glyphosate from day 6 to 15 of pregnancy. Cesarean sections were performed on day 21 of pregnancy, and number of corpora lutea, implantation sites, living and dead fetuses, and resorptions were recorded. Weight and gender of the fetuses were determined, and fetuses were examined for external malformations and skeletal alterations. The organs of the dams were removed and weighed. Results showed a 50% mortality rate for dams treated with 1000 mg/kg glyphosate. Skeletal alterations were observed in 15.4, 33.1, 42.0 and
57.3% of fetuses from the control, 500, 750 and 1000 mg/kg glyphosate groups, respectively. We may conclude that glyphosate-Roundup(R) is toxic to the dams and induces developmental retardation of the fetal skeleton."
Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com
very simple way to determine who is using rBGH and who isnt. Very early on in this debate the recommendation was for Monsanto to make public who it is selling rBGH to, and the dealers make public which farmers are buying it. But no way was Monsanto going to cooperate, that is not what they had in mind. Oh yes, it is illegal. Read the FDA on this point. They must include a disclaimer that basically says "rBGH hasnt been found to be a problem". But the real point is Monsanto will sue the shit out of any dairy that puts the "rBGH free" label on their product even with the disclaimer in place. Only two states (I think) passed laws making it legal for farmers to so label their products (with the disclaimer) which PROTECTED THEM FROM BEING SUED by Monsanto... those two are Vermont (Ben and Jerry's home state) and Wisconsin (not that I can find rBGH free milk in any regular grocery store). They did carry it for a while, then found consumers were not buying the unlabeled milk, so they quit carrying rBGH free labeled milk. The law allows labeling, doesnt REQUIRE it, so typical grocery stores arent going to carry labeled foods of any kind.
Yes, rBGH injections are extremely hard on the cow. decreases their life span,
50% become lame, increased mastitis, increased antibiotic treatments, decreased conception and carrying fetus to term. rBGH is the only product this harmful to ever be licensed for use by the "animal FDA", the oversight committee that determines if vet products are safe and healthy for animals... even treatments for diseases. How did such a damaging chemical ever get licensed for use?
"Milk is a hormonal delivery system. Mechanisms in milk insure that lactoferrins, immunoglobulins, and protein hormones do indeed survive digestive processes, and exert biological effects. " Whether or not rBGH is in the milk isnt the point. rBGH is a powerful hormone that stimulates the immune system of cows and they crank out all kinds of powerful hormones that end up in the milk... and are then drunk by kids. Every child in this country drinking cows milk has been enrolled in a vast experiment on the effects of powerful immunologically active substances. Because the closest Monsanto every got to determining IF there were ANY effects in children was a short term study they did on dwarfs.
Monsanto's stated reasons for pushing rBGH was 1. it was the first recombinant product they could get out the door and 2. if Americans let Monsanto do this to their milk, to their children, Americans would swallow ANY amount of screwing around with their food. I cannot even think of the word that describes their utter and complete disregard of the health and welfare of children in this country. And precisely BECAUSE the milk is not labeled, any negative consequences, any diseases that start showing up in children now or later as they age can never, ever legally be attributed to rBGH produced milk cause nobody knows whether the children drank this hormonally cranked up milk or not. This is true of all GMO foods, which is why labeling is being fought tooth and nail.
There are lots and lots of good companies. Some have chosen safety over the bottom line, many have never had to chose between safety and the bottom line. But there are those companies like Monsanto that put into play a long term strategy of working with other "like minded" companies to buy up, buy out and corrupt the government at every level, politicians, the FDA, every regulatory agency out there. To go after anybody that stands in their way. That is why America, land of the free, land of informed consent are not allowed to know which foods are GMO while the rest of the world DOES get to chose whether they want to eat GMO foods.
Is recomb>The dairy industry would almost certainly favor labeling of rBGH if there
As it is, it is not
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
formatting link
the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.