Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many commercially available herbicide products, including Roundup. Glyphosate is a chemical compound that has been registered for use as a herbicide with the EPA since 1974. In a letter published by the Chronicle Oct. 21, William Collins, referring to the herbicide (glyphosate), unequivocally states, “It causes cancer and other maladies.” What other maladies is, of course, unclear. Mr. Collins’ presumptive evidence: “... Monsanto ... is paying billions ... in damages to those who have been exposed to it.” By the way, a California judge already downsized the finding against Bayer (Monsanto’s owner) from billions to $250 million. And not a penny has yet been paid to any litigant.

Well, what does the science say about glyphosate as a human carcinogen? On Sept. 12, 2016, the Obama administration’s EPA (not Trump’s) published Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential. On page 140, “An extensive database exists for evaluating the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate, including 23 epidemiological studies, 15 animal carcinogenicity studies, and nearly 90 genotoxicity studies for the active ingredient glyphosate. ... studies were evaluated for quality and ... analyzed ... within each line of evidence.” Then, page 141, “For cancer descriptors, the available data and weight-of-evidence clearly do not support the descriptors carcinogenic to humans, likely to be carcinogenic to humans, or inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential. For the suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential descriptor, considerations could be looked at in isolation; however, following a thorough integrative weight-of-evidence evaluation of the available data ... would not support this cancer descriptor. The strongest support is for not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant to human health risk assessment.”

In early 2018, Slate.com published a comprehensive analysis, easily understandable by laymen, of the on-going controversy re glyphosate, the European Union, and California regulators. The article clearly concludes, “... as the facts stand today, there is no indication that glyphosate raises the risk of cancer.”

Lawyers shilling on television for lucrative civil-suit business notwithstanding, there is no rigorous scientific evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.

Next, Mr. Collins segues into blaming Trump for poisoning the streams “aka your water supply.” He then poses the left’s commonly employed rhetorical question when attempting to scare or shame anyone who disagrees with their political agenda, “How many of us is this going to kill?” Probably as many as have died from using Roundup.

Mike Nielsen

Pine Ridge

(2) comments

Miuke Nelson

Do you have Bayer stock? I would point out that while the judgement may have been reduced monetarily, it was not vacated. 250 million is still a big number. The EPA, regardless of who was President, has always been industry friendly. Under Trump, they have carried it to extremes.

There has been a recent study where researchers "performed a meta-analysis of the epidemiological research around glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In a meta-analysis, scientists combine and analyze data from multiple studies and look for broad trends in the research. The team found a “compelling link” between exposure to glyphosate-based weedkillers and NHL. The study concluded that people exposed to glyphosate at the highest levels have 41 percent higher risk of contracting non-Hodgkin lymphoma than people who aren’t, a measure known as “relative risk” in epidemiology." So there is in fact some scientific evidence against glysphosate.

In a report commissioned by Monsanto it stated “In essence, the political leadership favors deregulation and dismisses the expert risk analysis. It is especially averse to theoretical risk analysis, for example, on the risks of glyphosate, about which a scientific consensus is yet to form… With regard to glyphosate, in particular, the differences between political and professional staff are sharp.”

The professional staffers, those scientists and others who typically have been within an agency for many years through multiple administrations.

Within the EPA, professional staffers are said to have “doubts about glyphosate,” but those doubts “are not shared by the EPA’s leadership.”"

MikeBond

That's the Bayer opinion, other scientists have concluded in newer tests parameters, and have already stated, “exposure to GBHs are associated with an increased risk of NHL”.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/weed-killing-products-increase-cancer-risk-of-cancer

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.