Dennis, thanks for the history of research in that area
you may want to check this recent study out, came out this year. there are also links to other studies that support their claims.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-evidence-that-herbicide-glyphosate-monsanto-roundup-causes-cancer/5438484
I wouldn't be so eager to drink the cool aid on this one.
I would also be highly suspect of any studies done on humans. The ethical limits are very restricted. Can you imagine treating people with a known carcinogen? I believe in animal research but human studies are much more restricted than let's say mice or rats. And yes, we are pretty closely related to mice and rats.
you may want to check this recent study out, came out this year. there are also links to other studies that support their claims.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-evidence-that-herbicide-glyphosate-monsanto-roundup-causes-cancer/5438484
I wouldn't be so eager to drink the cool aid on this one.
I would also be highly suspect of any studies done on humans. The ethical limits are very restricted. Can you imagine treating people with a known carcinogen? I believe in animal research but human studies are much more restricted than let's say mice or rats. And yes, we are pretty closely related to mice and rats.
me. But i have a length advantage so it's not really fair.
lmao...
That link is very questionable. Some of the sources they cited, are in direct opposition to what I linked to. Pay close attention to #6.
Your link is listed as a predatory publication that not always carries peer reviewed research.
In recent years, multiple publications with various levels of scientific rigor have been disseminated concerning the safety of glyphosate (Antoniou et al., 2012; Krüger et al., 2013). Some claim that glyphosate is responsible for all the ailments of the Western world (Samsel and Seneff, 2014). Others simply selectively cite literature on their topic of interest without presenting the scope of information on the topic and assert unwarranted conclusions that do not reflect the body of scientific knowledge. Some have been rejected by the scientific community and retracted by the publishers and are no longer citable. While having a background in toxicology, epidemiology or medicine may be helpful in discerning the quality and integrity of such publications, I suggest the following nontechnical considerations to help make up your own mind on the merits of specific publications.
1.Are the authors experienced in this area of research? What is their publication track record?
2.Is the publication based on the authors’ own research? If it is cited from elsewhere, dig deeper to see if the primary literature conclusions are actually reflected in the publication at hand.
3.Is the publication agenda driven or objective research? Was the publication concomitant with a media campaign and/or book release or followed up with a lecture tour, and, if so, who is funding these activities?
4.The scientific process does not stop with a publication. Often, letters to the editor follow; these may offer further insights and opinions but, sadly, are not often linked to the original paper. Dig deeper to find follow-up correspondence on the literature of interest.
5.Look for expert review manuscripts on the topic, published in high-quality scientific journals.
6.Check the authenticity of the journal as offering quality peer-reviewed scientific literature. Go to Beall’s list (http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2013/) to help discern questionable publishers and journals, which may not provide adequate peer review. Often such journals may not publish letters to the editor.
your claiming that the research is not credible? do you do that for all things that directly oppose your point of view? just asking.
So you are saying then that The International Agency for Cancer Research is predatory and should not be trusted?
and that the recently published study in what is considered to be one of the most (if not the most) credible medical journals of today, The Lancet Oncology, is not credible? http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/04/04/the-worlds-most-credible-medical-journal-outlines-bad-news-for-monsanto/
this shows the highest ranked oncology journal to date http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2730
I live in the world of science publication. I have first hand experience with the publishing system, albeit not medical research.
You targeted attacks sound like they come from a defensive stand point. You probably use Roundup all the time, maybe you even sell it or apply it for a living?
So you are saying then that The International Agency for Cancer Research is predatory and should not be trusted?
and that the recently published study in what is considered to be one of the most (if not the most) credible medical journals of today, The Lancet Oncology, is not credible? http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/04/04/the-worlds-most-credible-medical-journal-outlines-bad-news-for-monsanto/
this shows the highest ranked oncology journal to date http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2730
I live in the world of science publication. I have first hand experience with the publishing system, albeit not medical research.
You targeted attacks sound like they come from a defensive stand point. You probably use Roundup all the time, maybe you even sell it or apply it for a living?
negatory. I just like to discuss facts. Your link previously provided is not held in great regard by the scientific community. That's what I'm saying, and I produced proof.
They just reported the story, the proof is in the pudding (the medical journal) not a news outlet. I thought you knew that.
The link you provided proves my case. They think it does, but have not proven it does.
A recently published study in what is considered to be one of the most (if not the most) credible medical journals of today, The Lancet Oncology, determined that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp pesticide, is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The study was published earlier this month, and was conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. It analyzed data from studies that have been conducted on the chemical for the past couple of decades.
I can say for a fact flying in airplanes and driving cars can be fatal or hazardous to your health.
You will die if you eat bacon. That is a 100% fact that nobody can refute.
A recently published study in what is considered to be one of the most (if not the most) credible medical journals of today, The Lancet Oncology, determined that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp pesticide, is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The study was published earlier this month, and was conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. It analyzed data from studies that have been conducted on the chemical for the past couple of decades.
I can say for a fact flying in airplanes and driving cars can be fatal or hazardous to your health.
You will die if you eat bacon. That is a 100% fact that nobody can refute.
The word "international" is all I need to see to know where to place anything they say, publish, predict, blame, support, caution against or recommend. They survive on grants. As for me, I don't trust them.
Woody
Woody
“The chronic toxicity of glyphosate is low; the only significant toxicity seen in a number of animal bioassays was mild hepatotoxicity at high doses in mice. There is no evidence of carcinogenicity.” But this does not prove it
Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (1991):
“Health and Welfare Canada has reviewed the glyphosate toxicology database, which is considered to be complete. The acute toxicity of glyphosate is very low. The submitted studies contain no evidence that glyphosate causes mutations, birth defects or cancer.”
US Environmental Protection Agency, Registration Eligibility Document (US EPA, 1993):
“Based on the results of its reregistration review, EPA has concluded that all registered uses of glyphosate are eligible for reregistration. The Agency has classified glyphosate as a Group E carcinogen (signifies evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans).” evidence just like the evidence i provided, in a reputable journal
World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 159 (WHO IPCS, 1994):
“Animal studies show that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic.”Obviously an erroneous conclusion since a recent study in a reputable journal disputes this claim.
World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (WHO/FAO JMPR, 2004)
“In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.”This is the most important one of all UNLIKELY, NOT "DOES NOT"
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA, 2013) review of the Earth Open Source report “Roundup and Birth Defects: Is the Public Being Kept in the Dark?”
“The APVMA currently has no data before it suggesting that glyphosate products registered in Australia and used according to label instructions present any unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and trade …”
“The weight and strength of evidence shows that glyphosate is not genotoxic, carcinogenic or neurotoxic. “
Glyphosate Reevaluation Assessment Report, Germany Rapporteur Member State for the European Annex I Renewal of Glyphosate (2014)
“…glyphosate was considered unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk in humans …” Unlikely
“In epidemiological studies in humans, there was no evidence of carcinogencity and there were no effects on fertility, reproduction and development or of neurotoxicity that might be attributed to glyphosate. “[/QUOTE]
Now there is a study that claims that there are health effects. HMMM maybe the others missed something. That is actually the beauty of Science. It is self correcting. In light of new evidence.... we change our mind. Don't get too stuck in your ways my friend.
Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (1991):
“Health and Welfare Canada has reviewed the glyphosate toxicology database, which is considered to be complete. The acute toxicity of glyphosate is very low. The submitted studies contain no evidence that glyphosate causes mutations, birth defects or cancer.”
US Environmental Protection Agency, Registration Eligibility Document (US EPA, 1993):
“Based on the results of its reregistration review, EPA has concluded that all registered uses of glyphosate are eligible for reregistration. The Agency has classified glyphosate as a Group E carcinogen (signifies evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans).” evidence just like the evidence i provided, in a reputable journal
World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 159 (WHO IPCS, 1994):
“Animal studies show that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic.”Obviously an erroneous conclusion since a recent study in a reputable journal disputes this claim.
World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (WHO/FAO JMPR, 2004)
“In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.”This is the most important one of all UNLIKELY, NOT "DOES NOT"
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA, 2013) review of the Earth Open Source report “Roundup and Birth Defects: Is the Public Being Kept in the Dark?”
“The APVMA currently has no data before it suggesting that glyphosate products registered in Australia and used according to label instructions present any unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and trade …”
“The weight and strength of evidence shows that glyphosate is not genotoxic, carcinogenic or neurotoxic. “
Glyphosate Reevaluation Assessment Report, Germany Rapporteur Member State for the European Annex I Renewal of Glyphosate (2014)
“…glyphosate was considered unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk in humans …” Unlikely
“In epidemiological studies in humans, there was no evidence of carcinogencity and there were no effects on fertility, reproduction and development or of neurotoxicity that might be attributed to glyphosate. “[/QUOTE]
Now there is a study that claims that there are health effects. HMMM maybe the others missed something. That is actually the beauty of Science. It is self correcting. In light of new evidence.... we change our mind. Don't get too stuck in your ways my friend.
Similar threads
