2,4-D herbicide 'possibly' causes cancer in humans

[fishheadbob]

I agree too much of anything can kill, especially over the long run as stuff accumulates in systems. I see this as a tradeoff. 2-4-d has many benefits, has produced cheaper food to feed more people, and most likely has some nasty long term negative effects.
DDT is banned in the U.S. because of its' negative effects, but millions of people didn't die from malaria because of it. Genetically modified grain has many opponents who can cite valid reasons against it, but there are a lot more people living because of its' benefits in increased food production.
When I die, probably from some unusual cancer, no grass will grow over my grave because of all the glyphosate and 2-4-d I've encountered. I'll be smiling thinking that these and other chemicals provided more food to feed people who maybe couldn't have afforded it. As I said, it's a tradeoff.

 

[tjkadar]

Most chemicals do not cause cancer. If you are predisposed towards one form of cancer or another, excessive exposure to some harsh substances may increase your chance of getting that cancer even more. Its a crap shoot based on the genetics you were born with.

DDT was banned because of poor science. They blamed DDT in "the Silent Spring" for weak egg shells and loss of bird life. In retrospect, it was PCBs, not DDT.

 

[EddieWalker]

Cancer has been doing a pretty good job both educating and scaring the general public. Its normal to be afraid of the unknown threat that will cut you (or friends or loved ones) down to an early grave. Educating the public to NOT be scared is what the producers and sellers tend to do because they want to sell the stuff. NOW.

47 million pounds of 2,4-D are spread across the countryside ( USA alone! ) every year. It's a big market and Dow wants to spread 47 million pounds across the USA in 2015 too, and 2016 and on. Maybe more and certainly not less.

No surprises here.

That it might take generations for mankind to adjust to a chemical in the food supply it's worthwhile to consider that people may become resistant to 2,4-D if it is a permanent part of our food supply. We have a few generations under our belt, maybe in a few more generations all those who can't tolerate the chemical will have died out.

If another chemical de-thrones 2,4-D then we actually have to start anew, in assessing whether people can tolerate it (over the generations). Also whatever chemical is used in place of 2,4-D may be worse than 2,4-D.

Creating and dumping billions of pounds across the countryside is a slippery slope.

With that much 2,4-D being used, and knowing that it's been going on for over half a century, wouldn't it be safe to say that since nobody has gotten cancer from it yet, the odds are pretty good that it's safe? Labeling it as "Possibly" causing cancer is also proof that they cannot find a link to it causing cancer, so there really isn't a story here, just the WHO trying to make themselves relevant in spite of a history of being wrong, corrupt and dishonest so many times in the past.

Eddie

 

[super55]

I don't put much value on the claim when they say "possibly carcinogenic". Here are a few other items that they have listed as possibly carcinogenic.

gasoline
diesel
coffee
pickled vegetables
flagyl- a broad spectrum antibiotic
coconut oil in shampoo and soaps
welding fumes

Even the big bad chemical DDT is only listed at possibly carcinogenic. It makes great headlines when they say they want to ban a chemical with the same effects as DDT than saying they want to ban a chemical that has the same probability of cancer as pickled vegetables or coffee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens

 

[2LaneCruzer]

I personally would treat all chlorinated hydrocarbons as potentially carcinogenic until proven otherwise. Even the Chlorine in drinking water can create carcinogens or have a carcinogenic effect.

 

[Sodo]

Yea, well IARC is not exactly scientifically credible these days.
Same organization that classified aloe vera, being a fry cook, and jobs involving shiftwork that disrupts circadian rhythms as "probably carcinogenic".
Bunch of whackadoodles....

I looked into the circadian rhythms theories, and they lose credibility (with me) when I don't see mention that people who stay up all night often have poor diets, & other bad habits, probably aren't averse to eating chemicals.

International Agency for Research on Cancer is a large organization, 50 years old. Undoubtedly there will be whackadoodles there but hopefully less than exist in the general public. I suspect whackadoodles are the primary target of Fox news :laughing:. Everyone's looking for a political edge to validate something. Its a shame thats the way the world works.

The introduction of billions and billions of pounds of chemicals into the food supply will require a costly effort to suppress negative effects. The producers and sellers of these chemicals know and accept that some of their profits will be diverted towards pulling the wool over peoples eyes.

Understood that the increased food production due to chemicals adds comfort and saves lives. Starvation is "natural" in many parts of the world, thus increased food production is "unnatural". Not sure what to say about that.

If someone's going to turn over rocks in search for a cure or causes for cancer I appreciate that effort and I think eventually truths will be known.

 

[Sodo]

Even the big bad chemical DDT is only listed at possibly carcinogenic. It makes great headlines when they say they want to ban a chemical with the same effects as DDT than saying they want to ban a chemical that has the same probability of cancer as pickled vegetables or coffee.

Wasn't DDT banned because it persisted in the environment, causing lots of problems, including animal birth defects for many years after the application?. It killed off pollinator insects necessary for crops production, for years. Thus creating a commercial reason for banning it.

 

[JD500]

DDT is still being made. It was never banned world wide.

 

[tjkadar]

DDT was banned due to poor science. It was actually PCBs that were causing the birth defects not DDT.

 

[dirt ditch]

My grandfather mixed and sprayed 2,4-D on his fields and pastures for over 70 years. He was also head of the county Noxious Weed Department for many of those years. He died at the young age of 97. Not from cancer, his body was just worn out.