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

[Old Junk Man]

Its one of those things where the truth is however you perceive it. the cancer fear **** folks seem to cry wolf and claim almost everything causes cancer. the folks making money on products claim that it perfectly safe . I don't believe or trust any of them. neither side has irrefutable proof. They all make money from their positions. and that gives them incentive to bend the truth and mislead the public. My wife has sensitive skin. poison ivy & oak effect her. They don't bother me. Just because in not affected dont mean poison oak or ivy is not harmful.

 

[Sodo]

There is a financial motivation to pay for such conclusions to be published. Some conclusions are more profitable than others. And we know science is used for financial reward, in fact a lot of folks support it, even defend it.

Am I correct that Glyphosate has been on the market for only 40 years (1974)? The safety of such a chemical might require a few hundred years to ascertain. 40 years is barely more than one generation.

What we know at the 40-year stage could turn out to be true.

 

[MikePA]

The author did not say there was no risk, just that at those dose levels there was no risk.

There is no study that indicates no risk.

I clicked it and read it, but unconvinced.

If your only criterium is 'no risk', nothing will convince you.

But glyphosates are used in greater amounts than we think.

This all reminds me of the people who claim the MMR vaccine causes autism. Their primary argument is until someone proves it doesn't cause autism, they will continue to believe it does. They should simply be honest and say what they believe, i.e., nothing will convince them.

I cannot think of any advance in technology that doesn't come with some risk. The goal should be the benefits far outweigh the risk.

 

[Old Junk Man]

I think eventually its a wash. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. So with any thing there will be a equal number of good positive things as bad negative things. Good for some bad for others. It all comes out Even Steven in the end.

 

[tcreeley]

Here is a moral tale- rather interesting. Remember those watches whose hands glowed in the dark? This is the story of the girls who painted the hands with radium paint. Great ads and pics of the time.
The Radium Girls
The Radium Girls and the Generation that brushed its Teeth with Radioactive Toothpaste | Messy Nessy Chic

What we know today.........

 

[tjkadar]

Something a friend of mine wrote in response to fear mongering by 'Big Organic.' Complete with citations!

"While the Organic industry spends Billions of dollars through different organizations leading with fear as an industry to get you to buy their products, they are horribly hypocritical.

Below is a list of Organic substances which are far more toxic than anything you'll see on a GMO. (Which is why about 90% of certain crop farmers grow GMOs, they are far better for the environment). The full list of permitted organic substances can be found on the EPA's website.

While certain Organizations get paid big bucks by Organic companies to yell "Roundup Roundup something something Monsanto GMO something because Monsanto GMO or something," why do they fail to tell you that over half of of the pesticides used in Organic production are proven carcinogenic? Organic Pesticides Cause Cancer in Rats and Mice – OMRI LISTED – Pesticide Truths

I'll tell ya why.... Because the organic industry is now valued at over $65 Billion, while Monsanto (who only holds 30% of the market share for seeds) only brought it under $16 Billion last year. Follow (part of) the money trail here: http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Academics-Review_Organic-Marketing-Report1.pdf

"Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well." -https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

I say this... Not because I want you to fear Organic food. Quite the opposite. The moral of the story is that ALL food is safe, because the dose makes the poison. (Take 2 Tylenol, not the whole bottle) Farmers spray a very minimal amount on our crops, just to get the job done to rid of insects weeds, etc. They are very expensive, and it makes ZERO financial sense to "drench" our crops in chemicals. You'd have to eat MASSIVE amounts of any crop to negatively affect human health. Think....like... 84 TONS a day worth of corn, and even that is a stretch!

GMO Corn gets sprayed before the edible part of the plant is present, and is protected by husks, anyways. It's humanly impossible to "eat" roundup.... Application rate equates to about a fifth of a gallon combined with a hundred parts water on an area of land the size of a football field. (Which yields nearly 6 TONS of grain) It isn't scary. We eat our own crops, and have been feeding them to our livestock for nearly 20 years with no problems. We eat our own steaks and all have excellent health, as a farm family.

The next time you see something like GMOs could cause cancer, understand that according to a Google search, pretty much everything causes cancer. Plastic water bottles, granite countertops, campfires, coffee, alcohol, sunshine, organic pesticides, microwaves, cell phones. Are we supposed to live in a bubble? Kinda ridiculous, right?

I encourage everyone to go to the source for their information. If you read something scary on the internet, consider the source. Are they trying to sell you something? Are they asking you for donations? Who does their affiliate marketing on their website? We are farmers and I volunteer my time here. Doesn't it make more sense to ask us about farming? Learning about food production from someone with a computer science degree is like going to your lawyer when you need to have surgery! Silly.

Feel free to pass along this information. Farm Babe won't try and sell you anything. I'm not asking you for money or to buy my book. No one pays me to be here. I just think it's important to spread the word of truthful information from people that work in the industry everyday. If you have any questions about Agriculture, please visit a farm! Thank you to all the amazing farmers out there for all that you do, no matter how it's grown!"

 

[tcreeley]

Google this topic if you don't like this source - Roundup in breast milk.......and nobody pays me to do this.:

-Never heard of the product you posted; I would never use a herbicide, I'd rather mow. plow, or till. Scott is a chemical company- last place I'd go for an organic product.

Monsanto’s Roundup Found in the Breast Milk of U.S. Mothers
" In past research, glyphosate levels found in breast milk tests have been 760 to 1600 times higher than the European Drinking Water Directive allows for individual pesticides, but lower than the 700 ug/l maximum contaminant level (MCL) for glyphosate in the U.S. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set those pesticides limits based on the idea that glyphosate won’t accumulate in the human body — and organizations like Monsanto are quick to back up that theory. However, new glyphosate testing recently commissioned by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse analyzed 35 urine samples and 21 drinking water samples from across the US and found ‘high’ levels of glyphosate in 3 out of the 10 samples tested, which both organizations feel points to glyphosate levels building up in women’s bodies over a period of time."

 

[tjkadar]

1. The results of these sample analyses were not claimed to be from a proper scientific study; in fact, the report concludes that the results warrant further studies to be done*. Even in the case of a well-designed and rigorously conducted scientific study, no conclusion is accepted without repetition and independent verification of the study. The media often runs with the conclusions of single studies, science is more conservative and demands conclusive evidence.

2. A number of factors undermine the strength of this report. The source of the samples tested and their history of exposure to glyphosate is unknown. It is not known if the assay method has been validated for human breast milk, since this is not often a tested material, a validation should have been reported.

3. The results reported are not consistent with US data on glyphosate in human subjects, and at face value raise a number of questions. Glyphosate is rapidly excreted primarily in the urine and there is no data to indicate that it accumulates in fluids such as breast milk or serum or in tissues. Glyphosate is often not detected in urine**, and when it is observed urine values are usually about 10-fold higher than serum values since it is efficiently excreted. Since glyphosate is not fat soluble, serum and breast milk values would be expected to be very similar which is not the case with the data reported for the 10 breast milk samples that were analyzed. Why breast milk samples would have an uncharacteristically and unexpectedly high content of glyphosate relative to serum and urine values is open to question but sample contamination and/or unreliability of assay are plausible explanations.

4. The finding that 3 or the 10 samples had high levels of glyphosate is misleading in two ways. Firstly, high in this case means measurable above the lower limit of detection rather than high meaning a cause for alarm. The highest of these 3 samples, if real, contained glyphosate at levels that represent a worst-case infant exposure (33 ug/kg/day) more than 50-fold below the ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) set by US EPA regulatory toxicologists (1750 ug/kg). The ADI is set to provide a wide margin of safety of exposure.

5. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention note, because we can detect levels of an environmental chemical in a persons´ blood or urine does not necessarily mean that the chemical will cause effects or disease. Advances in analytical chemistry enable us to measure low levels of environmental chemicals in people, but separate studies of varying levels of exposure determine whether specific levels cause health effects. Food naturally contains a wide-array of potentially toxic chemicals such as cyanide, strychnine, carototoxin, and arsenic but they are usually present at levels that do no harm. Any chemical, whether natural or human-made can hurt us if we consume too much of it. Even table salt or iron can kill if too much is consumed. The mere presence of glyphosate in serum, urine or mothers´ milk is not a cause for alarm unless the levels are above those known to do harm. Over 4 decades of research studies and real-world use, including studies on large numbers of people who have been exposed to glyphosate, have allowed regulators to understand and set safe levels of exposure. Research has also established that the low levels of glyphosate sometimes found in bodily fluids pose no threat to health. WHO, EFSA, EPA and other regulatory agencies around the globe have concluded that trace levels of glyphosate in food should be of no more health concern than the presence of myriad potentially toxic chemicals that occur naturally in food.

6. It is important to consider the source. The testing was done for and samples were provided by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse; both organizations which oppose any use of GM technology in agriculture and which have a track record of promoting and endorsing flawed and rejected studies that claim harmful effects of GM crops while not citing the overwhelming number of studies that point to the safety of the technology. Their track record points to a clear bias on this issue. It is a bias that goes against the scientific literature and the great preponderance of expert opinion. It also runs counter to nearly 20 years of safe use by millions of farmers on billions of acres of farmed land.

* The initial testing that has been completed at Microbe Inotech Labs, St. Louis, Missouri, is not meant to be a full scientific study. Instead it was set up to inspire and initiate full peer-reviewed scientific studies on glyphosate, by regulatory bodies and independent scientists worldwide.

** Detection depends on the sensitivity of the assay system employed. As more and more sensitive assay techniques are developed, an increasing number of samples can be expected to test positive (see point #5)

 

[smstonypoint]

Google this topic if you don't like this source - Roundup in breast milk.......and nobody pays me to do this.:

And when you Google, you will find Glyphosate Breast Milk Health Risk Claims Debunked | Academics Review. Here's the concluding comment.

It is important to consider the source. The testing was done for and samples were provided by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse; both organizations which oppose any use of GM technology in agriculture and which have a track record of promoting and endorsing flawed and rejected studies that claim harmful effects of GM crops while not citing the overwhelming number of studies that point to the safety of the technology. Their track record points to a clear bias on this issue. It is a bias that goes against the scientific literature and the great preponderance of expert opinion. It also runs counter to nearly 20 years of safe use by millions of farmers on billions of acres of farmed land.

Steve

Edit -- tjkadar beat me to it.

 

[MikePA]

Google this topic...

When you are in a hole, stop digging. You are not going to convince anyone else your opinion is based on facts with biased, so called, 'studies'.