In March 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[1]
It doesn't mean "right" either. Meanwhile, acrylamide is an example of an IARC 2A compound where there's little controversy: it causes stomach cancer and lymphoma. And yet we keep eating potato chips and grilling meat.
Just because we keep doing something does it make it safe?
I’m inclined to agree with the WHO because I can’t see how they could profit from having the results be the way they are, if you believe the conspiracy theories. The old adage, “follow the money” still holds true; so if there is a conspiracy where is the money for calling RoundUp harmful?
That Reuters article is loaded with conspiracy. No actual evidence of wrongdoing, unless I just missed it.
Honest question: If glycosate is safe couldn’t you drink it? Why then did this Monsanto lobbyist refuse to drink it? Honest question.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
No offense --- I don't know you or anything about you --- but this comment is like the Triple Crown of dumb GMO arguments.
1. That's a dude who was asked by Canal+ to give an interview about Golden Rice, a product that has nothing to do with herbicides, and is at the end of the interview asked to drink a glass of herbicide.
2. That dude doesn't work for Monsanto, isn't a "Monsanto lobbyist", and has never taken a dollar from Monsanto.
3. I don't need to watch Canal+ stunt interviews to know how dangerous glyphosate is, because there's something called "the medical literature", which documents people having drunk a half liter of the stuff with no effect.
4. But drinking a half liter of glyphosate-based herbicide is an extremely bad plan, because glyphosate isn't the only thing in glyphosate herbicide. Lots of routinely-used fungicides are extremely toxic to humans and found commonly in households.
5. Even if drinking a half liter of random herbicide was completely safe, I'd be upset if you demanded I drink it, for the same reason I'd be upset if you asked me to drink a glass of grapeseed oil or of human urine.
6. All of this drastically misses the point of glyphosate, which is that it's a very simple, broad-spectrum herbicide that is better understood than the selective herbicides farmers use for non-GMO crops. Glyphosate targets a metabolic pathway present in plants and fungus that isn't present in animals. That's not true of selective (grass- or broadleaf- targeting) herbicides. "Conventional" weed control programs are known to be dangerous to humans, rather than the targets of FUD campaigns.
7. If you're "inclined to agree with IARC" about glyphosate, unlike a significant number of scientists, I have bad news for you about cooking food --- meat or vegetables --- which is also 2A-carcinogenic.
> this comment is like the Triple Crown of dumb GMO arguments
Regarding points 1-5, did you miss that I said it was an honest question? I clearly did not say that it was an argument. I asked precisely because I knew there might be facts I am not aware of. Thank you for filling me in.
> 6. All of this drastically misses the point of glyphosate, which is that it's a very simple, broad-spectrum herbicide that is better understood than the selective herbicides farmers use for non-GMO crops. Glyphosate targets a metabolic pathway present in plants and fungus that isn't present in animals. That's not true of selective (grass- or broadleaf- targeting) herbicides. "Conventional" weed control programs are known to be dangerous to humans, rather than the targets of FUD campaigns.
And this addresses the concern that it may be a carcinogen... how?
> 7. If you're "inclined to agree with IARC" about glyphosate, unlike a significant number of scientists, I have bad news for you about cooking food --- meat or vegetables --- which is also 2A-carcinogenic.
And that also is not an argument for rejecting 2A carcinogenic labeling on glyphosate.
So I ask again: This addresses the concern that it may be a carcinogen... how?
Well, I ask rhetorically. Apparently an answer will not be given, only misdirection.
Sorry but I don't have the energy to debate with people who won't read carefully or provide answers that are not misdirecting. You may have the last word. Good day and God bless.
P.S., "a significant number of scientists" is a fallacious appeal to authority. A significant number of scientists is not the same as having a majority of consensus.
To say that IARC 2A classification is controversial would be understating.