4 ms·

I agree, so why be concerned with ppb of rigorously studied chemicals shown time and again to be safe (quack-science excluded)? Your daily coffee is probably a

by searine 10y ago

I agree, so why be concerned with ppb of rigorously studied chemicals shown time and again to be safe (quack-science excluded)? Your daily coffee is probably an order of magnitude more carcinogenic than any glyphosate/roundup exposure.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>(IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen // You consider IARC to be "quack-science"?
- searine 10y ago
  They don't have evidence that glyphosate is a carcinogen. They are using general classifications to infer potential harm. Glyphosate is in the same class as cooked meat. This is also likely political posturing to appease anti-gmo sentiments.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    Cooked meats are carcinogenic though (eg http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/di...) aren't they? So ... are you saying glyphosate is known to be mutagenic and likely to cause cancers or that the common understanding on cooked meats is wrong. I'm not clear how the mutagenic properties reported in cooked meats appease "anti-gmo sentiments" as 'organic' meats are as likely to be cooked as others. You're being very vociferous in your arguing perhaps you got carried away in your claims for Monsanto products?
    - searine 10y ago
      >So ... are you saying glyphosate is known to be mutagenic and likely to cause cancers or that the common understanding on cooked meats is wrong. I'm saying that glyphosate is probably less carcinogenic considering it has less evidence of mutagenesis than meat. And despite millions of tons of meat being consumed by the kilogram per week, we see relatively low levels of colon cancer. We eat several dozen orders of magnitude less glyphosate/POEA. The conclusion then, is obvious.
      - mcbits 10y ago
        > we see relatively low levels of colon cancer. "Of cancers that affect both men and women, colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and the third most common cancer in men and in women." http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/index.htm http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/index.htm
        searine 10y ago
        Relative. People are eating kilograms of meat a week, and colon cancer is far from the leading cause of death. Remember dosage is important!
        mcbits 10y ago
        It is one of the leading causes of death, but I guess compared to heart disease, you could say every other cause of death is relatively rare and can be dismissed.
- JshWright 10y ago
  The IARC calls _many_ things "probable human carcinogens". I assume you drink alcohol (and if you don't it's likely not because the IARC classifies it as a "probable human carcinogen")? Here's a quote that I think sums it up well: "To take an analogy, think of banana skins. They definitely can cause accidents – but in practice this doesn’t happen very often (unless you work in a banana factory). And the sort of harm you can come to from slipping on a banana skin isn’t generally as severe as, say, being in a car accident. But under a hazard identification system like IARC’s, ‘banana skins’ and ‘cars’ would come under the same category – they both definitely do cause accidents." http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/06/14/diesel-fumes-definitely-cause-cancer-should-we-be-worried/ http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/06/14/diesel-fu...
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    Of course, but you wouldn't say "banana skins don't cause accidents" if you wanted to tell the truth. You'd say "banana skins do cause a few accidents" and list the accident reports involving them per head of population using a reputable source independent of the banana industry (and give a comparison figure). So, in this case one might say: [made up example] "the 'inactive' ingredient of Roundup has been shown as likely to cause cancer at the same levels as eating cooked meats". Some people do/have reduced their intake of cooked meats in order to reduce their [perceived if not actual] cancer risk.
askyourmother 10y ago
Cool, so you have the mug of tasty roundup to drink. I'll have the coffee - bottoms up.
xenihn 10y ago
You're being very disingenuous throughout this entire thread. Your posts (specifically the "glyphosate/roundup" pairing) indicate to a layman like me that roundup is synonymous with gylphosate, yet through further reading I discovered that approximately half of it is glyphosate, and the rest is a combination of surfactants and whatever else.
- searine 10y ago
  >roundup is synonymous with glyphosate For all intents and purposes, it is. > yet through further reading I discovered that approximately half of it is glyphosate, and the rest is a combination of surfactants and whatever else. This is a recent development in the literature. The case for glyphosate being carcinogenic has been so widely tested and proven false that Seralini's group has had to shift focus to save face. They then turned to POEA as a potential carcinogen, a widely used chemical present in commercial roundup (and many many other products). They did this because surfactants are irritants, so their physiological effect can easily confound sloppy studies. The result is a protracted grasping at straws so Seralini can prove his predefined conclusion that "roundup causes cancer". Bad papers published in crap journals to get media attention so Seralini can sell his book.

by searine 10y ago

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

>(IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen // You consider IARC to be "quack-science"?

searine 10y ago
They don't have evidence that glyphosate is a carcinogen. They are using general classifications to infer potential harm. Glyphosate is in the same class as cooked meat. This is also likely political posturing to appease anti-gmo sentiments.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Cooked meats are carcinogenic though (eg http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/di...) aren't they? So ... are you saying glyphosate is known to be mutagenic and likely to cause cancers or that the common understanding on cooked meats is wrong. I'm not clear how the mutagenic properties reported in cooked meats appease "anti-gmo sentiments" as 'organic' meats are as likely to be cooked as others. You're being very vociferous in your arguing perhaps you got carried away in your claims for Monsanto products?
  - searine 10y ago
    >So ... are you saying glyphosate is known to be mutagenic and likely to cause cancers or that the common understanding on cooked meats is wrong. I'm saying that glyphosate is probably less carcinogenic considering it has less evidence of mutagenesis than meat. And despite millions of tons of meat being consumed by the kilogram per week, we see relatively low levels of colon cancer. We eat several dozen orders of magnitude less glyphosate/POEA. The conclusion then, is obvious.
    - mcbits 10y ago
      > we see relatively low levels of colon cancer. "Of cancers that affect both men and women, colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and the third most common cancer in men and in women." http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/index.htm http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/index.htm
      - searine 10y ago
        Relative. People are eating kilograms of meat a week, and colon cancer is far from the leading cause of death. Remember dosage is important!
        mcbits 10y ago
        It is one of the leading causes of death, but I guess compared to heart disease, you could say every other cause of death is relatively rare and can be dismissed.
JshWright 10y ago
The IARC calls _many_ things "probable human carcinogens". I assume you drink alcohol (and if you don't it's likely not because the IARC classifies it as a "probable human carcinogen")? Here's a quote that I think sums it up well: "To take an analogy, think of banana skins. They definitely can cause accidents – but in practice this doesn’t happen very often (unless you work in a banana factory). And the sort of harm you can come to from slipping on a banana skin isn’t generally as severe as, say, being in a car accident. But under a hazard identification system like IARC’s, ‘banana skins’ and ‘cars’ would come under the same category – they both definitely do cause accidents." http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/06/14/diesel-fumes-definitely-cause-cancer-should-we-be-worried/ http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/06/14/diesel-fu...
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Of course, but you wouldn't say "banana skins don't cause accidents" if you wanted to tell the truth. You'd say "banana skins do cause a few accidents" and list the accident reports involving them per head of population using a reputable source independent of the banana industry (and give a comparison figure). So, in this case one might say: [made up example] "the 'inactive' ingredient of Roundup has been shown as likely to cause cancer at the same levels as eating cooked meats". Some people do/have reduced their intake of cooked meats in order to reduce their [perceived if not actual] cancer risk.

askyourmother 10y ago

Cool, so you have the mug of tasty roundup to drink. I'll have the coffee - bottoms up.

xenihn 10y ago

You're being very disingenuous throughout this entire thread. Your posts (specifically the "glyphosate/roundup" pairing) indicate to a layman like me that roundup is synonymous with gylphosate, yet through further reading I discovered that approximately half of it is glyphosate, and the rest is a combination of surfactants and whatever else.

searine 10y ago
>roundup is synonymous with glyphosate For all intents and purposes, it is. > yet through further reading I discovered that approximately half of it is glyphosate, and the rest is a combination of surfactants and whatever else. This is a recent development in the literature. The case for glyphosate being carcinogenic has been so widely tested and proven false that Seralini's group has had to shift focus to save face. They then turned to POEA as a potential carcinogen, a widely used chemical present in commercial roundup (and many many other products). They did this because surfactants are irritants, so their physiological effect can easily confound sloppy studies. The result is a protracted grasping at straws so Seralini can prove his predefined conclusion that "roundup causes cancer". Bad papers published in crap journals to get media attention so Seralini can sell his book.