4 ms·

https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly... https://www.cornucopia.org/

https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly... https://www.cornucopia.org/2013/07/organophosphates-a-common-but-deadly-pesticide/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI09rc6MWe5QIVE73sCh2qMAJQEAAYAiAAEgJzJvD_BwE https://www.cornucopia.org/2013/07/organophosphates-a-common... >Organophosphates are so toxic to humans that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has taken steps to limit their availability to the public. >Upon entering the body—through ingestion, inhalation, or contact with skin—organophosphates inhibit cholinesterase, an enzyme in the human nervous system that breaks down acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter that carries signals between nerves and muscles. >When cholinesterase is inactivated, acetylcholine builds up in the nerves, which become overactive. Victims of organophosphate poisoning typically die because they can’t breathe.

dekhn 7y ago
IARC's findings stand in contradiction to nearly every other governmental agency. From what I can tell, they intentionally chose this position and then curated their data sources to emphasize their beliefs. This is an ongoing situation where I encourage you to read as widely as possible.
- grawprog 7y ago
  Yes. I'm sure the EPA, currently headed by Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for Murray Energy, known for trying to push back environmental protection laws, would be fairly quick to dismiss any health concerns on a product that a large corporation, with deep lobbying pockets and a track record of doing terrible things to both the environment and farmers that use their products, relies on for hefty profits. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030881461... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166445X14002422 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01664... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935117316730?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16263381 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16263381 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166445X17303156 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01664... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21922334 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21922334
  - dekhn 7y ago
    I don't think it's only the EPA that made this determination. IARC stands in opposition to a wide range of government agencies. Note that much of their opposition is based on results in S-D rats which really aren't indicative of any effect in humans.
    - grawprog 7y ago
      I really don't need the EPA or the IARC to tell me that spraying a bioaccumulative nerve toxin designed specifically to kill things, into the environment, year after year on a mass scale has negative repercussions for the environment and the potential to cause damage in humans.
      - dekhn 7y ago
        if it's that bad, can you point to the health outcomes in the US (which uses this at massive scale) that definitely are attributed to this? I worked in life sciences and there are many things which are published that don't actually have anything to do with a compound being safe.

dekhn 7y ago

IARC's findings stand in contradiction to nearly every other governmental agency. From what I can tell, they intentionally chose this position and then curated their data sources to emphasize their beliefs. This is an ongoing situation where I encourage you to read as widely as possible.

grawprog 7y ago
Yes. I'm sure the EPA, currently headed by Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for Murray Energy, known for trying to push back environmental protection laws, would be fairly quick to dismiss any health concerns on a product that a large corporation, with deep lobbying pockets and a track record of doing terrible things to both the environment and farmers that use their products, relies on for hefty profits. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030881461... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166445X14002422 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01664... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935117316730?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16263381 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16263381 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166445X17303156 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01664... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21922334 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21922334
- dekhn 7y ago
  I don't think it's only the EPA that made this determination. IARC stands in opposition to a wide range of government agencies. Note that much of their opposition is based on results in S-D rats which really aren't indicative of any effect in humans.
  - grawprog 7y ago
    I really don't need the EPA or the IARC to tell me that spraying a bioaccumulative nerve toxin designed specifically to kill things, into the environment, year after year on a mass scale has negative repercussions for the environment and the potential to cause damage in humans.
    - dekhn 7y ago
      if it's that bad, can you point to the health outcomes in the US (which uses this at massive scale) that definitely are attributed to this? I worked in life sciences and there are many things which are published that don't actually have anything to do with a compound being safe.