Monsanto Is Suing California for Trying to Inform People That Roundup Causes Cancer

[Ferd Berfel]

http://www.alternet.org/environment/monsanto-suing-california-trying-inform-people-roundup-causes-cancer

The biotech giant would prefer it if people didn’t know that glyphosate, the main ingredient in its bestselling weedkiller Roundup, is a probable carcinogen.


Once again, Monsanto is trying to take away our right to know, this time about carcinogenic chemicals used in household products and places all around us. In January, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against the state of California for its intent to list glyphosate, the main chemical used in Monsanto’s flagship Roundup herbicide, under California's Proposition 65, a law that mandates notification and labeling of all chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and prohibits their discharge into drinking waters of the state.

Enacted by California voters via ballot initiative in 1986, Prop 65 prohibits any business from knowingly or intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving a clear and reasonable warning, and the discharge of such chemical into a source of drinking water is prohibited. The State relies on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) — the world’s leading authority on cancer — as the basis for listing chemicals that are known or probable carcinogens under Prop 65. In 2015, IARC concluded, by a unanimous decision, that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.”
___________________________________

And once the TPP is in place Monsanto won't have to go to the trouble of suing in tax payer funded courts. They can just go to the secret cabal of their Corporate buddies and get a ruling in their favor. Thank You Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Terrific job screwing the American People

[tk2kewl]

1. how long until we start getting ISDS claims

that gov't studies re health effects of chemicals cuts into expected future profits?

[Ferd Berfel]

2. zackly

[Herman4747]

3. What's bad about people GETTING INFORMATION, Monsanto?

And with regards to Hillary Clinton:

[Humanist_Activist]

13. Its important to make sure the information is accurate...

Otherwise this would be like some states requiring doctors to tell patients that abortion is linked to breast cancer, even though there is no evidence for such a link.

[Humanist_Activist]

4. The issue is that the studies are contradictory and hence any claims made that glyphosate is a...

probable carcinogenic were and are immature. Not to mention it means that California's attempt at labeling it as such would be misinformation.

[gyroscope]

5. The Monsanto-funded studies are valid in your opinion?

LOL

[Humanist_Activist]

6. If the studies hold up to peer review and scrutiny, yes.

Ideally there would be independent studies with no bias evident in those who provide funding. But that doesn't happen often, and its not like Monsanto-funded studies are contradicting a scientific consensus, there is no consensus at this time.

[gyroscope]

10. The Monsanto-funded studies aren't even available to the public

much less peer-reviewed, which they were not.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. I'm on my phone and so an exhaustive reply is difficult...

So instead I recommend reading this article which includes references to many studies:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roundup-and-risk-assessment

[gyroscope]

14. You link doesn't say anything about peer-reviewed studies

regardless, personally I don't need a study to tell me a chemical that is strong enough to kill weeds (and it takes a lot to kill them) is not something you want to ingest your body, is likely to cause cancer and other ill effects over long period of consumption etc.

Mosanto is the company that had been claiming for decades that their pesticide DDT was perfectly safe for human consumption, until it was banned by the EPA in 1970. This is the company that claimed Agent Orange was perfectly safe and harmless to humans. Monsanto has absolutely zero credibility and should not be in business imo.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. You first paragraph demonstrates why its useless to continue this conversation...

Your mind is closed to all evidence that contradicts it, you exist in your own bubble.

Also, DDT was first synthesized in 1874, Monsanto was founded in 1901 and didn't start making DDT until 1940, as one of many manufacturers. If you can't even get basic facts about things like this right, why should we trust anything else you post?

[gyroscope]

19. Bottom line Monsanto produced DDT for decades and claimed it was safe

they are proven liars and have absolutely no credibility to speak about anything.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. DDT was and is banned due to environmental risks to birds, not concerns about...

Human health, in fact there little to no evidence that it is carcinegenic as well.

[HuckleB]

32. Also, Monsanto was one of 15 companies to produce DDT.

[gyroscope]

45. EPA classifies DDT as probable human carcinogen

From their website:

In 1972, EPA issued a cancellation order for DDT based on its adverse environmental effects, such as those to wildlife, as well as its potential human health risks. Since then, studies have continued, and a relationship between DDT exposure and reproductive effects in humans is suspected, based on studies in animals. In addition, some animals exposed to DDT in studies developed liver tumors. As a result, today, DDT is classified as a probable human carcinogen by U.S. and international authorities.

https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status

[Ferd Berfel]

25. GIven Monsantos Historyr et al not sure you even need a peer reviewed study

Poor Monsanto? ever so wronged?

The onus is on Monsanto to prove they aren't killing people

[HuckleB]

27. So you want a company to prove a negative?

Seriously?

[Peace Patriot]

16. Uh-huh. Well, when you have the time: What about the "cautionary principle"?

Do we have to go through this over and over and over again, with toxins, to find out 10 years, 20 years later, that it's causing birth defects or poisoning farm workers or killing bees?

How can you be an apologist for this LACK OF CAUTION?

[Humanist_Activist]

18. The cautionary principle has to be coupled with a cost-benefit analysis...

Also, and this is important, but in 40 years there has not been a demonstrated link between glyphosate and cancer.

[angstlessk]

29. Cost benefit for whom?

The person who gets cancer or ONLY for Monsanto?

How do they determine the cost of people with cancer? Or don't they?

[Humanist_Activist]

31. You are assuming there's a causal link. Where is the evidence?

Also the benefits include using a less dangerous herbicide than the alternatives available, which increases yield of crops and reduces health risks to humans.

[angstlessk]

34. A trusted source

The State relies on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) — the world’s leading authority on cancer — as the basis for listing chemicals that are known or probable carcinogens under Prop 65. In 2015, IARC concluded, by a unanimous decision, that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.”

[Humanist_Activist]

81. You do realize that's not proof, they conducted no independent studies. n/t

[Dont call me Shirley]

72. Talk about CBA to someone who has cancer from glyphosate...

Stop justifying the criminal actions and products of this war criminal, crimes against humanity criminal and their criminal owners.

[Humanist_Activist]

80. Can you name one person who has cancer from glyphosate?

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous, outside of assertions that are false, what do you have?

[Dont call me Shirley]

83. Can you assure me with absolute certainty that glyphosate does not cause cancer?!

[Humanist_Activist]

84. No, but if you want certainty, join a religion.

[womanofthehills]

89. Unlisted "inerts" in glyphosate based herbicides add to toxicity

Co-Formulants in Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Disrupt Aromatase Activity in Human Cells below Toxic Levels.

Abstract
Pesticide formulations contain declared active ingredients and co-formulants presented as inert and confidential compounds. We tested the endocrine disruption of co-formulants in six glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), the most used pesticides worldwide. All co-formulants and formulations were comparably cytotoxic well below the agricultural dilution of 1% (18-2000 times for co-formulants, 8-141 times for formulations), and not the declared active ingredient glyphosate (G) alone. The endocrine-disrupting effects of all these compounds were measured on aromatase activity, a key enzyme in the balance of sex hormones, below the toxicity threshold. Aromatase activity was decreased both by the co-formulants alone (polyethoxylated tallow amine-POEA and alkyl polyglucoside-APG) and by the formulations, from concentrations 800 times lower than the agricultural dilutions; while G exerted an effect only at 1/3 of the agricultural dilution. It was demonstrated for the first time that endocrine disruption by GBH could not only be due to the declared active ingredient but also to co-formulants. These results could explain numerous in vivo results with GBHs not seen with G alone; moreover, they challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value for GBHs exposures, currently calculated from toxicity tests of the declared active ingredient alone.

[HuckleB]

91. Link?

[womanofthehills]

106. Link - Co-Formulants in Glosphate Based Herbicides

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26927151

Sorry about that.

[Humanist_Activist]

111. Interesting, a study from the people behind this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

I believe it would be prudent to wait for peer review on this study before calling it definitive.

[NickB79]

7. Why regulators conclude glyphosate safe while IARC, alone, claims it could cause cancer?

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/07/24/why-do-regulators-conclude-glyphosate-safe-while-iarc-almost-alone-claims-it-could-cause-cancer/

What’s been overlooked is that the classification that IARC assigned glyphosate—a “2A, Probably carcinogenic to humans”—is the same classification the organization gave to grapefruit juice, fruits (including apples), and working the night shift. At least glyphosate didn’t rate a “1, carcinogenic to humans,” so it’s not as dangerous as sunlight, sunlamps, oral contraceptives, Chinese style salted fish and alcoholic beverages, among a long list.

When IARC comes to a determination of what may cause cancer, it combs through existing literature (which does raise the risk of cherry-picking studies that satisfy your point of view). But it’s assessing the hazard of a chemical. A hazard assessment simply states that a certain chemical, environmental element or behavior is somehow related to cancer. It’ll then note whether something “is,” “is probable” or “is possible”, or “isn’t,” so far as we know.

What a hazard evaluation does not tell you is how likely you are to get cancer. That’s the domain of a risk assessment, which will use the same words–“is,” “probable” and “possible”–but in a different way. Here’s a very informative video explainer by Andrew Maynard, director of the Risk Innovation Lab at Arizona State University, that covers how IARC makes its hazard assessments:

See also: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/glyphosate-whats-the-lowdown.html

[HuckleB]

9. Logic, science, evidence, and reality are not the point.

We must demonize a relatively safe herbicide, so we can go back to using more toxic ones. And don't you dare speak of the dangers of "organic approved" herbicides! Those are all safe as water. Well, at least as safe as Flint water.

[Rex]

21. Well that is it right there, some folks don't want relatively safe they want completely safe.

Which I doubt is possible. Stuffs been around for 40 years so I am surprised this is still a thing.

[HuckleB]

24. Indeed.

Oddly, many of those folks work very hard to live in denial re: the toxicity of "natural herbicides."

[Rex]

68. I'm past the point of even wanting to discuss it.

DU seems to be toxic enough as it is. Keep up the good fight.

[HuckleB]

74. DU is toxic, but it's an area where too many progressives are doing harm.

I can't be quiet while that happens.

[pbmus]

104. Could you explain what the Monsanto clause means.?

You seem to know more about Monsanto than anyone on this blog

[gyroscope]

49. We don't have to use it at all

Roundup and glyphosate are not required to grow any crops,
Glyphosate is toxic to the environment, its costs are high and benefits are dubious at best.

Many countries have banned it and are doing fine without it. And many others require labeling.

[HuckleB]

50. So you think farmers are stupid.

Got it.

[gyroscope]

51. If they use Roundup they might be

maybe not stupid but ignorant of the facts.

[HuckleB]

52. Thanks.

I appreciate the confession.

[gyroscope]

54. Spare me.

Farmers used DDT for decades until it was banned

doesn't make them stupid, they simply didn't know what they were doing was dangerous to humans and the environment.

[HuckleB]

55. You don't seem to know the history of DDT.

But nice try. Glyphosate is not DDT, by the way.

Yes, you should be ashamed to spread ignorance based fear mongering while demonizing farmers. The gall you show is astounding.

PS:

http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=309&Itemid=263

[womanofthehills]

107. DDT has estrogenic activity

What are the implications of the interaction between DDT and estrogen receptors in the body?

Abstract

The organochlorine pesticide, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), which is fat-soluble and persistent in the body and environment, has estrogenic activity. There has been an apparent association with breast cancer, which has implicated DDT binding with estrogen receptors (ERs). The mechanism of DDT-ER interaction at target sites is similar to estrogen, with protein synthesis resulting in an estrogenic response. Other than the female reproductive sites, DDT could possibly bind to ERs present in other body systems. The recent discovery of a beta receptor has introduced a new understanding of estrogen and DDT binding. An understanding of the molecular biology of the DDT-ER interaction in breast tissue could possibly explain the risk of breast cancer. Estrogen and other estrogenic compounds compete with DDT by their estrogenic potential. DDT-ER interaction in the body has wider implications in terms of its genotoxic potential and role in carcinogenesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10791702


Association of DDT and heptachlor epoxide in human blood with diabetic nephropathy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25822320

[pbmus]

102. Relatively safe is truthful.?.???

I am relatively healthy after getting poisoned by agent orange...which I was told that stuff is relatively safe..

[bemildred]

8. I think we should make sure this stuff is completely safe before we start using it all over. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

12. It has been used all over for the past 40 years...

In that time there has not been a demonstrated link between glyphosate and cancer.

[bemildred]

15. Right, that's the problem.

You yourself admit it is not proven safe, and there are well attested doubts about safety, to say the least. Why was the health and safety of all those millions of people put at risk when there is no consensus that it is even safe?

[Humanist_Activist]

35. Is this opposite day. I did not say that.

No evidence of a link means no evidence of a link, you can say its safe insofar as the evidence points to it not being a risk factor for cancer. This is as close to "proven safe" you are ever going to get in a scientific context.

[bemildred]

37. No evidence is the initial state in a search to examine it's toxicology in humans.

It is as far as you can get from "safe".

You said up there: "The issue is that the studies are contradictory". And that is not "no evidence".

[Humanist_Activist]

38. At worst its inconclusive, but so are the carcinegenic properties of water...

I have a question, what evidence would you require to be assured that glyphosate is safe?

[scscholar]

105. 54 posts and counting...

Can't you just admit you're wrong?

[Humanist_Activist]

110. Sure I'm wrong, I shouldn't have been generous in my first response...

Honestly, when it comes to the neo-luddite, anti-science crowd, I shouldn't give the benefit of the doubt, its not just ignorance, but either willful ignorance or dishonestly that drives them.

[angstlessk]

30. And how many years were cigarettes around befor the tobacco industery

denied any link between cigarettes an cancer?

[HuckleB]

36. Anti-GMO activists are the ones practicing “tobacco science”.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/19/anti-gmo-activists-are-the-ones-practicing-tobacco-science/

You are pushing a rather uncouth tactic of the organic industry. Unfortunately, the opposite is more true.

[angstlessk]

40. That did not answer the question

AND all industries that now rely on "independent" studies spen millions if not billions on those very same "independent" research facilities, be they universities or private studies.

Even the National Institute of Health admits "The National Cancer Institute (NCI) works closely with private sector partners, including the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, in its efforts to develop approaches and technologies to prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer."

Hand in glove you might say.

I put my trust in the World Health Organization.

[HuckleB]

42. In other words, science doesn't matter to you.

Name one legitimate study that actually connects glyphosate to cancer.

BTW, "trusted sources"'don't link to Seralini as evidence.

[angstlessk]

44. Here we go..WHO "probably or possibly" I closed dowm the website

And I STRONGLY believe a corporation should have NO ability to sue a sovereign state for relying on a trusted organizations findings.

[HuckleB]

46. So you can't name one legit study.

Wow.

[angstlessk]

47. The World Health Organization

legit enough!

This is tiresome...are you a paid consultant for GMO's?

[HuckleB]

48. No, it's not.

If you can't show us the evidence, then there might be problems with your source. Where are the legit studies?

[angstlessk]

53. Here is a long list of information...and The Lancet Article with all the info you can consume

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=glyphosate+cancer+2015&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiirv2hxqXLAhUH1SYKHaicAPgQgQMIKDAA

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8/abstract

[HuckleB]

57. A Google search link and a dead link.

Oh, and referencing the WHO report without being able to show what studies justify it brings us back to a starting point.

You clearly have a belief, but you have spent no time working to see if the belief is justified by science. It's time for you to challenge yourself.

[angstlessk]

61. Sorry your computer could not access them..I can, hence the links

So therefore the tide has turned. You cannot link to any studies that state glyphosates are possible carcinogens

[HuckleB]

63. Sorry you can't respond to reality.

A Google search shows nothing. The WHO report in the Lancet does not show what studies justify the stance. Now, either put up, or admit that you are mistaken. This is not hard stuff.

[angstlessk]

71. I am done!

Nothing will satisfy you, sorry, I tried.

[HuckleB]

75. You can prove me wrong, but you actually have to do it.

I don't think you can, and that's the real problem. You are on the wrong side of science and reality.

[angstlessk]

41. AND you got that backwards

Not ALL anti GMO activists are practicing “tobacco science”

[HuckleB]

43. Yes, they are.

GMOs are seeds developed using GE technology. The demonization of this technology is despicable to the core. This demonization is aimed at increasing sales of "organic" and "non-GMO" foods, a marketing tactic aimed at increasing corporate profits, and nothing more.

[womanofthehills]

82. Glyphosate is linked to many health issues in humans

Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. It is a broad-spectrum herbicide, considered to be nearly nontoxic to humans (Williams et al., 2000). However, a recent paper (Samsel & Seneff, 2013), argued that glyphosate may be a key contributor to the obesity epidemic and the autism epidemic in the United States, as well as to several other diseases and conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, infertility, depression, and cancer. Glyphosate suppresses 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase (EPSP synthase), the rate-limiting step in the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids, tryptophan, tyrosine, and phenylalanine, in the shikimate pathway of bacteria, archaea and plants (de María et al., 1996). In plants, aromatic amino acids collectively represent up to 35% of the plant dry mass (Franz, 1997). This mode of action is unique to glyphosate among all emergent herbicides. Humans do not possess this pathway, and therefore we depend upon our ingested food and our gut microbes to provide these essential nutrients. Glyphosate, patented as an antimicrobial (Monsanto Technology LLC, 2010), has been shown to disrupt gut bacteria in animals, preferentially killing beneficial forms and causing an overgrowth of pathogens. Two other properties of glyphosate also negatively impact human health – chelation of minerals such as iron and cobalt, and interference with cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, which play many important roles in the body. We will have much more to say about these aspects in later sections of this paper.

A recent study on glyphosate exposure in carnivorous fish revealed remarkable adverse effects throughout the digestive system (Senapati et al., 2009). The activity of protease, lipase, and amylase were all decreased in the esophagus, stomach, and intestine of these fish following exposure to glyphosate. The authors also observed “disruption of mucosal folds and disarray of microvilli structure” in the intestinal wall, along with an exaggerated secretion of mucin throughout the alimentary tract. These features are highly reminiscent of celiac disease. Gluten peptides in wheat are hydrophobic and therefore resistant to degradation by gastric, pancreatic and intestinal proteases (Hershko & Patz, 2008). Thus, the evidence from this effect on fish suggests that glyphosate may interfere with the breakdown of complex proteins in the human stomach, leaving larger fragments of wheat in the human gut that will then trigger an autoimmune response, leading to the defects in the lining of the small intestine that are characteristic of these fish exposed to glyphosate and of celiac patients. As illustrated in Figure 1, the usage of glyphosate on wheat in the U.S. has risen sharply in the last decade, in step with the sharp rise in the incidence of Celiac disease. We explain the reasons for increased application of glyphosate to wheat in Section 13.

[Humanist_Activist]

86. Interesting:

https://gmoanswers.com/studies/steve-savage-addresses-samsel-and-seneff-study-%E2%80%9Cglyphosate-pathways-modern-diseases-ii

Even before I googled the study, the issue with gyphosate interfering with mucus membranes in fish seemed more likely to be caused by chemical surfactants additives. They have been known, for a long time, to break down proteins and lipids, in fact, they are sold for just that purpose, chemicals that are sufactants are present mostly in soap and toothpaste.

[HuckleB]

88. You went to Seneff? Wow!

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

Do,you realize that she works with the scam artist Jeffrey Smith. She knows nothing about biology and chemistry. All her "expertise" is in computers.

[Octafish]

20. TPP is great for Plutocracy...

...for humanity, not so much.

[Ferd Berfel]

28. Once Obama-Trade (TPP) is launched Monsato won't ahve to explain or prove anything - not even harm

just perceived harm to potential profits

Thanks Hillary and Obama. And that why Hillary people are trying to spin this corporate horror.

[Octafish]

112. Warfare via Banking

Milton Friedman and the Rise of Monetary Fascism

The Dark Age of Money

by JAMES C. KENNEDY
CounterPunch Oct. 24, 2012

EXCERPT...

Monetary Fascism was created and propagated through the Chicago School of Economics. Milton Friedman’s collective works constitute the foundation of Monetary Fascism. Knowing that the term ’Fascism’ was universally unpopular; Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics masquerade these works as ‘Capitalism’ and ’Free Market’ economics.

SNIP...

The fundamental difference between Adam Smith’s free market capitalism and Friedman’s ‘free market capitalism’ is that Friedman’s is a hyper extractive model, the kind that creates and maintains Third-World-Countries and Banana-Republics, without geo-political borders.

If you say that this is nothing new, you miss the point. Friedman does not differentiate between some third world country and his own. The ultimate difference is that Friedman has created a model that sanctions and promotes the exploitation of his own country, in fact every country, for the benefit of the investor, money the uber-wealthy. He dressed up this noxious ideology as ‘free market capitalism’ and then convinced most of the world to embrace it as their economic salvation.

SNIP...

Monetary Fascism, as conceived by Friedman, uses the powers of the state to put the interest of money and the financial class above and beyond all other forms of industry (and other stake holders) and the state itself.

SNIP...

Money has become the state and the traditional state is forced to serve money’s interests. Everywhere the Financial Class is openly lording over sovereign nations. Ireland, Greece and Spain are subject to ultimatums and remember Hank Paulson’s $700 billion extortion from the U.S. Congress. The $700 billion was just the wedge. Thanks to unlimited access to the Discount Window, Quantitative Easing and other taxpayer funded debt-swap bailouts the total transfers to the financial industry exceeded $16 trillion as of July 2010 according to a Federal Reserve Audit. All of this was dumped on the taxpayer and it is still growing.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/24/the-dark-age-of-money/

[Ferd Berfel]

115. Wow

Missed this one. TX

[AxionExcel]

22. GMO & glyphosate culture keeps crapping all over the planet

[HuckleB]

26. That person isn't spraying glyphosate.

Do you really think it's ethical to post such inaccurate, fear mongering memes?

By the way, it's not safe to breathe water. Hmmm.

[gyroscope]

56. What does this look like?

[HuckleB]

59. He's not spraying, is he?

Can you source this photo? Or is it another anti-GMO set up prop? I'll be waiting.

PS:

http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/08/how-much-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-our-crops/

[gyroscope]

64. But it can still be inhaled

the purpose of the respirator is to prevent inhaling the Roundup.

[HuckleB]

65. So you don't know if this photo is legit or just propaganda.

Got it.

Somehow, your lack of knowledge, willingness to use bad propaganda, and demeaning tone toward farmers really makes me think you don't know much about ag. I could be wrong, but that is unlikely, considering the content of you posts.

[gyroscope]

66. Google "spraying Roundup" under image search

Wearing full body gear and face protection is a rather common method of applying Roundup.
OSHA recommends wearing full PPE (protective gear) when applying Roundup on large or commercial scale.



https://www.google.com/search?q=spraying+roundup&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq8K29y6XLAhUP0mMKHcDdAmAQ_AUIBygB&biw=1097&bih=517#imgrc=YsZ6Ik4GF79AXM%3A

[HuckleB]

67. Ah, you think you can Google your way out of ignorance.

Nice try. Either put up or admit reality. The rest of us already know the reality.

[gyroscope]

70. Unless you think all those images are "propaganda"

Maybe you should write Google a letter about it.

[HuckleB]

76. So you are a "Google scientist" who can't support any claims.

Thanks for the confession.

[gyroscope]

85. And you claim to be a scientist? lol

That is how Roundup is applied, with full protective gear on. Are you claiming otherwise?
I suggest you write a letter to OSHA and tell them they are wrong.

Basic common sense should tell you the application of any synthetic industrial chemicals requires wearing full protective gear. You don't have to be a scientist to know that.

[HuckleB]

87. Sometimes, but not always.

If you know anything about organic approved herbicides, you know that many of those photos are of people administering those.

http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/08/how-much-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-our-crops/

PS: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

[gyroscope]

92. MSDS for Roundup

Material safety data sheet downloaded from Monsanto website.

You sure you want this crap on your food?

--------------------------------------------

Roundup Ultra2® Liquid Herbicide
Solution
AGRICULTURAL and INDUSTRIAL
CAUTION POISON
WARNING - EYE AND SKIN IRRITANT
REGISTRATION NO. 28486 PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT

GUARANTEE: Glyphosate, 540 grams acid equivalent per litre, present as potassium salt.
Water Soluble Herbicide for non-selective weed control

PRECAUTIONS
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.
HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED.
HARMFUL IF INHALED.
CAUSES EYE AND SKIN IRRITATION.


Avoid contact with eyes, skin or clothing.

Avoid inhaling spray mist.

Wear a long-sleeved shirt and long pants during mixing, loading, application, clean-up and
repair. In addition, wear goggles or a face shield and chemical-resistant gloves during mixing
and loading, clean-up and repair.

Do not enter treated field within 12 hours of application.
If this pest control product is to be used on a commodity that may be exported to the U.S. and
you require information on acceptable residue levels in the U.S., visit CropLife Canada’s website


FIRST AID
If swallowed: Call a poison control centre or doctor immediately for treatment advice. Do not
induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control centre or doctor. Do not give any liquid
to the person. Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.

If on skin or clothing: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of
water for 15–20 minutes. Call a poison control centre or doctor for treatment advice.

If inhaled: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then
give artificial respiration, preferably by mouth-to-mouth, if possible. Call a poison control centre
or doctor for further treatment advice.

If in eyes: Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15–20 minutes. Remove
contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Call a poison
control centre or doctor for treatment advice.
Take container, label or product name and Pest Control Product Registration Number with you
when seeking medical attention.

http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/WMAX%20label%20EN%202015.pdf
http://roundup.ca/en/labels-msds

[HuckleB]

93. Nice fear mongering!

You apparently prefer more toxic stuff on your food, including organic herbicides. Do you know anything about chemistry? Of course you don't. If you did, you would understand the basic concept that the dose makes the poison.

You don't. And the fact that you don't understand that tells all.

[gyroscope]

94. The label is from Monsanto's website

if even Monsanto says their product is dangerous to inhale or swallow,
how could anyone in their right mind claim it to be safe?


http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/WMAX%20label%20EN%202015.pdf

[HuckleB]

95. And the silly tangents keep coming.

Your lack of understanding is bizarre.

[gyroscope]

96. Ignorance is bliss

I suggest you write a letter to Monsanto to inform them their warning labels are wrong.

As an expert in all things you know better than they do.

[HuckleB]

97. The irony is amazing.

The willingness to pretend is despicable.

[HuckleB]

98. Well, I know more than you about ag issues.

Now, do you know why all companies make liudicrously careful warnings about their products?

Oh, you didn't?

Now that is funny.

[gyroscope]

99. Your endless spinning makes me dizzy

Bill O'Reilly would be proud.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. Name one food that is safe to inhale, that image is fucking stupid. N/t

[gyroscope]

60. Inhaling the smell of food crops is not dangerous

unless the food was sprayed with Roundup and/or other manufactured chemicals.

[Humanist_Activist]

62. Really? Are you sure about that? Also what makes "manufactured" chemicals...

Less safe than "natural" chemicals.

[gyroscope]

69. Manufactured chemicals are synthetic and man-made

they are not natural.

[Major Nikon]

73. Which means the very best you have is an obvious fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

[HuckleB]

77. .

[Humanist_Activist]

79. Uhm, that's a very obvious fallacy, its not an argument against the use of synthetic chemicals...

do you have any actual points relevant to the discussion?

[womanofthehills]

108. You cannot make a comment without being exceptionally rude and calling people names

Definitely a sign of the personality disordered

[Humanist_Activist]

109. Oh wow, nice personal attack, I'm sure its not indicitative of any issues you may have.

[ananda]

33. Monsatan ...

... pure evil once again.

[Hoyt]

58. They will lose.

[Faux pas]

78. Guess they must be used to

dealing with the deregulated states. Too bad.

[HuckleB]

90. We need science-based states, so regulations make sense.

[Faux pas]

113. Science is against

the religion of the right wingers. All the state owned by the right will never have anything science based. Pretty sickening and really sad.

[AxionExcel]

116. More science. Enjoy. "Scientists issue new warning about glyphosate risks"

WARNING: Do not read this Journal report while drinking glyphosate-infested beer, or using glyphosate-tainted tampons.


Scientists issue new warning about glyphosate risks

Published: 17 February 2016

In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards*, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs

http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0

* ...The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans.

[robertgodardfromnj]

101. A typical corporation that only cares about profit

The GOP's dream for this country. Just sickening.

[Quantess]

114. K & R