Glyphosate Found Not Cancer Risk

[Revoltingest]

In the news....
Large U.S. farm study finds no cancer link to Monsanto weedkiller

This is useful to know because weed control by glyphosate (main
ingredient in RoundUp) is easier, cheaper, & greener than alternatives.

I know a couple people who are scared to death of it because it's a "chemical".
So I just keep them uninformed of my using it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The problem is we use this chemical, it's making "superweeds," and we'll need something else soon (much in the same way our over-reliance on anti-biotics is having dire consequences because people are considering the evolution of things we are attacking).
'Superweeds' Sprout Farmland Controversy Over GMOs - NBC News

Weeds are developing resistance to herbicides, because the modified seeds can tolerate greater use of certain herbicides and pesticides. And it's reportedly costing farmers $1 billion in lost crops.

"It is a crisis situation," said Neil Harker, a weed ecologist at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. "We're losing the effectiveness of herbicide tools against weeds going forward."

"I'm in favor of GMOs, but they should be used judiciously," he said.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...s/food_and_agriculture/rise-of-superweeds.pdf

Almost 50 percent of surveyed farms are infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds, and the rate of these weeds’ spread is increasing.

One of "those things" I saw awhile ago, from a source I don't remember, but apparently there have been studies into farming methods that don't even till their land and go easy on things like fertilizers and herb/pesticides and it's showing promise.

 

[sun rise]

Anyone who bases a medical decision on one study, however large, is a fool given how often followup studies contradict earlier ones. The article did not state who was funding the study.

There was per the article non-statistically significant increase of a cancer which tells me I want the study replicated or the issue studied in different ways.

It also underlines my philosophy of not using any chemical unless I have to and using the minimum necessary.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It also underlines my philosophy of not using any chemical unless I have to and using the minimum necessary.

For a dog, you sure are reasonable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is we use this chemical, it's making "superweeds," and we'll need something else soon (much in the same way our over-reliance on anti-biotics is having dire consequences because people are considering the evolution of things we are attacking).
'Superweeds' Sprout Farmland Controversy Over GMOs - NBC News

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...s/food_and_agriculture/rise-of-superweeds.pdf

Wow! It is almost as if the weeds are undergoing a genetic change influenced largely by the fact that weeds resistant to herbicides are more likely to pass their genes on than those that are not resistant.

One of "those things" I saw awhile ago, from a source I don't remember, but apparently there have been studies into farming methods that don't even till their land and go easy on things like fertilizers and herb/pesticides and it's showing promise.

I have heard more than one report that the next big threat to humanity will be a lack of arable topsoil. Tilling the land, and killing all ground cover increase erosion and destruction of soil significantly.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It also underlines my philosophy of not using any chemical unless I have to and using the minimum necessary

My mom shares that philosophy. I'm getting her a dehydrator for Christmas. She can make veggie chips, jerky and fruit leather with only as much sugar, salt or other preservatives as she wants.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'm more suspicious because of Monsanto.

 

[icehorse]

I've heard more than once that over the long run herbicides and pesticides don't save farmers money.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In the news....
Large U.S. farm study finds no cancer link to Monsanto weedkiller

This is useful to know because weed control by glyphosate (main
ingredient in RoundUp) is easier, cheaper, & greener than alternatives.

I know a couple people who are scared to death of it because it's a "chemical".
So I just keep them uninformed of my using it.

An item of note:

"There was some evidence of increased risk of AML [acute myeloid leukemia] among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation."

Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study | JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | Oxford Academic

The article states that this is not statistically significant, but it's still an increase nonetheless.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am sure not going to sprinkle it on my corn flakes.
It may not be a major cause of cancer
But it will kill you.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I've heard more than once that over the long run herbicides and pesticides don't save farmers money.

It is not about farmers.... it is about profits for the makers.

 

[Father Heathen]

I have heard more than one report that the next big threat to humanity will be a lack of arable topsoil. Tilling the land, and killing all ground cover increase erosion and destruction of soil significantly.

Farmers are supposed to let fields go fallow every so often to prevent this. Some farmers even let their chickens frolic freely in fallow fields to help keep the soil fertile.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The article states that this is not statistically significant, but it's still an increase nonetheless.

I agree with those that have posted that a single study is not definitive and therefore not to be relied on, and that if Monsanto has an interest in the outcome of the study, that increases suspicion, but a word on statistical significance: The increase doesn't tell us anything if not statistically significant. What have you learned about a coin that when flipped 100 times, produced 52 heads and 48 tails?

I'd say nothing, and would guess that you would agree. The next hundred flips could produce 46 heads and 54 tails. Now what do you know about the coin? Still nothing. Yet in each case, one outcome came out more than the other

But if you repeat the study 9,999 more times for a total of 1 million flips, and 52% of those come up heads, it becomes much more meaningful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Farmers are supposed to let fields go follow every so often to prevent this. Some farmers even let their chickens frolic freely in follow fields to help keep the soil fertile.

That will not do. One year out of seven will not replace topsoil. At best it only delays the inevitable.

And the term you wanted to use is "fallow".

 

[Father Heathen]

That will not do. One year out of seven will not replace topsoil. At best it only delays the inevitable.

And the term you wanted to use is "fallow".

o i c, kk.

 

[Revoltingest]

An item of note:

"There was some evidence of increased risk of AML [acute myeloid leukemia] among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation."

Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study | JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | Oxford Academic

The article states that this is not statistically significant, but it's still an increase nonetheless.

If it's statistically insignificant, then it can't be called an increase.

But here's the thing....
If weed/grass killing isn't done with the quick & cheap glyphosate,
it's done with alternatives, all of which pose their own dangers.....
- Gasoline powered equipment (much of which is 2 stroke, with lots'o unburned hydrocarbons released into the air)
- Electrically powered equipment (generated by burning coal in many areas)
- The environmental burden imposed by employing more labor to do the same job less efficiently.
- All the tiny plastic particles from weed whacker string
- Loss of topsoil from weeds plowed under
- Use of other herbicides

If these other methods were to replace glyphosate, there could be an increase in health risks.

 

[DennisTate]

In the news....
Large U.S. farm study finds no cancer link to Monsanto weedkiller

This is useful to know because weed control by glyphosate (main
ingredient in RoundUp) is easier, cheaper, & greener than alternatives.

I know a couple people who are scared to death of it because it's a "chemical".
So I just keep them uninformed of my using it.

If you know somebody who seems to be troubled by lots of chemicals nutritional sulphur can assist them to detoxify. I have used MSM for 19 years..... but you do need to drink extra water with it so that once the toxins begin to come out... your body can rid itself of them in the easiest manner.

www.msm-info.com/

 

[Revoltingest]

If you know somebody who seems to be troubled by lots of chemicals nutritional sulphur can assist them to detoxify. I have used MSM for 19 years..... but you do need to drink extra water with it so that once the toxins begin to come out... your body can rid itself of them in the easiest manner.

www.msm-info.com/

I use bacon.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you know somebody who seems to be troubled by lots of chemicals nutritional sulphur can assist them to detoxify. I have used MSM for 19 years..... but you do need to drink extra water with it so that once the toxins begin to come out... your body can rid itself of them in the easiest manner.

www.msm-info.com/

Sounds like snake oil.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It also underlines my philosophy of not using any chemical unless I have to and using the minimum necessary

You might want to narrow that down a bit since pretty much everything is chemicals.