The new,
modern-day idea of science (for some) is science by Facebook, science by
hysteria, science by thinking with one’s emotions, and science by simplistic
one-liners. Any possibility of critical thinking or actual research is
immediately and summarily dismissed by the magic phrase “It’s a conspiracy!” Panic
over use of the herbicide glyphosate is a perfect example of unsubstantiated
fear-mongering and instigating reckless anxiety. Self-appointed “experts”, most
with zero education, are highly skilled smooth-talkers and master manipulators
who happily prey on those not very well-versed in basic science.
How the delusion began:
“When Aaron
Blair sat down to chair a week-long meeting of 17 specialists at the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in France in March 2015,
there was something he wasn’t telling them. The epidemiologist from the U.S.
National Cancer Institute had seen important unpublished scientific data
relating directly to a key question the IARC specialists were about to
consider: Whether research shows that the weedkiller glyphosate, a key
ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling RoundUp brand, causes cancer.
“Previously
unreported court documents reviewed by Reuters from an ongoing U.S. legal case
against Monsanto show that Blair knew the unpublished research found no
evidence of a link between glyphosate and cancer. In a sworn deposition
given in March this year in connection with the case, Blair also said the data
would have altered IARC’s analysis. He said it would have made it less likely
that glyphosate would meet the agency’s criteria for being classed as ‘probably
carcinogenic.’
“But IARC, a
semi-autonomous part of the World Health Organization, never got to consider
the data. The agency’s rules on assessing substances for carcinogenicity say it
can consider only published research – and this new data, which came from a
large American study on which Blair was a senior researcher, had not been
published……..Blair told Reuters the data, which was available two years before
IARC assessed glyphosate, was not published in time because there was too
much to fit into one scientific paper……..The National Cancer Institute also
cited ‘space constraints’ as the reasons why the new data on glyphosate was not
published………Asked in the same deposition whether IARC's review of glyphosate
would have been different if the missing data had been included, Blair again
said: ‘Correct.’”
Data, data, data:
“One of the
largest and most highly regarded studies to examine effects of pesticide use in
real life is the Agricultural Health Study, a prospective investigation of
about 89,000 agricultural workers, farmers and their families in Iowa and North
Carolina. Since the early 1990s, it has gathered and analysed detailed
information on the health of participants and their families, and their use of
pesticides, including glyphosate.
“AHS
researchers have published numerous studies from their data. One paper looking
at glyphosate and possible links with cancers was published in 2005. It
concluded that ‘glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence
overall.’ Since then, more data has been collected, adding statistical power to
subsequent AHS analyses.”
Confirmation
bias has its consequences:
“All of this points up just how politicized questions like the
safety/carcinogenicity of glyphosate have become. The subtle and
difficult-to-interpret results of animal experiments and studies of
agricultural workers easily lend themselves to what different specialists with
different points-of-view may wish to find in them. Meanwhile the overlay of
strong beliefs and ideological commitments threatens to obscure what the
science has to say on a question of enormous economic importance.
“What is at stake in this latest iteration of the clash over environmental
threats is enormous. First, there is the possibility that a product that is
cheap, safe, and effective will be restricted or banned, reducing crop yields
and requiring substitution of products about which less is known and which may
pose a greater danger. Second, controversies like this cause unnecessary
confusion and alarm in the public and divert attention from issues that really
do matter. Third, by doing so, they add to the already considerable distrust of
science.”
A Joint
Meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Panel of
Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the World Health
Organization Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues:
“However, it is notable that the only large cohort study of high quality
found no evidence of an association at any exposure level. Glyphosate has been
extensively tested for genotoxic effects using a variety of tests in a wide
range of organisms. The overall weight of evidence indicates that
administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as
2000 mg/kg body weight by the oral route, the route most relevant to human
dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming
majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate
for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate
is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures.”
Beer and Oktoberfest are not the only
things that Germans do right:
“The German
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) has
already completed the draft re-assessment report on health risk assessment. For
this purpose, more than 150 new toxicological studies were evaluated for the
first time and are described in detail in the draft report by BfR. In addition, all
available toxicological studies (nearly 300) were re-assessed from the point of
view of compliance with actual quality standards in study conduction and
confirmation of interpreted results. Furthermore, about 900 publications from
scientific journals have been considered in the draft report and more than 200
publications were reviewed in detail. In conclusion of this re-evaluation
process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR
the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of
glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or
embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.”
The
Environmental Protection Agency’s Glyphosate Issue Paper:
“An extensive database exists for evaluating the carcinogenic potential of
glyphosate, including 23 epidemiological studies, 15 animal carcinogenicity
studies, and nearly 90 genotoxicity studies for the active ingredient Glyphosate.
These studies were evaluated for quality and results were analyzed across
studies within each line of evidence. The modified Bradford Hill criteria were
then used to evaluate multiple lines of evidence using such concepts as
strength, consistency, dose response, temporal concordance and biological
plausibility. The available data at this time do no support a carcinogenic
process for glyphosate. Overall, animal carcinogenicity and genotoxicity
studies were remarkably consistent and did not demonstrate a clear association
between glyphosate exposure and outcomes of interest related to carcinogenic potential.”
Critical Reviews in Toxicology
Journal:
“After
almost forty years of commercial use, and multiple regulatory approvals
including toxicology evaluations, literature reviews, and numerous human health
risk assessments, the clear and consistent conclusions are that glyphosate is
of low toxicological concern, and no concerns exist with respect to glyphosate
use and cancer in humans …… There was no evidence of a carcinogenic effect
related to glyphosate treatment. The lack of a plausible mechanism, along with
published epidemiology studies, which fail to demonstrate clear, statistically
significant, unbiased and non-confounded associations between glyphosate and
cancer of any single etiology, and a compelling weight of evidence, support the
conclusion that glyphosate does not present concern with respect to
carcinogenic potential in humans.”
Responsibilities of the EPA, USDA and
FDA:
“The EPA
sets maximum safe levels of pesticide residues for crops (called tolerances),
based on the latest science. These tolerances are hundreds of times higher than
estimated toxic values, and they consider a person’s total exposure to
pesticides (with a wide margin of error to protect children and others who may
be vulnerable). The USDA tests crops each year to make sure they don’t go above
the tolerances. Very few pesticides are found above the tolerance levels
(despite what the Dirty Dozen list claims). If the USDA finds any pesticides
above the set tolerance, or finds pesticides on crops where they aren’t
supposed to be, they report that information to the FDA. The FDA puts the teeth
in this whole system. They have the regulatory power to start recalls, levy
fines, turn back foods at the ports, and so on.”
An explanation of how the dose makes
the poison:
“So, let’s
put this in some sort of simple math. Generally, a farmer uses less than 450
grams of glyphosate (that’s 16 ounces for barbarians) per acre of corn. An
average acre of corn in the USA produces approximately 9000 ears of corn.
“If every
bit of glyphosate just stays on ears of corn (and it doesn’t), each ear would
have around 50 mg of glyphosate. A 100 kg human could tolerate up to 2000 mg of
glyphosate per day, so this is far below the toxic dose. You could eat 40 ears
of corn and still not be harmed (of course, depending on your size). And
remember, the dose-response depends on time, so glyphosate is probably not
accumulating, and you could eat 40 ears every day.
“Even if
every microgram of glyphosate is on your ear a corn, even a 25 kg child could
probably safely consume that fully contaminated (and not realistic) ear of
corn. But here’s the simplest of simple math–glyphosate is not sprayed directly
on the ears of corn. Glyphosate suppresses weeds, and would kill corn if
sprayed directly. So the amount on that ear of corn is basically undetectable. So,
the amount of glyphosate that you consume is almost nothing, but far below the
2 mg/kg/day limit that has been established as very conservatively safe.”
Dr. Joe Schwarcz exposes a shameless
pseudo-scientist, who is typical of the fear-mongers and conspiracy theorists:
“Enter
Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., who is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer
Scientist and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory with no expertise in
toxicology, agronomy, or epidemiology. For some reason she has become convinced
that glyphosate is the devil incarnate and has published articles linking the
chemical to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease,
depression, Alzheimer’s disease, and infertility. But don’t look for her papers
in mainstream journals. You’ll find them in ‘play for pay’ publications such as
Entropy, an ‘open access’ journal
that will publish almost anything as long as the fees are paid.
“Seneff’s
main thesis is that glyphosate disrupts gut bacteria and interferes with
cytochrome enzymes, but she presents no relevant human evidence. The paper is
peppered with phrases like ‘we believe’ and ‘exogenous semiotic entropy’, three
words that have never occurred together anywhere except in this paper. There
are also flagrant attempts to snow people with a mass of irrelevant data to
make a case for glyphosate being the curse of our lives. Seneff’s most spurious
argument, repeated in her public presentations ad nauseam, is the correlation
between increased use of glyphosate and increasing rates of autism and celiac
disease. What we have here is the classic fallacy of confusing ‘association’
with ‘cause and effect’. Instead of glyphosate, one could just as well link an
increase in these conditions, which is itself contentious, with an increase in
coffee consumption, cell phone use, flat screen TVs, Chinese imports, or sales
of organic produce.”
Dr. Joe Schwarcz, “Dubious Tidings of Doom”, A Feast of Science: Intriguing Morsels from the Science of Everyday Life, ECW Press,
2018
Quick sampling of just some of the overwhelming
evidence:
“It is shown
that the classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen was the result
of a flawed and incomplete summary of the experimental evidence evaluated by
the Working Group. Rational and effective cancer prevention activities depend
on scientifically sound and unbiased assessments of the carcinogenic potential
of suspected agents.”
“Seven
cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies examined the association
between glyphosate and one or more cancer outcomes. Our review found no
consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship
between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and
exposure to glyphosate.”
“An
evaluation of this database found no consistent effects of glyphosate exposure
on reproductive health or the developing offspring……. In conclusion, the
available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to
adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic
exposure concentrations.”
“An
overwhelming preponderance of negative results in well-conducted bacterial
reversion and in vivo mammalian micronucleus and chromosomal aberration assays
indicates that glyphosate and typical GBFs are not genotoxic in these core
assays.”
“To examine
potential health risks in humans, we searched and reviewed the literature to
evaluate whether exposure to glyphosate is associated causally with non-cancer
health risks in humans …….Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern
of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease
and exposure to glyphosate.”
Discussion on glyphosate begins at the 5 minute mark
Additional Resources
Is glyphosate (Roundup) dangerous? https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/is-glyphosate-roundup-dangerous/
GMO Myth: Farmers “drown” crops in “dangerous” glyphosate. Fact: They use eye droppers https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/22/gmo-myth-farmers-drown-crops-in-dangerous-glyphosate-fact-they-use-eye-droppers/
Expert reaction to carcinogenicity classification of five pesticides by the International Agency for Research on Cancer http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/
Roundup and Risk Assessment https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roundup-and-risk-assessment
Quit the Glyphosate Conspiracy Theories https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2018/01/19/quit_the_glyphosate_conspiracy_theories.html
Related Posts
9 Basic Ways We Fool Ourselves Into Believing Things That Aren’t True http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2018/04/9-basic-ways-we-fool-ourselves-into.html
Exposed: 9 Basic Ways Conspiracy Theorists Dupe The Public http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2018/02/exposed-9-basic-ways-conspiracy.html
Assessing Risk & Fear: 4 Misconceptions http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2017/12/assessing-risk-fear-4-misconceptions.html
128 Nobel Laureates Support GMOs http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2017/10/128-nobel-laureates-support-precision.html
9 MORE Common Characteristics of People Who Get Duped http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2017/08/9-more-common-characteristics-of-people.html
10 Common Characteristics of People Who Get Duped http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2017/08/10-common-characteristics-of-people-who.html
Flagrant Flaws in Popular Media Reports on Health Risks http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2017/08/flagrant-flaws-in-popular-media-reports.html
The Dose Makes The Poison: 19 Examples Alarmists Want Hushed http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2017/03/the-dose-makes-poison-19-examples.html
30 Prying and Probing Questions To Bolster Critical Thinking http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2016/10/30-prying-and-probing-questions-to.html
17 Simple Truths That Make Anti-GMO Alarmists Squirm http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2016/03/17-simple-truths-that-make-anti-gmo.html
Anti-GMO Founder: “I Was Wrong!” http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2016/03/former-anti-gmo-founder-and-activist-i.html
21 Quick & Undeniable Facts Exposing Conspiracy Theorists http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2013/12/conspiracy-theories.html
Photo: http://www.menteyexito.org/estas-eligiendo-miedo/
Jerry De Luca is a Christian freelance writer who loves perusing dozens of interesting and informative publications. When he finds any useful info he summarizes it, taking the main points, and creates a (hopefully) helpful blog post.
.jpg)
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Feel free to leave any comments...