Met een
enorme lobby o.a. gesteund door de Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA
>> gaat in de VS onder meer over toelating van
pesticiden), dus de overheid van de VS, probeert men al jaren glyfosaat als ongevaarlijk af te schilderen……
Naar nu
blijkt heeft zelfs de EPA zich tegengesproken, daar dit orgaan glyfosaat eerder wel degelijk als gevaarlijk heeft aangemerkt……. Dit alles was
bekend bij de EU toen men onlangs een verlenging van de vergunning
t.b.v. deze tyfuszooi van vooral Monsanto heeft afgegeven, dit voor een periode van nog eens 5 jaar…..
De bijen
en vlinders dreigen in een groot deel van de wereld uit te sterven,
de laatste 30 jaar is het aantal insecten met 75% tin aantallen
teruggelopen….. De grote oorzaak van dit uitsterven, zijn pesticiden, waar Roundup (met hoofdbestanddeel glyfosaat) voor een groot deel de dader is……. En toch koos de ‘volksvertegenwoordiging’ in Brussel
deze, voor mens en dier uiterst gevaarlijke stof, nog eens 5 jaar toe te
laten, puur en alleen voor het geldelijk gewin…….
Schandalig genoeg
stemde EU grofgraaier en oplichter Bas Eickhout van GroenLinks, uh AsgrauwRechts in het EU parlement ook voor langer gebruik van deze letterlijke kankertroep!! Ach ja, ook voor GL gaat op dat de volksgezondheid ver na het geldelijk gewin komt en Klaver zich maar uitsloven en doen of hij zo begaan is met het milieu en de natuur….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Dan te bedenken dat de EU jaarlijks een ‘milieu award’ vergeeft…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Wat een smerig stel volksverlakkers!! (NEXIT NU!!)
Vergeet de woorden van Einstein niet: zonder insecten is de mens gedoemd uit te sterven……. (al zal dat lullig genoeg, de planeet goed doen….)
EPA
Contradicts Its Own Research, Claims Roundup Poses No Risk to Humans
December
22, 2017 at 11:36 am
Written
by Derrick
Broze
(ANTIMEDIA) — On
Monday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a new
report declaring that the weed killer glyphosate does not pose any
meaningful risk to humans, but the report is not likely to end the
debate over the safety of the world’s most widely used pesticide.
The new report from the EPA is the latest in a string of conflicting
reports from various health agencies around the world. Reuters first
reported on
the assessment:
“The
EPA, in a draft risk assessment report issued on Monday, also said it
found ‘no other meaningful risks to human health’ when
glyphosate, the world’s biggest-selling weed killer, is used
according to its label instructions.”
The
EPA’s decision conflicts with a March 2015 report from the
International Agency for Research on Cancer that found that
glyphosate “probably” contributes to non-Hodgkin lymphoma in
humans and classified it as a ‘Group 2A’ carcinogen. “There
was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and
strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged
chromosomes,”
Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute
and lead author of the study, told Reuters at
the time.
The
IARC report was published in The
Lancet Oncology and
detailed evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides.
The report concluded that there was “limited
evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure
to the chemical in the US, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001.
The researchers found “convincing
evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory
animals.”
Shortly
after the IARC review, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an
independent agency funded by the European Union, shot back with their
own study, claiming glyphosate is “unlikely
to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.”
Earlier this month, the European Commission renewed
the license to
use glyphosate for another five years. The Commission’s renewal
came despite
the efforts of the European Citizens’ Initiative,
called “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from
toxic pesticides.” The effort collected more than 1 million
signatures.
Those
studies were followed by research from
experts with the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO). The FAO
released a statement claiming
glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans”
exposed to it through food. The WHO co-signed the statement with the
FAO. The organizations also found that glyphosate is not likely to be
genotoxic — destructive to cell’s genetic material — in humans.
This
means that as of December 2017, the United Nations’ Food and
Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the European
Food Safety Authority, and the United Nations say glyphosate does not
pose a risk of cancer to humans. On the other end of the spectrum,
the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC states
that it could be linked to cancer. To add even more confusion to the
matter, in October, Reuters reported that
an analysis of the IARC’s assessment of glyphosate showed the
agency ignored findings and deleted statements that contradicted
their final conclusion. Reuters reported:
“The
edits identified by Reuters occurred in the chapter of IARC’s
review focusing on animal studies. This chapter was important in
IARC’s assessment of glyphosate, since it was in animal studies
that IARC decided there was ‘sufficient’ evidence of
carcinogenicity. One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by
Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of
multiple scientists’ conclusions that their studies had found no
link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals.”
All
this confusion among agencies does not help the average consumer when
it comes to safety and health. Who should we trust when our very
lives are on the line? Government agencies that operate a revolving
door with big pharma, big ag, and other industrial complexes?
Despite
the EPA’s latest decision, Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist for
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) advocacy group,
told Reuters that “[t]here is data suggesting
cancer.” What data is Sass referring to?
She
is more than likely talking about an EPA study from the 1980s that
found glyphosate does, indeed, increase the likelihood of developing
cancer. The 2015 IARC report points out that the EPA had originally
classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The
IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more
recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence
of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”
On
November 1st, In
These Times Magazine
released an in-depth report titled “How
Monsanto Captured the EPA (And Twisted Science) To Keep Glyphosate on
the Market.” The
investigation does a great job of outlining the history of regulation
of glyphosate and how Monsanto — glyphosate is the key ingredient
in Monsanto’s Roundup — has been able to influence and subvert
regulatory agencies in order to make glyphosate the most widely used
pesticide in the world. “Our
two-year investigation found incontrovertible evidence that Monsanto
has exerted deep influence over EPA decisions since glyphosate first
came on the market—via Roundup—more than 40 years ago,”
the report states.
The
detailed investigation reveals that nearly every time a Monsanto
chemical was receiving negative attention from scientists and
researchers, the biotech company would hire its own researchers and
firms or pressure government employees until they came to Monsanto’s
preferred conclusion. The testing and approval of glyphosate seem to
fit the pattern.
“Throughout
the 1970s, EPA staff repeatedly raised red flags about the inadequacy
of testing data that Monsanto was submitting in support of
glyphosate’s original registration,”
the report states. In
These Times also
examined EPA memos they say “detail
incomplete or otherwise unacceptable toxicology screening tests.”
The pressure to approve glyphosate can be traced back to 1983 when
the EPA was examining toxicity data supplied by Monsanto. As part of
the registration and approval process, Monsanto submitted a two-year
mouse feeding study. In
These Times writes:
“The
mouse study was conducted for Monsanto by a commercial lab called
Bio/Dynamics, but the results of the research were neither
peer-reviewed nor made publicly available.
Staff
toxicologists, pathologists and statisticians in the TB provided the
first interpretation of these results.
On
March 4, 1985, an ad hoc committee of these scientists reported that
based on this mouse study, glyphosate was carcinogenic, or a ‘Class
C’ substance. They did not question the 1983 study’s structure or
reported data. EPA staff toxicologist William Dykstra, in an April 3,
1985, memo, stated unequivocally, ‘Glyphosate was oncogenic in male
mice causing renal tubule adenomas, a rare tumor, in a dose-related
manner.’”
In
true Monsanto fashion, the company hired four pathologists to review
the original tissue slides from the 1983 study. Monsanto’s
pathologists claimed to have seen a tumor in one of the mice in the
control group. This finding cast doubt on the EPA’s original
conclusion and the entire study. By March 1986, the EPA had reversed
their designation of glyphosate as carcinogenic. Monsanto still
relies on the claim that one of the control group mice also had a
tumor so the cause could not have been glyphosate.
However,
in another memo dated February 1985, Herbert Lacayo, a statistician
with the EPA’s Toxicology Branch, stated that without glyphosate
exposure, the odds of tumors appearing were about 156 to 1.
“Under
such circumstances a prudent person would reject the Monsanto
assumption that glyphosate dosing has no effect on kidney tumor
production,” wrote Lacayo. “Our viewpoint is one of
protecting the public health when we see suspicious data. It is not
our job to protect registrants from false positives.”
Officially,
the chemical glyphosate and products like Roundup do not cause cancer
and are of no harm to the planet or animals. However, when one takes
a deeper look at the history of the studies and the company behind
the product, valid reasons to be skeptical can be found.
Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo
===============================================
Beste bezoeker, wat mij betreft toch een enigszins slap verhaal, vooral tegen het eind, terwijl allang bewezen is, dat Roundup de grote moordenaar van bestuivers is……. Vergeet niet dat we niet alleen glyfosaat als gif binnenkrijgen, maar een grote hoeveelheid andere gifstoffen, stoffen die ons lichaam stapelt en vroeg of laat het vernietigende werk voltooien …….
Zie ook: ‘Bayer oefent druk uit op Nederland voor nieuw ‘bijengif…….’‘
en: ‘TTIP: wat ons te wachten staat >> verboden labeling van o.a. genetisch gemanipuleerde voeding……‘
en: ‘Monsanto ‘liefdadigheidsorganisatie die zich inzet voor wereldvoedselprobleem……‘‘
en: ‘EU: verbiedt het uiterst gevaarlijke glyfosaat voorgoed!‘ (helaas, te vroeg gejuicht….)
en: ‘Kamp (VVD) glyfosaat gifmenger van het jaar!‘
en: ‘Glyfosaat, de leugens van Monsanto over dit kankerverwekkend gif……….‘
en: ‘Op aardbei zes keer meer landbouwgif dan op ander fruit………‘
en: ‘Glyfosaat, een kankerverwekkend gif, nu ook gevonden in honing en graan……..‘
Zie daarnaast ook: Verbied gebruik glyfosaat tot er bewijzen zijn (De Standaard)http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20170426_02852617 en: Monsanto koopt wetenschap die de “onschuld” van glyfosaat bewijst.http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikel/2017/03/27/monsanto-koopt-wetenschap-die-de-onschuld-van-glyfosaat-bewijs
