EU bans Glyphosate.

Swa said:
Because you're the one that extrapolated from the rat studies to try and show it takes higher levels to cause cancer. Seems you don't know the meaning of extrapolate just as you don't understand that the rat studies are further evidence, though not the only evidence, but you can't directly extrapolate the results onto humans.
Click to expand...

Oh man... you are assuming a contrary position here (probably just cos you want to find something to disagree with me on) but what you don't realise (because you really have no idea what this argument is about) is that the anti-Monsanto, Anti-GMO and anti-Glyphosate crowd absolutely LOVE the rat study. That was why I referred to it.
Read about the Seralini study... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
And never mind that, that study was retracted and then republished. They still love to quote it.
It's their favourite darling to prove that Glyphosate causes cancer (they just ignore the part about the high dosage -cos well who need ALL the facts)...

Now you are telling me not to extrapolate the VERY study that is the entire foundation for their argument?
I think you need to decide which side you are on here.
 
Last edited:
LazyLion said:
Oh man... you are assuming a contrary position here (probably just cos you want to find something to disagree with me on) but what you don't realise (because you really have no idea what this argument is about) is that the anti-Monsanto, Anti-GMO and anti-Glyphosate crowd absolutely LOVE the rat study. That was why I referred to it.
Read about the Seralini study... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
And never mind that, that study was retracted and then republished. They still love to quote it.
It's their favourite darling to prove that Glyphosate causes cancer (they just ignore the part about the high dosage -cos well who need ALL the facts)...

Now you are telling me not to extrapolate the VERY study that is the entire foundation for their argument?
I think you need to decide which side you are on here.
Click to expand...
I think you should get a grip on the situation. It doesn't matter who references the rat study, you're the one that referenced it here to try and show that it can only cause cancer in high doses. The EU won't ban a substance based on a single study unless it was a very large and definitive one. The rats don't even live past the time it normally takes to develop cancer so it's pointless to use it to say what doses are safe.
 
LazyLion said:
Oh man... you are assuming a contrary position here (probably just cos you want to find something to disagree with me on) but what you don't realise (because you really have no idea what this argument is about) is that the anti-Monsanto, Anti-GMO and anti-Glyphosate crowd absolutely LOVE the rat study. That was why I referred to it.
Read about the Seralini study... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
And never mind that, that study was retracted and then republished. They still love to quote it.
It's their favourite darling to prove that Glyphosate causes cancer (they just ignore the part about the high dosage -cos well who need ALL the facts)...

Now you are telling me not to extrapolate the VERY study that is the entire foundation for their argument?
I think you need to decide which side you are on here.
Click to expand...

To preserve your sanity, forget to argue with the mybb resident ex-spert electrical 12v transmission engineer and now ex-spert Glyphosate researh scientist. You will go crazy once he starts his cycle of revolving and ever changing adaptive thumbsuck arguments. One day when weeds overun to reduce food production he will still fight the same useless argument.
 
Swa said:
I think you should get a grip on the situation. It doesn't matter who references the rat study, you're the one that referenced it here to try and show that it can only cause cancer in high doses. The EU won't ban a substance based on a single study unless it was a very large and definitive one. The rats don't even live past the time it normally takes to develop cancer so it's pointless to use it to say what doses are safe.
Click to expand...

OK, well then here are some other people who are also "wrongly extrapolating" as you say...

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html
When high doses were administered to laboratory animals, some studies suggest that glyphosate has carcinogenic potential. Studies on cancer rates in people have provided conflicting results on whether the use of glyphosate containing products is associated with cancer. Some studies have associated glyphosate use with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Click to expand...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/
Animal and epidemiology studies published in the last decade, however, point to the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity.
Click to expand...

http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/glyphosa.htm
The acute toxicity of glyphosate itself is very low. According to the World Health Organisation, the oral LD50 in the rat of pure glyphosate is 4,230 mg/kg, or 5,600 mg/kg according to Monsanto(6). The low acute toxicity of glyphosate can be attributed to its biochemical mode of action on a metabolic pathway in plants (called the shikimic acid pathway) which does not exist in animals(7). However, glyphosate can also disrupt functions of enzymes in animals. In rats it was found to decrease the activity of some detoxification enzymes when injected into the abdomen(8). In general, controlled toxicity tests report adverse symptoms from exposure to glyphosate only at extremely high doses, ie several grammes per kg body weight.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
Amongst mammals, glyphosate is considered to have "low to very low toxicity". The LD50 of glyphosate is 5,000 mg/kg for rats, 10,000 mg/kg in mice and 3,530 mg/kg in goats. The acute dermal LD50 in rabbits is greater than 2,000 mg/kg. Indications of glyphosate toxicity in animals typically appear within 30 to 120 minutes following ingestion of a large enough dose, and include initial excitability and tachycardia, ataxia, depression, and bradycardia, although severe toxicity can develop into collapse and convulsions.[7]
Click to expand...

http://www.ecowatch.com/15-health-problems-linked-to-monsantos-roundup-1882002128.html
The only long-term animal study of glyphosate exposure produced rats with mammary tumors and shortened life-spans.
Click to expand...

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....th-some-gm-crops-dangerously-toxic-to-humans/
Glyphosate has a LD50 of 5600 mg/kg based on oral ingestions in rats, according to EPA assessments (PDF), placing it in Toxicity Category III. The EPA ranks chemicals in four categories, I being the most toxic and IV being the least. The EPA has also found that glyphosate does not cause cancer.
Click to expand...
 
 
Swa said:
Yup just confirmed, you have no idea what extrapolate means.
Click to expand...

They quoted the rat study as if it was relevant to humans... that's good enough for me... that's normally how the science works!
Why have rat studies if the results are not relevant to humans?
 
Last edited:
OrbitalDawn said:
NaturalNews... :erm:



Except they haven't.

http://phys.org/news/2016-07-eu-limits-glyphosate-month-extension.html
Click to expand...
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/17/2799.full.pdf

ABSTRACT
Glyphosate (GLY) is a herbicide that is widely used in agriculture for
weed control. Although reports about the impact of GLY in snails,
crustaceans and amphibians exist, few studies have investigated its
sublethal effects in non-target organisms such as the honeybee
Apis
mellifera
, the main pollen vector in commercial crops. Here, we tested
whether exposure to three sublethal concentrations of GLY (2.5, 5
and 10 mg l
−
1
: corresponding to 0.125, 0.250 and 0.500
μ
g per
animal) affects the homeward flight path of honeybees in an open
field. We performed an experiment in which forager honeybees were
trained to an artificial feeder, and then captured, fed with sugar
solution containing traces of GLYand released from a novel site either
once or twice. Their homeward trajectories were tracked using
harmonic radar technology. We found that honeybees that had been
fed with solution containing 10 mg l
−
1
GLY spent more time
performing homeward flights than control bees or bees treated with
lower concentrations. They also performed more indirect homing
flights. Moreover, the proportion of direct homeward flights performed
after a second release from the same site increased in control bees
but not in treated bees. These results suggest that, in honeybees,
exposure to levels of GLY commonly found in agricultural settings
impairs the cognitive capacities needed to retrieve and integrate
spatial information for a successful return to the hive. Therefore,
honeybee navigation is affected by ingesting traces of the most widely
used herbicide worldwide, with potential long-term negative
consequences for colony foraging success.
Click to expand...

Better?

Edit:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063858
Here's the study from the article I first linked. I take it the source is more pallatable.
 
Last edited:
LazyLion said:
They quoted the rat study as if it was relevant to humans... that's good enough for me... that's normally how the science works!
Why have rat studies if the results are not relevant to humans?
Click to expand...

You cannot equate rats to humans as rats can survive on anything from rotten rubbish to rubber. Humans are more finicky.
I agree that there is no scientific proof that glyphosate can kill humans but there is a link and a possibility of it and as such it was banned in the EU.
Monsanto is facing 4 court cases of farmers with lymph cancer and there is a petition to shut them down.
Remember DDT?
 
Seriously said:
To preserve your sanity, forget to argue with the mybb resident ex-spert electrical 12v transmission engineer and now ex-spert Glyphosate researh scientist. You will go crazy once he starts his cycle of revolving and ever changing adaptive thumbsuck arguments. One day when weeds overun to reduce food production he will still fight the same useless argument.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about? If you are talking about me then you are wrong. I worked in Low Voltage up to 480v and in Automation Systems and not Transmission.
 
Oopsie said:
Who are you talking about? If you are talking about me then you are wrong. I worked in Low Voltage up to 480v and in Automation Systems and not Transmission.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not you for sure.

Automation systems. Interesting. Same as me.
 
Oopsie said:
You cannot equate rats to humans as rats can survive on anything from rotten rubbish to rubber. Humans are more finicky.
I agree that there is no scientific proof that glyphosate can kill humans but there is a link and a possibility of it and as such it was banned in the EU.
Monsanto is facing 4 court cases of farmers with lymph cancer and there is a petition to shut them down.
Remember DDT?
Click to expand...

Then why do scientists perform tests on rats?
 
LazyLion said:
There isn't any evidence. Or it would have appeared in that Wikipedia article.
Click to expand...
I have provided links to two scientific studies which showed a clear connection between sub-lethal glyphosate levels in bees and their ability to navigate in the world and make it back to the hive successfully.

Their methodology is quite easy to reproduce, it's not a hard experiment to do.

I mean, you're not claiming the evidence has to be on wikipedia to be valid, are you? :erm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X