glyphosate not carcinogenic

[snipe]

european chemicals agency has officially dismissed claims it is linked to cancer... hope that is a step in the right direction.

 

[Badshot]

Unfortunately the damage is done already, I bet there won't be a huge publicity campaign saying it's safe.

 

[dstudent]

Sorry the ECHA report is not very positive, I ve attached it below
Glyphosate not classified as a carcinogen by ECHA
ECHA/PR/17/06

ECHA's Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) agrees to maintain the current harmonised classification of glyphosate as a substance causing serious eye damage and being toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects. RAC concluded that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction.

Helsinki, 15 March 2017 – RAC assessed glyphosate’s hazardousness against the criteria in the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation. They considered extensive scientific data in coming to their opinion.

The committee concluded that the scientific evidence available at the moment warrants the following classifications for glyphosate according to the CLP Regulation:

• Eye Damage 1; H318 (Causes serious eye damage)
• Aquatic Chronic 2; H411 (Toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects)

RAC concluded that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria in the CLP Regulation to classify glyphosate for specific target organ toxicity, or as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or for reproductive toxicity.

The hazard classes for which classification was proposed by the German competent authority were specific target organ toxicity (repeated exposure) (category 2), eye damage/irritation (category 1), and toxicity to the aquatic environment (Aquatic Chronic 2). ECHA also assessed other hazard classes including carcinogenicity, germ cell mutagenicity and reproductive toxicity.

The adopted opinion will go through a normal editorial check before it is sent to the European Commission. The opinion will also be made available on ECHA’s website at the same time.

The adopted opinion on the harmonised classification for glyphosate will be taken into account when the Commission and Member States consider whether to renew the approval to use glyphosate as an active substance in pesticides, later this year.

Background

Apart from the published studies on glyphosate, the committee also had full access to the original reports of studies conducted by industry. RAC has assessed all the scientific data, including any scientifically relevant information received during the public consultation in summer 2016.

RAC had a first discussion on glyphosate with stakeholders at its 39th meeting in December 2016.

RAC provides an independent scientific opinion on the hazard classification of the substance. The classification is based solely on the hazardous properties of the substance. It does not take into account the likelihood of exposure to the substance and therefore does not address the risks of exposure. The risks posed by exposure are considered for example when deciding whether to renew the approval of glyphosate as a pesticide in accordance with the EU’s Plant Protection Product Regulation (Regulation (EC) N° 1107

https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa

 

[Cowabunga]

It is as damaging to the eyes as soap. Pretty stingy in its concentrated form and likely to cause damage if not washed out immediately, as are many common substances far removed from pesticides. Try putting alloy wheel cleaner or petrol in your eye and 'see' what happens.
Its hazardous to aquatic life in its concentrated form but some formulations that use appropriate carriers have been used for weed control in watercourses with no significant harm to aquatic life for many years.

There's nothing negative there that I can see, and my eyes are unaffected by any pesticide.

 

[dstudent]

It is as damaging to the eyes as soap. Pretty stingy in its concentrated form and likely to cause damage if not washed out immediately, as are many common substances far removed from pesticides. Try putting alloy wheel cleaner or petrol in your eye and 'see' what happens.
Its hazardous to aquatic life in its concentrated form but some formulations that use appropriate carriers have been used for weed control in watercourses with no significant harm to aquatic life for many years.

There's nothing negative there that I can see, and my eyes are unaffected by any pesticide.

Thank you for the explenation I appreciate that as I m trying to get as much info from all sides.
I ve just attached the report here.
And I m sorry at face value, the language used is not very positive, they do not inspire confidence, do they?
There is not added explenation, like u just gave, there is not interpretation of data
Anyone else, people at large reading that are not gonna get a good impression.

 

[Storeman]

From that report I would say that it doesn't appear as bad as a lot of these enviromentalists make out.

Glyphosate toxicity compared to other products...............
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.p...d-sorting-through-the-facts-by-credible-hulk/

It would seem that Botox is 5,000,000,000 times more toxic than Roundup.

 

[Courier]

From that report I would say that it doesn't appear as bad as a lot of these enviromentalists make out.

Glyphosate toxicity compared to other products...............
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.p...d-sorting-through-the-facts-by-credible-hulk/

It would seem that Botox is 5,000,000,000 times more toxic than Roundup.

Is that ready to use Roundup as in the illustration or concentrate 360 gram? Just askin' cos it does make a difference.
Also what strength is the Botox they are comparing with - That used in Aesthetics or naturally occurring botulism ?

 

[Cowabunga]

From that report I would say that it doesn't appear as bad as a lot of these enviromentalists make out.

Glyphosate toxicity compared to other products...............
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.p...d-sorting-through-the-facts-by-credible-hulk/

It would seem that Botox is 5,000,000,000 times more toxic than Roundup.

Botox is botulinum, or a potent neurotoxin produced by the clostridium bacteria. Nevertheless people choose to inject it under their skin in diluted form. Probably some of the same people who are so deeply worried about some of the safest pesticides available.
Some of the people who can't seem to interpret words appropriately and in context. A product of our broken education system and the internet that enables any old Tom Dick or Harry to take a view, however preposterous, express it, and find other like minded, well educated fools to agree with. Or for very clever people to make false news that normally sensible people fall for. This may fall into subtle subterfuge, like putting doubt into people's minds, such as in this case, to outright lies. However absurd the statement or lie, a percentage of people will certainly believe it, and if there is a 'cause' to follow, they will, some against all rational evidence or thought process.

 

[Pheasant Surprise]

Thank you for the explenation I appreciate that as I m trying to get as much info from all sides.
I ve just attached the report here.
And I m sorry at face value, the language used is not very positive, they do not inspire confidence, do they?
There is not added explenation, like u just gave, there is not interpretation of data
Anyone else, people at large reading that are not gonna get a good impression.

With due respect, any report like this read in isolation could give you the wrong impression of its relative hazard and toxicity. It has to be read in context with reports on similar herbicides and insecticides. Read some other reports to get a feel for the language employed and relative discussion of the substance.

Here is an example for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane. Better known as DDT....

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/ddttech.pdf

Note the prologue in the report:
NPTN Technical Fact Sheets are designed to provide information that is technical in nature for individuals with a scientific background or familiarity with the regulation of pesticides by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). This document is intended to be helpful to professionals and to the general public for making decisions about pesticide use.

 

[rob1]

When people start on about chems I always refer them to salt, too little and we die,injest two ounces and we die, its very toxic and if it was subjected to the same tests as chems it would be banned. Its all in the dose, but why let facts get in the way of a good story

 

[dstudent]

With due respect, any report like this read in isolation could give you the wrong impression of its relative hazard and toxicity. It has to be read in context with reports on similar herbicides and insecticides. Read some other reports to get a feel for the language employed and relative discussion of the substance.

Here is an example for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane. Better known as DDT....

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/ddttech.pdf

Note the prologue in the report:
NPTN Technical Fact Sheets are designed to provide information that is technical in nature for individuals with a scientific background or familiarity with the regulation of pesticides by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). This document is intended to be helpful to professionals and to the general public for making decisions about pesticide use.

Hi that is exactly what I was trying to say and the point I was trying to put accross.
I was not being judgemental there guys, you can retract the claws
In response of the OP I simply looked up the report and highlited the relevant bits.
You are welcome

 

[Pan mixer]

We had the same thing with Actellic - a nasty if you were exposed to it for days at a time, but who were exposed to it for days at a time?, the way that it was used didn't lead to that level of exposure, anywhere near in fact, in all but the hugest grain stores.

Now we have Zinc oxide going in piglet creep rations - oh well we will just have to quadruple our antibiotic use or wacth lots of piglets get chronic bowel complaints.

Good old Europe. Hurry up Article 50

 

[Hindsight]

We maybe can blame that leave fella Gove - why take notice of experts - what do they know.

 

[Brisel]

Expert?

An ex is a has-been. The 'spert is merely a drip under pressure.









Thank you, I'm here all week

 

[Alicecow]

Expert?

An ex is a has-been. The 'spert is merely a drip under pressure.









Thank you, I'm here all week

Or

Expert
AKA
Liar for hire

 

[casemx 270]

Keep seeing reports the glyphosate is dangerous