Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oil Earthquakes confirmed
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Eagle Eye" data-source="post: 2739111" data-attributes="member: 34489"><p>“The chronic <strong>toxicity of glyphosate is low</strong>; the only significant toxicity seen in a number of animal bioassays was mild hepatotoxicity at high doses in mice. <strong>There is no evidence of carcinogenicity</strong>.” <span style="color: #FF0000">But this does not prove it</span></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (1991):</p><p></p><p>“Health and Welfare Canada has reviewed the glyphosate toxicology database, which is considered to be complete. The acute toxicity of glyphosate is very low. The submitted studies contain no evidence that glyphosate causes mutations, birth defects or cancer.”</p><p></p><p>US Environmental Protection Agency, Registration Eligibility Document (US EPA, 1993):</p><p></p><p>“Based on the results of its reregistration review, EPA has concluded that all registered uses of glyphosate are eligible for reregistration. The Agency has classified glyphosate as a Group E carcinogen (signifies <strong>evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans</strong>).” <span style="color: #FF0000">evidence just like the evidence i provided, in a reputable journal</span></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 159 (WHO IPCS, 1994):</p><p></p><p><strong>“Animal studies show that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic.”</strong><span style="color: #FF0000">Obviously an erroneous conclusion since a recent study in a reputable journal disputes this claim.</span></p><p></p><p>World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (WHO/FAO JMPR, 2004)</p><p></p><p>“In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is<strong> unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.</strong>”<span style="color: #0000FF">This is the most important one of all <strong>UNLIKELY, NOT "DOES NOT"</strong></span></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA, 2013) review of the Earth Open Source report “Roundup and Birth Defects: Is the Public Being Kept in the Dark?”</p><p></p><p>“The APVMA currently has no data before it suggesting that glyphosate products registered in Australia and used according to label instructions present any unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and trade &#8230;”</p><p></p><p>“The weight and strength of evidence shows that glyphosate is not genotoxic, carcinogenic or neurotoxic. “</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Glyphosate Reevaluation Assessment Report, Germany Rapporteur Member State for the European Annex I Renewal of Glyphosate (2014)</p><p></p><p>“&#8230;glyphosate was considered <strong>unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk in humans &#8230;</strong>” <span style="color: #0000FF">Unlikely</span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>“In epidemiological studies in humans, there was no evidence of carcinogencity and there were no effects on fertility, reproduction and development or of neurotoxicity that might be attributed to glyphosate. “</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Now there is a study that claims that there are health effects. HMMM maybe the others missed something. That is actually the beauty of Science. It is self correcting. In light of new evidence.... we change our mind. Don't get too stuck in your ways my friend.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Eagle Eye, post: 2739111, member: 34489"] “The chronic [B]toxicity of glyphosate is low[/B]; the only significant toxicity seen in a number of animal bioassays was mild hepatotoxicity at high doses in mice. [B]There is no evidence of carcinogenicity[/B].” [COLOR="#FF0000"]But this does not prove it[/COLOR] Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (1991): “Health and Welfare Canada has reviewed the glyphosate toxicology database, which is considered to be complete. The acute toxicity of glyphosate is very low. The submitted studies contain no evidence that glyphosate causes mutations, birth defects or cancer.” US Environmental Protection Agency, Registration Eligibility Document (US EPA, 1993): “Based on the results of its reregistration review, EPA has concluded that all registered uses of glyphosate are eligible for reregistration. The Agency has classified glyphosate as a Group E carcinogen (signifies [B]evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans[/B]).” [COLOR="#FF0000"]evidence just like the evidence i provided, in a reputable journal[/COLOR] World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 159 (WHO IPCS, 1994): [B]“Animal studies show that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic.”[/B][COLOR="#FF0000"]Obviously an erroneous conclusion since a recent study in a reputable journal disputes this claim.[/COLOR] World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (WHO/FAO JMPR, 2004) “In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is[B] unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.[/B]”[COLOR="#0000FF"]This is the most important one of all [B]UNLIKELY, NOT "DOES NOT"[/B][/COLOR] Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA, 2013) review of the Earth Open Source report “Roundup and Birth Defects: Is the Public Being Kept in the Dark?” “The APVMA currently has no data before it suggesting that glyphosate products registered in Australia and used according to label instructions present any unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and trade …” “The weight and strength of evidence shows that glyphosate is not genotoxic, carcinogenic or neurotoxic. “ Glyphosate Reevaluation Assessment Report, Germany Rapporteur Member State for the European Annex I Renewal of Glyphosate (2014) “…glyphosate was considered [B]unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk in humans …[/B]” [COLOR="#0000FF"]Unlikely[/COLOR] “In epidemiological studies in humans, there was no evidence of carcinogencity and there were no effects on fertility, reproduction and development or of neurotoxicity that might be attributed to glyphosate. “[/QUOTE] Now there is a study that claims that there are health effects. HMMM maybe the others missed something. That is actually the beauty of Science. It is self correcting. In light of new evidence.... we change our mind. Don't get too stuck in your ways my friend. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oil Earthquakes confirmed
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom