SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
UK scientists say they have conducted an unprecedented, long-term study showing a link between Roundup - one of the most widely used herbicides in the world - and severe liver damage in test rats.
The research sparked further debate in the international scientific community over the potential health hazards to people caused by exposure to the well-known weed killer.
Scientists from King's College London, whose findings were published in the journal, Nature , earlier this month, said their tests used cutting-edge technology to demonstrate that "extremely low doses" of the herbicide administered to rats through their drinking water had caused "non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)" over a two-year period.
NAFLD can lead to more serious liver disease such as cirrhosis, and increases the risk of other illnesses including diabetes, heart attacks and strokes.
"The study is unique in that it is the first to show a causative link between consumption of Roundup at a real-world environmental dose and a serious disease condition," the report said.
In recent years, there have been an increasing number of studies alleging links between herbicides - used to help grow genetically modified crops - to a wide range of health issues including birth defects, reproductive and neurological problems, cancer, and even DNA damage. Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, has repeatedly denied the accusations , insisting the product is safe for humans. A number of scientists and researchers say there has been insufficient evidence to prove herbicides cause health problems for people.
Related articles:
(Score: 5, Interesting) by martyb on Tuesday January 24 2017, @01:37AM
To which I would say "The absence of proof of effect is not proof of the absence of effect." For example, it took many years to prove that cigarette smoking was harmful.
Oh, and can't ignore that though there may be "a number of scientists and researchers" who say there is no proof, how many are there, and how many say the opposite? And where did they get their funding?
I'll close with what I found to be an outstanding definition of honesty:
Though they may be quoting facts, they may be selectively enumerated so as to give the impression of one thing without actually stating a lie. "Hey Boss! Sorry I'm late getting to work today. Did you hear about the big accident on the interstate?" This suggests the accident was the cause for my being late, but the reality may well be that I travelled an entirely different route to work but took my sweet time getting there along with a side trip to a donut shop. But if I can portray things in such a way that my boss thinks that the accident is what kept me from being on time... well, I didn't outright lie — but I was sure as hell being dishonest.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @02:44AM
Scientists have been looking for health problems in people, but haven't found a whole lot of increased risk of health problems. The other thing to think about is how the health risks compare to alternative herbicides (possibly not a high bar to pass).
Workers exposed to glyphosate were about twice as likely to get B cell lymphoma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:40AM
In consideration of all the lies those lying liars tell, I don't eat anything that isn't grown and labeled organic.
No surprise organic produce quality is much much better that the GMO garbage crops.
No brainer here. Monsanto and the rest of em can go fuck themselves. Use the roundup. Do it now.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @06:32AM
yet ciggies are still sold legally to anyone over 16
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @07:03AM
One thing to note is while Roundup contains glyphosate, glyphosate isn't the only chemical it contains. So they can make all sorts of truthful claims that glyphosate isn't that toxic for a pesticide for humans at X concentrations despite Roundup itself being far more dangerous and toxic.
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/ [theintercept.com]
Independent scientists have been reporting since at least 1991 that pesticides containing glyphosate along with other ingredients were more dangerous than glyphosate on its own. More recently, two papers — one published in 2002, the other in 2004 — showed that Roundup and other glyphosate-containing weed formulations were more likely to cause cell-cycle dysregulation, a hallmark of cancer, than glyphosate alone. In 2005, researchers showed that Roundup was more harmful to rats’ livers than its “active ingredient” by itself. And a 2009 study showed that four formulations of Roundup were more toxic to human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells than glyphosate by itself.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/ [scientificamerican.com]
Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”
“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors
See also: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/ [nih.gov]