Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday January 23 2017, @10:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the positively-RATified dept.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/study-linking-herbicide-disease-fuels-debate-170116140401709.html

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:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday January 24 2017, @01:26AM

    by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday January 24 2017, @01:26AM (#457881)

    As Kenny Rodgers once said - "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em"...

    It sounds like Monsanto still feel they have enough plausible deniability to minimise any payout in the event that Roundup does turn out to be dangerous in real-world scenarios. I would've thought that they would be watching this very carefully and studying the playbook of the tobacco industry here.

    I used to use a bit of Roundup around the garden from time to time, but now just rely on doing it the hard way through pulling weeds. A pain too - I spent most of last weekend doing just that.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by fishybell on Tuesday January 24 2017, @02:14AM

    by fishybell (3156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 24 2017, @02:14AM (#457901)

    The tobacco playbook isn't the best way to go. These days I'd follow the oil industry.

    The tobacco industry got caught lying to the public about the long-term harm they knew their product caused; now they have continually fund ads against their own product.

    The oil industry got caught lying to the public about the long-term harm they knew their product caused; the public continually retells their lie and wins the presidency.

    I think I'll take the latter when it comes to shady-shit-corporations-do playbooks.

    • (Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Wednesday January 25 2017, @01:05PM

      by TheReaperD (5556) on Wednesday January 25 2017, @01:05PM (#458464)

      To be fair, the tobacco industry may have had deep pockets but, they have nothing on the petroleum industry that exceed the GDP of many first world countries. They can buy almost anybody. Hell, they could afford my rates for bribery! (Not that they would have reason to, sadly.)

      --
      Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit