The World Health Organization (WHO) has just published a clear question and answer form on the toxicity of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide concoction, Round Up. It leaves no question that the herbicide is truly genotoxic, causing damage to life everywhere.
The report has likely come out due to controversy over the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)’s determination that glyphosate is ‘safe.’ The herbicide is meant to be voted on to reinstate marketability later this month.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the WHO, has stated clearly that both formulations containing glyphosate and pure glyphosate pose a grave risk. It is this clear explanation that leaves the EFSA little wiggle-room when trying to downplay glyphosate’s toxicity dependent upon the formulation.
The EFSA has tried to push propaganda that the herbicide is not a carcinogenic hazard to human beings, but multiple other studies say otherwise. It has now come to light that the EFSA has also hidden studies from public view which were used to make this determination.
The IARC, as compared to the EFSA, looked at over 1000 studies which involved glyphosate, including reviews of people exposed through their jobs, such as farmers and agricultural workers. The IARC also looked at experimental studies on cancer and cancer-related effects in experimental systems.
The EFSA did not even publish all the studies they referenced, nor clearly reporting who wrote them. More than 95% of authors for the glyphosate review reportedly refused public scrutiny of their determination.
Some of the Glyphosate Questions and Answers
Just a few of the questions the WHO answered are abbreviated as follows:
Could glyphosate’s toxicity be based on other co-formulants in a weed killer?
Essentially this question targets those who want to pretend that glyphosate isn’t the culprit, but that other adjuvants added to an herbicide or pesticide are to blame. The IARC states clearly that
“the evidence for [glyphosate] causing cancer in experimental animals was ‘sufficient’ and the evidence for causing genotoxicity was ‘strong’. The real-world exposures experienced by human populations are to a variety of formulations of glyphosate with other chemicals, because this is how glyphosate is mainly sold and used. Similar results were reported in studies of different formulations used in different geographical regions at different times.”
Could the co-formulants in the herbicide products be to blame for genotoxic outcomes?
Another nice try by Big Biotech to push the blame on something other than their collectively-favorite weed killer ingredient. (Glyphosate, is the main ingredient in Round Up, which currently forms the backbone of Monsanto’s worldwide billion-dollar sales.) The IARC’s answer again is clear. NO. Glyphosate is toxic all on its own.
There is controversy over whether or not glyphosate causes non–Hodgkin lymphoma based on one study. The IARC makes it clear that hundreds of studies were looked at to draw a link between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Sorry – once again Monsanto, you can’t weasel out of this. Data was collected on over 50,000 farmers for the IARC to come to their determination.
Was it only animals that suffered from cancer due to glyphosate exposure?
The precise answer is, “NO.” I would put an expletive before that monosyllabic response, but you get the idea.
There are many more questions addressed. Here you can read through the WHO’s glyphosate Q & A.
30 thoughts on “WHO’s New Q & A on Glyphosate Confirms Toxicity of Round Up”
Poor Chrissy wants to lie by leaving out things like:
“The IARC Working Group’s classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) is based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) ”
Wonder why she doesn’t want to include words like “limited” and real world evidence?
Of course on wonders why she must lie in every article as well.
Still bashing journalism and real world reporting?
Mainstream media should be first on your list, not the independent journalists.
BREAKTHROUGH: The food you eat determines which genes get activated
or suppressed, controlling disease vs. health throughout your life
Thursday, March 10, 2016 by: Harold Shaw
We don’t even know the half of itThe nutrients that the human body receives in utero, as well as the ones it feeds on after being born, invariably affect our genes.
The prevalent opinion is that our genes determine how nutrients are
broken down and then absorbed by cells. Scientists thought that all
information other than the pure genome is deleted when a new embryo is
formed. However, in 2013, when the human DNA was completely mapped, a
lot of variables were still missing. This much was clear because the
genome on its own could not explain all of the physiological processes
we are currently familiar with.
Obviously, more things were going
on with our genome than we were able to see. Until now, the separate
field of epigenetics was associated with the changes that our DNA
undergoes as a result of outside forces, i.e. our diet or the
environment we live in. The separation of the fields was necessary
because scientists thought that the genome itself does not change – only
its surroundings do. Now, evidence shows that the characteristics of
these surroundings, chemicals and enzymes, can irrevocably affect our
bodies as they develop.
The only truth is DNA and the changes the environment produces is still to be discovered.
I’ll not call you a liar, because you would have to have a clue first.
Lies aren’t journalism you should really figure it out.
Funny thing, my comment supports the article, as your opinion adds nothing.
So you like to lie as well, what’s new?
Yes my using experts studies and commentaries is a lie above your no content comments and your self imposed authority. Very well known troll tactics.
A liar calling experts in the field and me a liar, LMAO.
Good work freelance.
Yes experts that have been shot down by real scientists not trying desperately to get their name in history.
Back to your expressing opinion as a fact?
So there is only 1 kind of scientist in your all knowing opinion and self appointed authority.
THOSE WHO ARE WORKING FOR PROFIT INDUSTRIES AND MANIPULATED OR COERCED BY FUNDING SOURCES.
wakingtimes dot com/2016/03/24/5-pieces-of-monsantos-corporate-history-were-not-supposed-to-think-about/
investmentwatchblog dot com/mainstream-cbs-and-msnbc-censor-bernie-sanders-when-he-criticizes-monsanto-the-tpp-and-big-pharma/
TROLL IS BACK.
Wow that is your best reply? I guess I must be right then.
still trolling, eh?
Still can’t handle the truth?
I guess insults work when you can’t back what you claim with facts.
still a lame troll
No real information here folks just someone that can’t even come up with a good insult, keep trying though cat.
delusional troll as well.
Now troll won’t go away. Get a life troll.
You started this now you whine about it. Lol how sad.
always a troll
Always an uneducated dope.
Once again now facts here folks just a poor attempt at an insult by a fool.
No, GMO Roberts, I watched and read your comment. it’s you started bashing journalist and you are a liar in the beginning here. You and Satan will go to the lake of fire where you belong…..
I always KNEW IT! Those lying bastards are satan in disguise.
potassium glyphosate ,ammonium glyphosate ,and isopropylamine glyphosate are the glyphosates used in monsantos glyphosate based herbicides .approvals were based on glyphosate technical acid form .theres a big difference .i imagine if the 3 actual ingredients were under scrutiny the debate would be over and the poisonous product might finally be taken off the market and banned