Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Medicine

WHO Report Links Weed Killer Ingredient To Cancer Risk 179

Posted by samzenpus from the what's-to-blame dept.
An anonymous reader sends word that a common weed killer may cause cancer according to the World Health Organization. "The world's most widely used weed killer can 'probably' cause cancer, the World Health Organization said on Friday. The WHO's cancer arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, said glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides, was 'classified as probably carcinogenic to humans.' It also said there was 'limited evidence' that glyphosate was carcinogenic in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma." Unsurprisingly, Monsanto, Roundup's manufacturer disagrees saying there is no evidence to support the findings and calls on WHO to hold a meeting to explain their conclusions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WHO Report Links Weed Killer Ingredient To Cancer Risk More

WHO Report Links Weed Killer Ingredient To Cancer Risk

Comments Filter:

  • Not just Monsanto (Score:4, Informative)

    by wiredlogic ( 135348 ) on Sunday March 22, 2015 @02:21PM (#49314151)

    Glyphosate has been off patent for years. It is a simple chemical that is cheap to make which is why it's in almost all herbicides now from every manufacturer under the sun.

    • Re:Not just Monsanto (Score:5, Insightful)

      by snowgirl ( 978879 ) on Sunday March 22, 2015 @02:26PM (#49314175) Journal

      The report does note that the public at large is unlikely to receive any particularly dangerous exposure... this is more just for the workers, which to be fair, should be limiting their exposure to it in the first place. It's well known that it can cause health effects if mixed without any respirator coveralls etc..

      Just because it requires a respirator and "clean suit" to spray it and mix it, doesn't mean that it's dangerous to the consumer... it just means that those people are the most likely to experience chronic meaningful exposure.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        this is more just for the workers, which to be fair, should be limiting their exposure to it in the first place. It's well known that it can cause health effects if mixed without any respirator coveralls etc..

        I was at the dentist the other day, and the tech taking X-rays of my teeth was in the room while the x-rays were taken - and she said to her friend "If I wore a (dosimeter) badge, I'd probably get in trouble for what I do". So she knew the risks, yet still did the work in a manner that exposed her to x-rays. That was a great example of how you can't fix stupid.

        Now apply that to workers mixing chemicals who are probably far less educated in what the risks of what they are coin are.

        • Modern X-ray equipment, using phosensitive phosphor plates and digital sensors, are much lower powered than used to be used for film exposure. The X-ray units are designed so the beam is directional- there's very little scatter to the sides. Many dental X-ray units are hand-held (see http://goo.gl/pMHu8j [goo.gl]) and pose nearly zero risk for the operator. The operator is in greater danger of injury from dropping the device on their foot than they are from exposure to the beam if they are operating it per instru

      • Apparently not even that... (Score:4, Informative)

        by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Sunday March 22, 2015 @04:45PM (#49315001) Journal

        Experts reviewing the assessment conclude that there is no evidence for increased alarm.

        http://www.sciencemediacentre.... [sciencemediacentre.org]

        Dr Oliver Jones, Senior Lecturer in Analytical Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, said:
        "The study itself says that for all compounds, the evidence of human carcinogenicity was limited or considered inadequate."
        ...
        "People might be interested to know that there are over 70 other things IARC also classifies as 'probably carcinogenic', including night shifts."
        ...
        "While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence this does seem to me to be a precautionary rather than a reactionary change."

        Prof Alan Boobis, Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology at Imperial College London, said:
        "The UK Committee on Carcinogenicity has evaluated possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer on several occasions. It has found little evidence for such a link. At most, the evidence was inconsistent and was considered insufficient to call for regulatory action.

        "These conclusions of IARC are important and should be taken into account when evaluating these pesticides, but that must also take into account how the pesticides are used in the real world. In my view this report is not a cause for undue alarm."

        Prof Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology at Queen Mary University of London, said:
        "The weight of evidence is against carcinogenicity"
        ...
        "This assessment has looked at a group of 43 diseases lumped into one category, multiple pesticides with very different chemistry, and has failed to include critical data. There is nothing here to suggest that the variety of genetic changes in these diseases could be caused by these pesticides. This appears to be a rather selective review."

        Prof David Coggon, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Southampton, said:
        "Thus, when evaluating the epidemiological evidence, one is looking for a consistent pattern of increased risk for one or more tumour types, which is unlikely to be explained by biases (often unavoidable) in the study methods. It is clear from the summary table in the Lancet report that clear and consistent evidence of this type was not found for any of the pesticides that were considered"
        ...
        "In contrast, studies in laboratory animals were judged to show clear evidence of carcinogenicity for four of the five compounds."
        ...
        "The IARC report does not raise immediate alarms. However, I would expect regulatory authorities around the world to take note of this new evaluation, and to consider whether it indicates a need to review their risk assessments for any of the pesticides that they currently approve."

        Prof Tony Dayan, Emeritus Toxicologist, said:
        "In the present report the classification of glyphosate and malathion as carrying a Class IIA risk of causing cancer in humans reflects a variety of laboratory results with a small number of studies in man of varied quality and mixed conclusions. Detailed analysis of the nature and quality of the evidence overall does not support such a high level classification, which at the most should be Class IIB."

        ONE expert made a very short remark saying that "study says glyphosate carcinogenic now" so gardeners should be careful when using pesticides.

        Prof Andreas Kortenkamp, Professor in Human Toxicology at Brunel University London, said:

        "IARC have carefully assessed new evidence about the cancer hazards of pesticides, and have now classified 5 pesticides as either 'probably' or 'possibly' carcinogenic to humans. The authorities in th

    • Glyphosate has been off patent for years.

      Yes, but Monsanto is still the world's largest producer.

  • I've had it! (Score:5, Funny)

    by jtownatpunk.net ( 245670 ) on Sunday March 22, 2015 @02:26PM (#49314173)

    I can't be the only person who's sick and tired of celebrities pretending they know the first thing about science. Musicians should stick to playing music. Stop trying to save the world! Why does a band even have a "cancer arm"?

  • Kill dogs, why not people??? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jddeluxe ( 965655 ) on Sunday March 22, 2015 @02:33PM (#49314211)
    I had an Australian Shepherd that had to be put down due to getting eaten by lymph cancer at a relatively young age. After doing some research I'm fairly certain that it was due to my ex spraying copious amounts of Roundup over pavers on which the dog liked to lay/sun on to keep grass from growing from the spaces in between the pavers.

    After talking to a couple of vets and researching on the intertubez there appears to be more than a casual connection between canine cancers and liberal use of the product in areas in which they live and play.

    If you have pets or children DO NOT spray this poison in their play areas!

    If you're that OCD about a few weeds, pluck them rather than turning your yard into a toxic dump...

    • In all likelihood it was not the Roundup. In animals studies they inject or ingest glyphosphate directly into the animal without a statistical effect so a dog laying around probably would not be the cause. In fact the dog laying around then coming in the house where people pet the dog would end up probably get the greater exposure.

      Sorry about the dog none the less

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MyNicknameSucks ( 1952390 )

        Dogs groom themselves with their tongues; if it's on their coat (or paws), it's also inside them.

        • Fair enough...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cdrudge ( 68377 )

          And if you reread your parent's post, it was specifically pointed out that in the studies animals are either injected or they ingest the chemical as part of the studies.

          I have no idea as to the medical or biological results of those studies, but I would think that a dog grooming themselves would be sufficiently covered during testing by injecting and/or ingesting it.

      • Glyphosate's mechanism for harm is really quite interesting; it seems to work by preferentially killing the gut bacteria responsible for digesting potentially harmful molecules that are frequently - big surprise - carcinogens. Normally, they're safe and non-toxic because they'd be oxidized before absorption, but ...

        Also, I've read things suggesting that it suppresses the Cyp450 system; again, an enzyme system focused on detoxifying incidental environmental poisons. I haven't chased down the study in qu

    • Anything that kills a living organism is potentially a problem for humans. Only a small % of man-made chemicals have been rigorously tested for causing cancer; but then would you volunteer for such a study. I thought so.

      Lead, asbestos, formaldihyde, weird solvents and reactive chemicals have been mostly eliminated from consumer goods with good reason.

      Just stay away from as many chemicals as you can. Drink from glass cups/glasses. Wax coated paper cups, no. "Slug bait," no. Fast food, well virtually all

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by arth1 ( 260657 )

        Just stay away from as many chemicals as you can.
        Short of going on a trip to outer space, that's going to be hard to do. And even so, good luck with staying away from chemicals like N2, H2O, O2 and C12H22O11.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rthille ( 8526 )

        "Anything that kills a living organism is potentially a problem for humans"
        Yeah, I'm seriously worried about my white blood cells!

        • Yeah, I'm seriously worried about my white blood cells!

          And well you should be. Autoimmune diseases are some of the most common, difficult to treat and uncomfortable diseases known to man.

          It's a pretty sad state of affairs when your own body is trying to get rid of you.

      • Just stay away from as many chemicals as you can.

        You do realize that everything is made of chemicals [scientificamerican.com], right?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Anything that kills a living organism is potentially a problem for humans.

        Chocolate (cocoa) can kill dogs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgftsa ( 617184 )

      Boiling water is great for killing weeds/grass around bricks and pavers. Those steam wand thingies work well, too.

  • "Unsurprisingly, Monsanto, Roundup's manufacturer disagrees saying there is no evidence to support the findings and calls on WHO to hold a meeting to explain their conclusions."

    Seems like a reasonable request to me. "Your data is different from ours, explain your results."

  • ...one of the more frightening disasters of our time.

    http://goo.gl/umm3MW

    No bees, no food.

    • I guess you didn't read the summary of the first study [nih.gov];

      There were no significant effects from glyphosate observed in brood survival, development, and mean pupal weight. Additionally, there were no biologically significant levels of adult mortality observed in any glyphosate treatment group.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Learn to read before you blast (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Sunday March 22, 2015 @03:17PM (#49314487) Homepage Journal

      Uhh, did you even bother READING the article you linked?

      "The Working Group classified glyphosate as âoeprobably carcinogenic to humansâ (Group 2A)."

      The "Working Group" is:

      "In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate"

      NBC had nothing to do with the word "probably". The group of EXPERTS that met on the topic did.

      Further more, if you actually read the article, and more importantly, the scientific studies they cite, you would probably realize a couple of things:
      1) The concern is not for end consumers or even joe-schmoe gardener, it's for factory and field workers that are exposed to higher concentrations in greater volume than anything joe-schmoe would ever see.
      2) Some of the studies are a bit tenuous. Sure, if you put a rat on an LD50-1 diet of glyphosate for their whole life, freaky things are going to happen.

      Don't get me wrong, Monsanto is the fsking devil, just not for their work on glyphosate. Their business processes, the way they exploit farmers, their enforcement of IP, etc... is more than enough to warrant the hate that they deserve. But glyphosate, even with the risks we know about it, is so much better than the alternatives.

      -Rick

    • Not everyone's homes. Here in Europe there's a GMO ban. Just think of how much less roundup is used when roundup ready crops aren't planted.

      I read another study a while back about the roundup ready crops having high levels of roundup in the actual food produced, one more reason to be glad I'm not living in the States anymore.

      • Not everyone's homes. Here in Europe there's a GMO ban. Just think of how much less roundup is used when roundup ready crops aren't planted.

        Probably about half as much. Even without the GMO RoundUp Ready crops you could clear a field with the stuff and then plant corn in behind that in 7 days. Saves on tilling costs and also better for the environment as you're not disturbing soil. With the GMO stuff you might get another spray 4-5 weeks into the crop of RoundUp to kill new weeds but anything beyond that the corn itself will crowd out the weeds.

  • wherein we find out that Monsanto has known it all along.

    Probably they were hoping no one would find out until they' ready to market GMO humans that are resistant to it.

    • wherein we find out that Monsanto has known it all along

      And every other company and country and school that's played with the stuff, right? Because that patent dried up a long time ago, and many, many parties make and work with the stuff. Not to ruin your narrative or anything.

  • Data mining (Score:3)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Sunday March 22, 2015 @03:19PM (#49314507)

    If you search all possible cancers for a connection with some chemical (e.g. sucrose) you will come up with several positives with a 95% confidence. Which is why you have to use statistical tests that account for all of the different targets.

    Thus, at the very least the WHO needs to explain the stats rather than just the raw "probably causes cancer."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by NoKaOi ( 1415755 )

      Thus, at the very least the WHO needs to explain the stats rather than just the raw "probably causes cancer."

      The problem is that people don't understand what that term means. It sounds like it means it probably gives people cancer. What it does not mean it that it causes cancer in normal use. For example, nitrates are on that same list. This includes sodium nitrate, which is in all cured meats (bacon, ham, lunchmeat, sausage) - even Organic & natural ones (check ingredients for "celery powder" or "beet powder"). So, under normal rates of consumption, a human isn't going to get nearly enough to be carcinog

      • Interestingly, the celery-cured meats (anything where the nitrates are from a natural source) are required by law in the U.S. to be labeled as "uncured." I really do wonder who bought and paid for that change in word meanings.

  • Known since 2002 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Glyphosate causes cell cycle dysfunction which can result in cancer: Marc et al 2002 [nih.gov], 2003 [cyberacteurs.org]. Of course cancer is not the only health risk: The Lethal Dangers of “Roundup” Made by Monsanto [wordpress.com]
    Glyphosate was used by the US as a modern Agent Orange in Colombia: wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: Known since 2002 (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They found that the toxic effect increases in the presence of Roundup âadjuvantsâ(TM) or additives. These additives thus have a facilitating role, rendering Roundup twice as toxic as its isolated active ingredient, glyphosate.

  • how we continue to buy into the propoganda of the great american lawn and chem agriculture. People shouldn't have to be convinced that chemicals in their living space and food chain are a bad idea. It should be a gut reaction and common sense.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I don't about you, but I can't seem to get away from that pesky chemical H2O.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by NoKaOi ( 1415755 )

      People shouldn't have to be convinced that chemicals in their living space and food chain are a bad idea.

      Do you know what a chemical is. Without chemicals you'd be dead. Your misuse of the word is blaring example that you have no clue what you're talking about.

      • A word can have different meanings depending on context. In this case, they are intending the common-usage definition (i.e. "a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially"), when it's more appropriate here to read it as the scientific term.

        You're really just being a pedant, but then again so am I.

      • By all means, allow me to elaborate and offer a clue or two.
        Of course, almost anyone other than a pedant such as yourself would have realized I was referring to man made chemical agents specifically engineered to interfere with the natural cycles of organic lifeforms. Specifically broad-leaf plant-based organisms, in this case, but given the choice between drinking a glass of water with said chemical compound and one without, I'll choose the latter, thankyourverymuch.

  • The report (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

  • not emphasize enough:
    Before roundup-ready plants who are immune against the plant killing effects of roundup were available, with spraying herbicides to reduce pressure from weeds, the cultured plants needed to be shielded from getting in touch with the herbicide.
    Now,with roundup-ready plants, shielding is no longer necessary and the cultured plants get the full load of herbicide.

    The aspect of GMO-modified plants with their "foreign" genes is the usually perceived bad thing about GMO.
    The secondary effect of

  • i'm screwed. i put that sh!t on everything. makes for a beautiful lawn and garden!
  • is that Monsanto and the GOVT have been working together for decades. I'm suprised that the WHO is going after them, because that would imply a breakdown in their agreements. if not, it's extremely bizarre. logically speaking,
  • While Monsanto had to back off of Roundup resistant GMO wheat, it doesn't mean farmers don't use it on their crops. If it is sprayed on just before harvest, the plants seem to recognize they are dying so they pump all they have into the seed heads. Yield is increased. Since it is done so close to harvest, the glyphosate stays on the wheat kernels and is now in your bread. BR> This would be ok if glyphosate was biologically destroyed as Monsanto claims. Unfortunately it appears to accumulate in the hu

  • I seem to recall reading a post a while back where farmers in those areas would get cancer from their long term use of glyphosate.

    • Stop, take some probiotics, and start altering your diet to include yogurt, sauerkraut, and other fermented foods. Most of the known mechanisms of glyphosate's toxicity in humans revolve around its propensity to kill beneficial gut bacteria, with which we are symbiotic. Do your best to take care of them, from this point forward, and you should be fine.

  • Monsanto's next product will be Roundup-ready Humans. They will survive the pesticide, but they will be sterile.

  • a whole bunch of non-scientists who know very little about cancer other than what they read on the web will automatically talk about terrible corporations putting profits above everything else, and automatically act like sheep and believe WHO.

    At least have the decency to wait until some real facts actually come out to post an opinion.

    Oh .. wait.. This is /. Sheeple rule!

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close