Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny (Read 1126 times)
PZ547
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5109
Gender: male
Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Oct 9th, 2018 at 3:22pm
 
The Shadow Minister for Agriculture Joel Fitzgibbon said the program raised issues around the APVMA (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority)  which is primarily funded by the chemical companies it regulates.


LOTS of money at stake here


LINK
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17234
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #1 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 3:26pm
 
Roundup (Glysophate)

"The World Health Organization's cancer agency dismissed and edited findings from a draft of its review of the weedkiller glyphosate that were at odds with its final conclusion that the chemical probably causes cancer."

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/

Now why would that be?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9914
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #2 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 3:32pm
 
Monsanto are up to their ears in corruption & deceit that also involves the US EPA.

They refused to accept the findings of ICARC. Then commenced to personally denigrate members of the panel.
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Captain Nemo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 684
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #3 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 3:43pm
 
It's actually Glyphosate not Glysophate ... although the play on words about a bad fate might fit.  Wink

Bad stuff, lots of lies and cover-ups as per usual. Big business rules and we all suffer the consequences.  Undecided
Back to top
 

Understand this: things are now in motion that cannot be undone.
 
IP Logged
 
minarchist
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 223
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #4 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 4:10pm
 
Ah, good to see Australians continuing to follow the gospel of Four Corners like a bunch of sheep.

Seriously, it's unfortunate that Four Corners is the only news program in Australia whose stories result in the public demanding further investigations or government action being made, whether it's justified or not.
Back to top
 

Hypocrite: A person who complains about income inequality in the Developed world, then buys a coffee worth 3 - 4 times the average daily wage earned individually by a billion people across the planet.
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 21570
Australia
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #5 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 4:52pm
 
minarchist wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 4:10pm:
Ah, good to see Australians continuing to follow the gospel of Four Corners like a bunch of sheep.

Seriously, it's unfortunate that Four Corners is the only news program in Australia whose stories result in the public demanding further investigations or government action being made, whether it's justified or not.


Do you think it's justified? I don't watch four corners and I've heard about this thing from the news.

Spot
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a†
Moron!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9914
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #6 - Oct 9th, 2018 at 5:39pm
 
minarchist wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 4:10pm:
Ah, good to see Australians continuing to follow the gospel of Four Corners like a bunch of sheep.

Seriously, it's unfortunate that Four Corners is the only news program in Australia whose stories result in the public demanding further investigations or government action being made, whether it's justified or not.


Seriously you must be devoid of any commonsense.

Here's you lobbying for Roundup.

The CEO of Monsanto was as equally unbelievable in his defense of the product & the company.





Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
minarchist
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 223
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #7 - Oct 13th, 2018 at 2:07pm
 
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 4:52pm:
minarchist wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 4:10pm:
Ah, good to see Australians continuing to follow the gospel of Four Corners like a bunch of sheep.

Seriously, it's unfortunate that Four Corners is the only news program in Australia whose stories result in the public demanding further investigations or government action being made, whether it's justified or not.


Do you think it's justified? I don't watch four corners and I've heard about this thing from the news.

Spot


From what I gathered from the Four Corners report,† there are numerous cases of Lymphoma amongst farmers and groundskeepers to warrant further investigation into Glyphosate's carcinogenic effects. However, I think it has more to do with how often you're exposed to the chemical. I think an outright ban, pending further investigations, would be silly given that there doesn't appear to be any cases of anyone contracting cancer from eating food exposed to Glyphosate. And if it was banned, there would be more dangerous and less effective herbicides that farmers would have to use instead.
Back to top
 

Hypocrite: A person who complains about income inequality in the Developed world, then buys a coffee worth 3 - 4 times the average daily wage earned individually by a billion people across the planet.
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17234
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #8 - Oct 13th, 2018 at 2:21pm
 
"Juries donít decide science, and this latest court case produced no new scientific data. Those who believe glyphosate causes cancer often refer to the 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified the herbicide as ďprobably carcinogenic to humansĒ.

IARCís conclusion was arrived at using a narrower base of evidence than other recent peer-reviewed papers and governmental reviews. Australiaís regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), reviewed the safety of glyphosate after IARCís determination. Itís 2016 report concluded that

† † based on current risk assessment the label instructions on all glyphosate products Ė when followed Ė provides adequate protection for users.

The Agricultural Health Study, which followed more than 50,000 people in the US for over ten years, was published in 2018. This real world study in the populations with the highest exposure to glyphosate showed that if there is any risk of cancer from glyphosate preparations, it is exceedingly small.

It also showed that the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma is negligible. It is unclear to what extent this study was used in the recent court case."

"But then came the IARCís surprising classification. And the subsequent 2015 review by the European Food Safety Authority, that concluded glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard, didnít alleviate sceptics.

The key differences between the IARCís and other reports revolve around the breadth of evidence considered, the weight of human studies, consideration of physiological plausibility and, most importantly, risk assessment. The IARC did not take into account the extent of exposure to glyphosate to establish its association with cancer, while the others did."

https://theconversation.com/stop-worrying-and-trust-the-evidence-its-very-unlike...

edit: Dated Oct 8
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3905
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #9 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 4:07pm
 
Quote:
"Juries donít decide science, and this latest court case produced no new scientific data. Those who believe glyphosate causes cancer often refer to the 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified the herbicide as ďprobably carcinogenic to humansĒ.

IARCís conclusion was arrived at using a narrower base of evidence than other recent peer-reviewed papers and governmental reviews. Australiaís regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), reviewed the safety of glyphosate after IARCís determination. Itís 2016 report concluded that

    based on current risk assessment the label instructions on all glyphosate products Ė when followed Ė provides adequate protection for users.

The Agricultural Health Study, which followed more than 50,000 people in the US for over ten years, was published in 2018. This real world study in the populations with the highest exposure to glyphosate showed that if there is any risk of cancer from glyphosate preparations, it is exceedingly small.

It also showed that the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma is negligible. It is unclear to what extent this study was used in the recent court case."

"But then came the IARCís surprising classification. And the subsequent 2015 review by the European Food Safety Authority, that concluded glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard, didnít alleviate sceptics.

The key differences between the IARCís and other reports revolve around the breadth of evidence considered, the weight of human studies, consideration of physiological plausibility and, most importantly, risk assessment. The IARC did not take into account the extent of exposure to glyphosate to establish its association with cancer, while the others did."

https://theconversation.com/stop-worrying-and-trust-the-evidence-its-very-unlike...

edit: Dated Oct 8


The current controversy over round up is due to that US court case. But as this artricle points out, there was no science in the court case.

There is currently nothing to suggest that normal consumer use of round up is dangerous.
Back to top
 

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.
 
IP Logged
 
Captain Nemo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 684
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #10 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 4:11pm
 
When you think about it ... a chemical substance that kills something stone dead (in this case plant life) ... applied liberally to crops around the world.

Now, did anyone stop and ponder if such a thing might be dangerous?

I wonder?  Huh
Back to top
 

Understand this: things are now in motion that cannot be undone.
 
IP Logged
 
Captain Nemo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 684
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #11 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 4:19pm
 
Wasn't Monsanto involved with the production of  Agent Orange.?

Equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D

Linked to:

Soft tissue sarcoma; Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); Hodgkin disease; Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); including hairy cell leukemia and other chronic B-cell leukemias

Respiratory cancers (lung, bronchus, trachea, larynx); Prostate cancer; Multiple myeloma; Bladder cancer

With such a bad record over Agent Orange, one has to wonder about "Round Up".
Back to top
 

Understand this: things are now in motion that cannot be undone.
 
IP Logged
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3905
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #12 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 4:23pm
 
Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14th, 2018 at 4:11pm:
When you think about it ... a chemical substance that kills something stone dead (in this case plant life) ... applied liberally to crops around the world.

Now, did anyone stop and ponder if such a thing might be dangerous?

I wonder?† Huh


Just because it kills plant life doesn't mean that it is dangerous to humans.
I would be more worried about your insect spray.
Oh and everything in the universe is a chemical.
Back to top
 

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.
 
IP Logged
 
Captain Nemo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 684
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #13 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 4:24pm
 
"Oh and everything in the universe is a chemical."

True enough.
Back to top
 

Understand this: things are now in motion that cannot be undone.
 
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 10697
Gender: male
Re: Monsanto, Roundup, Questions & Scrutiny
Reply #14 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 5:32pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 14th, 2018 at 4:07pm:
Quote:
"Juries donít decide science, and this latest court case produced no new scientific data. Those who believe glyphosate causes cancer often refer to the 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified the herbicide as ďprobably carcinogenic to humansĒ.

IARCís conclusion was arrived at using a narrower base of evidence than other recent peer-reviewed papers and governmental reviews. Australiaís regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), reviewed the safety of glyphosate after IARCís determination. Itís 2016 report concluded that

† † based on current risk assessment the label instructions on all glyphosate products Ė when followed Ė provides adequate protection for users.

The Agricultural Health Study, which followed more than 50,000 people in the US for over ten years, was published in 2018. This real world study in the populations with the highest exposure to glyphosate showed that if there is any risk of cancer from glyphosate preparations, it is exceedingly small.

It also showed that the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma is negligible. It is unclear to what extent this study was used in the recent court case."

"But then came the IARCís surprising classification. And the subsequent 2015 review by the European Food Safety Authority, that concluded glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard, didnít alleviate sceptics.

The key differences between the IARCís and other reports revolve around the breadth of evidence considered, the weight of human studies, consideration of physiological plausibility and, most importantly, risk assessment. The IARC did not take into account the extent of exposure to glyphosate to establish its association with cancer, while the others did."

https://theconversation.com/stop-worrying-and-trust-the-evidence-its-very-unlike...

edit: Dated Oct 8


The current controversy over round up is due to that US court case. But as this artricle points out, there was no science in the court case.

There is currently nothing to suggest that normal consumer use of round up is dangerous.


Don't let facts get in the way here, there is no evidence this product is dangerous.

A wealthy company is always a target for legal action.
Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print