Glyphosate

Glyphosate Not a Cancer Risk, Concludes FAO and WHO Expert Panel

Roundup "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans"

|

RoundupDreamstimeReneVanDenBerg
Dreamstime: Rene Van Den Berg

A groups of toxicological experts convened by the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization have concluded that the widely used herbicide glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto as Roundup, is "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans" exposed to it through food. Reuters further reported that the:

Having reviewed the scientific evidence, the joint WHO/FAO committee also said glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic in humans. In other words, it is not likely to have a destructive effect on cells' genetic material.

Diazinon and malathion, two other pesticides reviewed by the committee, which met last week and published its conclusions on Monday, were also found to be unlikely to be carcinogenic.

"In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet," the committee said.

Glyphosate is also "unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures", it added.

The group reaffirmed an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of up to 1 milligram of glyphosate for every kilogram of body weight.

This contradicts the highly precautionary March 2015 conclusion of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. On the other hand, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also come to the conclusion that glyphosate is not a human carcinogen (but later strangely suppressed its report).

NEXT: Homeland Security Helps Take Down Unlicensed Massage Therapists

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m guessing this will be largely ignored by many who will then inform me the science is settled (!) on AGW…

    1. At the Church of the Glowball Warming ex-scientists take money out of the collection basket. The rest of the congregation puts someone else’s money in. Besides, you realize that he who pays the piper…

  2. Oh good. Everyone can go home now, glyphosate is safe. The UN scientists said so.

    What’s that? You don’t believe them? But they’re scientists! What about climate change?

    Oh. I get it now.

    1. They’re actually right in this case.

      1. Damn right.

        ::clinks shot glass of glyphosphate with PM::

      2. Yeah I know. It was a rather poor attempt at pointing out hypocrisy among the climate change people.

        1. I said something similar below.

      3. Them scientists are just in the pocket of BIG CORN!

    2. The problem with glyphosate is not human cancer risk. It is the fact that it destroys gut flora and kills bees.

      1. I don’t think it kills bees, at least not as actually used.

        http://entomologytoday.org/201…..ey-bees-2/

        1. It doesn’t destroy gut flora either. Cows and pigs don’t catastrophically lose the ability to digest beans or grass and humans don’t catastrophically lose the ability to digest beans, cows, or pigs.

          The ‘science’ behind human gut flora and any given ‘recent’ condition (i.e. lactose intolerance is well understood) is between exceedingly nascent and voodoo; making the science linking GMO crops/glyphosate and medical outcomes roughly equivalent to the inverse association between pirates and global warming.

          1. …linking GMO crops/glyphosate and medical outcomes via gut microbes…

            Damned edit button!

          2. It may be nascent and voodoo to you, but not to those that have studied the subject for a long period of time. Do you not remember how.long it took the scientific community to accept h.pylori? The same thing is happening now with decal transplants. And no, cow gut biomes are not immune to the effects of glyphosate, as several studies have shown.

        2. It does not kill the bees outright, but it messes up their ability to navigate and their memory. I am always surprised at how libertarians approach economics vs. how they approach biology. When it comes to economics, it’s all about how we have to take into account unseen effects and long term results. But when it comes to biology, many libertarians will just run with the most obvious short term effects.

          1. I should add that CCD is a complex phenomenon with multiple causes. Kind of like, say, unemployment. Glyphosate may play a role, but neonicotinoid pesticides probably have a much larger role, along with the usual suspects like varroa and now small hive beetle.

          2. You are thinking of neonicotinoids, or at least you should be.

  3. Isn’t the World Health Organization the entity responsible for forcing people all over the world to send men with guns as though they believed hemp were some sort of Assassin of Youth?
    So what do they say lately about DDT as opposed to Zika, Dengue, Malaria, Yellow fever and Chupacabra epidemics?

    1. Chupacabra Epidemic would be a pretty good name for a band.

      1. A Puerto Rican salsa band, I presume?

        1. I was thinking more punk mariachi.

          1. Mariachi Metal.

  4. “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans”

    Unlikely???? How many servings of roundup ready crops have humans beings eaten at this point? Several trillion? Several hundred trillion? And no incidence of cancer. None.

    Study with sample size n=8 VACCINES DEFINITELY CAUSE AUTISM!!!!
    Study with sample size n=8,000,000,000,000 WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE!!!

    1. “Unlikely means it’s still possible! MOAR EVEDINCE NEEDD.”

      – Anti-GMO activist.

    2. How are we supposed to trust anything you say? You’ve obviously been vaccinated!

      *adjusts faraday helmet chin-strap, with grounding wire; because they just want you to think that tin-foil provides adequate protection*

    3. Hey, you know the precautionary principle, if banning it can prevent just 1 case of cancer then it is a moral imperative that we ban it

  5. Deja Vu?

    LibertyMike hardest hit.

    also the retard named SageThinker|5.14.16 @ 3:14PM

    “”::Science is distorted by money::””

    1. Hey! He’s a thinker. The rest of us are just sheep.

    2. u r a allopathy!

      1. Y U B such a homeophobe?

    3. The cognitive dissonance…it burns…

  6. May 16 The pesticide glyphosate,

    I’m gonna have to stop you right there… fucking Reuters.

    1. What’s that called again? Gell-Mann effect?

      Brief flashes which make you realize that journalists are almost entirely ignorant about the subjects they’re pretending to have authoritative insight into.

  7. Wait roundup aside, “Diazinon and malathion..is neither” I want that shit back. It worked.

  8. And one of those applications is Showbox app. It is one of the best online streaming application for watching Movies and TV Shows. In the starting, this application has been released for only a few of the mobiles and allows users to watch shows online.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.