Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 1 month ago
    OK, but what does that mean? Following is the information from WHO.
    "In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer published a summary of their forthcoming monograph on glyphosate, and classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies; it noted that there was "limited evidence" of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[5][11][12][127] The German Institute for Risk Assessment responded that the work group reviewed only a selection of what they had reviewed earlier, and argued that other studies, among them the widely-cited cohort study Agricultural Health Study, do not support the classification.[128] The IARC report did not include the German regulatory study published in December 2014, nor did it include industry-funded studies. The IARC also does not conduct risk assessment; their goal is to classify carcinogenic potential, and "a few positive findings can be enough to declare a hazard, even if there are negative studies as well."

    Individuals should take the time and effort to do just a little research themselves before reacting to headline scare stories.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 1 month ago
      I don't see a scare in the headline, Zen. Looks like information to me. btw, I agree that people must research the facts for themselves. The science is not settled on long term glyphosate safety. Personally, if I know there is glyphosate in a product, I am looking for another product without glyphosate. Then I will compare the benefits and the risk.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years ago
        The 'scare' is the 'probably carcinogenic' of glyphosate (Roundup) and being found in cotton products.

        How many times are we told that 'this or that' will kill us, only to discover that it's all BS--Climate Change, sugar, fats, 2nd hand smoke, etc, etc, etc. I agree that I don't want to drink glyphosate, but I resent 'control freaks' trying to motivate me one way or the other with BS studies, statistics, or headlines.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years ago
          Do you think this finding is notable? Or, is it not newsworthy? If you agree with the premise that it's not good to drink, shouldn't it be reported that it's on tampons? Should it be kept on the down-low?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years ago
            When it's put forth by those of the 'Green/Eco', anti-human forces supported by a UN group like WHO, I think it needs a really solid bit of verification before it's widely published. It's similar to today's WHO's announcement that Bacon, Sausage, and Red meat, etc 'causes cancer'.

            Anyone with any level of 'common sense' should know that such an announcement is total nonsense and should then judge anything else published by such an organization to also be total nonsense. WHO and their associated groups are the most anti-life forces on the planet.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo