04-28-2018, 04:14 AM
"There is no evidence."
Sometimes it's not the scientific study.. the evidence.. that's one way or the other.. in support of or not.. but how politicians then interpret the evidence so as to bolster conclusions that support their interests.
Often times those that would like a more conservative approach towards regulations of herbicides and pesticides look to the EU rather than the US regulatory practices for rational guidance on how to approach the subject. Unfortunately they too are run by politicians that are afflicted with the same malady of self interests as our's are.
Apparently such is the case with the EU's recent recertification of Roundup as described in "Pesticides and public health: an analysis of the regulatory approach to assessing the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in the European Union" which was recently published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Its introductory abstract reads:
The present paper scrutinises the European authorities’ assessment of the carcinogenic hazard posed by glyphosate based on Regulation (EC) 1272/2008. We use the authorities’ own criteria as a benchmark to analyse their weight of evidence (WoE) approach. Therefore, our analysis goes beyond the comparison of the assessments made by the European Food Safety Authority and the International Agency for Research on Cancer published by others. We show that not classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen by the European authorities, including the European Chemicals Agency, appears to be not consistent with, and in some instances, a direct violation of the applicable guidance and guideline documents. In particular, we criticise an arbitrary attenuation by the authorities of the power of statistical analyses; their disregard of existing dose–response relationships; their unjustified claim that the doses used in the mouse carcinogenicity studies were too high and their contention that the carcinogenic effects were not reproducible by focusing on quantitative and neglecting qualitative reproducibility. Further aspects incorrectly used were historical control data, multisite responses and progression of lesions to malignancy. Contrary to the authorities’ evaluations, proper application of statistical methods and WoE criteria inevitably leads to the conclusion that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’ (corresponding to category 1B in the European Union).
The above quoted paper can be read in its entirety here:
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2018/0...09776.full
Alls to say I believe we mold the 'facts' to fit our desired conclusions way more than there is no evidence to support opposing conclusions. The hard part, for me, of all this is we all are being used as guinea pigs in an experiment that, if it is proven to be unsafe, there is no turning back, no erasing what has already been done. This stuff is being applied all over the world, in the wild, and effecting all forms of life, the plants, animals, insects etc. And, with the whole Roundup Ready GMO crops thing going on it just increases how much of the stuff we're being exposed to.
Considering all that, why would anyone resist further, and broader, research into the matter? Why would anyone do anything other than encourage the exploration of the possible dangers as well as development of alternatives? Even if they themselves are not interested in the alternatives, why would they be other than supportive of those that are?
Sometimes it's not the scientific study.. the evidence.. that's one way or the other.. in support of or not.. but how politicians then interpret the evidence so as to bolster conclusions that support their interests.
Often times those that would like a more conservative approach towards regulations of herbicides and pesticides look to the EU rather than the US regulatory practices for rational guidance on how to approach the subject. Unfortunately they too are run by politicians that are afflicted with the same malady of self interests as our's are.
Apparently such is the case with the EU's recent recertification of Roundup as described in "Pesticides and public health: an analysis of the regulatory approach to assessing the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in the European Union" which was recently published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Its introductory abstract reads:
The present paper scrutinises the European authorities’ assessment of the carcinogenic hazard posed by glyphosate based on Regulation (EC) 1272/2008. We use the authorities’ own criteria as a benchmark to analyse their weight of evidence (WoE) approach. Therefore, our analysis goes beyond the comparison of the assessments made by the European Food Safety Authority and the International Agency for Research on Cancer published by others. We show that not classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen by the European authorities, including the European Chemicals Agency, appears to be not consistent with, and in some instances, a direct violation of the applicable guidance and guideline documents. In particular, we criticise an arbitrary attenuation by the authorities of the power of statistical analyses; their disregard of existing dose–response relationships; their unjustified claim that the doses used in the mouse carcinogenicity studies were too high and their contention that the carcinogenic effects were not reproducible by focusing on quantitative and neglecting qualitative reproducibility. Further aspects incorrectly used were historical control data, multisite responses and progression of lesions to malignancy. Contrary to the authorities’ evaluations, proper application of statistical methods and WoE criteria inevitably leads to the conclusion that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’ (corresponding to category 1B in the European Union).
The above quoted paper can be read in its entirety here:
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2018/0...09776.full
Alls to say I believe we mold the 'facts' to fit our desired conclusions way more than there is no evidence to support opposing conclusions. The hard part, for me, of all this is we all are being used as guinea pigs in an experiment that, if it is proven to be unsafe, there is no turning back, no erasing what has already been done. This stuff is being applied all over the world, in the wild, and effecting all forms of life, the plants, animals, insects etc. And, with the whole Roundup Ready GMO crops thing going on it just increases how much of the stuff we're being exposed to.
Considering all that, why would anyone resist further, and broader, research into the matter? Why would anyone do anything other than encourage the exploration of the possible dangers as well as development of alternatives? Even if they themselves are not interested in the alternatives, why would they be other than supportive of those that are?