{"id":3250,"date":"2016-09-17T17:19:18","date_gmt":"2016-09-17T15:19:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.mr-int.ch\/?p=3250&lang=en"},"modified":"2016-09-19T16:33:44","modified_gmt":"2016-09-19T14:33:44","slug":"glyphosate-not-likely-to-be-carcinogenic-to-humans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.mr-int.ch\/?p=3250&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"Glyphosate: \u201cnot likely to be carcinogenic to humans…\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00ab\u00a0… at doses relevant for human health risk assessment<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n

A very recent report published\u00a0 by the US EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs on glyphosate cancer risk is now submitted to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel at its October 18-21, 2016 Meeting, and will later undergo a public review period.\u00a0It was just published at the date of the announcement of the take over of Monsanto by the German Bayer, an ironical coincidence.<\/p>\n

In Europe the expert opinion was similar as EPA OPP’s, but was overruled late June by political pressure to limit the reauthorization to 18 months instead of the customary 15 years; this decision being founded on a recent classification by IARC (a WHO agency) of this molecule as a group 2A \u00ab\u00a0probable carcinogen\u00a0\u00bb, a non risk-based assessment.<\/p>\n

In the proposed conclusion we can read:<\/p>\n

An extensive database exists for evaluating the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate, including 23 epidemiological studies, 15 animal carcinogenicity studies, and nearly 90 genotoxicity studies for the active ingredient glyphosate. These studies were evaluated for quality and results were analyzed across studies within each line of evidence.<\/em>
\n…
\nFor cancer descriptors, the available data and weight-of-evidence clearly do not support the descriptors \u201ccarcinogenic to humans\u201d, \u201clikely to be carcinogenic to humans\u201d, or \u201cinadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential\u201d<\/strong>. For the \u201csuggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential\u201d descriptor, considerations could be looked at in isolation; however, following a thorough integrative weight-of-evidence evaluation of the available data, the database would not support this cancer descriptor. The strongest support is for \u201cnot likely to be carcinogenic to humans\u201d<\/strong> at doses relevant to human health risk assessment.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n

The 227 pages report can be downloaded here: \u00a0glyphosate issue paper<\/a><\/p>\n

As in all logics, it is impossible to demonstrate a negative.\u00a0 But there is compelling evidence that there is no rats. Nevertheless this kind of serious work will be not be acceptable for the professional anti-anything because they know now better<\/em>, and don’t have to prove their point.<\/p>\n

No conflict of interest: I haven’t, and have never had, any interest in the manufacturing and marketing of this molecule. I look at this case from an anthropological point of view, trying to understand why such controversy is constantly maintained afloat despite of repeated all-clear<\/em> signals.<\/p>\n

Some further excerpts (to download click on the down-arrow icon of the dark-grey bar):<\/span><\/p>\n\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t