Glysophate judged probable carcinogen

www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

Not really surprising :rolleyes:

The worst of this is the food that is grown to tolerate glysophate spraying without being affected so that this genetically modified food is actually carcinogenic and people are eating it, drinking it etc

It does say the evidence is limited which supports that conclusion And if you see the evidence they are quoting it is based on large scale agricultural use and lab animals. I believe that penicillin would not have been allowed to be used based on later lab experiments either.

Perhaps it would be a lot simpler just to compile a list of foods and substances that have never been suspected as being potential carcinogens.
Then, just to prove it can be done, have the findings engraved on the head of a pin.

maybe the biggest worry about glyphosate - or any agchemical for that matter - is the repeated use of it on the same piece of ground. For example - Potato growers burn of the tops of spuds with REGLONE - (quote) 'it delivers reliable, flexible, fast,
safe and confident haulm destruction for all potato crops'

Over time, these toxic products build up in the soil, and surely migrate into the vegetables. Recently, baby food in NZ was found to contain quite a lot of agchemicals.

I heard on National Radio tonight that a new NZ study has shown that the use of products like Glyphosate have shown to help cause antibiotic resistance in both humans and animals. As you have indicated above if we use these sprays or eat foods that grow on sprayed land we are all at risk of this resistance. I think the discussion was either in jim Mora or on Checkpoint.

The human race survived via organic farming for thousands of years.

Modern chemical farming has been around now for way less than a century. It is based far more around profits for the corporations than it is about providing food for the people.

Alternative lifestylers on (organic) rural blocks are able to lead the way in showing the world there is a better way. The old ways greatly improved with technology that does not include saturating the land with chemicals (for profit) that future generations will regret.

Barnrat;510717 wrote: The human race survived via organic farming for thousands of years.

Modern chemical farming has been around now for way less than a century. It is based far more around profits for the corporations than it is about providing food for the people.

Alternative lifestylers on (organic) rural blocks are able to lead the way in showing the world there is a better way. The old ways greatly improved with technology that does not include saturating the land with chemicals (for profit) that future generations will regret.

Actually, we didn't survive very well at all. We survived just long enough to pass on the genes, and then, not much longer.
Prior to 1900, life expectancy throughout the world was less than half of what it is today. Infant mortality, of course, greatly skewed life expectancy figures in the past, but this statistic was, in turn largely attributable to the inadequate nutrition of everybody.
Without the 'technology' to enhance food production there just could not be 7 billion of us presently above ground.
If we choose to return to purely organic food production we'd better, first, just stop breeding so successfully.

WillEyre;510723 wrote: Actually, we didn't survive very well at all. We survived just long enough to pass on the genes, and then, not much longer.
Prior to 1900, life expectancy throughout the world was less than half of what it is today. Infant mortality, of course, greatly skewed life expectancy figures in the past, but this statistic was, in turn largely attributable to the inadequate nutrition of everybody.
Without the 'technology' to enhance food production there just could not be 7 billion of us presently above ground....

It could easily be argued that would have been a very good thing!

Ruth;510732 wrote: It could easily be argued that would have been a very good thing!

+1
We are now by far the most dominant and environmentally harmful species on the planet. Furthermore have the ability to enable survival of our most weak members, thereby both diluting the quality of our gene pool and overriding naturally occurring population limitation. This is not a recipe for sustainability of our species or of most of the other lifeforms we share this planet with, though nature does have a knack of redressing such imbalances [xx(]

Organix;510749 wrote: +1
We are now by far the most dominant and environmentally harmful species on the planet. Furthermore have the ability to enable survival of our most weak members, thereby both diluting the quality of our gene pool and overriding naturally occurring population limitation. This is not a recipe for sustainability of our species or of most of the other lifeforms we share this planet with, though nature does have a knack of redressing such imbalances [xx(]

Sounds awfully like eugenics to me!
The assumption that humans are the most 'dominant and harmful' species on the planet is semantics and arguably, an unsubstantiated illusion. Most of the viruses have us well beaten and will more than likely still be evolving long after we've gone.

(Also, I wasn't arguing either way as far as population limitation is concerned; I was merely underlining the reality.)

Organix;510749 wrote: +1
We are now by far the most dominant and environmentally harmful species on the planet. Furthermore have the ability to enable survival of our most weak members, thereby both diluting the quality of our gene pool and overriding naturally occurring population limitation. This is not a recipe for sustainability of our species or of most of the other lifeforms we share this planet with, though nature does have a knack of redressing such imbalances [xx(]

Actually the gene pool is much improved. In early days before transport became so easy, families tended to marry within their small communities, often cousins marrying cousins. Therefore whole communities could be related and the gene pool very narrow as a result.

Exactly Stikki. When three or four families settle in a remote area and the fastest thing around is a horse nobody travels very far to seek a partner and as a consequence within two generations everybody in the community is related. Even today this is evident in many rural communities where those original three or four surnames attach to half or more of the local population.

igor;510788 wrote: Exactly Stikki. When three or four families settle in a remote area and the fastest thing around is a horse nobody travels very far to seek a partner and as a consequence within two generations everybody in the community is related. Even today this is evident in many rural communities where those original three or four surnames attach to half or more of the local population.

Where my ancestral family came from, nobody even owned a (live) dog, that alone a horse.
And we certainly didn't travel very far at all in search of a partner. That wasn't necessary; all the options were right there on the floor of the same cave!