"Probably". More fear mongering it seems to me, like the whole "GMO" nonsense. Just stop using and eating everything folks! Because if it isn't bad for you now it will be soon!

Peter, that's a BIG 'if'. I feel like WHO is just covering their behinds 'just in case'.

Where is the evidence they base this proclamation upon? What dosage of Roundup do they feel is unsafe?

I have no horse in this race, but to me, if you are going to say something bad about a company, pony up SOME evidence.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, like I said I feel neutral on the subject, certainly don't agree with all the paranoia, I just thought it was interesting to share.

I think the Monsanto paranoia thing implicitly presumes that Monsanto is EVIL. Up until now, there hasn't been strong evidence for carcinogenity of Roundup. Roundup provides an important agricultural service, and Monsanto has been justified in selling it. Earlier studies showed no such correlation with cancer. The right way to look at this is that more studies are necessary. Note that this new study specifically refers to industrial use of glyphosate and occupational exposure, and not its use in home gardens. Note that alcoholic beverages, burned coal emissions, and even sunlight are considered known (not just "possible") carcinogens.

I can say that as a vegetarian, I am very happy that GMO bacteria exists, as animal rennet is hardly used anymore thanks to this. IMHO this is a perfect example of where technology absolutely should and needs to be used to be responsible.

Some interesting details when you look closer.....

"The French agency has four levels
of risks for possible cancer-causing agents: known carcinogens,
probable or possible carcinogens, not classifiable and probably not
carcinogenic. Glyphosate now falls in the second level of concern.

The
new classification is aimed mainly at industrial use of glyphosate. Its
use by home gardeners is not considered a risk. Glyphosate is in the
same category of risk as things like anabolic steroids and shift work.
The decision was published online Thursday in the journal, Lancet
Oncology."

I'm not going to seek out shift work, embrace anabolic steroid use, or handle glyposate frequently, but my concerns would not be primarily carcinogen related.

http://news.yahoo.com/popular-weed-killer-deemed-probable-carcinogen-un-182548855.html

Just to clarify a couple of things here. Roundup (glyphosate) is a herbicide. It has been on the market since the 1970's. Monsanto developed and marketed it until its patent expired. Monsanto also is a major player in GMO (genetic modified origin) technology. soybeans and corn were GMO developed to be resistant to roundup herbicide. GMO are not pesticides. they are resistant to certain chemicals or insects.

Personally, I try to avoid chemicals that kill living things on contact. Of course I'm not a broad leaf plant, but I have enough things in common with them to believe that what kills them dead might just harm me too. I'll continue to pull, hoe and till my weeds rather then spray them.

I guess one has to then avoid antibiotics and disinfectants. Those germs deserve to live a full life.

I won't be spraying Roundup in my vegetable garden, for obvious reasons.

The lifetime of glyphosate in soil is really pretty short. A week or so, even in cold soil for most of it. Low level residuals can be detected months after application, though. It acts by touching the leaves of the plant, and not through the soil. That being said, using Roundup to control weeds in a home vegetable garden is mainly just lazy. Could also use muriatic acid or dynamite, I guess.

Where can I get hold of some dynamite to take out all the privets that are reseeding all over my property ? :)

Hey Daninthedirt don't take me for a fool and keep your snark to yourself. I've been farming organically for over 20 years and have made a pretty damn good living from it, without a single drop of Roundup, ever.
I've also sat and watched half a dozen very close friends wither away from cancer and while I'm not in any way blaming any herbicide for that, I do think that avoiding any potential cancerous agents, including excessive antibiotics and disinfectants is a good choice. You however, should feel free to go ahead and lather yourself with em.

No snark intended. As I said, those who use Roundup for weed eradication in home gardens are mostly lazy. I admire you for not using it. No foolishness there. I've sat and watched friends and relatives die from cancer too, but I'm not going to look to blame their demise on any particular chemicals, especially ones for which research shows are not a real threat. For home gardens, Roundup is not. The world is FULL of carcinogens. As I noted, alcoholic beverages and sunlight are well established carcinogens. Keep that sun off your garden, maybe? As to antibiotics and disinfectants, you can die from typhoid and cholera as well, and their use is completely justified in reducing the incidence of serious disease. Benefits need to be weighed against risks. That's the way the world works.

If you choose to trust Roundup and other chemicals that "research shows are not a real threat", here's a VERY short list of things "research" changed it's mind about:
DDT, Sodium nitrates, many food dyes such as red #5, Methyl bromide, Asbestos and PBDE flame retardants, Thalidomide, Acrylamide, Cigarettes............The list is tremendous!

The reasons for the changes? Sometimes it just takes time, but more often than not large corporations with billions at stake are tampering with the research. Dupont, Dow, Bayer and Monsanto to name only a few, have all been accused and even found guilty of doing this.
I don't know if glyphosate will some day be added to this list but for now I think people should think for themselves and try hard to avoid ANY potential carcinogens.

I have no need to do that, I live well and am healthy.
Peter, If thinking for yourself and trying to avoid toxins is a problem for you, good luck with your life.

I agree completely that research can change its mind about things. That's why research is so important. Gotta get it right. So you'd better avoid hand cream, teflon, and french fries. Who knows what health threats those may turn out to pose! No kidding, McDonalds is a large corporation that will make sure research never shows that french fries are bad. No, we just THINK that those things won't hurt you. Yep, now I'm being snarky. I just have little patience with those who equate "chemical" with "poison". A "chemical" is by and large a constituent that doesn't have a common friendly-sounding name.

I suffer from anxiety issues, indeed "avoiding toxins" is a problem for me. I also know that organic produce costs about 4x as much as the conventional kind, and I would completely broke, if I were to unreasonably avoid any "toxins". I don't even trust the organic produce to be pesticide free, and many organic products aren't really any better for you.

I think pesticides are more of a threat to humans(and animals) than herbicides, a UC Davis study found higher incidences of autism near farms.

UCD Study On Autism

Side note: Roundup sucks for weeds, Spetracide works faster and it's cheaper.

Roundup is a systemic herbicide it kills by working through the plant and killing roots and all. it may take 2-5 days to work through the plant Spectracide is probable a 24D and dicamba mix. which is more volitale than roundup. the drift can kill or damage plants nearby. The speed of the kill is not the determing factor. I use Generic roundup (glyphosate) at about half rate with a little bit of dish soap and get an excellent kill without worrying about drift. if I remember correctly, a gallon of the roundup mix my way is about $.25 . A quarter a gallon for the mix that I only use in non garden areas

I only spray weeds in the morning and on days with no wind, I've never had a problem with drift killing other plants.

Give Spectracide a try, I'll bet you never buy Roundup again.

Living next to horse fields, there is no such thing as just weeding with over an acre! I do use RU, but I'm careful to make a cardboard barrier anytime I spray anywhere near the vege garden (paths, fencelines etc). If a raised bed gets out of control , I pull as much as I can and cover the bed with cardboard. I have enough beds (about 10) that I can let 1or2 go each season and hopefully get it going for the fall.

I agree that it is best to keep roundup out of the garden. I have used RR on Canada Thistles which are difficult to eradicate. They kill readily with RR if sprayed when they first start to bloom. They are very vulnerable at that stage. Otherwise they just come back..and back.. Sooo, if you do use these kind of things, use them sparingly and with knowledge.

Here in Indiana it likely is still against the law to let Canada Thistles go to seed. Here, they do tend to grow in fence rows, along the road, and along ditches.

Is there anything that would work to kill goosenecks? I have them taking over my property.

What are goosenecks?

Gooseneck loosestrife, Lysimachia clethroides. They spread by roots and are invasive, taking over a few of my flower beds. They are a pain to pull up and keep coming back.

Gooseneck loosestrife

In case you missed it

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-27/im-not-stupid-monsanto-lobbyist-refuses-drink-weedkiller-after-proclaiming-it-wont-h

Brief summary: Monsanto lobbyist, interviewed, insists RU is safe. He states even non toxic when ingested. Journalist offers him some. Lobbyist refuses, hightails out of there. We are at peak hypocrisy.

Greetings, I will make my post as short as possible but this topic draws a lot of emotion for me ( as it does for many). Without referencing anyone's post in particular, the idea that's essentially at the center of discussion here is the ethical accountability of today's scientists. We have essentially relegated scientists to be these paragons of virtue when it comes to testing of many kinds- including what's "safe"- as if they aren't swayed by dollar bills and job security...

Additionally, I will say that I am completely unsurprised by WHO's verdict regarding glyphosate's carcinogenicity - anything that's made for the sole purpose to kill probably isn't harmless to life period. As you may recall - Agent Orange and DDT (both Monsanto's brilliant ideas) were at one point deemed "safe" and now just do a quick google search on the history ( and even current residuals) from both chemicals- see how "safe" they ever were. Additionally, for those who claim "well, might as well wear a bubble over your head, there's risk in everything"- maybe so, but consuming food that is grown with potentially carcinogenic residue shouldn't be a risk that corporations and fed. gov. decide for consumers to take.

There are lots of non toxic things that shouldn't be ingested. Crayons are non toxic but you'd have to be stupid to eat them. The Round-Up guy refusing to drink a glass of Round-Up doesn't really mean anything even if it is non toxic (and I'm not saying it is).

Rodney

Well, the Round-Up lobbyist was the one who extended the offer in the first place. That is a slightly different case from a crayon (which no one is suggesting you would be safe 'eating')- because you're not 'exposed' to it in the same way that we are Round-Up

I don't know but I just think it's not needed for most crops. Hard work with good tools would work fine. If they need to use big machinery then let them but weedkiller is something I'd use maybe for poison Ivy or maybe a few other things.

Harry Samuels said: "Well, the Round-Up lobbyist was the one who extended the offer in the
first place. That is a slightly different case from a crayon (which no
one is suggesting you would be safe 'eating')- because you're not
'exposed' to it in the same way that we are Round-Up"

Here is the first bit of interview transcript from glib's link:
"You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” Moore insists.
“You want to drink some?” the interviewer asks. “We have some here.”

Seems to me the interviewer extended the offer first. Then the RU guy jokingly says: “I’d be happy to, actually,” Moore replies, adding, “Not really. But I know it wouldn’t hurt me."
Obviously he wasn't being serious when he said he'd drink it. I
honestly can't blame the guy for walking out of the interview when the
interviewer was only interested in pushing him to drink RU.

The
link glib gave was specifically about ingesting RU, hence my crayon
eating comment. Eating crayons and drinking RU would essentially expose
the person to each substance the same way. The RU lobbyist never said
someone should drink RU, only that if someone did they would be fine
(I'm not saying that's true). I could give a hundred links saying that
if someone eats a crayon they'd be fine. So I feel like my initial analogy was acceptable.

Rodney

P.S. And I just want to point out that I don't use roundup nor will I in the future.

Understood, Rodney. I apologize if I seemed harsh, but like I said this topic gets me emotional, hehe... Anyways, you are correct in that it was the interviewer who offered first. However, the interviewer suggested it because he was actually acknowledging a statement made by the Monsanto Camp once before to the effect of " based off of our tests, glyphosate is safe enough to ingest", so this was not something the interviewer just made up for the first time; granted in doing so he was being a bit cheeky

the point being that the lobbyist mentioned ingestion first. they will say anything.

BTW, if you ingest Roundup, it will destroy your gut flora. That may seem like nothing, but as Hyppocrates said, all disease comes from the gut. And it takes months if not years to rebuild it.

Antibiotics destroy gut flora too. If it is needful to take an antibiotic, take a probiotic to help re-establish good fora.

Good advice but it is not so simple. The (very expensive) probiotic pills have ten or so species, and they are all or mostly lactobacilli (they do not survive long in the gut). Yogurt has four or five, tops, also lactobacilli. Sauerkrauts have more, but once again, mostly lactobacilli. Getting kissed by your dog is good, but only if you have a dog. What native americans did, and Hadza hunter gatherer still do, is eat the guts of a fresh kill (native americans ate the small intestine, Hadza take out fecal pellets and eat the colon sushi style). Now that is really very very good, but who does that.

I think that modern higher tech probiotics are more diverse these days and have moved to a higher level.

as a passing comment...

With no intention at all of contributing to the Monsanto/ willful omittance of information concerning pesticides and health risks, me being a bit of a cynic concerning the almighty dollar-earning potential vs. general human health and the decisions of chemical companies, and also to state the obvious although it was not stated (as far as I could tell) crayons are non-toxic because even though adults would "have to be stupid to eat them", I can tell you from experience working in child care when I was younger, that they are eaten... often... by their primary customer base, small children, which is why I'm assuming they would be non-toxic. It has nothing to do with IQ, rather general development and critical thinking ability. Personally, I'm surprised that no one to date has reported rainbow-poos. The body's ability to extract and metabolize a useful compound out of Red #40 astounds me.

LOL Miss Moose! Nancy

Miss Moose, years ago, I overheard my daughter's young friend telling her that if you ate pink PlayDoh it would make your poop pink. As far as I know, my daughter never tested that info herself :) But I don't doubt her friend was reporting first hand knowledge. Oh, yes, they were an interesting pair, never a dull moment when they got together.