I'm all for safe products, but saying possibly causing cancer tells us absolutely nothing. Well it tells us it possibly does not too. A great example of Junk science. Which rules the day! So much bad science out there is really makes me sad. Science has become a political weapon. You can't believe either side.

I myself hardly ever use the product. I just hand pick weeds. Last time I used it is when some stray mint got into my garden. The stuff is hard to kill, and I needed it gone. I painted it on the plant.

Dust from perlite can casue cancer too, one just has to be careful. Drinking too much water will kill you. Cars kill 50 thousand people a year. Living is dangerous in itself. Welcome to the jungle!

There are different agendas than being stated in the condemnation of a lot of synthetic agricultural chemicals, IMO. The dangers to human health are so insanely exaggerated while industrial pollutants, which is where humans receive the vast majority of suspected carcinogens and other disruptive exposures are mostly overlooked by the general media.

There is a pretty wide body of epidemiological research that indicates that the farmers that are applying these types of chemicals to their land- often in open tractors with usually no more protection than a layer of clothing, hats, boots and gloves are healthier than the general population with statistically significantly fewer cases of cancer. If you've ever watched a farmer pulling a mist blower on a still day back and forth across a field you will realize that these people often literally bathe in all manner of agricultural chemicals.

Admittedly, glyphosphate is not applied with as much potential exposure as materials applied to crops, but the warnings come with the same kind of evidence based usually on rats being dosed in laboratories.

If you want to search for it, one such study was published in the "Annals of Epidemiology" Vol. 15, issue 4, April 2005, where the health histories of thousands of spray licensed farmers were compared to the general public.

These were farmers in Iowa and North Carolina, but I've seen a similar study with similar results in a study done by the Canadian Gov of Canadian farmers.

I believe that the key danger of agricultural chemicals is not to people directly but often to the environment, but even here, it is industrial chemicals including chemicals from the products of our homes, cars, etc that are the source of most of the danger, IMO.

Here is a brief description of the study.

This analysis of the Agricultural Health Study cohort assesses
the mortality experience of licensed pesticide applicators and their spouses.

Methods

This report is based on 52,393 private applicators (who are
mostly farmers) and 32,345 spouses of farmers in Iowa and North Carolina. At
enrollment, each pesticide applicator completed a 21-page enrollment
questionnaire. Mortality assessment from enrollment (1994–1997) through 2000
provided an average follow-up of about 5.3 years, 447,154 person-years, and
2055 deaths.

Results

Compared
with the general population in the two states, the cohort experienced a very
low mortality rate. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for total mortality,
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, COPD, total cancer, and cancers of the
esophagus, stomach, and lung were 0.6 or lower for both farmers and spouses.
These deficits varied little by farm size, type of crops or livestock on the
farm, years of handling pesticides, holding a non-farm job, or length of follow
up. SMRs among ever smokers were not as low as among never smokers, but were
still less than 1.0 for all smoking-related causes of death. No statistically
significant excesses occurred, but slightly elevated SMRs, or those near 1.0,
were noted for diseases that have been associated with farming in previous
studies

Thanks Alan for an example of a useful study. The people who did the study in
the above article puts coffee in the same category as glyphosate. A probable
cancer causing agent. I think that tells us everything we need to know. So one
can conclude it is as likely to give you cancer as coffee is. So of course you
would have to consume as much as you do coffee. I surely hope government moneys
is not going to these people. In conclusion avoid consuming more than 2 cups of glyphosate daily and you should be cancer free! Of course people will run with this saying it causes cancer and should be removed from the market taking advantage of emotional responses of the public to such statements, deceiving the public big-time. Persauding them, and what's sad is it works.

Well, I hate magical thinking, whether it comes from the left or the right. The news supplied by the national media often just sells alarm and tragedy and anything that keeps us all tuned in. And then there are the advertisers that need to be pleased with any coverage concerning them.

I've come to the conclusion that the big boys in ag chemical manufacturing don't care how their products are covered by the press. They know they will be controlling the product stream whether it's reduced risk pesticides or even non synthetic ones. If they have to keep taking things off market than they always have control with recently patented products. There's not so much profit once a product outlives its patent. It is unbelievable how expensive most of the newer pesticides are compared to the older ones.

The thing is, this isnt just "national media" its scientific american. The article itself speaks of some of the less proven parts of the paper, and so does the paper in itself. IT was papers like this which eventually caused DDT to be taken off the market in NA and most western countries. Also note the backlash is from many industry companies, as well as Monsanto itself ( and im sorry if I dont fully trust the opinion of a company which forces researches to get court orders for the information on their products). The same article was published in Nature as well. It was also discussed that it is classified as such due to many animal studies done on round up and its cousins (which I think its fair to say there have been many more animal studies done than human studies to date).

I agree the article speaks for itself, they say the study is terrible in so many words. That is very clear. Everything I said comes from the article. If you buy it, then you have to buy that coffee causes cancer too, and so does being a barber (again all from the article) You don't need anything from Monsanto to tear the study to shreads. If this kind of waste of time is ever considered legit, we are in HUGE trouble. All the scientists involved in this study should have their creditials taken away from them. That is how I feel speaking as a scientist myself. Junk science at it's very worst!

DDT is used in 14 countries as of today. For very good reasons too. With the blessing of the World Health Organization.

Drew (BSMT ASCP)

Save my lazy self (at least for the moment, which is a busy one) from reading: Is the article in Nature, which is surely a reliable source, saying that studies implicating glyphosate as a probable carcinogen are poorly designed studies, are they saying there is renewed cause for concern, or what? I'm sure I'll eventually do my own digging, just not at the moment.

thanks..........+oM

But if farmers, who are heavily dosing themselves with these established carcinogens, aren't getting more cancer than the rest of us, are healthier and live longer, what exactly is the point?

The plastics your food comes in bleed synthetic estrogen, the foam in cheap furniture spews carcinogens into the indoor air where you just suck it right into your body, the exhaust fumes from your car are also a much more established health hazard than gylphosphate and most other approved agricultural pesticides in multiple ways.

We need to grow food efficiently to survive, how much do we need half the poisonous crap we have in our homes?

This fear of agricultural chemicals is a cultural fad, IMO.

Scientists have every reason to be interested in the specific qualities of pesticides and their possible affect on our health, but they aren't necessarily motivated to put their findings in perspective to the big picture. It would make their research seem unimportant and hardly worthy of funding or submitting an article about.

Researchers generally overstate the significance of their research, just as most people overestimate (unconsciously) their contributions to any project where it affects their share of payment or reward. This is hardwired into our DNA. We are, after all and above all, a negotiating species- constantly haggling over the structure of our various alliances.

This isn't to say you should automatically disregard any given peer reviewed research paper, but that you should weigh all the evidence, and keep your critical mind open and engaged.

I used to think synthetic chemicals were automatically dangerous by nature and fervently followed the Rodale religion for about 20 years. My opinions changed based on new information. They still are only opinions- subject to change and error.

wisconsin - The article in nature mirrors the article posted here pretty well. Both state that the evidence is a bit light, but the circumstantial evidence (animal testing) shows that it causes tumors in animals, which is why it was given the status it has. Both also state that more testing needs to be done.

WHat i find dangerous is that these articles dont state anything about bio accumulation in the ground or drinking water, which is where a lot of the chemicals end up

OK thanks. I've used a ton of glyphosate-perhaps literally-in my time, and one thing I always liked about it was the apparent relatively-low mammalian toxicity. I'm far less on the practicing end of things these days, doing most of my work from a desk/computer, but at least in my own hobbies, still use the chemical.

Alan Haigh, my pathway pretty much mirrors yours, in that, at one time along ago, I was simply opposed to all pesticides. This has been modified greatly over the years, to the point where all I feel I can honestly say at this point is that each and every item must be considered on its own merits. I'm a proud advocate of many environmentalistic agendas, and as such, I must get email notices from every such organization. Recently, my inbox has been bombarded by calls to sign petitions seeking the ban on all neonicotinoid insecticeds, and these never do get my signature. I feel that for many of the well-intending folks latching onto this cause, they are completely unaware of how neonics came to be, what they replaced, indeed that prior to the use of these compounds, any pesticides at all were used on the myriad food and other crops and products used by us all. And sure enough, research is bending in the direction of these items NOT playing a large role in the decline in bee and other pollinator numbers. So there you go. In any case, it's not like returning to widespread use of organophosphates would be any kind of solution. And too, I like to purchase organically-grown food, especially fruits and vegetables where I'm wanting to eat the skin, whenever possible.

The most dangerous thing I will probably do today is drive to work and then back home again. Of course, my concern extends to far beyond just my own hide, and there we need to be forever vigilant. This, IMO, will never end, but will be an ongoing need for as long as we're here.

+om

Sorry for hogging up the bandwidth here, but another thought occurred to me: Back in the late 1980's a strange thing happened at the Parks and Forestry department I then worked at, this in a medium-sized city. The use of the organophosphate insecticide diazinon became so widespread and commonplace, I witnessed these few things: first, a person holding title of Parks Planner, in effect a landscape architect, had a gallon of diazinon concentrate in the back of his then-vehicle, a small pickup truck, for an entire summer. This person had no responsibilities in the maintenance end of things, no official reason whatever, to be using and/or handling this material. Next, one of the main city parks would have a yearly parks picnic for all the kids enrolled in summer parks programs. These were big gatherings, and happened in late summer, about the time that yellowjacket hornets became ubiquitous. On the day of the setup, I witnessed a parks employee spraying diazinon directly onto the nozzles of the soda dispenser for the event, hoping to knock the "bees" down. Finally, in our chemical storage room, we had no less than twenty one-gallon containers of diazinon concentrate, which concentrate, BTW, was to be mixed at the rate of one half ounce product to one gallon of water! So this represented an enormous amount of this insecticide, considering we really had no big, bulk usages of it at that time.

My point is, intelligent people, people with considerable responsibility, had become completely blase' about this chemical. It was, to judge from the actions I witnessed, safe as milk. I bring this up only to say, maybe we as a culture have approached somewhat the same point with respect to glyphosate. I know I never worried much about using it for all those years. I did indeed take a Roundup shower one day long ago when a pressurized hose burst on a warm day when we were spraying weeds. Maybe there's more merit to this study than simply alarmist hysteria. That old diazinon business would look positively whack if seen today.

+om

Except with neonicatinoids, they have been banned in many countries, including ontario in canada due to evidence of massive bee die offs and other problems. Science is supposed to be about questioning everything anyways, even what we "know" now and leaving your mind open to the possibility that your whole paradigm is wrong.

And in terms of use of round up, there have been many studies showing that round up crops grow the same or worse than conventional crops grown with cover crops and other conventional methods. My problem is that companies still push this product and related seeds even though research is making steps to show how redundant it is, and that there are papers and studies coming to light which are (every slowly) showing many negative effects of many of our commonly used chemicals. Many of the foams and plastics mention are already banned in some states, or are sold with a carcinagenic warning.

CP, the latest evidence-this from impeccable sources-does not seem to support the idea the neonics are responsible in a large way for bee problems. Of course, every insecticide can kill insects. That's what they're designed to do. But the folks beating the war drum on this one have probably embarrassed themselves, jumping to conclusions based on emotional factors, not facts themselves. You say 'keep an open mind' and I would suggest you do likewise. I didn't just start caring about this stuff today. If you read my post up above, you would know that I started out from a hardcore organic standpoint. That's still the basis for much of what I do and believe. But that simply cannot-in a complicated world-mean one jumps to forgone conclusions. That's asking for trouble and can, in effect, discredit the entire movement towards safer and more environmentally friendly agriculture, horticulture, etc.

I'd love to see many plastics, etc phased out. That doesn't mean I should or will automatically join ranks with people calling for the ban of an entire class of pesticides, which class, BTW, was designed to lessen the unwanted impacts on applicators and non-target organisms.

Finally, if you care to check, bee numbers are up across north America. No, this doesn't mean we've solved every problem, but the initial hit that, for example, honeybees-a non-native insect BTW-took after the accidental introduction of the varroa mite seems to have run its course, at least for now. And some researches are showing that big drops in bee numbers has happened periodically throughout history, not just since neonics were developed. I have to be honest-it sounds like where you're at, synthetic chemical=bad. You and I both probably want roughly the same kind of world. But in telling me to keep an open mind, I'd suggest you need precisely the same thing.

+oM

One day we will develop a cancer drug that works, it might be synthetic or a GMO. But
organizations like WHO will condemn it, will say it causes cancer not cures it.
And the masses will buy into it. It will be banned.
Frank Zappa said the most abundant element in the universe was not hydrogen, it
is stupidity. Zappa also said the universe is one big note, long before string
theory. Zappa was a genius.

I wasn't suggesting that synthetic pesticides, including neonicinoids, don't represent a threat to the environment. I was only talking about the danger of exposure to humans, which generally seems to be much, much less than the common public perception. I actually think the danger to humans may be intentionally exaggerated by environmentalists to get political clout to eliminate them for environmental reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicoinoid

I just finished reading the above, and it left me more reluctant to use Neonicinoids, although I had read before that all chemicals in this class don't seem to be equally risky and I thought the one I have used (Assail) was on the OK list.

They are extremely safe for mammals, but apparently to birds and insects, not so much.

The thing about glyphosphate is that its use saves a tremendous amount of truly brutal work in the production of food- especially produce, that the average shopper at Whole Foods really can't imagine.

There are always trade offs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid

Wikipedia is mistaken, apparently, and there is a wide range of affects on Honeybees from neonicotinoids based on the specific formulation. I found a very thorough download on the subject from the U. of Pen. but was unable to provide the link here. Assail is soft on E. honeybees, it turns out.

Regarding neonic:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7509/full/nature13531.html#close
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/12/controversial-pesticides-linked-to-human-neurotoxicity.html
http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol67-2014-125-130lu.pdf

Also, drew I have to say after having many great discussions with you on various subjects im disappointed on how you are discussing this. To me it seems that you are showing "bad science" just as bad as you claim this paper is doing.

I sure do wish that folks calling for the elimination of this or that pesticide would seem to have some inkling that if and when the pesticide target of their choice is gone, others will be used, typically those others coming from earlier, more damaging chemistries Organophosphates, anybody? These are wide-spectrum nerve poisons, folks. They kill insects the same exact way they affect humans. In Europe, where somebody above mentioned that neonics had been banned a few years ago, bees are doing worse than ever. Other production problems have occurred as well. This is simply not a zero/sum game. Somehow, by some means, we're going to grow all this stuff we grow. I'm not down with big ag. I think there's huge problems with it. But just railing against one class of chemicals is, to me, almost completely missing the larger point. I'm all for smaller, more boutique farms and all that stuff. In fact, it's been nothing short of amazing how well some of these initiatives are coming along. But it's about more than food production. What of saving hemlock trees-one of the great original tree species of the eastern N. American forest-from the imported pest, hemlock wooly adelgid? Hemlocks, like all pine-family members, is a wind-pollinated plant. Using imidacloprid systemically in this plant to kill this scourge, which is, BTW wiping this tree right off the map, can be done with almost no off-target effects. How are bees going to come into contact with the tissues inside a hemlock tree? But you guys waving the ban flag don't know or care about this, or a host of other impacts of your silly actions. Neonics were developed precisely to mitigate the past problems of other classes of pesticides. Anyone can use something off-label, and end up doing something really stupid. Like the guy in Oregon that sprayed linden trees-a noted bee magnet-while in full flower. But that person was an idiot and what he did was both off-label and illegal.

Far too simple-minded an argument going on here, I'm afraid. Yes, an insecticide, when used improperly, or at ridiculously high rates, can have deleterious effects on bees. How could it not be so? A great many of the studies were guilty of just this-rates of exposure far beyond what would ever happen in the real world.

+om

Wissy, well, I'm not so sure that organophosphates are necessarily all that bad as far as being a threat to human health. Certainly the farmers in the study I mentioned are the canaries in the coal mine on OP's and they are singing just fine- generally living longer and healthier than folks with office jobs.

Last I checked, Imidan hadn't gotten any further than being a "suspected" carcinogen. 15 years ago Garden's Alive carried it as the only synthetic insecticide they sold because it works and is soft on many beneficials. At that time there was no organic alternative if you wanted to control plum curculio.

I certainly agree that OP's are more likely to punish the careless applicator than newer, lower risk materials, but I don't think many people have actually suffered from accidents with these older chemicals. Driving a tractor on uneven ground has to be a hundred times more dangerous than mixing and spraying even Guthion.

I could not disagree with you more-your thoughts that 'organophospate aren't necessarily all that bad....". I'm sorry, but that is just not a very-well thought-out statement. They have the exact same mode of action on us as they do on the target insects-we're really not all that different in some ways.

As to bee decline, I would like to offer anyone still in this thread exhibit A-the nation of Australia. In that country, they use neonics, in that country, they have healthy beehives with no decline issues, and in that country, they DO NOT have the varroa mite. I think that speaks volumes about what may really be going on with N. American bees. I also think there are some people whose minds are made up and who will not allow one single bit of info to disturb their pre-made notions about this matter. And as for me, I've got more to do than argue with folks on a hobbyist forum. I'm out on this one.

+om

You can disagree Wis, but to call mine a "not very well thought out statement" is a pretty nasty way to put it.

Many things are poisonous, the point is to avoid a dangerous dose which is not very hard to do when spraying Imidan or Malathion- two soft OP's. I suggest you do a bit more research, which I have done because I'm a commercial pesticide applicator. I have made hundreds of Imidan apps.

I know commercial growers that have been applying Guthion for decades and I follow the commercial growing community in the Hudson Valley. I have never heard of an accident here with pesticides that sent anyone to the hospital- not saying it hasn't happened, just that it is a rare occurrence.

If you can find me some data of significant numbers of death or severe illness from exposure to OP's instead of just sticking to the claim that they are poisonous to humans, I will consider your comments "well thought out".

I'd start here: http://news.agropages.com/News/NewsDetail---1661.htm

Read it. No data.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2100765

Here's some actual data that pretty much shows how insignificant exposure to OP''s are to human health.

Again, the article is saying that is has found some links to possible problems with humans. IT stated more than once that there is little known evidence that glyphosate is harmful or causes harm to humans, but due to the many adverse effects it is known to show in animal tests the WHO placed it in said category to ensure more rigorous testing in terms of humans. THis is how science works. IT doesnt say anything definitive in terms of causing cancer.

What I've been saying all along is that I believe the best way to test the relative level of those risks is to compare the overall health of people that engage in those risks to those that do not. This is how the risk of smoking was most convincingly established.

If OP's create significant risks to human health, how on earth can the people who actually experience high exposures to them on a regular basis completely escape the consequences- are you suggesting that dosage is not relevant either specifically or cumulatively? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Epidemiological research doesn't win any one Nobel prizes, it is not terribly creative stuff for a scientist, but in the end, it is often the best way to sort the wheat from the chafe when trying to determine actual levels of risk of any substance in the environment to human health.

In the case of pesticides, such evidence is particularly accurate and useful because we have a very distinct segment of the population with uniquely high exposures to them. One can't sort out which pesticides do what but if collectively no great harm is being done then none of the various exposures in themselves can be very significant.

At the time of the last study I posted, the farmers surveyed were using a lot of OP chemicals because much of the banning hadn't begun. So both recent accidents and long term health consequences are in the data.

Please address any flaws you find in the logic of what I've posted here before posting more research of potential links to cancer or whatever. They never seem to offer an assessment of the actual level of risk, so they are virtually worthless, except as suggestions for epidemiological research to realistically verify the suggestd links .

Wow, well to me it's right on subject. Makes me think this WHO report is a joke too, right? If true. now it makes perfect sense! I got it! Ha! LOL!

Thanks Bill, that was amusing. I loved the gag lines at the top of the page, they were actually funnier than the article. What I wonder is if the comments underneath were the gullible responses or just a part of the satire.