This is the result of 'political' science. Glyphosate has been evaluated by many countries for many years and found to be very safe. The US drinking water standard is 700 ppb and that is conservative.The WHO's health based value is 900 ppb and it decided that a Drinking Water Guideline was not necessary because of low concern and low occurrence. The IARC review was mostly a rehash of the existing data with nothing new, but a more politically correct committee without responsibility.
Published by Joseph Cotruvo, President at Joseph Cotruvo & Associates, Water , Environment and Public Health
5 Comments
I am curious about your technical qualifications. What is your background with regard to training in toxicology and health risk assessment? Most of the comments are not relevant to the issue. Apparently you disagree with the judgments of WHO and the responsible regulatory agencies from many countries. By the way, glyphosate and most other pesticides have very extensive data bases that are used in the determinations and updating of their registrations, almost approaching pharmaceuticals in depth. The registrations are periodically reviewed and additional data are often required on toxicology, occurrence, exposure, environmental effects, etc , if the registration is to be maintained. Many old pesticides registrations have been cancelled based upon unresolved questions and risk benefit balances. Glyphosate happens to be a pesticide that has a huge data base supporting its use and a very substantial consensus exists on its safety and low risk among the many experts in countries that have reviewed the data.
Published by Joseph Cotruvo, President at Joseph Cotruvo & Associates, Water , Environment and Public Health
Unfortunately Science is out. You have the obsolete / outdated information, after working for the US Government. Science got some new information for you.
Published by Yoshimi Yoshida, Environmental Consultant
Show the Evidence as to what you stated above, if you speak of accountability.
If you have baseless understanding of its safety, shame yourself.
A joint report by WHO and UN FAO this year is available at WHO FOOD SAFETY site; http://www.who.int/foodsafety/en/
Published by Yoshimi Yoshida, Environmental Consultant
Dear Ms Yoshida, I never worked for Monsanto. I worked for USEPA for 25 years. You do not understand what you wrote about and you are just parroting some things that you found in the literature. It is important to have some scientific understanding before writing about complicated technical topics.
Published by Joseph Cotruvo, President at Joseph Cotruvo & Associates, Water , Environment and Public Health
I believe you are behind what is currently known about Glyphosate. Have you worked for Monsanto before, or have been using subsidy for their seeds etc? Is that why you are supporting Glyphosate?
Unfortunately, Glyphosate now is not even probable cancer causing agent. It has already been proved the link. Good look. Often men come up to me and say that RoundUp Monsnto / Glyphosate is safe, but there are numerous cases that indicate glyphosate is NOT SAFE. You better do your studies.
Published by Yoshimi Yoshida, Environmental Consultant