Incriminated by junk science; Debunked by reality.
Here is NYTimes food critic Marc Bittman’s view that Roundup should be banned until proven safe.
Here is a recent review of the Roundup epidemiology that identifies no cancer risk.
In the end, the epidemiology (i.e., studies of actual humans actually exposed to Roundup) defeat animal bioassays (mice are not little people) and meaningless Petri dish studies.
how come she picked on roundup-
Triclosan
Found most often in anti-bacterial products, triclosan supplements many toothpaste brands. Unfortunately, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies triclosan as a pesticide, stating it poses a risk to both human health and the environment. Scientists categorize triclosan as a chlorophenol, which is a type of chemical suspected of causing cancer in humans.
With the advent of Roundup resistant GM crops, Roundup resistant weeds can be attacked with ever increasing levels of Roundup. Is this a sustainable solution?
Wouldn’t “many cancers” be included in “total cancers?” Just asking…
“Keep feeding those rats more!
They will either get cancer or drown, but we will spin it our way.”
That’s lefty science for you.
+1
“so I won’t bother posting on your site again.”
thank you. Your religious beliefs are better served elsewhere.
This post is not about proving a negative or other logic and/or semantic games. The fact is no scientific evidence shows permitted use of glyphosate has harmed anyone — despite 40 years of use and much research. Therefore, for practical purposes, it has been proven safe. It’s fine if you feel otherwise, but please bring data to this forum.
A negative can indeed be proven, but it is not proven merely by the failure to prove the converse. This is a very common mistake in understanding scientific research, the media err on this very frequently.
I have to go with JunkScience.Com in this case. One applies absolutes sparingly. As my professor of Education used to say “Practice makes perfect, and if you practice enough you can be a perfect idiot. ” If breast implants had been used by millions for decades with no noticeable increase in cancers, then one can conclude that they are safe. A Required “protocol study” with so much experience made no sense and needlessly frightened lots of ladies. Similarly with the extensively used Round Up.There would be great acclaim to anyone establishing a cancer connection to Round Up, that any mouse study has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I have been under the impression that one cannot PROVE a negative.
non-specific hysterical response like yours aside….your emotion, rather that your rationality, is showing. You’ve just revealed your lack of credibility, so I won’t bother posting on your site again.
The epidemiology review means that a lot of nothing has been found. Moreover, there is no substance that is known to cause many different types of cancer, especially from a single exposure pathway. Glyphosate has been used for about 40 years with no obvious health effects — non-specific hysterical rantings like yours aside.
Even more junk science from you. This study does not in the least prove that “roundup does not cause cancer”. Read the words you highlighted. It says only that THEIR review did not uncover a “consistent pattern” of causation with any “site-specific” cancer. This leaves open a whole range of possibilities, including the possibility that Roundup is a general carcinogen that causes many cancers. Roundup may also cause other health problems. The study is inconclusive, because failing to prove a positive does not mean the negative has been proved. Please, don’t bother commenting on scientific research unless you know what you are doing.