Here is an extract from a post by Andrew Porterfield on Genetic Literacy Project site.
Full IARC glyphosate report released; Anti-GMO target may have health benefits
It’s either the darling of GMO-loving Big Ag or the demon imperiling small-farmers and organic growers worldwide (or both!). It’s glyphosate (formerly patented and branded as Roundup), and it’s the most widely used pesticide in the world. Although it was introduced in 1974, more than 20 years before the introduction of GMOs, much of its increased use is because it can kill weeds without killing crops that have been genetically modified to resist glyphosate.
But what is it, really? And is it dangerous?
Most famously, this year the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization that evaluates the hazards (but not risks — a key distinction) of all sorts of everyday activities and products, declared that glyphosate was a Class 2a hazard, putting it in the “probably carcinogenic to humans” along with 73 other things including high temperature frying and excessive sunlight. Meanwhile, the U.S. EPA, the European Commission and other health and environmental agencies have declared it safe as used, and it’s licensed for use in 130 countries.
We’ve talked about risks, hazards and words like “probably” in other articles. Here, we’ll review what scientists have really found about glyphosate.
IARC’s full report available
IARC’s full monograph with scientific studies and references is now available, and will no doubt provide more information (or fodder) on how dangerous glyphosate may be. We won’t go over the monograph in detail in this article, but we can review a few human exposure claims to look at some issues. For human exposure, IARC cited two Ecuadoran studies:
The first reported statistically significant DNA damage among people who lived less than 3 kilometers from sites where the Ecuadorian government had used glyphosate formulations to kill off illegal coca plants. These were people who had exhibited symptoms of acute toxicity.
However, the same group studied individuals who lived in northern Ecuador 2 years after the last government spraying occurred, and found normal karyotypes compared to control groups.
Other human exposure studies in Colombia found increased incidences of micronucleus formation (a marker indicating chromosomal damage) in women agricultural workers living in areas that had received glyphosate spraying.
They did not, however, find cancer.
Comments