CHOICE membership

A Cancer Council statement on glyphosate = no evidence of harm


#41

Apples and oranges. The risks of asbestos were known for millennia:

Roman historian, naturalist and philosopher, Pliny the Elder, wrote of the “disease of slaves,” and actually described the use of a thin membrane from the bladder of a goat or lamb used by the slave miners as an early respirator in an attempt to protect them from inhaling the harmful asbestos fibers as they labored.

Pliny died in the eruption that buried Pompeiii - in 79 AD.

The risks of glyphosate are nowhere near as well-established.


#42

Whilst the jury is still out on whether or not the culprit is Glysophate statistics should be able to link users and the disease. It’ll come out in time one way or the other.
I find it quite incredible that anybody try to muddy the water by trying to diffuse cause and effect. Whilst the internet is indeed devoid of some scientific research and cranks/hypochondriacs it also has people power and the combined knowledge of numbers. I’ll tread somewhere in between rather than read fob offs from industry. It was bad enough with coal debunking climate science for a decade through the trolls they employed and the posts they put up sounded a lot like yours.
In the end the truth will come out even if farmers and Monsanto kick, scream bribe politicians and run propaganda to keep their industry ticking along. It always does. Normally after many unnecessary deaths…but who cares about people when there is a buck to be made. That never changes.


#43

It is one’s own choice what they believe, but one should not ignore research from independent (non-insustry) research institutions which haven’t shown any causal effects, even when looking at those who regularly use glyphosate (have a risk profile). Some studies have included 10000s of users.

It is worth reading the science, rather than the stories…

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=glyphosate+health&btnG=

The first one on the search results is an example of a population based assessment worth reading.

There is enough data has glyphosate has been used for many decades without any known risk factors or increase in incidence of cancer. There are limitations of any research study, but reading a few from difference sources/organisation can provide a ‘better picture’ of risks.

As highlighted above, even thought there are no known impacts, it n is still worthy to read the msds for glyphosate and also wear PPE as well.


#44

Yeah…5 years ago the coal industry was funding ‘scientists’ to write reports as well. The not surprisingly all the reports said that climate change was not real and ‘variation’ has always existed.
Please don’t bother sending me ‘research’ about how glysophate is perfectly safe because I have already read that Monsanto is paying to have the same sort of propaganda written as well as trolls to dispel anything being wrong. They even claimed Nasa was being used to push climate propaganda rather than being a pure research organisation.
As I said I’ll tread a middle ground and wait for the inevitable REAL studies from REAL research bodies to surface.


#45

To counter this there were many more scientifically supported independent reports or views that said otherwise. Indeed for decades the overall concensus of the scientific community has warned of climate change.

For the glyphosate products there is currently over whelming and significant independent research that supports the product as being low risk providing it is used in accordance with regulations and recommended practice.

If we are to accept alternate views on the potential for glyphosate to cause harm to humans where the established evidence suggests otherwise, should we also accept the alternative views of the coal lobby as having a place in the discussion where the established evidence contradicts them on climate change?

p.s. any research that sets out to link a particular disease to a product has many challenges. Those of us who use glyphosate as a product are more likely to be out doors amongst many other factors that could be causal or contributing. We may have greater exposure to hydro-carbons (some with known carcongens) used in our equipment. There is much to research and consider to be sure that a possible link is not selected in error with a result the real cause goes unrecognised.


#46

Fair comment but the media always pushes the advertisers wagon the only exception being when there is a court victory. That is what happened with Glysophate.
There is more to come on this decision so lets hold fire until the issue is settled. The last thing I would do is accept naysayers who may possibly be propaganda writers supporting the very wealthy industry. I know not what your motivation is but I have seen it all from coal so tell again me in a decade when a lot more water has flowed under the bridge and I’ll listen. Cheers.


#47

Truth has no motivation. Truth exists whether you choose to accept it or not. As @phb said:

Follow high-quality evidence and base your worldviews in reality, not rhetoric. :slight_smile:


#48


If this gets out of hand, watch out for rising food prices.


#49

Sadly, this is what happens when an uneducated public takes the reins. Farming will become less sustainable and less safe for humans should glyphosate be run out of town. This news makes any educated environmentalist sad :frowning:


#50

It is also worth noting that a jury is made up of common people, most will not have any science or medical training. They are required to assess the information provided in a hearing and then make a decision based on this information. As the information is likely to be highly complex and potentially foreign to them, it is possible that jury decisions make wrong decisions. This is why the court system (in western countries) have a appeal process which is escalated to a higher court. Most appeals occur without a jury and is based on direct evidence of relevant experts in the area in question.


#51

It will be sometime before the appeal in the case in the USA goes the distance. In the meantime we have the APVMA to advise us. Given they are scientists and vets who are not direct beneficiaries of the industry any advice they provide should be reassuringly independent of bias and misinformation.

I’ll be watching how they advise and react before jumping to any alternate view.


#52

What constitutes reliable evidence, in your eyes? Anything that agrees with your predisposition, and nothing that doesn’t? Or do you accept strong, reliable evidence from independent sources, no matter what their conclusions are?


#53

In answer to your question: Something which is scientifically sound and which fits the data.

Not calls from industries like the coal industry whose mode of operation is to claim climate change does not exist, that scientists are frauds lining their own pockets and that organisations like NASA are conflicted.
Likewise with Roundup. The evidence presented is not in favour of the industry and many people have died. Of course the industry will blame shift and claim that the deaths had nothing to do with their product. That’s how it always plays out. They will also employ trolls to write supportive BS and discredit anybody who speaks against their product. I’ve seem it all with the coal industry and your crew is no different. All that matters is the MONEY, not human life or suffering. Industries do not care about such inconsequential matters.


#54

The mining industry recognises the existence of climate change…


#55

You can’t be serious. The coal industry spent a decade trying to shut down climate change debate. The current government is now trying to bild new COAL fired power stations. What does that tell you? The pope is not a catholic? Hardly!
Mining does not equal fossil fuel and coal is out there on its own.


#56

You are both right - but from different perspectives. The mining industry is not a monolith that speaks with one voice. We see coal vs gas fights, we see minerals saying vaguely sensible things about climate change that coal will not say. The position on climate change in this country is, at least in public, not as extreme as some others. We don’t have a Fox News giving lots of air time to deniers but still they exist. We entertain Lord Monkton and similar fools.

The coal industry has various speakers, in NSW the main one is the Minerals Council. Long ago they decided that being openly anti climate change is a PR battle they didn’t want to have. So we had them spruiking “clean coal” instead. They actually spent some money on it too. But it never went anywhere, they were never serious about spending the big bucks in this country because they worked out early that the costs are huge. I haven’t checked in a while but I think the last gasp from them was to put the rest of the cash their members had put in for the purpose towards PR not actually doing something. They still have much anti CC material available and I can’t find any broad policy statement re CC.

Compare this with the national Minerals Council who have a policy statement acknowledging CC. It has two bob each way in many respects but takes quite a different position compared to NSW.

You will also see that the nation’s leaders (I use that word carelessly I know) rarely come out directly as anti CC. They are much more likely to speak in code by waffling about risks to power supply unless coal goes on into the future. Mr Abbott has had more positions on this that the Karma Sutra but the last I heard he would not say in public climate change isn’t happening.

Have a look at the list of priority issues from the Nationals:

Building a strong 21st Century economy
Tackling crime and the scourge of drugs
Reducing cost of living pressures
Creating jobs for the future
Improving health care
Giving students a world-class education
Building better local roads
Investing in public transport
Backing Small Business and enterprise
A sustainable environment
Supporting seniors and Aged Care
Investing in innovation and science
Securing Australia’s borders
Affordable and reliable energy

Aside from the ‘motherhood and apple pie’ nature of most of it, do you notice anything missing?

As for building any new coal fired power stations I bet it never happens in this country. The private sector will never fund it as the sums don’t add up. The coalition won’t do it for fear of an electoral backlash. That doesn’t mean there is no lobby trying to postpone the death of thermal coal for as long as possible. It doesn’t mean they haven’t muddied the waters well and truly over the last 15 years trying to stall any action.


#57

Alan Jones might disagree with you. So too the National Party. Where do you believe the main political opposition comes from.
If you think the right wing media is not biased then you may want to watch election campaigns for the month before voting.
Glysophate? A necessary evil but all herbicides are deadly and Roundup is only now beginning to yield results. Ask the smoking lobby about that. No amount of pressure and propaganda will change the end result if the studies continue to confirm the information coming out.


#58

… that depends which ‘smoking lobby’ we are talking about. Seems these days everyone is smoking something, they just might not be aware of it.


#59

Interesting assertion. Can you link to statistics showing the glyphosate death-toll?


#60

I am assuming you are replying to me here. In order:

Alan Jones has never been elected to dog catcher much less PM or Minister for Energy and he has no qualifications or understanding relevant to CC. He is anti CC but also anti coal and gas. He has no consistent bias or fixed position. Everything Jones says is a gut reaction and subject to whim; none of it reasoned.

I quoted the Nats not because they are the only opposition to CC but their material was in my mind and at hand. There are those in Libs and other parties too that oppose CC action. Part of what I was getting at is that the opposition here tends to be more behind the scenes not getting in front of the mike like some US pundits.

It is popular to compare the pro-smoking lobby with the anti CC lobby. There are a number of similarities (“doubt is our product”) but one that stands out in this context is that in both campaigns the lobbyists in the US have been much more explicit and visible than here. Yet we still have policy gridlock here, when you want the status quo that’s a win.