When is the American public going to get it through their heads that the Orange Haired Troll and his congressional minions don't give a dam about the rest of us. Their only concern is how much money are they going to reap from these relation ships. Disgusting state of affairs that can only be cured with the VOTE.
If the vote was representative of the registered voters. The 2024 U. S. Presidential Election produced 2 losers and the Supreme Court decreed the Republicans Candidate as the President of the USA, despite the fact that 2/3 majority was carried by neither candidate.
Review 'Citizens United ' 2010 S.C.O.T.U.S. decision . I agree with you about the Electoral College and since the Republicans are gerrandering to their advantage as their form of upgrading the institution, l think we need to come up with a plan for true representation of the registered voters. Maybe if money wasn't the voting medium, more ethical living humans would run for office?
The damage caused by Bayer's pesticides and other chemical is incalcuable. Bees are dying. Birds are dying. Flora and Fauna of in every category and category suffer from this heinous industry. And please, everybody, know this -- if your neighbors are spraying their yards with Bayer products, you or your child (don't forget Fido) may be the next fatality.
The whole industry is staffed and owned by Ghouls!
Well, I guess "quietly" is the word to concentrate on. Democrats should be screaming this from every platform...I will be calling my reps and talking to everyone I know. I do not believe ANY American (guess you have to exclude some elected official scum) wants this.
Trump has royally stiffed the American people. It is clear that he has no intent to deliver on his promise of health and security to the American people.
Now, WE are in charge of a tsunami wave to bury this gold-digger of a Trump where he'll never rise again. Let's get the snowball rolling down the Hill!
On a daily basis,the GOP(greedy old parasites) led by their ignoranus(dumbass)leader do the bidding, in exchange for $$$, of their corporate constituency.THE PUBLIC BE DAMNED!!!
As l see it, the problem is that the corporate goal is to make pecuniary profits from selling their toxic products, then seeking political protection from having to give victims of the poisoning any money for their loss of good health. Money won't bring back the dead and should not be the deciding factor as to what is done, sanctioned or produced. There are so many other approaches that could solve the problems of the imbalances in the natural life cycles were making a buck not the desired end result.
Roundup is an HERBICIDE…. That's an excellent and critical question. The accusation that the IARC's classification of glyphosate was "political" is a significant part of the controversy. It's a charge that has been made by various industry groups, some scientists, and regulatory bodies.
Let's break down the arguments for and against this view.
Arguments that the IARC Process was Influenced by Political or Procedural Bias
1. Exclusion of Key Evidence: The most frequent criticism is that IARC's mandate is to assess hazard (the potential to cause cancer under any exposure scenario) based only on publicly available, peer-reviewed studies. It does not consider:
· Unpublished regulatory studies: Agencies like the EPA and EFSA review numerous large, guideline-compliant toxicology studies that are often proprietary and not published in journals. Proponents of these studies argue they are more rigorous and standardized. IARC's exclusion of this data is seen by critics as a major flaw that skewed the outcome.
· Negative or Null Findings: Critics argue that IARC gave more weight to studies suggesting a cancer link and discounted or interpreted away studies that found no link.
2. Internal Controversy and Allegations of Misconduct:
· Involvement of a Key Member: A major point of contention was the participation of Dr. Christopher Portier, an American toxicologist. He served as an invited specialist on the IARC panel, despite having no published research on glyphosate. It was later revealed that shortly before and after the meeting, he had signed a lucrative contract with a law firm that was engaged in litigation against Monsanto (the manufacturer of Roundup). Critics argue this was a clear conflict of interest that biased his role in shaping the monograph.
· Allegations of "Cut-and-Paste": A Reuters investigation claimed that early drafts of the IARC report were changed at the final meeting. They alleged that positive findings of carcinogenicity in some animal studies were inserted, while negative conclusions from the same studies were removed, making the evidence appear stronger than it was. IARC strongly denied this, stating the changes were part of the normal peer-review process.
3. The "Hazard vs. Risk" Framework Itself: Some critics argue that the "hazard-only" classification is inherently misleading to the public. When IARC classifies something as "probably carcinogenic" (Group 2A), it places it in the same category as red meat and high-temperature frying (activities people engage in daily), while excluding context about actual risk. This, critics say, invites fear and political manipulation, as the nuanced scientific meaning is often lost in public discourse.
Arguments that the IARC Rating was Scientifically Sound and Apolitical
1. Adherence to a Strict, Transparent Protocol: IARC defends its process as rigorous, transparent, and consistent. The Monographs programme has a set of strict rules and criteria that have been developed over decades. They argue that relying solely on publicly available, peer-reviewed literature ensures transparency and allows for independent scrutiny, unlike some industry-funded studies that may remain confidential.
2. Consistency with Other Independent Reviews: Proponents of the IARC decision point out that their conclusion is not an outlier among independent (non-regulatory) scientific assessments. For example:
· A meta-analysis by scientists at the University of Washington (Zhang et al., 2019) concluded there was a "compelling link" between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, supporting IARC's finding.
· These scientists argue that regulatory agencies may be over-reliant on industry-funded studies, which themselves could be subject to bias.
3. Separation of Roles: IARC's defenders argue that its role is distinct and necessary. Regulators assess risk for policy decisions, but an independent agency like IARC is essential for identifying hazards without the political and economic pressures that regulatory bodies face. They see IARC's purpose as a "canary in the coal mine," raising flags based on the best available public science.
Conclusion: Was it Political?
It's more accurate to say the evaluation became highly politicized rather than to claim the rating itself was solely a political decision.
· The Process Had Controversies: The allegations against Dr. Portier and the questions about draft changes raised by Reuters are serious and have damaged IARC's credibility in the eyes of many. They provide fuel for the argument that the process was not entirely pure.
· The Outcome Clashed with Powerful Interests: The classification had immediate and massive financial and legal consequences for a multi-billion dollar industry. This guaranteed a fierce counter-campaign from Monsanto/Bayer and its supporters, who naturally sought to discredit the finding by questioning IARC's motives and methods.
· A Clash of Scientific Interpretation: At its heart, the disagreement is also a genuine scientific debate about how to interpret complex and sometimes contradictory evidence, what weight to give different types of studies, and the fundamental principles of hazard identification versus risk assessment.
In summary, while there are credible concerns about potential conflicts of interest and procedural choices in the IARC process, it is an overstatement to dismiss the rating as purely political. It was a scientific judgment made by a panel of experts following a specific (though controversial) protocol—a judgment that starkly contradicted the findings of major regulatory agencies and ignited a firestorm of scientific, legal, and political debate.
" Bayer reaps billions of dollars selling a killer pesticide named Roundup, which scientists increasingly consider a cause of cancer, especially in children." Do you have any evidence for this extremely important statement? The evidence suggests otherwise:
According to Wikipedia, "The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity.[12][108] The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR),[109] the European Commission, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority[110] and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment[111] have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."[112][113] One international scientific organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, classified glyphosate in Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015.[15][13]"
I think the issue is that our legislators are willing to prevent citizens from pursuing a legal remedy against the chemical companys if they suspect they have been damaged. The merits can be argued in court for any claim but if citizens are deprived of this avenue then how are companies to be held accountable. Does anyone remember thalidomide babies?
There have been the number of court cases. I'm not sure what the present legal situation is (can you elaborate on what you say about people being prevented from taking legal action?), but would just point out that in the US in particular there is an entire industry based on pursuing unreasonable claims against major companies.
“…GOP congressional leaders, who – shhhh – quietly tucked a corporate “gotcha” into this month’s must-pass budget bill. It would effectively hand retroactive immunity to chemical manufacturers, quashing all those lawsuits filed by families of Roundup victims.”
“The health impacts of the product as well as its effects on the environment have been at the center of substantial legal and scientific controversies. In June 2020, Bayer agreed to pay $9.6 billion to settle tens of thousands of claims, mostly alleging that glyphosate-based Roundup had caused cancer.[10][11]”
I belong to a number of environmental organizations that have battled previous owner of Roundup, Monsanto for many years, over its toxicity. Monarch butterflies are also impacted. Multinational companies like Bayer don’t settle unless they’ve caused harm. If the settlement’s are scuttled, campaign donations will follow.
I contribute to Wikipedia because I link to some of their pages as references from my website. They make every effort to vet the accuracy of data submitted. But I do agree you need to always consider the source. Especially for serious health related questions.
A scientific journal might be more appropriate. Roundup has been under scrutiny for years & I used to use it. Now when I have to, I use Spectracide which I think is safer.
When is the American public going to get it through their heads that the Orange Haired Troll and his congressional minions don't give a dam about the rest of us. Their only concern is how much money are they going to reap from these relation ships. Disgusting state of affairs that can only be cured with the VOTE.
If the vote was representative of the registered voters. The 2024 U. S. Presidential Election produced 2 losers and the Supreme Court decreed the Republicans Candidate as the President of the USA, despite the fact that 2/3 majority was carried by neither candidate.
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with deciding who becomes President. It's decided by the electoral college, that age old bastion of nonsense.
Review 'Citizens United ' 2010 S.C.O.T.U.S. decision . I agree with you about the Electoral College and since the Republicans are gerrandering to their advantage as their form of upgrading the institution, l think we need to come up with a plan for true representation of the registered voters. Maybe if money wasn't the voting medium, more ethical living humans would run for office?
Sigh -- who knew there were so many totally brain-dead people in the US -- let alone that they are all located in DC. It's always all about money.
Perhaps too obvious a connection - but who would benefit from Tylenol being contraindicated in pregnancy?
The damage caused by Bayer's pesticides and other chemical is incalcuable. Bees are dying. Birds are dying. Flora and Fauna of in every category and category suffer from this heinous industry. And please, everybody, know this -- if your neighbors are spraying their yards with Bayer products, you or your child (don't forget Fido) may be the next fatality.
The whole industry is staffed and owned by Ghouls!
P.S. I just donated to Food and Water Watch!
Well, I guess "quietly" is the word to concentrate on. Democrats should be screaming this from every platform...I will be calling my reps and talking to everyone I know. I do not believe ANY American (guess you have to exclude some elected official scum) wants this.
Trump has royally stiffed the American people. It is clear that he has no intent to deliver on his promise of health and security to the American people.
Now, WE are in charge of a tsunami wave to bury this gold-digger of a Trump where he'll never rise again. Let's get the snowball rolling down the Hill!
On a daily basis,the GOP(greedy old parasites) led by their ignoranus(dumbass)leader do the bidding, in exchange for $$$, of their corporate constituency.THE PUBLIC BE DAMNED!!!
OHMYGOD !!!!!
As l see it, the problem is that the corporate goal is to make pecuniary profits from selling their toxic products, then seeking political protection from having to give victims of the poisoning any money for their loss of good health. Money won't bring back the dead and should not be the deciding factor as to what is done, sanctioned or produced. There are so many other approaches that could solve the problems of the imbalances in the natural life cycles were making a buck not the desired end result.
Load drones with RoundUp and fl them through the White House, spraying as they go.
Roundup is an HERBICIDE…. That's an excellent and critical question. The accusation that the IARC's classification of glyphosate was "political" is a significant part of the controversy. It's a charge that has been made by various industry groups, some scientists, and regulatory bodies.
Let's break down the arguments for and against this view.
Arguments that the IARC Process was Influenced by Political or Procedural Bias
1. Exclusion of Key Evidence: The most frequent criticism is that IARC's mandate is to assess hazard (the potential to cause cancer under any exposure scenario) based only on publicly available, peer-reviewed studies. It does not consider:
· Unpublished regulatory studies: Agencies like the EPA and EFSA review numerous large, guideline-compliant toxicology studies that are often proprietary and not published in journals. Proponents of these studies argue they are more rigorous and standardized. IARC's exclusion of this data is seen by critics as a major flaw that skewed the outcome.
· Negative or Null Findings: Critics argue that IARC gave more weight to studies suggesting a cancer link and discounted or interpreted away studies that found no link.
2. Internal Controversy and Allegations of Misconduct:
· Involvement of a Key Member: A major point of contention was the participation of Dr. Christopher Portier, an American toxicologist. He served as an invited specialist on the IARC panel, despite having no published research on glyphosate. It was later revealed that shortly before and after the meeting, he had signed a lucrative contract with a law firm that was engaged in litigation against Monsanto (the manufacturer of Roundup). Critics argue this was a clear conflict of interest that biased his role in shaping the monograph.
· Allegations of "Cut-and-Paste": A Reuters investigation claimed that early drafts of the IARC report were changed at the final meeting. They alleged that positive findings of carcinogenicity in some animal studies were inserted, while negative conclusions from the same studies were removed, making the evidence appear stronger than it was. IARC strongly denied this, stating the changes were part of the normal peer-review process.
3. The "Hazard vs. Risk" Framework Itself: Some critics argue that the "hazard-only" classification is inherently misleading to the public. When IARC classifies something as "probably carcinogenic" (Group 2A), it places it in the same category as red meat and high-temperature frying (activities people engage in daily), while excluding context about actual risk. This, critics say, invites fear and political manipulation, as the nuanced scientific meaning is often lost in public discourse.
Arguments that the IARC Rating was Scientifically Sound and Apolitical
1. Adherence to a Strict, Transparent Protocol: IARC defends its process as rigorous, transparent, and consistent. The Monographs programme has a set of strict rules and criteria that have been developed over decades. They argue that relying solely on publicly available, peer-reviewed literature ensures transparency and allows for independent scrutiny, unlike some industry-funded studies that may remain confidential.
2. Consistency with Other Independent Reviews: Proponents of the IARC decision point out that their conclusion is not an outlier among independent (non-regulatory) scientific assessments. For example:
· A meta-analysis by scientists at the University of Washington (Zhang et al., 2019) concluded there was a "compelling link" between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, supporting IARC's finding.
· These scientists argue that regulatory agencies may be over-reliant on industry-funded studies, which themselves could be subject to bias.
3. Separation of Roles: IARC's defenders argue that its role is distinct and necessary. Regulators assess risk for policy decisions, but an independent agency like IARC is essential for identifying hazards without the political and economic pressures that regulatory bodies face. They see IARC's purpose as a "canary in the coal mine," raising flags based on the best available public science.
Conclusion: Was it Political?
It's more accurate to say the evaluation became highly politicized rather than to claim the rating itself was solely a political decision.
· The Process Had Controversies: The allegations against Dr. Portier and the questions about draft changes raised by Reuters are serious and have damaged IARC's credibility in the eyes of many. They provide fuel for the argument that the process was not entirely pure.
· The Outcome Clashed with Powerful Interests: The classification had immediate and massive financial and legal consequences for a multi-billion dollar industry. This guaranteed a fierce counter-campaign from Monsanto/Bayer and its supporters, who naturally sought to discredit the finding by questioning IARC's motives and methods.
· A Clash of Scientific Interpretation: At its heart, the disagreement is also a genuine scientific debate about how to interpret complex and sometimes contradictory evidence, what weight to give different types of studies, and the fundamental principles of hazard identification versus risk assessment.
In summary, while there are credible concerns about potential conflicts of interest and procedural choices in the IARC process, it is an overstatement to dismiss the rating as purely political. It was a scientific judgment made by a panel of experts following a specific (though controversial) protocol—a judgment that starkly contradicted the findings of major regulatory agencies and ignited a firestorm of scientific, legal, and political debate.
" Bayer reaps billions of dollars selling a killer pesticide named Roundup, which scientists increasingly consider a cause of cancer, especially in children." Do you have any evidence for this extremely important statement? The evidence suggests otherwise:
According to Wikipedia, "The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity.[12][108] The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR),[109] the European Commission, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority[110] and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment[111] have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."[112][113] One international scientific organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, classified glyphosate in Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015.[15][13]"
I used Roundup in my garden this afternoon
I think the issue is that our legislators are willing to prevent citizens from pursuing a legal remedy against the chemical companys if they suspect they have been damaged. The merits can be argued in court for any claim but if citizens are deprived of this avenue then how are companies to be held accountable. Does anyone remember thalidomide babies?
There have been the number of court cases. I'm not sure what the present legal situation is (can you elaborate on what you say about people being prevented from taking legal action?), but would just point out that in the US in particular there is an entire industry based on pursuing unreasonable claims against major companies.
“…GOP congressional leaders, who – shhhh – quietly tucked a corporate “gotcha” into this month’s must-pass budget bill. It would effectively hand retroactive immunity to chemical manufacturers, quashing all those lawsuits filed by families of Roundup victims.”
Also from Wikipedia:
“The health impacts of the product as well as its effects on the environment have been at the center of substantial legal and scientific controversies. In June 2020, Bayer agreed to pay $9.6 billion to settle tens of thousands of claims, mostly alleging that glyphosate-based Roundup had caused cancer.[10][11]”
I belong to a number of environmental organizations that have battled previous owner of Roundup, Monsanto for many years, over its toxicity. Monarch butterflies are also impacted. Multinational companies like Bayer don’t settle unless they’ve caused harm. If the settlement’s are scuttled, campaign donations will follow.
I have seen roundup "kill "vegetation with my own eyes . Idont want it near my food supply
Don't worry; unless you photosynthesise, you're quite safe
I may be lacking in chlorophyll but I don't trust your research as far as vegetation drops after being sprayed with roundup
I have also seen comments that
glyphosates are detrimental to soil health and therefore injure crops in other ways. Not begign.
Well, gosh, Paul, we all know Wikipedia is written by experts Not. Good luck with your future health.
I contribute to Wikipedia because I link to some of their pages as references from my website. They make every effort to vet the accuracy of data submitted. But I do agree you need to always consider the source. Especially for serious health related questions.
A scientific journal might be more appropriate. Roundup has been under scrutiny for years & I used to use it. Now when I have to, I use Spectracide which I think is safer.