Glyphosate Herbicide WILL NOT Cause Cancer – Why Do National Government Regulators In America, Germany & Canada Conclude That It Is Safe While Only World Health Organization ( WHO aka IARC ) Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?!?! – 2015 07 24

 

clip_image002

 

 

 

 

 

Overview From An Independent Perspective

 

IARC Hazard Study Against Glyphosate    IARC And Its Distorted, Biased, & Unbalanced Glyphosate-Hating Fanaticism

 

 

National government regulators world-wide have concluded that glyphosate is scientifically-safe, and yet only IARC arbitrarily claims it may cause cancer. 

 

On March 20th, 2015, IARC arbitrarily classified the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as « probably carcinogenic » on the basis of « limited evidence » of cancer among humans.

 

International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) is ridiculously implying that its false-evaluation of glyphosate ( Roundup ) is somehow being withheld from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ), German Federal Institute For Risk Assessment, Health Canada, and EVERY other science-based national regulatory agency in the world.

 

According to these agencies, the weight of evidence is against carcinogenicity.

 

The IARC hazard study against glyphosate is distorted, biased, and unbalanced.

 

The selection of literature for review by IARC was severely unbalanced since it cherry-picked the most atypically negative reports in order to validate its pesticide-hating agenda. 

 

IARC has conveniently disregarded dozens of scientific studies that support the conclusion glyphosate is NOT a human health risk ! 

 

THE PESTICIDE-HATING IARC HAS BEEN DISCREDITED ! 

 

IARC does not evaluate actual human risks, and merely looks at what is called hazard. 

 

The IARC study of hazard will not indicate the risk of getting cancer. 

 

National regulatory agencies, like EPA and Health Canada, evaluate risks. 

 

IARC merely looks at what is called hazard, and NOT risk.

 

It DOES NOT take into consideration how much of or how commonly a risk it poses in the real world.

 

IARC has failed to provide any new research concerning glyphosate.

 

Why do science-based national regulatory agencies around the world conclude that glyphosate is scientifically safe while only IARC arbitrarily claims it « probably » causes cancer ?

 

IARC is NOT a government regulatory agency. 

 

It has NO regulatory authority whatsoever. 

 

IARC most certainly is NOT a science, NOT a research, and NOT a health organization. 

 

IARC is a mere subsidiary of the World Health Organization ( WHO ).

 

If the IARC hazard study against glyphosate is truly valid, then why doesn’t WHO itself demand more government regulation ?!?!

 

Why should national regulatory agencies listen to IARC when it is ignored by WHO ?!?!

 

In fact, glyphosate WILL NOT CAUSE HARM and WILL NOT CAUSE CANCER ! 

 

It is clear that IARC has an agenda-driven bias for reasons of mere pesticide-hating fanaticism and politicized science. 

 

IARC IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED ! 

 

Scientific research shows that, as reported through EPA’s and Health Canada’s vast toxicology database, NO harm will occur when pest control products like GLYPHOSATE is applied properly. 

 

All of these products have been evaluated for their carcinogenic potential.   http://wp.me/p1jq40-6yf  

 

Even Canadian Cancer Society’s own web-sites state, repeatedly, that scientific research does NOT provide a conclusive link between pest control products and cancer.   http://wp.me/p1jq40-4qc  

 

PESTICIDES CAUSING CANCER IS A MYTH !   http://wp.me/p1jq40-2nl  

 

If you question that glyphosate is carcinogenic based on the IARC hazard study, perhaps you should consider advocating bans against similarly classified products & activities, like bacon, baked food, burgers, cooked meat, fish, fried food, grapefruit juice, night shift work, paint remover, roasted food, sausages, and vegetables. 

 

IARC has also evaluated chemical agents & activities that have HIGHER carcinogenic hazard than glyphosate, like alcoholic beverages, baby oil, oral contraceptives, outdoor air pollution, painter, plutonium, and sunlight.

 

In essence, glyphosate is WILL NOT CAUSE CANCER, and it is SAFE when used appropriately.

 

The studies of IARC are distorted, biased, and unbalanced.

 

THEY ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED ! 

 

For more information about IARC, go to     http://wp.me/p1jq40-5Lc   http://wp.me/p1jq40-8M4  

 

For more information about GLYPHOSATE, go to      http://wp.me/P1jq40-1Jb  

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

clip_image004

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Expert Scientists Criticize The IARC Hazard Study Against Glyphosate

 

 

Expert Reaction To The Classification Of Glyphosate By IARC     March 20th, 2015     http://wp.me/p1jq40-8M4  

 

   [ Glyphosate ] can be dangerous, but there are many other common things which are also dangerous in sufficient amounts or over long periods of time    the dose makes the poison.

 

   [ The IARC ] assessment has looked at a group of 43 diseases lumped into one classification, multiple pesticides with very different chemistry, and has failed to include critical data.

 

   [ The IARC ] report is NOT a cause for undue alarm.

 

   Detailed analysis of the nature and quality of the evidence overall does NOT support such a high level classification.

 

   IARC monographs DO NOT present new primary research.

 

   In the [ IARC’s ] highest classification of known carcinogens are alcoholic beverages and solar radiation ( sunlight ), along with plutonium.

 

   The [ IARC has ] included non-Hodgkin lymphoma [ NHL ], but that diagnosis is NO LONGER USED in pathology because it’s far too imprecise.  Even if you do include NHL there are still 7 studies, only one of which is positive    and that one is NOT a good study.

 

   The evidence cited [ by IARC ] appears a bit thin.

 

   The IARC process is NOT a risk assessment.  It determines the potential for a compound to cause cancer, but NOT the likelihood.

 

   The IARC process is NOT designed to take into account how a pesticide is used in the real world.

 

   The IARC report does NOT raise immediate alarms.

 

   The weight of evidence is against carcinogenicity.

 

   There are over 60 genotoxicity studies on glyphosate with NONE showing results that should cause alarm relating to any likely human exposure.  For human epidemiological studies there are 7 cohort and 14 case control studies, NONE of which support carcinogenicity.

 

   There are over 70 other things IARC also classifies as « probably carcinogenic », including night shifts.

 

   There is nothing [ in the IARC study ] to suggest that the variety of genetic changes in these diseases could be caused by these pesticides.  This appears to be a rather selective review.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

Why Do National Regulators World-Wide

 

Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe

 

While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

 

 

 

July 24th, 2015

 

Andrew Porterfield

 

Genetic Literacy Project

 

Selected And Adapted Excerpts

 

 

 

Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences.  He is based in Camarillo, California.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

What Does IARC Tell Us About Glyphosate ?

 

 

When International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC, a subsidiary of World Health Organization ), which studies the POTENTIAL CANCER HAZARDS ( BUT NOT RISKS ) of a wide range of substances and activities, issued its report on the SUPPOSED RELATIONSHIP between cancer and five pest control products    including glyphosate, perhaps better known as Roundup    headlines went screaming.

 

In March 2015, IARC issued a statement that ARBITRARILY RE-CLASSIFIED GLYPHOSATE as « PROBABLY carcinogenic to humans » [ i.e. carcinogenic hazard and NOT risk ].

 

Why ?

 

Because of   

 

LIMITED EVIDENCE of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

 

The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the U.S.A., Canada, and Sweden published since 2001.

 

In addition, there is convincing evidence [ ?!?! ] that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals. [ ?!?! ]

 

Anti-pesticide & environmental-terrorist organizations jumped on the report, led the pesticide-hating NaturalNews.com, acting as focal point in a global campaign to ARBITRARILY PROHIBIT glyphosate   

 

In response to a recent International Agency for Research on Cancer report, which found that the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate « probably » causes cancer in humans, a cohort of international doctors [ consisting NOT necessarily of REAL experts on glyphosate ] is now petitioning the European Union Parliament, the EU Commission, and several other health and food safety authorities to take action by banning the use of this prolific chemical. [ ?!?! ]

 

The IARC cohort of international doctors are supposed to act like scientific experts, and NOT like fanatical-activists who PROHIBITION based upon their own personal opinions.

 

THEY ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED ! 

 

Sadly, some countries even took the IARC hazard study against glyphosate to heart, enough to ARBITRARILY PROHIBIT its uses.

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

clip_image006

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

Comparing Apples And Roundup

 

 

Does glyphosate pose a genuine danger to humans ?

 

The main-stream media has tried to separate the scare from the science, but it’s been a challenge because of the CONFUSION of what IARC was evaluating, and scientists, in general, assess the potential hazards and risks of chemicals.

 

IARC DOES NOT EVALUATE ACTUAL HUMAN RISKS    a fact widely misunderstood by the public in general.

 

National regulatory agencies, like EPA and Health Canada, do that.

 

Rather, IARC looks at what is called HAZARD, and NOT RISK.

 

Note the focus of the IARC review, quoting Nature’s summary   

 

The IARC review notes there is LIMITED EVIDENCE for a link to cancer in humans.

 

Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide SEEM to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge U.S. study, the Agricultural Health Study, found NO LINK to non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

 

That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer [ i.e. carcinogenic hazard and NOT risk ].

 

But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC CLASSIFICATION [ i.e. carcinogenic hazard and NOT risk ].

 

Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats     and there is also what the IARC classifies as [ so-called ] MECHANISTIC EVIDENCE, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.

 

Like glyphosate, ALMOST ANYTHING CAN PRESENT A HAZARD, from the sun to chemicals to everyday foods like coffee, depending upon exposure.

 

IARC DID NOT FIND ANY FOOD RISKS RELATED TO GLYPHOSATE.

 

Britains Sense About Science just explained the glyphosate controversy to help dispel the fog of confusion about what its review actually means.

 

What is IARC, it asks ?

 

The IARC is an agency of the World Health Organization ( WHO ) which aims to identify causes of cancer [ i.e. carcinogenic hazard and NOT risk ].

 

It brings together groups of scientists to review scientific evidence in order to recognize chemicals, physical and biological agents, and life-style factors that can cause cancer in humans [ i.e. carcinogenic hazard and NOT risk ].

 

The IARC DO NOT CARRY OUT A RISK ASSESSMENT but rather ASSESS THE POTENTIAL of an agent to be carcinogenic [ i.e. carcinogenic hazard and NOT risk ].

 

It does NOT take into consideration how much of or how commonly a risk it poses in the real world.

 

We’ve translated the IARC’s carcinogen list into something you can read here.  [ See next segment. ]

 

Warning    you might be shocked.

 

See next segment for a list of life-style choices, occupations and everyday items that contain chemicals which, according to the IARC, have carcinogenic hazard [ and NOT risk ].

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

clip_image008

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

IARC Groups Of Chemical Agents With Alleged Carcinogenic Hazard ( and NOT Risk )

 

 

IARC has a classification of life-style choices, occupations, and everyday items that contain chemical agents which, according to allegations by IARC, have carcinogenic hazard [ and NOT risk ].

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    International Agency For Research On Cancer ( IARC ) classifies the chemical agents it evaluates into one of the following groups 

 

IARC Group 1    carcinogenic to humans

 

IARC Group 2A   probably carcinogenic to humans

 

IARC Group 2B   possibly carcinogenic to humans

 

IARC Group 3    not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans

 

IARC Group 4    probably not carcinogenic to humans 

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    A major problem with the IARC process is that it makes it ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to assign a chemical agent to Group 4    probably not carcinogenic.  Of the roughly one thousand chemical agents evaluated by the agency, exactly ONE is in Group 4.   http://wp.me/p1jq40-5Lc  

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

Chemical Agents Classified By IARC

 

 

Chemical Agent    Classification    Year Classified

 

 

   Alcoholic beverages    Group 1    2012

   Aloe vera    Group 2B    1987

   Art glass    Group 2A    1993

   Athlete’s foot treatment    Group 2B    2001

   Baby oil    Group 1    2012

   Bacon, sausages, burgers, & vegetables    Group 2A    2010

   Bracken fern    Group 2B    1987

   Carpentry & joinery    Group 2B    1987

   Cereal fungus toxin    Group 2B    2002

   Chinese salted fish    Group 1    2012

   Coconut oil    Group 2B    2013

   Coffee    Group 2B    1991

   Cooked meat & fish    Group 2A    1993

   Crop fungus    Group 2B    1993

   Dry cleaning liquid, & paint remover    Group 2A    2014

   Emissions from frying food   Group 2A    2010

   Firefighter    Group 2B    2010

   Food preservative    Group 2B    1987

   Food thickener for salad dressings, alcohol, ice cream, etc …    Group 2B    1987

   Fried, roasted, & baked food    Group 2A    1994

   Fruits, vegetables, & perfumes    Group 2B    1999

   GLYPHOSATE    Group 2A    IN PREP

   Grapefruit juice    Group 2A    1987

   Grilled food    Group 2B    1987

   Hairdresser & barber    Group 2A    2010

   Hangovers, coffee, bread, & fruit    Group 2B    1999

   Hormone replacement therapy    Group 1    2012

   Nail varnish & wart-verruca treatment    Group 1    2012

   Night shifts    Group 2A    2010

   Oral contraceptives    Group 1    2012

   Outdoor air pollution    Group 1    in prep

   Painter    Group 1    2012

   Pickled vegetables    Group 2B    1993

   Plutonium    Group 1    2012

   Soap, shampoo, & cosmetics    Group 2B    2013

   Sunlight    Group 1    2012

   Tea bag manufacturing    Group 2A    1999

   Thyme, spearmint, sage, cinnamon, star anise, & sunflower seeds    Group 2B    1993

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    IARC REINFORCES THE CLASSIFICATION PROBLEM.  Some of the WORKING GROUPS convened to assess a particular chemical agent have INCLUDED SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE CARRIED OUT STUDIES ON THE AGENT UNDER EVALUATION.  It is fanciful to think that scientists who HAVE A VITAL STAKE in a particular question can evaluate the evidence, including their own studies, dispassionately.  IARC REACHES ITS ASSESSMENTS BY CONSENSUS.  But this can mean that those who are more forceful and persuasive may influence the group decision-making process.  In addition, CONSENSUS IMPLIES A PHILOSOPHIC STANCE WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.  In the past several years, IARC has come under scrutiny for ALLOWING ITS ASSESSMENTS TO BE COLORED BY A BIAS TOWARD POSITIVE RESULTS and TO BE SWAYED BY ADVOCACY IN THE WIDER SOCIETY.

 

 

IARC — CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE — HOW ACTIVISM DISTORTS THE ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISKS    DR GEOFFREY C KABAT ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Precautionary-Principle-2012-11-20-UNMASKED-Conflation-Of-Advocacy-With-Science-Kabat-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/11/25/precautionary-principle-pesticides-cancer-conflation-of-advocacy-with-science-how-activism-distorts-the-assessment-of-health-risks-false-positives-in-epidemiology-international-a/

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

Chemical Agents Classified As Group 2A By IARC

 

 

IARC Group 2A    Probably Carcinogenic  [ i.e. carcinogenic hazard and NOT risk ]

 

 

IARC classifies chemical agents as Group 2A when there is LIMITED EVIDENCE of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity [ hazard and NOT risk ] in experimental animals.

 

Other explanations for the observations ( technically termed chance, bias, or confounding ) could not be ruled out.

 

According to IARC, the alleged carcinogenic hazard [ and NOT risk ] of glyphosate is NO HIGHER THAN the following chemical agents & activities [ Group 2A ]     

 

   art glass  

   bacon, sausages, burgers, & vegetables  

   cooked meat & fish  

   dry cleaning liquid, & paint remover 

   emissions from frying food  

   fried, roasted, & baked food

   GLYPHOSATE    IN PREP  

   grapefruit juice  

   hairdresser & barber  

   night shifts  

   tea bag manufacturing.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

Chemical Agents Classified As Group 2B By IARC

 

 

IARC Group 2B    Possibly Carcinogenic To Humans [ i.e. carcinogenic hazard and NOT risk ]

 

 

IARC classifies chemical agents as Group 2B when there is LIMITED EVIDENCE of carcinogenicity [ hazard and NOT risk ] in humans. and LESS THAN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE of carcinogenicity [ hazard and NOT risk ] in experimental animals.

 

According to IARC, the alleged carcinogenic hazard [ and NOT risk ] of glyphosate is LESS THAN the following chemical agents & activities [ group 2B ]     

 

   aloe vera  

   athlete’s foot treatment  

   bracken fern  

   carpentry & joinery  

   cereal fungus toxin  

   coconut oil  

   coffee  

   crop fungus  

   firefighter  

   food preservative  

   food thickener for salad dressings, alcohol, ice cream, etc …  

   fruits, vegetables, & perfumes  

   grilled food  

   hangovers, coffee, bread, & fruit  

   pickled vegetables  

   soap, shampoo, & cosmetics  

   thyme, spearmint, sage, cinnamon, star anise, & sunflower seeds.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

Chemical Agents Classified As Group 1 By IARC

 

 

IARC Group 1    Carcinogenic To Humans  [ i.e. carcinogenic hazard and NOT risk ]

 

 

IARC classifies chemical agents as Group 1 when epidemiological reports show convincing evidence of cancer in humans [ i.e. hazard and NOT risk ].

 

According to IARC, the following chemical agents & activities [ group 1 ] have HIGHER alleged carcinogenic hazard [ and NOT risk ] than glyphosate     

 

   alcoholic beverages  

   baby oil  

   Chinese salted fish  

   hormone replacement therapy  

   nail varnish & wart-verruca treatment  

   oral contraceptives  

   outdoor air pollution  

   painter  

   plutonium 

   sunlight.

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    There is reason to believe that at least two other exposures classified by the agency as group 1 carcinogens are OPEN TO QUESTION    namely, DIESEL EXHAUST and environmental TOBACCO SMOKE.  In its evaluation, IARC considers experimental evidence of carcinogenicity but GIVES PRIORITY TO HUMAN EPIDEMIOLOGIC EVIDENCE.  But    as pointed out by Ioannidis and others    EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES ARE SUBJECT TO HIGH RATES OF FALSE POSITIVES.  When IARC’s classification of individual agents is examined critically, it appears that the agency’s ratings may be SYSTEMATICALLY INFLATED.   http://wp.me/p1jq40-5Lc  

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

IARC Classification Of Glyphosate

 

 

What has been overlooked is that the IARC classification of glyphosate  as GROUP 2A, PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS, is the SAME classification that IARC gave to grapefruit juice, fruits ( including apples ), and working the night shift.

 

At least glyphosate was NOT classified by IARC as GROUP 1, CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS, so glyphosate is NOT as dangerous as baby oil or sunlight.

 

When IARC comes to a determination of what MAY be a carcinogenic hazard [ and NOT risk ], it combs through existing literature ( which does raise the risk of CHERRY-PICKING reports in order to satisfy the IARC point-of-view ).

 

But IARC merely classifies the HAZARD of a chemical agent.

 

The assessment of HAZARD implies that a certain chemical agent, or environmental element, or behavior, is SOMEHOW RELATED TO CANCER.

 

IARC will then note whether something « is », « is probable », or « is possible », or « isn’t », so far as we know.

 

The assessment of HAZARD will not tell you is how likely you are to get cancer.

 

That is the domain of a RISK assessment, which will use the same words    « is », « probable », and « possible »    but in a different way.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

Risks Versus Hazards

 

 

While a HAZARD study just shows you that « somebody out there linked this to cancer », a RISK study measures how likely you are going to come into contact with this hazard.

 

So, in the case of apples and pears, IARC looked at the existence of amygdalin, or formaldehyde, both of which are considered Group 1 carcinogens, and occur naturally in apples.

 

But apples are composed of 22 parts per million of formaldehyde, far below amounts necessary to cause cancer.

 

In short, THE DOSE MATTERS.

 

Likewise, a report trumpeted by Moms Across America, for example, alleged the existence of glyphosate in mother’s milk [ ?!?! ], but it was not actually a science-based study, and Moms Across America has been challenged by many scientists, most recently by researchers at Washington State University.

 

Most foods DO contain certain chemical agents that are associated with toxicity.

 

But each chemical agent has a DOSAGE CURVE showing how much ingestion is needed to cause harm, and most foods contain very low doses of these toxins.

 

As the U.S. Centers For Disease Control And Prevention states   

 

Just because we can detect levels of an environmental chemical in a person’s blood or urine does not necessarily mean that the chemical will cause effects of disease.

 

This explains why IARC, a WHO subsidiary, can issue HAZARD studies on cancer, while the World Health Organization ( WHO ) itself declares that the IARC HAZARD study DOES NOT INDICATE A NEED FOR MORE REGULATION OF GLYPHOSATE.

 

In fact, several national regulatory agencies, including the German Federal Institute For Risk Assessment, and ( so far ) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have issued statements on the doses of glyphosate that cause harm and the low cancer risk of the popular and targeted weed-killer   

 

   The German Federal Institute For Risk Assessment re-examined data on glyphosate and declared that 

 

   the available data DO NOT SHOW CARCINOGENIC OR MUTAGENIC PROPERTIES of glyphosate, nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.

 

The German Federal Institute For Risk Assessment DID find toxicity that originated from surfactants and other co-formulants used in the making of some glyphosate products.

 

   The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ), and other U.S. agencies, have considered glyphosate’s cancer risk to be LOW ( the EPA declared glyphosate as non-carcinogenic in 1991 ), but the EPA is currently reviewing glyphosate for weed resistance as well as other properties.

 

Sense About Science and other groups maintain that even as a hazard study, IARC BADLY BOTCHED ITS JOB.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

More Expert Scientists Criticize The IARC Hazard Study Against Glyphosate

 

 

Scientists have criticized the IARC hazard study against glyphosate for numerous reasons   

 

   The selection of literature for reviewing [ by IARC ] was UNBALANCED and data has been CHERRY PICKED.

 

   NO NEW scientific evidence was included in this [ IARC ] evaluation.

 

   This [ IARC ] classification is based mostly on animal studies and the report states that there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.

 

   [ IARC ] CONTRADICTS THE CONCLUSIONS OF SEVERAL NATIONAL REGULATORY AGENCIES AROUND THE WORLD that have reviewed the large body of glyphosate research and deemed it a SAFE HERBICIDE.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

The Dose Makes The Poison

 

 

It’s important to remember that any chemical agent, whether natural or synthetic can hurt us if we consume too much of it. 

 

The dose is the crucial factor.

 

When done well, IARC, and similar organizations, HAZARD STUDIES will MERELY REVIEW LITERATURE ( or sometimes conduct their own research ) to search for a chemical agent that might or might not pose some kind of hazard.

 

Then, it is up to national regulatory agencies, like Health Canada and US EPA, to compare what is known about toxic exposure levels of the hazard with actual exposure to humans or animals.

 

It is this assessment of exposure that really tells us whether something is likely to cause cancer.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Why Do Regulators Conclude That Glyphosate Is Scientifically Safe While Only IARC Arbitrarily Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?

 

So What Does Science Tell Us About Glyphosate ?

 

 

Glyphosate is WILL NOT CAUSE CANCER, and it is SAFE when used appropriately.

 

If you question that glyphosate is carcinogenic based on the IARC hazard study, perhaps you should consider advocating bans against similarly classified products & activities, like bacon, baked food, burgers, cooked meat, fish, fried food, grapefruit juice, night shift work, paint remover, roasted food, sausages, and vegetables. 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

clip_image010

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Background Information

 

The Whole Truth About GLYPHOSATE From An Independent Perspective    Previous Reports & Web-Page

 

 

GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE ACCORDING TO REAL EXPERTS ( Web-Page )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2015 06 17 ( 2015 04 13 ) — PROPOSED RE-EVALUATION DECISION PRVD2015-01 – HEALTH CANADA CONSULTATION NOTICE ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2015/04/14/glyphosate-april-13-2015-proposed-re-evaluation-decision-prvd2015-01-health-canada-consultation-notice/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2015 03 20 — EXPERT REACTION TO CARCINOGENICITY CLASSIFICATION OF FIVE PESTICIDES BY THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER ( IARC ) ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2015/03/20/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc-science-media-centre/

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE — 2014 10 18 — WEEK IN REVIEW — GREEN ALTERNATIVES LESS EFFECTIVE & MORE TOXIC THAN ROUNDUP ( Blog )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2014/10/19/week-in-review-green-alternatives-forman-greenpeace-ontario-neonicotinoids-hudson-2014-10-18/

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE — 2014 10 10 — WISDOM OF SCHWARCZWE NEED RATIONAL DISCUSSION ABOUT PESTICIDES, WITHOUT RHETORIC — 2,4-D — AGENT ORANGE — ENLIST DUO ( Blog )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2014/10/24/we-need-rational-discussion-about-pesticides-without-rhetoric-dr-joseph-a-schwarcz-speaks-the-truth-unscientific-fear-mongering-by-dr-oz-about-enlist-duo-glyphosate-24-d-agent-or/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — GREEN ALTERNATIVES — 2014 06 05 — HOME-MADE PESTICIDES LESS EFFECTIVE & MORE TOXIC THAN ROUNDUP — SALT, VINEGAR, & GLYPHOSATE ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2014/10/13/homemade-pesticides-less-effective-more-toxic-than-roundup-salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate-control-freaks/

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2014 08 24 — RESPONDING AGAINST SCREECHING MONKEYS — ACTIVISTS IN HOLLAND WANT TO RECKLESSLY DESTROY THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY WITH LIES AND MIS-INFORMATION ABOUT GLYPHOSATE ( Blog )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2014/08/24/responding-against-screeching-monkeys-activists-in-holland-gideon-forman-jeff-leal-laing-mccumsey-ole-hendrickson-2014-08-24/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2014 07 00 — MORE THAN HALF OF BRITISH BREADS CONTAIN « TOXIC » PESTICIDES — WE’RE BEING POISONED AGAINST OUR WILL — UNITED KINGDOM ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2014/07/17/eat-bread-and-your-dead-lunatic-activists-pesticide-action-network-pan-uk-more-than-half-of-british-breads-contain-toxic-pesticides-rt-uk/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2014 07 00 — NO MORE POISONOUS THAN PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED — GERMANY ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2014/09/12/germany-2014-glyphosate-no-more-poisonous-than-previously-assumed-bfr/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2014 06 00 — ROUNDUP IS SAFE — GERMANY’S FEDERAL INSTITUTE FOR RISK ASSESSMENT (BfR) HAS FINALISED ITS DRAFT REPORT FOR THE RE-EVALUATION OF GLYPHOSATE ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2015/03/21/roundup-is-safe-the-bfr-has-finalised-its-draft-report-for-the-re-evaluation-of-glyphosate-bfr/

 

 

PESTICIDE LINK — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2013 02 23 — JOSETTE WEIR — PESTICIDE REVIEW FAILURE 2013 — SPECIAL REVIEW OF GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDES CONTAINING POLYETHOXYLATED TALLOWAMINE ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/02/24/josette-weir-pesticide-review-failure-2013-special-review-of-glyphosate-herbicides-containing-polyethoxylated-tallowamine/

 

 

PESTICIDE LINK — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2013 02 24 — JOSETTE WEIR PESTICIDE REVIEW FAILURE 2013 — SPECIAL REVIEW OF GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDES CONTAINING POLYETHOXYLATED TALLOWAMINE ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/02/24/josette-weir-pesticide-review-failure-2013-special-review-of-glyphosate-herbicides-containing-polyethoxylated-tallowamine/

 

 

PESTICIDE LINK — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2012 01 21 — DEATH BY ROUNDUP — PESTICIDE INCIDENT REPORT — HEALTH CANADA ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/01/21/death-by-roundup-herbicide-evaluation-of-pesticide-incident-report-2011-4967-pesticides-and-pest-management-health-canada/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2012 01 20 — FAILED ATTACK AGAINST GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE — ENVIRONMENTAL LAWYER DIANNE SAXE WEIGHS IN ON ROUNDUP SPECIAL REVIEW — HEALTH ISSUES ABANDONED — WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY — DOESN’T CHANGE MUCH — JOSETTE WIER IS DIANNE SAXE’S HERO ??? — WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/01/16/environmental-lawyer-dianne-saxe-weighs-in-on-roundup-special-review-health-issues-abandoned-waste-of-time-and-money-doesnt-change-much-josette-wier-hero/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2012 01 20 — ATTACK AGAINST GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE — JOSETTE WEIR — DIANE SAXE — WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/01/24/glyphosate-josette-weir-diane-saxe-west-coast-environmental-law/

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2012 01 20 — TERROR NEVER ENDS — JOSETTE WEIR — DIANE SAXE — WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Force-Of-Nature-Glyphosate-Herbicide-2012-01-20-Terror-NEVER-Ends-Josette-Weir-Diane-Saxe-WCEL-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2011 11 22  — JOSETTE WEIR — WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ( Letter to the Editor )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Force-Of-Nature-Glyphosate-Herbicide-2011-11-22-Letter-to-the-Editor-Josette-Weir-West-Coast-Environmental-Law-RESPONSE-pdf.pdf

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2011 06 00 ( 2011 08 26 ) — HUBER ON TALK-FOR-FOOD  RADIO ( Audio Recording )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2011/08/26/audio-listen-to-dr-huber-roundup-glyphosate-talk-for-food-radio-june-2011/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2011 03 21 — JOSETTE WEIR & CAPE TRIGGER HEALTH CANADA 2008 SPECIAL REVIEW — IGNORE HEALTH CANADA RESPONSE & CONTINUE TO PROMOTE MIS-INFORMATION ( Report & Official Documents )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2011/03/21/exposed-josette-wier-cape-triggers-health-canada-2008-special-review-of-pesticide-glyphosate-poea-ignores-health-canada-response-continues-to-promote-misinformation/#comment-393

 

 

PESTICIDE LINK — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — 2011 03 02 — PURDUE UNIVERSITY DISCREDITS OWN PROFESSOR — ENVIRONMENTALIST DON M HUBER — ANIMALS AND MISCARRIAGES — NO SCIENTIFIC DATA — FEAR-MONGERING ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2011/03/02/purdue-university-discredits-own-professor-environmentalist-col-ret-don-m-huber-glyphosate-animals-and-miscarriages-no-scientific-data-fearmongering/

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Background Information

 

The Whole Truth About CANCER From An Independent Perspective    Web-Pages & Previous Reports, Blog, & Reference

 

 

THE MYTH OF CANCER — MYTH-BUSTING ( Web-Page )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/cancer/

 

 

THE MYTH OF CANCER — CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY — NO DIRECT PROOF PESTICIDES CAUSE CANCER ( Web-Page )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/canadian-cancer-society-no-conclusive-link-between-pesticides-and-cancer/

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — CANCER — 2015 06 18 — PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ARE NOT THE LEADING CAUSE OF CANCER — PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND — DR LEONARD RITTER ( Blog )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2015/07/23/there-is-no-evidence-that-the-safe-application-of-agricultural-pesticides-causes-cancer-dr-leonard-ritter-prince-edward-island-non-hodgkins-lymphoma-rates-2015-06-18-2/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — CANCER — 2014 04 04 — LAWN PESTICIDE BAN NEEDED FOR CANCER PREVENTION — DESPERATE AND MISINFORMED NON-EXPERT GIDEON FORMAN — CORN GLUTEN AND VINEGAR — CANCER FREE SOLUTIONS ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2014/04/04/cape-cheer-desperate-and-misinformed-non-expert-gideon-forman-corn-gluten-and-vinegar-cancer-free-solutions-lawn-pesticide-ban-needed-for-cancer-prevention-policy-fix/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — CANCER — 2013 06 21 — MOTHER GAVE SONS CANCER AND NOT PESTICIDES ( Report & Responses )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/06/21/pesticide-ban-failure-maureen-kerr-misinformed-activist-peicancer-com-scarry-story-time/#comment-877

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — CANCER — 2013 06 12 — THE PESTICIDE USERS HEALTH STUDY — FROM 1987 TO 2005 — CANCER RATES LOW AMONG PESTICIDE WORKERS — UNITED KINGDOM ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/06/12/cancer-and-pesticides-cancer-rates-low-among-pesticide-workers/#more-26100

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — CANCER — 2013 01 20 — LIAR — SCHOOL TEACHERS — LIES TAUGHT TO US IN SCHOOL — ACTIVISTS — DDT — GLOBAL WARMING ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Cancer-2013-01-20-LIAR-School-Teachers-Lies-Taught-To-Us-In-School-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/01/23/school-teachers-lying-sacks-of-cwap-lies-taught-to-us-in-school-ddt-is-bad-for-you-environmental-activists-are-credible-global-warming-is-real-pesticides-cause-c/

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — CANCER — 2012 11 20 — UNMASKED — CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE — IARC — GEOFFREY C KABAT ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Cancer-2012-11-20-UNMASKED-Conflation-Of-Advocacy-With-Science-IARC-Kabat-pdf-300-dpi2.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/11/25/precautionary-principle-pesticides-cancer-conflation-of-advocacy-with-science-how-activism-distorts-the-assessment-of-health-risks-false-positives-in-epidemiology-international-a/

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — CANCER — 2012 11 00 — CANCER CLASSIFICATION — CHEMICALS EVALUATED FOR CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Myth-BUSTING-Cancer-2012-11-00-Chemicals-Evaluated-for-Carcinogenic-Potential-EPA-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/04/17/chemicals-evaluated-for-carcinogenic-potential-environmental-protection-agency-epa-2012-11-00/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — CANCER — 2012 11 00 — CHEMICALS EVALUATED FOR CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL — 2,4-D NO CANCER RISK — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/03/20/24-d-no-cancer-risk-epa-2012-chemicals-evaluated/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — CANCER — 2012 11 00 — CANCER CLASSIFICATION — CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH DESCRIPTORS — PART 1 OF 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) — 2,4-D TO DELTAMETHRIN ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/04/24/cancer-classification-with-descriptors-part-1-of-3-environmental-protection-agency-epa-24-d-to-deltamethrin-2012-11-00/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — CANCER — 2012 11 00 — CANCER CLASSIFICATION — CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH DESCRIPTORS — PART 2 OF 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) — DIAZINON TO MALATHION ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/05/02/cancer-classification-with-descriptors-part-2-of-3-environmental-protection-agency-epa-diazinon-to-malathion-2012-11-00/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — CANCER — 2012 11 00 — CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH DESCRIPTORS — PART 3 OF 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) — MECOPROP TO TRITICONAZOLE ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/05/09/cancer-classification-with-descriptors-part-3-of-3-environmental-protection-agency-epa-mecoprop-to-triticonazole-2012-11-00/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — CANCER — 2012 11 00 — CANCER CLASSIFICATION — CHEMICALS EVALUATED FOR CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) ( Reference )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Myth-BUSTING-Cancer-2012-11-00-Chemicals-Evaluated-for-Carcinogenic-Potential-EPA-REFERENCE.pdf

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — CANCER — 2012 02 01 — UPDATE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — IMPLAUSIBLE CARCINOGENIC OUTCOMES — VON STACKELBERG STUDY ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Cancer-2012-02-01-UPDATE-24-D-Herbicide-Implausible-Carcinogenic-Outcomes-Von-Stackelberg-Study-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/02/28/24-d-herbicide-highly-implausible-carcinogenic-outcomes-with-24-d-the-von-stackelberg-study-2012-02-01/

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — MYTH-BUSTING — CANCER — 2012 01 26 — PESTICIDES DON’T CAUSE CANCER — DR LEONARD RITTER ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Force-Of-Nature-Myth-BUSTING-Cancer-2012-01-26-Pesticides-Dont-Cause-Cancer-Ritter-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/01/27/cancer-is-not-increasing-pesticides-do-not-cause-cancer/

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

To fight the war against Anti-Pesticide Terrorism, you need facts !

 

Read    PESTICIDE TRUTHS

 

Watch    UNCLE ADOLPH

 

Listen To    NORAHG

 

Learn From    FORCE OF NATURE

 

 

Discover What Anti-Pesticide & Enviro-Lunatic Terrorists Are Doing And Saying About Subversively Imposing Their Life-Style Choices Against Our Society.

 

Read    Reports, Blogs, & Videos, From Force Of Nature, NORAHG, Pesticide Truths, & Uncle Adolph    The Whole Truth From An Independent Perspective.

 

Communities and businesses are being HARMED and DESTROYED and RAPED by LUNATIC-TERRORISTS who ARBITRARILY AND RECKLESSLY IMPOSE PROHIBITIONS against pest control products used in the Urban Landscape and by the Agriculture Industry, and who PERPETRATE OTHER ACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM.

 

We are living in the 9|11 Era of Anti Pesticide & Environmental Terrorism where at least ONE SUBVERSIVE ACT OF TERRORISM is perpetrated EVERY SINGLE DAY by LUNATIC-TERRORISTS.

 

A LUNATIC is a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme recklessness.

 

The RECKLESS ACTS OF SUBVERSION by these LUNATIC-TERRORISTS has led to the ARBITRARY IMPOSITION of Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION in several jurisdictions throughout North America.

 

The result was CATASTROPHIC CARNAGE !

 

Because of LUNATIC-TERRORISTS, provinces like Ontario now have a TRAIL OF ECONOMIC DESTRUCTION WITH HUNDREDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES DESTROYED and THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OUT OF WORK, a MORE DANGEROUS OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENT, and a BLACK MARKET IN PESTICIDES.

 

Only TRUE LUNATICS would wish to create a TRAIL OF ECONOMIC DESTRUCTION WITH HUNDREDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES DESTROYED and THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OUT OF WORK.

 

Because of LUNATIC-TERRORISTS, we are living in the DARK AGE OF ANTI PESTICIDE TERRORISM where sound science is trumped by FAKE SCIENTISTS, JUNK SCIENCE and UNVERIFIABLE SECRET EVIDENCE through FABRICATION, INNUENDO, and INTERNET RUMOR    scientific research PROVES that pest control products will CAUSE NO HARM and can be USED SAFELY.

 

An informed public is better able to protect itself and its communities and businesses from LUNATIC-TERRORISTS who are THE LEAST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE ANY ADVICE about pest control products or the environment.

 

NORAHG is the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to harm the Green space and other industries, and the well-being of our communities.

 

NORAHG morally represents the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of people associated with turf and ornamental plant maintenance who are OPPOSED to LUNATIC-TERRORISTS and their Anti Pesticide PROHIBITIONS, resulting in the CLOSURE or ABANDONMENT of green spaces under the RIDICULOUS PRETEXT CONCOCTED BY LUNATICS of somehow « saving » the environment.

 

NORAHG is a NATIONAL NON-PROFIT NON-PARTISAN organization that does not accept money from corporations or governments or trade associations, and represents NO VESTED INTERESTS WHATSOEVER.

 

NORAHG is dedicated to reporting PESTICIDE FREE FAILURES, as well as the work of RESPECTED & HIGHLY RATED EXPERTS who promote ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM and PESTICIDE TRUTHS.

 

NORAHG strikes back against the MYTHS concerning the need for prohibition against pest control products.   THE MYTHS ABOUT BANNING PESTICIDES.

 

NORAHG RESPONDS on behalf of the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of THE PUBLIC THAT DOES NOT WANT PESTICIDE BANS, and SUPPORTS those who work in the Professional Lawn Care Industry, the Golf Industry, and the Agriculture Industry.

 

NORAHG is opposed to PESTICIDE FREE jurisdictions where LUNATIC-TERRORISTS have DOOMED CHILDREN to SUFFER INJURIES since Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION inevitably leads to public and residential green spaces that become DANGEROUS AND PEST-INFESTED GARBAGE DUMPS.

 

Go to the following links 

 

ANTI-PESTICIDE PROHIBITION DESTROYED GREEN SPACES

 

PESTICIDE BANS MADE OUR GREEN SPACES LOOK #@!!% UGLY – PHOTO GALLERY

 

EMERALD ASH BORER – SAFE & EFFECTIVE INSECTICIDES VERSUS CHAIN SAWS

 

NORAHG is concerned that, because of PESTICIDE FREE MAINTENANCE of parks and sports fields, CHILDREN ARE AT HIGHER RISK OF SUFFERING INJURIES with DANGEROUS PLAYING SURFACES CREATED BY #@!!% PESTICIDE BANS.

 

NORAHG pledges to deliver comprehensive reports that are worthy of peoples’ time and of peoples’ concern, reports that might ordinarily never have breached the parapet.

 

NORAHG was the brainchild of William H Gathercole and his colleagues in 1991.  Mr Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as founder.

 

Force Of Nature was launched by NORAHG for CONTINUOUS transmission on the Internet on January 1st, 2009      however, the VERY FIRST Stand-Alone Force Of Nature Report was issued on September 19th, 2008.

 

On March 15th, 2010, Uncle Adolph independently launched The Pesticide Truths, an easy-to-use Web-Site that collects relevant reports of information right-off-the-press.

 

Pesticide Truths, Uncle Adolph, and Force Of Nature, in some ways, are like Google for everything concerning the SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES of Anti-Pesticide and Enviro-Lunatic Terrorists.

 

For The Complete Library of reports from Force Of Nature, NORAHG, Pesticide Truths, and Uncle Adolph, go to the following archives 

 

ABOUT UNCLE ADOLPH

 

FORCE OF NATURE WEB-PAGES

 

UNCLE ADOLPH ON YOUTUBE    VIDEO LIBRARY

 

UNCLE ADOLPH’S ORIGINAL PESTICIDE TRUTHS BLOG

 

UNCLE ADOLPH ON SCRIBD    OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

 

NORAHG FON ON FACEBOOK    NORAHG RESPONSES

 

THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE    ARCHIVE OF REPORTS

 

PESTICIDE LINKS    PESTICIDE QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY HEALTH CANADA

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS    THE COMPLETE LIBRARY OF WEB-PAGES, REPORTS, & REFERENCES

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

clip_image012

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

Uncategorized
https://wp.me/p1jq40-8RO