CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) – WEIR – HUBER – WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – HEALTH CANADA

 

 

 

 

LACK OF CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

from West Coast Environmental Law

and Josette Weir

 

 

 

Josette Wier’s EXAGGERATED CLAIMS

concerning « significant new evidence »

against GLYPHOSATE were QUICKLY

DISCREDITED and ABANDONED

by the Federal Court of Canada

 

 

 

Overview

 

 

On November 21st, 2011, the judgement from the Federal Court of Canada led to DISCREDITING and ABANDONING ALLEGATIONS concerning the safety of the active ingredient GLYPHOSATE for LACK OF CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

 

On behalf of Josette Weir, West Coast Environmental Law ( WCEL ) filed a NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PETITION under the Pest Control Products Act DEMANDING A SPECIAL REVIEW OF GLYPHOSATE.

 

Wier made EXAGGERATED CLAIMS concerning « significant new evidence » that were QUICKLY DISCREDITED and ABANDONED by the Federal Court of Canada.

 

Even Weir’s lawyer conceded that her evidence DID NOT demonstrate a « risk » to health or animals.

 

According to the Canadian Minister of Health, a RE-EVALUATION of glyphosate is already in the works, all evidence is being reviewed, and there is NO NEED FOR SPECIAL REVIEW.

 

Glyphosate is already under RE-EVALUATION by the respected Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ) of Health Canada, in cooperation with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that is targeted for completion by 2014.

 

Rather than waste money from government grants and tax-payers, Weir and WCEL should have simply waited until 2014.

 

Ken Manning was the Legal Counsel with Justice Canada in Vancouver who represented the Federal Government.

 

According to Ken Manning  ―

 

It ended up being AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN IN A VERY NARROW ASPECT.

 

The court even says IT IS NOT SUGGESTING A [ SPECIAL ] REVIEW SHOULD HAPPEN.

 

Under the Pest Control Products Act, anyone can request a SPECIAL REVIEW of the health or environmental risks of a registered product, which according to the court, « the Minister SHALL perform unless there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from exposure to the pesticide. »

 

 

 

What Is Glyphosate ?

 

 

Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic, broad-spectrum herbicide. 

 

It was first registered for use in 1976.

 

It is most commonly-known under the brand name of Roundup, which is manufactured by Monsanto.

 

Glyphosate is THE MOST used herbicide in North America, and Roundup is the NUMBER ONE SELLING HERBICIDE world-wide since at least 1980. 

 

As of 2009, sales of Roundup herbicides represent only about 10 per cent of Monsanto’s revenue, due to competition from Chinese producers of other glyphosate-based herbicides. 

 

Nonetheless, the overall Roundup line of products ( which includes Genetically Modified seeds ) represents about half of Monsanto’s annual revenue.

 

On February 2nd, 2010, glyphosate was placed under RE-EVALUATION by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ).

 

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s RE-EVALUATION PROGRAM considers potential risks as well as the value of pest control products to ensure they meet modern standards established to protect human health and the environment.

 

It is expected that glyphosate will be deemed ACCEPTABLE FOR CONTINUED USE.  

 

 

 

Glyphosate Is SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE

 

 

Pest control products, like glyphosate, are ACCEPTABLE FOR CONTINUED USE because  …

 

●   Pest control products are APPROVED for use by the Federal Government.

 

●   Government-Approved pest control products MEET STRICT HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.

 

●   Pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and CAUSE NO HARM.

 

●   Government -Approved pest control products provide a reasonable certainty that NO HARM will occur from their use.

 

●   Overall, when they are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment.

 

●   It is a MYTH to believe that ANY PROHIBITION of these products will protect health and the environment.

 

 

 

 

Weir is NOT A CREDIBLE EXPERT

on the subject of glyphosate,

or for that matter,

ANY pest control product

 

 

 

Who Is Josette Weir ?

 

 

Weir is an Anti-Pesticide Activist who has NO expertise, training, or education in matters concerning pest control products.

 

Although she claims to be a physician from France, Weir is NOT licensed to practice medicine in Canada.

 

Weir also claims to be an « environmental researcher » a.k.a. an Anti-Pesticide Lunatic.

 

In fact, Weir is a MERE OWNER OF A BED-AND-BREAKFAST in small back-woods Town of Smithers, in British Columbia.

 

The VAST MAJORITY of the documents filed with Weir's ALLEGATIONS about the safety of glyphosate were DISCREDITED and ABANDONED for LACK OF CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

 

Even Weir’s lawyer conceded before the Federal Court of Canada that her so-called evidence DID NOT demonstrate a « risk » to health or animals.

 

Weir is NOT A CREDIBLE EXPERT on the subject of glyphosate, or for that matter, ANY pest control product.

 

This PROBLEM WITH LACK-OF-ACTIVIST-CREDIBILITY reflects the overall larger problem with ALL Anti-Pesticide Activists.

 

There are NO Anti-Pesticide Activists who are scientists or researchers with credentials in the field of pest control products.

 

NONE ! 

 

They are NOT COMPETENT to talk about pest control products.

 

 

 

Weir’s So-Called Concerns About Glyphosate

 

 

In 2009, Weir wrote a 29-page letter to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada ( PMRA ).

 

She expressed MOCK-CONCERN about the effects of glyphosate and its surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amines ( POEA ), and DEMANDED A SPECIAL REVIEW.

 

Originally, Wier made EXAGGERATED CLAIMS concerning « significant new evidence » indicating POEA somehow posed « risks » to health or to the environment.

 

Understandably, PMRA DECLINED Wier’s request for a SPECIAL REVIEW.

 

The PMRA concluded that Weir FAILED to bring enough new evidence of unacceptable risk to amphibians to support a special review.

 

Once rejected by PMRA, Weir decided to throw an Enviro-Lunatic TANTRUM, and go to the Federal Court of Canada where her EXAGGERATED CLAIMS were QUICKLY DISCREDITED and ABANDONED.

 

Even before the Federal Court of Canada, Weir’s own lawyer conceded that her so-called evidence DID NOT demonstrate a « risk » to health or animals.

 

 

 

CAPE and WCEL

 

 

Weir’s ACTS OF SUBVERSION against glyphosate have been FINANCIALLY and LEGALLY SUPPORTED by three Anti-Pesticide Organizations  ―

 

●   Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment ( CAPE )

 

●   Driftwood Foundation

 

●   West Coast Environmental Law ( WCEL )

 

Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment ( CAPE ) and West Coast Environmental Law ( WCEL ) are BOTH Anti-Pesticide Organizations.

 

CAPE and WCEL have CONSPIRED to PROHIBIT pest control products in the Urban Landscape.

 

They operate as FUND-RAISING ORGANIZATIONS.

 

They are NOT science or research organizations.

 

Some Anti-Pesticide Activists from these organization feel compelled to make public appearances in laboratory coats to present themselves as medical doctors, or as laboratory experts, when in fact they have NO expertise whatsoever. 

 

Neither CAPE nor WCEL have ANY qualified laboratories or experts for testing pest control products.

 

Both CAPE and WCEL have SQUANDERED AND MISAPPROPRIATED DONATIONS and GOVERNMENT GRANTS to finance QUESTIONABLE CAMPAIGNS such as the CONSPIRACY AGAINST pest control products.

 

Pest control products, such as glyphosate, are HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.

 

As REGISTERED-CHARITIES, CAPE and WCEL CANNOT BE INVOLVED in PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, such as the PROHIBITION of pest control products.

 

The rules at the CANADA REVENUE AGENCY are clear  …  CAPE and WCEL CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES LIKE PROHIBITION.

 

Demands have been made for CAPE and WCEL’s registered charity tax-exempt status TOTALLY REVOKED.

 

 

 

Judgment In Response to Weir Petition

 

 

According to the judgement in response to the Weir petition  …

 

While this application for judicial review is allowed, the Court notes that MOST OF THE GROUNDS for the applicant’s request for the special review were ABANDONED before this Court at the hearing of the application.

 

Despite what Anti-Pesticide Activists are reporting about this issue, there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that glyphosate is a problem for health and the environment.

 

However, in response to ONE PART ONLY of Weir’s petition, the Federal Court of Canada ordered Health Canada to STUDY so-called risks to amphibians. 

 

According to Anti-Pesticide Activists, the judgement somehow proves that citizens can have an impact on government  —  although that impact is likely to be minimal, legal observers say.

 

In fact, the judgement proves that ENVIRONMENTAL-TERRORISM NEVER ENDS ! 

 

 

 

INFAMOUS Literature Review

 

 

These so-called risks to amphibians were based on a 2008 literature review by BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, a government agency INFESTED with Anti-Pesticide Activists.

 

In the British Columbia 2008 literature review, it was reported that an inert ingredient in glyphosate known as POEA  —  or polyoxyethylene tallow amines  —  MAY have  a toxic effect on amphibians.

 

According to the Canadian Minister of Health, a government RE-EVALUATION of glyphosate is already in the works, all evidence is being reviewed, and there is NO NEED FOR SPECIAL REVIEW.

 

The British Columbia 2008 literature review is merely a deceptive Anti-Pesticide JUNK SCIENCE document that consisted of another INFAMOUS SIMPLE CHERRY-PICKING of the most recklessly negative report regarding glyphosate.

 

The British Columbia 2008 literature review consists mostly of research that DOES NOT EVEN COMPLY with the same research standards as the Pest Control Product Industry. 

 

This industry must comply with VERY PRECISE and DEMANDING STAND-ARDS when it comes to undertaking the scientific research required by government regulatory agencies like Health Canada.

 

Scientific data submitted to HEALTH CANADA and other federal regulators must be done by GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE ( GLP ) qualified laboratories. 

 

 

 

Worst Case Scenario

 

 

IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, glyphosate will not be permitted near sensitive wetlands.

 

Nonetheless, this restriction will represent a MAJOR AND NEEDLESS COST TO TAX-PAYERS.

 

According to the judgement from the Federal Court of Canada  …

 

The special review can co-exist with the section 16 re-evaluation of the pesticide.

 

The special review will be narrower than the comprehensive re-evaluation being conducted in the conjunction with the United States.

 

For this reason, the special review will be targeted and possibly quicker. 

 

THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO A PROPER ANALYSIS AS TO WHETHER THE PESTICIDE IN ISSUE PRESENTS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RISK TO AMPHIBIANS INHABITING EPHEMERAL WETLANDS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE AERIAL SPRAYING OF THE PESTICIDE IN SILVICULTURE. 

 

The evidence alluded to is that the two year field studies have just been completed and that the studies may present new evidence upon which the Minister can make a transparent and intelligible decision under section 17 of the Act.

 

In other words, Health Canada’s re-evaluation of glyphosate WILL CONTINUE AS PLANNED as of February 2nd, 2010.

 

According to Anti-Pesticide Lawyer Diane Saxe  …

 

The decision DOESN’T CHANGE MUCH.

 

It started off grandly, but ALL OF THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS EXCEPT ONE WERE ABANDONED [ by Weir ].

 

All the health issues WERE ABANDONED [ by Weir ].

 

They weren’t even argued [ by Weir ]. 

 

All that was left was the effect of these pesticides on amphibians in ephemeral wetlands, which hadn’t been studied.

 

The government admitted there was a data gap there.

 

But the issue is significant.  [ ?!?! ]

 

Small ephemeral wetlands are surprisingly important biological engines.

 

Wier was right to be concerned about the pesticides.  [ ?!?! ]

 

 

 

Who Is Diane Saxe ?

 

 

Dianne Saxe claims to be a leading environmental lawyer, with thirty years practical experience. 

 

Saxe was once senior prosecutor for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 

 

She boasts having expertise in administrative penalties, approvals, climate change, contaminated land, due diligence, emissions trading, enforcement, government relations, groundwater protection, ISO 14000, new substances notification, and pest control products. 

 

She is listed as a financial supporter of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, as well as Ontario Liberal Party and Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy ( CIELAP ), two organizations that CONSPIRE to PROHIBIT pest control products. 

 

She is the proud wife of Stewart Saxe, a labour lawyer, and mother of Rebecca, David, and Shoshanna Saxe, a civil engineer.

 

Quotation by Dianne Saxe 

 

Modern chemicals have given us untold convenience and prosperity, and perhaps contributed to our record-breaking lifespans. 

 

But I expect there will be consequences, sooner or later, to loading our bodies ( and environment ) with powerful artificial chemicals, and that government won’t have done a good job of protecting us. 

 

So I read " Slow Death by Rubber Duck " [ The How-To-Become-An-Enviro-Lunatic Manual ], and threw out our non-stick frying pans. 

 

Good thing we don’t have a rubber duck. 

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

February 2nd, 2010

Health Canada Consumer Product Safety

Re-Evaluation Note REV2010-02 Glyphosate

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Health Canada DOES NOT have any evidence to support a « special review » on the health effects of glyphosate. 

 

Only a « re-evaluation » has been found to be necessary.

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Health Canada  ―  February 2nd, 2010

Introduction

 

 

In Canada, glyphosate is under re-evaluation by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ).

 

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s pesticide re-evaluation program considers potential risks as well as the value of pesticide products to ensure they meet modern standards established to protect human health and the environment.

 

Under the authority of section 16 of the Pest Control Products Act, the registrants of glyphosate were served notice of the initiation of the re-evaluation of glyphosate in November-December of 2009.

 

This Re-evaluation Note outlines a work plan and timeline for review as well as summarizes anticipated needs relevant to the re-evaluation of glyphosate.

 

Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide that has been registered in Canada under various forms.

 

Currently registered glyphosate and its other forms include the following: glyphosate acid ( GPS ); glyphosate potassium salt ( GPP ); glyphosate mono-ammonium salt or diammonium salt ( GPM ); glyphosate isopropylamine salt or ethanolamine salt ( GPI ); glyphosate trimethylsulfonium salt ( GPT, also known as glyphosate TMS ); and glyphosate dimethylamine ( GPX ).

 

Glyphosate is registered on the following Use-Site Categories  ―

 

•   Forests and Woodlots ( Use-Site Category 4 )

 

•   Industrial and Domestic Vegetation Control Non-food Sites ( Use-Site Category 16 )

 

•   Industrial Oil Seed Crops and Fibre Crops ( Use-Site Category 7 )

 

•   Ornamentals Outdoors ( Use-Site Category 27 )

 

•   Terrestrial Feed Crops ( Use-Site Category 13 )

 

•   Terrestrial Food Crops ( Use-Site Category 14 )

 

•   Turf ( Use-Site Category 30 )

 

Glyphosate products are formulated as liquids or solids and can be applied at pre-planting, after emergence, pre-harvest or after harvest using ground or aerial equipment.

 

The work plan discussed below outlines the anticipated risk assessment and data needs.

 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( U.S. EPA ) is re-evaluating glyphosate as part of its registration review program, and has published a final registration review work plan.

 

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency will be working cooperatively with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the re-evaluation of glyphosate.

 

The overall Canadian re-evaluation timelines will be closely aligned with those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Currently, the assessment is targeted for completion in 2014.

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Health Canada  ―  February 2nd, 2010

Re-Evaluation Work Plan  ―  Human Health Assessment

 

 

Consideration will be given to any new toxicological data including data being generated for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and available in relevant published scientific literature.

 

The assessment will include application of the Pest Control Products Act factors.

 

Occupational and residential risk assessments will be revised if required should there be any changes to toxicology endpoints or the Pest Control Products Act factors.

 

Dietary risk is well below the levels of concern based on current modern assessments.

 

New assessments will not be needed provided there are no changes to toxicology endpoints as a result of the Pest Control Products Act factor considerations.

 

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency will conduct new assessments if required and work-share with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Health Canada  ―  February 2nd, 2010

Re-Evaluation Work Plan  ―  Environmental Risk Assessment

 

 

Additional environmental data that have been submitted or required in recent years will be considered in the re-evaluation of glyphosate as well as any relevant scientific literature.

 

Environmental risk mitigation measures will be reviewed to ensure consistency among labels ( for example, spray buffer zones ).

 

The major transformation products of glyphosate, including amino methyl phosphonic acid ( AMPA ), will be considered as part of the scheduled re-evaluation of glyphosate.

 

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency will conduct new assessments and work-share with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as needed.

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Health Canada  ―  February 2nd, 2010

Re-Evaluation Work Plan  ―  Formulant

 

 

Polyethoxylated tallow amines ( POEA ) is a family of many compounds.

 

In Canada, some glyphosate end-use products contain the surfactant POEA.

 

A health risk assessment as well as an environmental risk assessment ( including consideration of effects on non-target organisms ) of the POEA/glyphosate combination will be conducted as part of the scheduled re-evaluation of glyphosate.

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Health Canada  ―  February 2nd, 2010

Re-Evaluation Work Plan  ―  Chemistry

 

 

A reassessment of the impurity profile of glyphosate will be conducted.

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Health Canada  ―  February 2nd, 2010

Re-Evaluation Work Plan  ―  Data Requirements

 

 

While at this time no new additional data requirements have been identified, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency will examine the data requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of its registration review program.

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

 

The Wisdom of REAL Experts

Glyphosate Is SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Pesticide Truths  ―  March 21st, 2012

Death By Roundup Herbicide

 

 

Summary  ―

 

Evaluation of Pesticide Incident Report 2011-4967  ―  Pesticides and Pest Management  ―  Health Canada.

 

 

Quotations  ―

 

According to the report, an elderly male had been outside of his home while the product was applied on the adjacent property.

 

The individual complained of a sore throat and chest pains for several days afterward.

 

He was hospitalized at an unknown time after the application. He was diagnosed with colon cancer, a bowel obstruction, and kidney failure, and passed away approximately two months after the application.

 

According to the report, the doctor had indicated that the person likely had the colon cancer for about 10 years.

 

Based on the available information, it was concluded that it is UNLIKELY that the effects reported in this incident were associated with exposure to glyphosate.

 

This conclusion is supported by the low potential for exposure in this incident, the relatively low toxicity of glyphosate, the evidence suggesting that GLYPHOSATE DOES NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE CANCER, and the fact that the cancer was likely present prior to the reported exposure.

 

 

Pesticide Truths 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  ―   June 2011

Don Huber Lies and Lies and Lies and Lies

 

 

Summary  ―

 

Listen to Huber on Talk for Food Radio.

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―  Audio Recording  ―

 

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

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Pesticide Truths  ―  March 21st, 2011

Josette Weir NOT COMPETENT to Give Advice

 

 

Summary  ―

 

Weir is FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED by Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and West Coast Environmental Law ( WCEL ).

 

Weir operates as a PUBLIC POLICY SHIELD for these RADICAL and SUBVERSIVE Environmental-Terrorist-Organizations.

 

Weir persists in ignoring the EXPERTS at Health Canada, and continues to promote MIS-INFORMATION on several issues, including GLYPHOSATE

 

This woman is very busy.  She has been trying to push her beliefs on people for a very long time.

 

She is the MERE owner of a bed-and-breakfast in a backwoods community in British Columbia, and has ABSOLUTELY NO training, expertise, or education in matters concerning pest control products.

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―  Text and Original 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

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Purdue University  ―  March 2nd, 2011

Don Huber Discredited by His Own University

 

 

Summary  ―

 

Purdue University DISCREDITS its own Retired Enviro-Lunatic Professor Don M. Huber.

 

NO scientific data supporting Huber's ALLEGATIONS concerning Glyphosate, Animals, and Miscarriages.

 

Needless, Senseless, and Malicious Fear-Mongering.

 

 

Quotation  ―

 

We encourage crop producers, agri-business personnel, and the general public to speak with University Extension personnel before making changes in crop production practices that are based on SENSATIONALIST CLAIMS instead of facts.

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―  Text and Original Documents  ―

 

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/

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Bob Hartzler & Micheal Owen  ―  Iowa State University  ―  February 25th, 2011

Don Huber Claims REFUTED by REAL Experts

 

 

Summary  ―

 

Growers should use FACTS to make glyphosate and crop decisions.

 

Don Huber claims REFUTED by REAL Experts.

 

 

Quotations  ―

 

Information presented recently on the Web and in seminars across the Midwest has portrayed devastating consequences due to the wide-spread use of glyphosate and glyphosate resistant crops.

 

It is important to recognize that there is LITTLE DATA published in refereed journals to support these claims.

 

Data that are available have been TAKEN GREATLY OUT OF CONTEXT to support the accusations.

 

The issues and claims have been brought forward by [ Enviro-Lunatic ] Dr. Don Huber, retired professor of Plant Pathology at Purdue University.

 

Recently, Purdue University faculty members have responded to these claims and using peer-reviewed science, have REFUTED the statements made by Dr. Huber.

 

 

Authors  ―

 

Bob Hartzler and Micheal Owen are professors of agronomy and weed science extension specialists with responsibilities in weed management and herbicide use.

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―  Original Documents  ―

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50760026/glyphosate-facts

&

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50129511/ISU-Weed-Science-Online-Glyphosate-Concerns

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Purdue University  ―  February 24th, 2011

UNSUBSTANTIATED Claims About Glyphosate and Plant Disease

 

 

Summary  ―

 

Glyphosate’s impact on field crop production and disease development HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED.

 

 

Quotations  ―

 

Overall, the claims that glyphosate is having a widespread effect on plant health are largely UNSUBSTANTIATED.

 

To date, there is LIMITED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH DATA that suggest that plant diseases have increased in Genetically-Modified crops due to the use of glyphosate.

 

Most importantly, the impact of these interactions on yield HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED.

 

Therefore, we maintain our recommendations of judicious glyphosate use for weed control.

 

We encourage crop producers, agri-business personnel, and the general public to speak with University Extension personnel before making changes in crop production practices that are based on sensationalist claims instead of facts.

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―  Original Document  ―

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49894209/GlyphosatesImpact11

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Australian Government  ―  August 31st, 2010

Glyphosate Is SAFE To Use in Australia

 

 

Quotations  ―

 

The current international consensus based on decades of research and evaluation.

 

Glyphosate is a safe and effective chemical when used according to label instructions.

 

According to European Union, glyphosate is neither geno-toxic or carcinogenic, and has no relevant neuro-toxic, reproductive or endocrine disruption effects.

 

Australia has NO DATA suggesting that glyphosate presents any unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―  Original Document  ―

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38347138/Force-of-Nature-Update-Glyphosate-2010-08-31-Australia-MODIFIED-PDF-300-Dpi

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Heath Canada  ―  February 2nd, 2010

Re-Evaluation of Glyphosate in Canada  

 

 

Summary  ―

 

The active ingredient glyphosate is under RE-EVALUATION by the RESPECTED Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada ( PMRA ).

 

Dietary risk is WELL BELOW THE LEVELS OF CONCERN based on current modern assessments.

 

New assessments will likely NOT BE NEEDED

 

PMRA does NOT have any evidence to support a SPECIAL REVIEW of health effects.

 

Only a RE-EVALUATION has been found to be necessary.

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―  Original Document  ―

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37894525/Force-of-Nature-Update-Glyphosate-Re-Evaluation-2010-02-02-MODIFIED-PDF-300-Dpi

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Jose M. Mulet  ―  University of Valencia  ―  2010

Glyphosate Is NOT Teratogenic

 

 

Summary  ―

 

Glyphosate Is NOT a Developmental or Reproductive Toxicant.

 

Letter to the Editor Responding to BOGUS and DISGRACEFULLY FALSE Article by Enviro-Lunatic Paganelli et al.

 

 

Quotations  ―

 

I am aware that OVER-INTERPRETATION of results is a common problem in scientific literature, but the article from Paganelli et al., GOES FAR BEYOND THE LIMIT.

 

The experimental results show that glyphosate is teratogenic when injected in vertebrate embryos, but the authors claim that their results give experimental support to an observed environmental problem due to glyphosate.

 

This claim [ that glyphosate is teratogenic  ] is based on MIS-USED CITATIONS or NON-PEER-REVIEWED DATA.

 

This is a major concern as it provides INCORRECT INFORMATION to the reader of your journal and CLEARLY DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO A REAL PROBLEM.

 

I have been UNABLE to find ANY scientific literature showing a correlation between environmental contamination by glyphosate and teratogeny or birth malformations.

 

Keeping this article in the present form would lead to A LOT OF CONFUSION TO READERS of Chem. Res. Toxicol., so I would like to suggest the publication of a CORRECTION ACCOUNTING for the mentioned typo and the EXTENSIVE MIS-USE OF CITATIONS in the Introduction and Discussion, supporting conclusions UNRELATED to experimental results.

 

 

Author  ―

 

Jose M. Mulet, Head of Cell Growth and Abiotic Stress Laboratory, Department of Biotechnology ( Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology ), Institute for Plant Molecular and Cell Biology ( IBMCP ), Politechnic University of Valencia ( UPV ), Spain.

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―  Original Document  ―

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52302187/Reference-glyphosate-2010-00-00-Mullet-Response-to-Paganelli

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

Saltmiras et al  ―  2010

Glyphosate Is NOT a Developmental or Reproductive Toxicant

 

 

Summary  ―

 

Glyphosate Is NOT a Developmental or Reproductive Toxicant.

 

Letter to the Editor Responding to BOGUS and DISGRACEFULLY FALSE Article by Enviro-Lunatic Paganelli et al.

 

 

Quotations  ―

 

The model systems employed by Paganelli et al, in which materials are tested at UNREALISTICALLY HIGH DOSES, may oer interesting results that help screen for early tier toxicological eects and perhaps oer some utility in elucidating HYPOTHESIZED TOXICOLOGICAL MECHANISMS.

 

However, the results from this research CANNOT be used in isolation to reach the conclusions expressed in the publication.

 

Instead, the type of data in this research paper must be interpreted relative to ALL OTHER available data on the specific materials under study and with BALANCED consideration for higher tier apical studies.

 

When all data, including the extensive in vivo toxicological database, are evaluated together in this manner, THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE CORROBORATED CONCLUSION OF REGULATORY EXPERTS ACROSS THE GLOBE THAT GLYPHOSATE IS NOT A DEVELOPMENTAL OR REPRODUCTIVE TOXICANT.

 

 

Authors  ―

 

David Saltmiras, Toxicology Manager, Monsanto Company.  James S. Bus, Director External Technology Toxicology and Environmental Research and Consulting, The Dow Chemical Company.  Terri Spanogle, Toxicologist, Cheminova.  Judith Hauswirth.  Consultant on behalf of United Phosphorus Inc., United Phosphorus Inc.  Abraham Tobia, Government Affairs Manager, Nufarm Americas Inc.  Simon Hill, Toxicologist, Syngenta Ltd., U.K.

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―  Original Document  ―

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52302199/Reference-glyphosate-2010-00-00-Samitras-et-al-Response-to-Paganelli

 

 

 

———-

 

 

 

City of Dollard-des-Ormeaux ( Quebec )

Municipal By-Law Allows Glyphosate and Many More Products

 

 

Summary  ―

 

Bilingual list of authorized so-called low-impact products that INCLUDES Round-Up.

 

WHO SAYS QUEBEC IS PESTICIDE-FREE ?!?!

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2010/08/12/city-of-dollard-quebec-pesticide-bylaw-allows-glyphosateroundup-type-product-and-many-more-pesticide-products/

 

 

Pesticide Truths Report  ―  Official Document  ―

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35799448/City-of-Dollard-Des-Ormeaux

 

 

 

 

Glyphosate Herbicide ( Roundup )

The NORAHG Library of References

 

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2011 07 00 — Pesticides and Health — Position Paper — ACSH

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2011 00 00 — Pesticides In Perspective — Position Paper — ACSH

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2011 02 25 — Facts to Make Decisions — Iowa State University

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2011 02 25 — Crop Production, Plant Disease & Health — Iowa State University

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2011 02 24 — Impact on Crops & Disease — Purdue University

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2010 08 31 — Safe To Use — Australia

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2010 05 20 — Alleged Teratogenic Effects — Paganelli

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2010 02 02 — Re-evaluation Work Plan — Health Canada

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2010 00 00 — Response to Paganelli Allegations — Samitras et al

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2010 00 00 — Response to Paganelli Allegations — Mullet

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2009 12 00 — Final Work Plan — EPA

 

Reference — glyphosate — 2009 08 00 — Request for Special Review — Health Canada

 

Reference — glyphosate — 1993 09 00 — Pesticide Reregistration — EPA

 

Reference — glyphosate — 1987 00 00 — Drinking Water — Health Canada

 

 

 

 

 

Glyphosate Herbicide ( Roundup )

The NORAHG Library of Force Of Nature Reports

 

 

Force Of Nature — Glyphosate Herbicide — 2012 01 20 — Terror NEVER Ends — Josette Weir — Diane Saxe — WCEL — pdf — 300 dpi

 

Force Of Nature — Glyphosate Herbicide — 2011 11 22 — Letter to the Editor — Josette Weir — West Coast Environmental Law — RESPONSE — pdf

 

Force Of Nature — Glyphosate Herbicide — 2011 04 21 — UPDATE — Seed — Glyphosate-Resistant Ryegrass — Brede — pdf — 300 dpi

 

Force Of Nature — Glyphosate Herbicide — 2010 10 26 — CARNAGE — Port Alberni, BC — Canadian Cancer Society — Falconer — pdf

 

Force Of Nature — Glyphosate Herbicide — 2010 08 31 — UPDATE — Australia — Safe & Effective Chemical — pdf — 300 dpi

 

Force Of Nature — Glyphosate Herbicide — 2010 02 02 — UPDATE — Re-Evaluation — Health Canada — pdf — 300 dpi

 

Force Of Nature — Glyphosate Herbicide — 2010 02 02 — BLOG — Update — Re-Evaluation Work Plan for glyphosate — pdf — 300 dpi

 

Force Of Nature — Glyphosate Herbicide — 2009 10 04 — Wisdom of Drysdale — Kudzu — Canadian Cancer Society — pdf — 150 dpi