Background Information – Summary
Pesticides & Cancer
Pesticides Are Safe ―
Remember, pest control products are stringently-tested & heavily-regulated in order to ensure that they are scientifically-safe, will cause NO harm, & will NOT cause cancer. When used in the urban environment, the risk assessments of these products indicates that they are practically-non-toxic & will NOT cause cancer. Pesticides causing cancer is a MYTH.
The Myth Of Cancer ―
Contrary to what pesticide-hating fanatжcs LIE about, there are NO pest control products that are known or probable carcinogens. Pesticides causing cancer is a MYTH. Prohibiting these products will prevent virtually NO cancer-deaths. Pest control products are nowhere near a leading cause of cancer-death, & there is NO chance that they will make you die of cancer. In fact, there is NOT ONE known cancer-death from the proper use of these products used in the urban landscape & in agriculture.
Glyphosate Will Not Harm People ―
Pest control products, like [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate, are scientifically-safe, will cause NO harm, & will NOT cause cancer. Glyphosate poses minimal risk to human health & the environment. Seventeen reviews conducted by national regulatory agencies around the world, such as US EPA & Health Canada, have reached the same conclusion that a classification of glyphosate with regard to carcinogenicity is NOT justified. Glyphosate continues to survive the intense, periodic scientific scrutiny of the world’s most rigorous national regulatory bodies. Glyphosate causing cancer is a MYTH. In fact, [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate is about three times less deadly than Tylenol & thirty times less deadly than caffeine.
Europe Says Glyphosate Is Safe ―
European Union ( EU ) says [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate is SAFE when used as directed. Independent European Union study has concluded that glyphosate will NOT cause cancer.
Farmers Have Less Cancer ―
Does occupational exposure to pesticides INCREASE the risk of farmers getting cancer ? NO ! Pesticides are NOT associated with five cancer types most often evaluated in farmers ― breast, colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, & prostate cancer. Farmers have LESS cancer overall than the general population. In fact, farmers, pesticide applicators, & their spouses have had cancer DEFICITS when compared to the general population. Living near or on a farm does NOT increase cancer risk. Farmers & their families can rest assured that using legally registered [ NO-RISK ] pesticides according to label practices will NOT increase their risk of breast, colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, or prostate cancer. Does living near or on a farm increase cancer risk ? According to several large population studies around the world, NOT AT ALL.
Agencies Are Protecting The Public ―
Our governments have chosen to stringently-test & heavily-regulate pest control products through their national regulatory agencies. US EPA & Health Canada both protect the public by researching, assessing, & collaborating in the management of the health risks & safety hazards associated with pest control products. Both agencies employ hundreds & hundreds of doctorate-level experts & leading scientific experts on pest control products. US EPA & Health Canada both have the ESSENTIAL expertise on pest control products. They have shown that pesticides causing cancer is a MYTH.
Pesticides & Cancer ―
A pesticide will only be approved if it will NOT pose a cancer risk. Common cancers are most likely NOT caused by pesticides. Regulatory agencies world-wide, such as US EPA & Health Canada, will only grant a registration for legal pesticide use if it does NOT pose a cancer risk to humans. There is neither strong nor consistent data supportive of a positive association between occupational pesticide exposure & the five most common types of cancer ― breast, colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, & prostate cancer. Animal toxicology study findings have NOT corresponded to the few epidemiology studies that suggested a link between pesticides & cancer.
Natural Plant Pesticides ―
Fruits & vegetables have evolved thousands of BUILT-IN natural plant pesticides, many of which are NOT so chemically dissimilar than the ones humans have created in labs. We eat 10,000 times more of natural plant pesticides than we do of the synthetic pesticides we’ve been conditioned to fear. Plants make their own pesticides that are « CARCINOGENIC » & « NATURAL », & you eat a lot more of them. Natural plant pesticides might not all be harmless.
Speaking-Out Against Pesticide-Haters ―
Pest control products will NOT cause harm. People are killed by REAL carcinogens, such as alcohol & cigarettes, but NOT by pesticides. Pesticides causing cancer is a MYTH. Denying that pest control products are devil products will win you few activist-friends. And, pest control products are NEVER allowed a free pass by these pesticide-hating fanatжcs. These fanatжcs operate in defiance of the indisputable & conclusive science-based research showing that, as reported through US EPA’s & Health Canada’s confidential test data, NO harm will occur when pest control products are used according to label directions.
Comparing Pesticides To Real Carcinogens ―
There are thousands of known cancer-deaths per year from known REAL carcinogens such as ― • ALCOHOL consumption • physical inactivity • excess body weight • CIGARETTES & second-hand smoke • solar ultra-violet ( UV ) radiation [ I.E. OVER-EXPOSURE TO THE SUN ] • unhealthy diet • NOT pest control products. Pesticides causing cancer is a MYTH. The real big risk factors that are responsible for 12 per cent of global cancer incidence include ― • cigarettes [ I.E. TOBACCO ] • obesity • various pathogens • NOT pest control products. Pesticides causing cancer is a MYTH. Moreover, the key exposures that contribute the most to the burden of occupational cancer in Canada DO NOT include pest control products, according to Canadian Centre For Occupational Health & Safety ( CCOHS ) & Occupational Cancer Research Centre ( OCRC ). Pesticides are nowhere near a leading cause of cancer-death.
Health Canada Says Pesticides Are Safe ―
Health Canada has stated that it is confident that the pest control products that it approves for use in Canada can be used safely when label directions are followed. Incident Reports are monitored by Health Canada to identify any potential risks to health or the environment from the use of pest control products & to take corrective actions when necessary. The more serious individual Incident Reports may lead to an official evaluation & action.
Re-Entry Intervals Ensure Pesticides Are Safe ―
Re-Entry Intervals are necessary to ensure that any pest control product residues on the treated turfgrass surfaces DO NOT pose an unacceptable risk to human health. These intervals reflect the amount of time required for [ NO-RISK ] pest control product levels to dissipate to a level that is well below any point of concern. In Canada, they are determined by its regulatory agency in order to protect people against potential harm from pest control products applied to turfgrasses. Typically, for ALL pest control products used for lawn care maintenance, the approved labels state ― « KEEP PEOPLE OFF TREATED AREA UNTIL FOLIAGE IS DRY ».
Cancer Is Inevitable, But Not Because Of Pesticides ―
Nonetheless, given that cancer is the number 2 leading cause of death, there is a good chance that you are going to die of cancer no matter what you do. By contrast, [ NO-RISK ] pest control products are nowhere near a leading cause of cancer-death, & there is NO chance that they will make you die of cancer. Pesticides causing cancer is a MYTH. So chill-out & have a drink, & forget about prohibiting [ NO-RISK ] pest control products.
Explore The Following Selected Links …
√ — PESTICIDES & CANCER — Contrasts With Alcohol & Other Real Carcinogens — Pesticides Are Nowhere Near A Leading Cause Of Cancer Death — LINK
√ — PESTICIDES & CANCER — Myth-Busting — The Myth Of Cancer — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/cancer/
√ — PESTICIDES & CANCER — There Is No Evidence That The Safe Application Of Agricultural Pesticides Causes Cancer — Dr Leonard Ritter — Prince Edward Island — Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Rates — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Victories Against Glyphosate-Cancer Conspiracies — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Glyphosate Causes Cancer [ ?!?! ] — Activists Are Commanded By Russia [ ?!?! ] — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Glyphosate Herbicide Will Not Cause Cancer — Glyphosate Vindicated Around The World — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Glyphosate & Coffee Will Not Cause Cancer — Coffee Not Classifiable As To Carcinogenicity — Glyphosate Is Unlikely To Cause Cancer In People — Hot Water Causes Cancer ?!?! — LINK
√ — PESTICIDES & DAVID SUZUKI — Attack Against The Golf Industry — CBC Documentary — Pesticides On Golf Course May Cause Cancer ?!?! — LINK
√ — PESTICIDES & DEATH — Man Dies Because Of Prohibition In Ontario — LINKS
√ — PESTICIDES & INCIDENTS — Health Canada Identifies Potential Risks — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/2019/08/24/the-wisdom-of-health-canada-incident-reports-2019-08-24/
√ — PESTICIDES & RE-ENTRY INTERVALS — For Applications On Turfgrasses — LINK
√ — PESTICIDES & HEALTH — Health-Related Video Gallery — Health Canada — LINK
√ — PESTICIDES & CIGARETTES — Comparing Cigarettes To Pesticides Is Pitifully Ridiculous, As Well As Laughably Stupid — Ontario — LINK
√ — PESTICIDES & CIGARETTES — Let’s Confuse Everyone — LINK
√ — PESTICIDES & CIGARETTES — Terrжr-Talk Campaign — Demands For Municipal Prohibition Against Glyphosate In Chilliwack BC — LINK
―――――――――――――――――――――
―――――――――――――――――――――
Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer
June 21st, 2021
Genetic Literacy Project
Cameron English
American Council on Science & Health ( ACSH )
Selected & Adapted Excerpts
Edited For Length & Clarity
Reference –
European Union — Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer
―――――――――――――――――――――
European Union ( EU ) Says Glyphosate Is SAFE When Used As Directed
Meeting The Approval Criteria
Independent European Union Study Concludes
That Glyphosate Will Not Cause Cancer
Glyphosate Poses Minimal Risk To
Human Health & The Environment
Seventeen Reviews Conducted By National
Regulatory Agencies Around The World Have
Reached The Same Conclusion That A
Classification Of Glyphosate With Regard
To Carcinogenicity Is Not Justified
Despite the allegations of greedy trial lawyers and greedy, ideological activist groups [ A.K.A. ENVIRONMENTAL-TERRЖRIST ORGANIZATIONS ], a massive body of peer-reviewed research has confirmed that [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup weed control product, POSES MINIMAL RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
And the evidence continues to roll in.
The European Union’s ( EU ) Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ) has just released an 11,000-PAGE REPORT yet again showing that the popular herbicide is SAFE when used as directed.
Excerpts
EUROPEAN UNION’S ( EU’s ) ASSESSMENT GROUP ON GLYPHOSATE ( AGG ) ― Based on the available information, the following CONCLUSIONS could be drawn ―
GERM CELL MUTAGENICITY ― On basis of the available information & the considerations in the guidance on the application of the CLP criteria [ CLASSIFICATION, LABELLING, & PACKAGING ], the European Union’s ( EU’s ) Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ) does not consider the criteria for classification with respect to germ cell mutagenicity in regulation ( EC ) no 1272/2008 to be fulfilled. The AGG proposes that classification of [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate as for germ cell mutagenicity genotoxic or mutagenic is NOT JUSTIFIED.
CARCINOGENICITY ― Taking all the evidence into account i.e. animal experiments, epidemiological studies & statistical analyses, & based on the considerations in the guidance on the application of the CLP criteria [ CLASSIFICATION, LABELLING, & PACKAGING ], the European Union’s ( EU’s ) Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ) does not consider the criteria for classification with respect to carcinogenicity in regulation ( EC ) no 1272/2008 & the dedicated guidance document 15 to be fulfilled. The AGG proposes that a classification of [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate with regard to carcinogenicity is NOT JUSTIFIED.
REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY ― On basis of the available information & the considerations in the guidance on the application of the CLP criteria [ CLASSIFICATION, LABELLING, & PACKAGING ], the European Union’s ( EU’s ) Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ) does not consider the criteria for classification with respect to reproductive toxicity in regulation ( EC ) number 1272/2008 to be fulfilled. The AGG proposes that classification of [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate as toxic for reproduction is NOT JUSTIFIED.
SPECIFIC TARGET ORGAN TOXICITY ― Based on the available information & the considerations in the guidance on the application of the CLP criteria [ CLASSIFICATION, LABELLING, & PACKAGING ], the European Union’s ( EU’s ) Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ) does not consider the criteria for classification with respect to Specific Target Organ Toxicity ( STOT ) to be fulfilled. The AGG proposes that classification for specific target organ toxicity is NOT JUSTIFIED, neither for single nor repeated exposure ( STOT-SE & STOT-RE ) respectively.
EYE DAMAGE ― Based on the available toxicological information, the European Union’s ( EU’s ) Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ) proposes that the current classification as « CAUSES SERIOUS EYE DAMAGE » ( H318 ) should be RETAINED.
EXPLORE THE FOLLOWING LINK …
Cancer — European Union’s ( EU ) Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG )
The reviewers considered glyphosate’s potential germ cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, Specific Target Organ Toxicity ( STOT ), endocrine-disrupting effects, and environmental impact, concluding that ―
For all proposed uses, a SAFE USE could be demonstrated for operators and workers ( both WITHOUT PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT ) and for by-standers …
Overall, the Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ) concludes that glyphosate MEETS THE APPROVAL CRITERIA … as an active substance to be used in plant protection products.
Of particular interest was their CONCLUSION about [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate’s carcinogenicity ― IT DOES NOT EXIST ―
Taking all the evidence into account i.e. animal experiments, epidemiological studies and statistical analyses …
… the Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ) does not consider the criteria for classification with respect to carcinogenicity …
The AGG proposes that a classification of [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate with regard to carcinogenicity is NOT JUSTIFIED.
Seventeen previous REVIEWS conducted by regulatory agencies around the world have reached the same CONCLUSION. [ SEE CARD BELOW ]
―――――――――――――――――――――
Seventeen Previous Reviews Conducted By Regulatory Agencies Around The World
―――――――――――――――――――――
European Union ( EU ) Says Glyphosate Is SAFE When Used As Directed
Questions About IARC’s Objectivity
Independent Experts Have
Blasted IARC For Excluding
Research That Would Have Changed
Its Erroneous Determinations
IARC Is The Only Agency That Has
Concluded That Glyphosate Poses
A Carcinogenic Risk [ ?!?! ]
The exception ― a single monograph issued by the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) in 2015 found that the weed killer was a « PROBABLE CARCINOGEN » [ ?!?! ] , but this WHO-agency has since been blasted by independent experts for EXCLUDING RESEARCH that would have changed its determination.
Excerpts
IARC MONOGRAPHS ― The purpose of the IARC monographs program has been to evaluate the available scientific evidence to determine the likelihood that a chemical causes cancer. The evaluation is carried out by a « WORKING GROUP OF INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS ». But how independent are they really ?!?! Most US scientists are dependent on grants & contracts from US agencies, such as National Cancer Institute [ NCI ] & National Institute Of Environmental Health Sciences [ NIEHS ], that support International Agency For Research On Cancer [ IARC ]. It would be fool-hardy to speak out against IARC, which could THREATEN their standing in the scientific community &, therefore, their livelihood. What do other agencies say ?!?! IARC is the ONLY agency that has concluded that glyphosate POSES A CARCINOGENIC RISK. [ ?!?! ] The following is a list of agencies that have concluded that GLYPHOSATE IS NOT CARCINOGENIC ― • Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicine Authority • Environmental Protection Authority ( New Zealand ) • European Chemicals Agency • European Food Safety Authority • Federal Food Safety & Veterinary Office ( Switzerland ) • Food & Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations • Food Safety Commissions Of Japan • French Agency For Food, Environmental, & Occupational Health & Safety • German Federal Institute For Risk Assessment • Health Canada • National Health Surveillance Agency ( Brazil ) • Rural Development Association ( South Korea ) • US Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ).
EXPLORE THE FOLLOWING LINK …
IARC — The Emperor … IARC Has No Clothes — Goldhaber — ACSH
IARC-affiliated researchers who went on to SERVE AS EXPERT WITNESSES in lawsuits alleging that [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate causes cancer [ ?!?! ] also RAISED QUESTIONS about IARC’s objectivity.
Excerpts
IARC FRAUD ― IARC is an agency that conspires against pest control products. Fifty-two years after its inception, International Agency For Research On Cancer [ IARC ] has become a fringe group, seemingly more interested in scaring people than identifying actual health threats. Any organization that declares bacon to be as dangerous as plutonium has entirely lost its way. Things started to unravel for IARC over a popular herbicide called glyphosate, which IARC considers a « PROBABLE HUMAN CARCINOGEN ». [ ?!?! ] Every major science & regulatory body DISAGREES, including US EPA & European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA ). Even the World Health Organization [ WHO ], which is the parent of IARC, believes that glyphosate DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. What is going on ?!?! We now have an answer. Thanks largely to the investigative work of David Zaruk on Science 2.0, the times reports that Christopher Portier, a key IARC-advisor who lobbied to have glyphosate listed as a carcinogen, ACCEPTED 160,000-DOLLARS from trial lawyers representing cancer patients who stood to profit handsomely by suing glyphosate manufacturers. Portier’s failure to disclose such an OBVIOUS CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST has exploded into a textbook case of SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.
EXPLORE THE FOLLOWING LINK …
IARC — Glyphosate-Gate — IARC’s Scientific Fraud — Berezow — ACSH
―――――――――――――――――――――
―――――――――――――――――――――
European Union ( EU ) Says Glyphosate Is SAFE When Used As Directed
False Charges By Enviro-Activists
No Chronic Or Acute Consumer
Risk Is Expected From Treatment
Of Crops With Glyphosate
Glyphosate Continues To Survive The Intense,
Periodic Scientific Scrutiny Of The World’s
Most Rigorous National Regulatory Bodies
Some anti-pesticide groups [ A.K.A. ENVIRONMENTAL-TERRЖRIST ORGANIZATIONS ] have alleged that Bayer has tried to obscure evidence indicting its weed killer.
That CHARGE IS FALSE, but it’s also irrelevant.
Background Information – Excerpts
FALSE CHARGES ― The Guardian is a British news & media web-site that conspires against pest control products. The Guardian continues to give a platform to anti-pesticide activist Carey Gillam, who insists, contra the evidence, that Monsanto ( now owned by Bayer ) tried to bury research showing that its weed-killer [ NO-RISK ] Roundup causes cancer. [ ?!?!?!?! ] It’s also crucial to note that US Right-To-Know ( US RTK ), Gillam’s employer, is funded by the organic consumers association, an anti-GMO group that rejects COVID-19 vaccines. This is the same Guardian that sought & received over 800,000-dollars from an animal rights group in 2017 to run a series of slanted articles about livestock farming. The Washington Post published an article by prominent vaccine skeptics Stephanie Seneff & Jennifer Margulis, in which they alleged that the herbicide glyphosate was killing Florida’s manatees. [ ?!?! ] That’s the same Seneff who blamed the COVID pandemic on glyphosate on a blog page hosted by Margulis. [ ?!?!?!?! ] Seneff also predicted that 50 per cent of US children would be autistic by 2025, thanks to [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate exposure. [ ?!?! ]
EXPLORE THE FOLLOWING LINK …
Follow The Science — How The Media’s Hypocrisy Undermines Critical Thinking In The Age Of COVID
As the European Union’s ( EU ) Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ) noted, its analysis included an EXTENSIVE REVIEW of the published evidence gathered by independent scientists ―
The dossier consists of almost ALL tests and studies from previous EU approval processes as well as new studies and a recent literature REVIEW of public literature …
The literature search, which covered a time-frame of TEN YEARS before submission of the dossier resulted in 7,000 PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS.
Activist outfits [ A.K.A. ENVIRONMENTAL-TERRЖRIST ORGANIZATIONS ], such as the organic-industry-funded Environmental Working Group [ EWG ], have also alleged that [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate residues in food COULD POSE A RISK to consumers. [ ?!?! ]
Background Information
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP ( EWG ) ― EWG is a public health advocacy non-profit headquartered in Washington, DC, that conspires against synthetic pesticide use in agriculture. The organization also lobbies against climate change & pollution. EWG is best known for its BOGUS annual « DIRTY DOZEN » list of fruits & vegetables that, EWG FALSELY-ALLEGES, are contaminated with unsafe levels of pesticide residues. [ ?!?! ] REAL experts have criticized EWG for SETTING ARTIFICIALLY LOW LEVELS for pesticide exposure & UNNECESSARILY SCARING THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE RISKS associated with consuming conventionally farmed produce. In August 2018, EWG released a lunatжc-report warning parents that they may be serving their children breakfast « WITH A HEFTY DOSE OF THE WEED-KILLING POISON ». [ ?!?! ] The report FALSELY-ALLEGED that popular breakfast foods contained POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS LEVELS [ ?!?! ] of the herbicide glyphosate, a chemical commonly paired with GMO crops. EWG was criticized by REAL experts for EXAGGERATING THE RISKS POSED BY THE MINISCULE & SAFE AMOUNTS of glyphosate found in the food supply.
EXPLORE THE FOLLOWING LINK …
Environmental Working Group ( EWG )
The new REVIEW considered this possibility and, following the US EPA, found that ―
NO CHRONIC OR ACUTE CONSUMER RISK is expected from treatment of crops with glyphosate …
This exposure assessment includes possible residues on crops after [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate has been applied, and possible residues in animal food commodities when livestock has been exposed to glyphosate and its metabolites.
Excerpts
BREAKFAST CEREALS ― On June 12th, 2019, the organic industry-funded Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) issued a news release that FALSELY-ALLEGED, « MAJOR FOOD COMPANIES LIKE GENERAL MILLS CONTINUE TO SELL POPULAR CHILDREN’S BREAKFAST CEREALS & OTHER FOODS CONTAMINATED WITH TROUBLING LEVELS OF [ NO-RISK ] GLYPHOSATE, THE CANCER-CAUSING [ ?!?! ] INGREDIENT IN THE HERBICIDE ROUNDUP ». [ ?!?! ] EWG’s announcement was the third of its kind, focusing on the ALLEGED DANGERS [ ?!?! ] of [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate residues in our food. It was immediately trumpeted by fringe activist groups ― that’s par for the course ― but was also covered, almost entirely uncritically, by mainstream sources, such as CNN. Like its predecessors, released in July & October 2018, this EWG « STUDY » was based on a « ROUND OF TESTS » that WAS NOT PEER REVIEWED by independent experts. Its [ SO-CALLED ] scientists claimed that they found dozens of instances in which food it tested did not pass its « CHILDREN’S HEALTH BENCHMARK » for assessing potential exposure level hazards. [ ?!?! ] EWG did not mention that its « BENCHMARK » is ENTIRELY MADE UP, has NO CLEAR SCIENTIFIC BASIS, & is at odds with historically established & globally recognized benchmarks used by regulators in every country. The EWG « SAFETY THRESHOLD » is 100 times lower than even the most conservative cut-off established by oversight agencies around the world, including the US EPA. Curiously but not surprisingly considering EWG’s historical willingness to DISTORT SCIENCE, the threshold it settled upon just « HAPPENS » to coincide with the INFINITESIMAL TRACE AMOUNTS of [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate it found on cheerios.
EXPLORE THE FOLLOWING LINK …
Children Killer Found In Cheerios — Experts Dismantle EWG’s Food Residue Study
However, the reviewers found that the Glyphosate Renewal Group ( GRG ) would have to supply additional data to confirm this CONCLUSION. [ I.E. NO CHRONIC OR ACUTE CONSUMER RISK IS EXPECTED FROM THE TREATMENT OF CROPS WITH GLYPHOSATE ]
Background Information
GLYPHOSATE RENEWAL GROUP ( GRG ) ― This is a collection of companies that seek the RENEWAL of the European Union ( EU ) authorisation of the active substance glyphosate in 2022 by joining resources & efforts to prepare a single dossier with all the scientific studies & information on the safety of glyphosate. This dossier is submitted to the evaluating member states & the European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA ) as part of the EU regulatory procedure to continue the authorization of glyphosate & glyphosate-containing products on the EU market. The Glyphosate Renewal Group ( GRG ) changed its name from Glyphosate Task Force 2 at the end of 2019 to avoid confusion with previous glyphosate submissions. Current members of the GRG are ― • Albaugh Europe Sarl • Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing Ltd • Bayer Agriculture Bvba • Ciech Sarzyna Sa • Industrias Afrasa Sa • Nufarm Gmbh & Co Kg • Sinon Corporation • Syngenta Crop Protection Ag. The GRG welcomes interest to join from other companies supporting the RENEWAL of glyphosate.
The REVIEW also found that glyphosate can cause « SERIOUS EYE DAMAGE » and is « TOXIC TO AQUATIC LIFE WITH LONG-LASTING EFFECTS ».
But these CONCLUSIONS were carried over from the previous assessment, meaning they were not significant enough to alter the CONCLUSION by the European Union’s ( EU ) Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ).
Dr Kevin Folta told American Council on Science & Health ( ACSH ) by e-mail ―
The Assessment Group On Glyphosate [ AGG ] correctly noted the necessary precautions for use around aquatic environments and potential for eye irritation ― there were no surprises in the report.
What’s next ?
The Glyphosate Renewal Group ( GRG ) will have to jump additional regulatory hurdles before the European Union ( EU ) RE-AUTHORIZES glyphosate.
These include an additional REVIEW by the European Food Safety Authority and European Chemicals Agency, a public comment period, and further scrutiny by regulators in individual EU member states.
That said, the report by European Union’s ( EU ) Assessment Group On Glyphosate ( AGG ) offers further confirmation that [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate DOES NOT POSE A SERIOUS RISK to human health or the environment.
Dr Kevin Folta added in his e-mail to American Council on Science & Health ( ACSH ) ―
[ NO-RISK ] glyphosate continues to survive the intense, periodic scientific scrutiny of the world’s most rigorous regulatory bodies, yet is deemed dangerous in the court of public opinion.
Can we please stop letting lawyers and activists make up science that influences farmers’ freedom to operate ?
Background Information
Dr KEVIN M FOLTA ― A professor & plant geneticist at the horticultural sciences department of the university of Florida. From 2007 to 2010, he helped lead the project to sequence the strawberry genome, & continues to research photo-morphogenesis in plants & compounds responsible for flavor in strawberries.
―――――――――――――――――――――
About The Author – The Wisdom Of A REAL Expert
Mr Cameron J English
He Speaks The Truth
Biography ―
Mr Cameron J English is among several LEADING EXPERTS who have recognized expertise, training, & background in matters concerning pest control products.
Mr English is among GREATLY- RESPECTED & HIGHLY-RATED EXPERTS who promote ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM & PESTICIDE TRUTHS.
Mr English is the director of bio-sciences at American Council on Science & Health ( ACSH ).
Prior to his being appointed as director, he was a regular contributor to the ACSH.
ACSH is a non-profit organization, co-founded in 1978 by Dr Elizabeth M Whelan, that produces peer-reviewed reports on issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, life-style, the environment, & health.
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/7556-2/
Mr English has been a writer, editor, & co-host of Science Facts & Fallacies Podcast.
Before joining ACSH, he was freelance science writer & managing editor at the Genetic Literacy Project, a non-profit committed to aiding the public, media, & policy-makers by promoting science literacy.
His work has been published by Forbes, RealClearScience, Priorities Magazine, Science 2.0, & Mic.com.
Mr English’s writing has also been featured in textbooks published by McGraw-Hill & Pearson Education to teach critical thinking skills to high school students.
Before pursuing a career in science journalism, he worked in the California State Assembly as an intern & campaign staffer.
Mr English speaks the truth ― & deserves congratulation.
Explore The Wisdom Of ACSH …
√ — ACSH — American Council On Science & Health — Reports & Blogs — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/7556-2/
√ — ACSH — American Council On Science & Health — Reference — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/acsh-references/
√ — SPEAKING OUT — The Wisdom Of Real Experts Who Speak Out Against The Conspiracy To Impose Reckless & Arbitrary Prohibition Against Conventional Pest Control Products — LINK
√ — USA — The Era Of Trump — End Of EPA Reign Of Terrжr — LINK
―――――――――――――――――――――
–
―――――――――――――――――――――
Pesticides Are Not Associated With Five Cancer
Types Most Often Evaluated In Farmers
January 25th &, 2021
Pesticide Facts
Dr Carol J Burns MPH PhD & Dr Daland R Juberg PhD
Burns Epidemiology Consulting & Juberg Toxicology Consulting
Selected & Adapted Excerpts
Edited For Length & Clarity
References –
Pesticides Not Associated With Five Cancer Types Most Often Evaluated In Farmers
Cancer & Occupational Exposure To Pesticides — An Umbrella Review
―――――――――――――――――――――
A Pesticide Will Only Be Approved If It Will Not Pose A Cancer Risk
Exposure To Pesticides
Regulatory Authorities World-Wide Will Only
Grant A Registration For Legal Pesticide Use
If It Does Not Pose A Cancer Risk To Humans
–
–
There Is Neither Strong Nor Consistent Data
Supportive Of A Positive Association Between
Occupational Pesticide Exposure & The Five
Most Common Types Of Cancer
Animal Toxicology Study Findings Do Not
Correspond To The Few Epidemiology Studies
That Have Suggested A Link With Cancer
Cancer affects about 20 million people globally, accounting for one in six deaths ( World Health Organization 2020 ).
As we age, our individual RISK of acquiring cancer increases.
Farmers are no exception despite having LOWER CANCER RATES overall than the general population ( Agricultural Health Study and AGRICAN ).
The good news is that decades of scientific research have ―
• identified new treatments
• improved our knowledge about prevention
• better defined cancer as a disease
Hurray !
For example, we know that healthy life-style factors such as ―
• avoiding tobacco
• being physically active help keep cancer & other ailments at bay
• eating fruits & vegetables
• maintaining normal body weight
However, what do we know about exposure to pesticides in the environment ?
Does occupational exposure to them increase the RISK of farmers getting cancer ?
What does the science say ?
You may know from reading the news that from time to time one or more pesticides have been linked to cancer in human epidemiology studies.
Importantly, although less known, EVERY PESTICIDE UNDERGOES CANCER EVALUATION in animal toxicology laboratory studies.
Regulatory authorities around the world will only grant a registration for legal pesticide use if it DOES NOT POSE A CANCER RISK to humans.
―――――――――――――――――――――
A Pesticide Will Only Be Approved If It Will Not Pose A Cancer Risk
Most Common Cancers
How do these epidemiology and toxicology studies compare ?
To answer these questions, we assessed 30 published reviews of epidemiology studies in the past 10 years involving occupational exposure to pesticides and five specific cancer types.
Those CANCERS that have been MOST COMMON globally and often evaluated with pesticide exposure ―
• breast
• colorectal
• lung
• non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• prostate
―――――――――――――――――――――
A Pesticide Will Only Be Approved If It Will Not Pose A Cancer Risk
Common Cancer Challenges
We then looked at animal cancer data from regulatory studies to see if there was consistency in the findings.
The full details of this review, entitled « CANCER & OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES – AN UMBRELLA REVIEW », were published on-line 25 January 2021 by International Archives of Occupational & Environmental Health.
Among the more than 100 underlying studies that were reviewed, several COMMON CHALLENGES emerged, including ―
• accounting for competing life-style factors that also lead to cancer ( i.e. smoking & unhealthy diet )
• just as cancer is not a unique disease, exposures to « PESTICIDES » & « FARMING » are similarly diverse
• studying enough farmers to account for random findings
• the difficulty in collecting information from the distant past ( i.e. which pesticides were used & how often )
• the difficulty of researchers to separate exposure to one pesticide from another among farmers who apply many crop protection products over their career
―――――――――――――――――――――
A Pesticide Will Only Be Approved If It Will Not Pose A Cancer Risk
Associations With Cancers
Common Cancers Are Most
Likely Not Caused By Pesticides
Animal Toxicology Study Findings
Did Not Correspond To The Few
Epidemiology Studies That Suggested
A Link Between Pesticides & Cancer
Interpretations are most informative when assessed by specific cancer type and active ingredient ( the chemical responsible for pest control ).
However, only a few epidemiology studies looked at a link between one pesticide and one cancer.
We concluded there was neither strong nor consistent data supportive of a positive association between occupational pesticide exposure and the FIVE TYPES of cancer [ I.E. BREAST, COLORECTAL, LUNG, NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA, & PROSTATE CANCERS ].
Simply put, these cancers were most likely NOT CAUSED BY PESTICIDES.
Further, the animal toxicology study findings did not correspond to the few epidemiology studies that suggested a link.
Note that LINDANE, which has been classified as cancer-causing by the International Agency for Research on Cancer [ IARC ], was not used by farmers in the reviewed studies.
Background Information
INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER ( IARC ) ― IARC is an anti-glyphosate & environmental-extremist organization that conspires against pest control products. IARC, the ONLY major [ BOGUS ] science body to insist that glyphosate causes cancer [ ?!?! ], has been caught DOCTORING DOCUMENTS & MANIPULATING EVIDENCE to support its conclusion. IARC conducts BAD & FRAUDULENT SCIENCE. Occasionally, BAD SCIENCE is promoted by extremists who receive pay-offs & practice scientific fraud. The motivation seems to be financial. A key IARC lunatжc-advisor who lobbied against [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate has, reportedly, received a PAY-OFF of 160,000-dollars. IARC cannot be trusted !
EXPLORE THE FOLLOWING SELECTED LINKS …
√ — IARC — Distorted, Biased, & Unbalanced Glyphosate-Hating Fanatжcism — United Nations Has Discredited IARC — LINK
√ — IARC — Glyphosate-Gate & IARC’S Scientific Fraud — LINK
√ — IARC — Distorting The Assessment Of Health Risks — LINK
√ — IARC — National Government Regulators — Glyphosate Will Not Cause Cancer — LINK
So now what ?
Cancer remains a major health problem.
How do we reduce our RISK to it ?
We still need to walk more, eat less, and stop smoking.
The good news is that eliminating exposure to pesticides does not make the list of most needed actions.
There is a great deal of information on the biology of each cancer as well as chemical properties of individual pesticides.
But for the scientists who want to study cancer and [ NO-RISK ] pesticides, they face important CHALLENGES.
Epidemiologists will need to use creative approaches to better estimate exposure to pesticides among users.
Background Information
EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES ― [ JUNK- ] epidemiology is the statistical study of the incidence of health issues in human populations. Using [ JUNK- ] epidemiology alone is a less useful methodology which is unreliable & nearly-worthless. It is not real science, & does not provide biological or medical explanations for its purported results. It can be useful when looking for food poisoning incidents, high rates of rare disease incidents, & the link between heavy smoking & lung cancer. [ JUNK- ] epidemiology that identifies potential associations must be confirmed with well-conducted animal toxicity studies that are specifically designed to elicit toxic effects over a series of dose levels. These animal toxicity studies are assessed to determine if there is any biological basis for the potential associations otherwise noted in [ JUNK- ] epidemiology studies. The examination of animal toxicity studies from internationally-accepted guideline studies, using doses well-above those to which humans are typically exposed, combined with exposure data obtained from well-designed studies, is currently a most useful methodology available for assessing RISKS to human health. Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ) undertakes this kind of assessment to supplement information about potential associations that may have been established by [ JUNK- ] epidemiology studies. This approach is consistent with that of other regulatory authorities that base HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS on animal toxicity studies. For decades, left-wing extremist government officials have been disregarding the near-worthlessness of [ JUNK- ] epidemiology. Pesticide-hating extremists have despicably exploited [ JUNK- ] epidemiology to justify the reckless & arbitrary prohibition against pest control products used in the urban landscape. These extremists conveniently avoid the fact that [ JUNK- ] epidemiology is merely statistical analysis that, when used alone, is unreliable, junk-science, fake-news, & nearly-worthless.
EXPLORE THE FOLLOWING SELECTED LINKS …
√ — EPIDEMIOLOGY — The Media Library On Epidemiology — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/epidemiology-studies/
√ — EPIDEMIOLOGY — Petitioning Government For Epidemiology Standards — LINK
√ — EPIDEMIOLOGY — Health Canada — Dr Connie Moase — BC Special Committee — Reference–— HIGHLIGHTED — LINK
√ — EPIDEMIOLOGY — Health Canada — Dr Lindsay Hanson — BC Special Committee — Reference–— HIGHLIGHTED — LINK
√ — EPIDEMIOLOGY — Health Canada — Dr Lindsay Hanson — BC Special Committee — Presentation — Reference–— HIGHLIGHTED — LINK
√ — EPIDEMIOLOGY — Health Canada — Dr Lindsay Hanson — BC Special Committee — Transcript — Reference–— HIGHLIGHTED — LINK
√ — OCFP — Ontario College Of Family Physicians –- Discredited, Radical, & Scientifically Ignorant Mad Scientists Who Were Lazy & Stupid — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/ontario-college-of-family-physicians/
√ — SAFETY — Pesticides Are Scientifically Safe — Less Lethal To Humans Than Caffeine — LINK
Toxicologists will need to innovate in order to study exposure to pesticide mixtures that match the human experience more closely.
And both disciplines should continue to understand biological plausibility as they relate to reported findings.
If epidemiologists and toxicologists work together, their findings will be more informative.
Our conclusion ―
While a specific pesticide may be sporadically associated with a specific cancer, overall, the data are not supportive of a positive association between pesticide exposure in occupational settings and the five cancers examined.
Other published reviews have revealed inconsistencies between studies of pesticide exposure and cancer in humans.
In addition, toxicology studies in laboratory animals have not revealed cancer outcomes that were concordant with reported epidemiology study findings.
Farmers and their families can rest assured that using legally registered [ NO-RISK ] pesticides according to label practices will not increase their RISK of breast, colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, or prostate cancer.
―――――――――――――――――――――
A Pesticide Will Only Be Approved If It Will Not Pose A Cancer Risk
About The Authors
Dr Carol J Burns, MPH, PhD, Fellow ACE, is president of Burns Epidemiology Consulting in Sanford, Michigan, USA.
Dr Daland R Juberg, PhD, ATS, is principal consultant at Juberg Toxicology Consulting LLC in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
―――――――――――――――――――――
―――――――――――――――――――――
Farmers Have Less Cancer Overall
Than The General Population
June 26th , 2019
Pesticide Facts – Farmers, Pesticides, & Cancer
Dr Carol J Burns MPH PhD
Burns Epidemiology Consulting
Selected & Adapted Excerpts
Edited For Length & Clarity
Reference –
Cancer — Farmers, Pesticides, & Cancer — Dr Carol J Burns
―――――――――――――――――――――
Living Near Or On A Farm Does Not Increase Cancer Risk
Farm Activities
In Fact, Farmers, Pesticide Applicators,
& Their Spouses Have Had Cancer Deficits
When Compared To The General Population
Did you hear ?
Farmers have LESS CANCER overall than the general population. [1]
Whew, that’s a relief !
But wait, I knew that already.
Nearly 10 years ago, the same US Agricultural Health Study investigators reported that farmers, pesticide applicators, and their spouses had cancer deficits compared to the general population and this was an update from five years before that. [2] [3]
So is farming healthier than other jobs ?
As with most health questions, the answer is related to what farmers tend to do ( i.e. keeping physically active ) and what they don’t ( i.e. smoking cigarettes ).
This is on average, of course.
Yet, this trend isn’t limited to the United States.
Studies in Australia [4], Canada [5], and France [6] also reported LOWER CANCER RATES among farmers, which may be related to life-style as well.
With FARMER CANCER RATES LOW around the world, why are studies still being done about them ?
It’s because farming does have unique exposures and health risks.
Certainly, one of the most accepted carcinogenic exposures is to SUNLIGHT.
Daily [ FARM ] activities involve contact with ―
• animal waste
• heavy machinery
• pest control products
• soil micro-organisms
• sunlight
Yet, the use of pesticides to control weeds, bugs, rodents, and fungi is a specific focus of many studies.
Fortunately, our knowledge about [ NO-RISK ] pesticides is extensive and incorporates targeted studies that range from effects on cells to persistence in the environment to residue levels on our food.
Increasingly strict global regulations have reduced accidental mis-use and protect farmers and their families.
Farmers select crop protection products based upon the pest ― be it a weed, bug, or mold ― on a given crop and it may differ for each growing season.
It’s no easy task to identify when, which, and how much pesticides were used over time.
We also know that cancer is not a single disease.
Studies of farmers try to connect cancer diagnoses with certain products they used.
All of these combinations are dizzying.
Which are real concerns ?
Which are just random links ?
We saw this CHALLENGE play out in a recent publication about a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and a combined analysis of three very large studies. [7]
An increase of a sub-type, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, was observed among Norwegian farmers, but not in French or US farmers.
The authors provided no hypothesis or discussion; therefore, we are left to wonder if farming practices are different and / or hazardous exposures higher in Norway.
Given several [ KANGAROO- ] court cases questioning if glyphosate causes cancer, one might be tempted to assume there is a causal link if Norwegian farmers use more glyphosate than growers in other countries.
Background Information
KANGAROO-TRIALS & SOCIALISM ― The Roundup ( i.e. glyphosate ) kangaroo-trials are designed to impose socialism. The conspiracy against [ NO-RISK ] Roundup is not only an attack against scientific innovation, it is also a means of imposing socialism. In western countries, the slide towards socialism ( a.k.a. wealth re-distribution ) is taking root not only at the ballot box, but also from the jury box. In essence, the Roundup kangaroo-trials are campaigns to re-distribute wealth from innovative companies, like Bayer, to sympathetic plaintiffs who allege suffering from cancer because of their exposure to Roundup ― all while jackpot-justice plaintiff-attorneys are taking a healthy cut for themselves. Polls indicate that a majority of Americans think socialism would be a bad thing for the country. Roundup-socialism extremism MUST end !
EXPLORE THE FOLLOWING SELECTED LINKS …
√ — KANGAROO-TRIALS — Glyphosate Kangaroo-Trials In California — Sliding Towards Socialism — LINK
√ — KANGAROO-TRIALS — Glyphosate-Cancer Kangaroo-Trials — LINK
However, glyphosate exposure in the Norway and France studies was based on crops grown, not on actual use of the herbicide.
A better approach would have been to collect information from the farmers themselves, as was done in the United States, where a 2018 publication reported no exposure-response of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and glyphosate. [8]
My husband is the youngest of eight boys who grew up on a dairy farm in central Michigan.
Proudly displayed in the front yard is a sign that the farm has been in the same family for more than 100 years.
This may seem quaint to my European friends, but for us in the New World, it’s a « BIG DEAL ».
Sadly, the farm will soon be put up for sale.
Currently, the barn is being dismantled and repurposed as floors and decorative beams for the home of one of the brothers.
The stories and memories of the barn, farmhouse, and land are many.
They involve cats ( dozens ), pranks ( many ), card games ( uncounted ) and one very loyal dog ( Max ).
Each son speaks with pride of the quality of the land and their dad’s legacy.
I compare these stories and my personal knowledge with recent mis-information on social media and even in scientific literature about toxins, chemicals, farm waste, and cancer among farmers.
Really ?
Where ?
Who are these farmers ?
Does living near or on a farm increase cancer risk ?
According to several large population studies around the world, not at all.
―――――――――――――――――――――
A Pesticide Will Only Be Approved If It Will Not Pose A Cancer Risk
About The Authors
Dr Carol J Burns, MPH, PhD, is president of Burns Epidemiology Consulting, LLC in Sanford, Michigan.
She is a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology.
――――――――――――――――――――
A Pesticide Will Only Be Approved If It Will Not Pose A Cancer Risk
References
Explore The Following Links …
[1] Lerro, C C, et al. Cancer Incidence In The Agricultural Health Study After 20 Years Of Follow-Up. Cancer Causes Control, 2019. 30(4) – p 311-322.
[2] Koutros, S, et al. An Update Of Cancer Incidence In The Agricultural Health Study. J Occup Environ Med 2010. 52(11) – p. 1098-105.
[3] Alavanja, M C, et al. Cancer Incidence In The Agricultural Health Study. Scand J Work Environ Health, 2005. 31 Suppl 1 – p 39-45; discussion 5-7.
[4] Depczynski, J, et al. Comparison Of Cancer Incidence In Australian Farm Residents 45 Years & Over, Compared To Rural Non-Farm & Urban Residents ― A Data Linkage Study. BMC Cancer, 2018. 18(1) – p 33.
[5] Kachori, L, et al. Cancer Risks In A Population-Based Study Of 70,570 Agricultural Workers ― Results From The Canadian Census Health & Environment Cohort ( CanCHEC ). BMC Cancer, 2017. 17(1) – p 343.
[6] Lemarchand, C, et al. Cancer Incidence In The AGRICAN Cohort Study ( 2005-2011 ). Cancer Epidemiol, 2017. 49 – p 175-185.
[7] Leon, M E, et al. Pesticide Use & Risk Of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoid Malignancies In Agricultural Cohorts From France, Norway,, & The USA ― A Pooled Analysis From The AGRICOH Consortium. Int J Epidemiol, 2019. ( Epub ahead of print )
[8] Andreotti, G, et al. Glyphosate Use & Cancer Incidence In The Agricultural Health Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018. P 509-516.
―――――――――――――――――――――
―――――――――――――――――――――
Plants Make Their Own « Carcinogenic » Pesticides
January 7th , 2020
RealClearScience
Selected & Adapted Excerpts
Edited For Length & Clarity
Reference –
Plants Make Their Own Carcinogenic Pesticides — Ames
―――――――――――――――――――――
Plants Make Their Own « Carcinogenic » Pesticides
Natural Plant Pesticides
Plants Make Their Own Pesticides That
Are « Carcinogenic » & « Natural »,
& You Eat A Lot More of Them
No-Risk Glyphosate Is About Three
Times Less Deadly Than Tylenol & Thirty
Times Less Deadly Than Caffeine
In an ideal world, humans could grow enough food to feed the world without synthetic pesticides, but that is not the world we live in.
Readily arable land is limited and all sorts of fauna and flora pests incessantly assault agriculture.
At this time, [ NO-RISK ] pesticides are necessary tools to stave off our species’ starvation.
Despite pesticides’ obvious utility, humans are generally afraid of consuming these mostly unseen chemicals.
That’s understandable, as various organizations have labeled them « TOXINS » or « CARCINOGENS » and have even published lists of fruits and vegetables that contain the most synthetic pesticides, apparently so you can avoid eating them. [ ?!?? ]
Rest assured, synthetic [ NO-RISK ] pesticide residues on food are safe in the minuscule amounts present ― we’re talking parts per billion.
What’s more, many are even less « TOXIN » than substances you encounter each and every day.
For example, [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the US, is about THREE TIMES LESS DEADLY than Tylenol and THIRTY TIMES LESS DEADLY than caffeine.
To showcase further how misplaced our fear of synthetic pesticides is, we can perform another, oft-ignored comparison ― pitting synthetic pesticides on fruits and vegetables against the « NATURAL » PLANT PESTICIDES that they produce in far greater quantities themselves.
Yes, fruits and vegetables have evolved thousands of BUILT-IN NATURAL PLANT PESTICIDES, many of which are NOT so chemically dissimilar than the ones humans have created in labs.
Apples, bananas, cherries, grapes, lettuce, mushrooms, and peas are just a sampling of foods that have these pesticides.
And guess what ?
We eat 10,000 TIMES MORE of NATURAL PLANT PESTICIDES than we do of the synthetic pesticides we’ve been conditioned to fear!
University of California-Berkeley biochemists Dr Bruce Nathan Ames, Margie Profet, and Lois Swirsky Gold, uncovered this fascinating nugget of information 29 years ago.
In all, they found Americans CONSUME AN AVERAGE OF 1.5 GRAMS OF NATURAL PLANT PESTICIDES EACH DAY, which, again, absolutely dwarfs the pitiful amount of synthetic pesticides present, measured in the hundredths of milligrams.
Moreover, these NATURAL PLANT PESTICIDES might not be harmless.
At the time of their study, Ames, Profet, and Gold noted that 52 of them had been analyzed in animal cancer tests, in which rodents are fed exorbitantly high doses of chemicals to see if they develop tumors.
Slightly more than half were found to be carcinogens.
So should we panic ?
Ames and his co-authors don’t think so.
Rather, they say, their results question the validity of rodent carcinogenicity trials.
The dose makes the poison, so feeding rodents massive doses of pesticides far beyond what any human would actually consume tells us little about whether or not those chemicals are actually safe to eat.
Here’s the overall takeaway ―
Synthetic [ NO-RISK ] pesticides, at their current levels in food, are safe to consume.
How do we know ?
Because plants have been trying to « POISON » us with vastly more of their own « CARCINOGENIC » pesticides for thousands of years, and are still failing miserably.
Background Information
TOXINS ALREADY EXIST IN NATURE ― PESTICIDE EXPOSURE IS NOT A CONCERN ―
Dr AMES ― According to the celebrated Dr Bruce Nathan Ames, natural toxins already exist in the environment. Many of our foods contain pesticides created by plants for self-protection. Since they are applied at very low doses, conventional pest control products are not of concern to humans. Pesticides DO NOT cause cancer.
Dr STEPHENSON ― According to Dr Gerald R Stephenson & his research team, after a pest control product dries on the turfgrass leaf, it is difficult, if not impossible, to dislodge residues off the leaf surface.
EXPLORE THE FOLLOWING SELECTED LINKS …
√ — Dr AMES — The Media Library Of Dr Bruce Nathan Ames — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/the-wisdom-of-ames/
√ — Dr STEPHENSON — 2, 4-D Following Its Application To Turfgrass — Reference–— LINK
―――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information
Pesticide Toxicity
Safety ―
Pest control products are NO-RISK & SAFE !
According to Health Canada ―
Only those uses for which the exposure is well below levels that cause NO effects in animal testing are considered acceptable for registration.
Pest control products are regulated by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ), which requires thorough scientific reviews & safety assessments to ensure they meet stringent health & environmental standards & are shown to have value.
Assessments ―
Pest control products are Health-Canada-approved, federally-legal, scientifically-safe, practically non-toxic, & will cause NO harm.
Health Canada requires thorough scientific reviews and safety assessments to ensure that pest control products meet stringent health and environmental standards & are shown to have value.
All assessments used for the approval of pest control products must be completed by laboratories sanctioned by Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP ), & using only GLP practices.
Health Canada follows the internationally-accredited Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP ) for assessing the safety of pest control products.
No harm will occur when [ NO-RISK ] pest control products are used properly.
National regulatory agencies, like Health Canada, have found that glyphosate DOES NOT PRESENT RISKS-OF-CONCERN to human health or the environment when used according to label directions.
Health Canada has THE ESSENTIAL EXPERTISE on pest control products because it adheres to the OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP ).
Ultimately, the cost to manufacturers to get a pest control product assessed for safety & brought to market is about 250-million-dollars.
Health Canada employs over 350 doctorate-level experts & leading scientific experts on pest control products.
Pest control products are one of the most stringently regulated products in Canada.
According to Mr Lindsay Hanson ―
When we look at the scientific studies which are required to register a product in Canada, there are some 200 scientific studies which are required to be submitted by a registrant when they put a submission in to us.
In that package there are specific requirements, studies which must be submitted for that chemical to even be considered.
Mr Lindsay Hanson is a leading policy expert on the subject of regulatory affairs & pest control products.
Mr Hanson is employed at Policy, Communication, & Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ), Health Canada.
Both Health Canada & US EPA require each new pest control product to go through about two-hundred separate tests to examine health & environmental impacts as well as value, & costing about 250 million dollars.
The accuracy of the assessments of pest control products is ensured since Health Canada follows a set of guidelines and principles developed by the organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development ( OECD ).
The assessments of all pest control products must be conducted under those guidelines which adhere to principles of the internationally-accredited Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP ).
LD50 Measurements ―
With scientific studies, risks are assessed with LD50 measurements.
In order to prove that these products are scientifically-safe, their risk is assessed in the laboratory with a measurement called LD50.
In order to evaluate risk assessment, toxicologists measure a product’s median lethal dose value, LD50 ( abbreviation for the « LETHAL DOSE, 50 PER CENT » ), which represents the dose that is fatal for 50 per cent of an experimental group of laboratory animals, in most cases rats.
The higher the LD50 value, the LEAST toxic the product.
The lower the LD50 value, the MORE toxic the product.
The LD50 value has been measured as acute oral toxicity ( LD50, rat, intravenous ) for all conventional pest control products, as well as so-called GREEN ALTERNATIVE PESTICIDES, & HOUSEHOLD ITEMS as well.
From the LD50 value, the risk assessment for these products, & HOUSEHOLD ITEMS, are ranked with the following statements ― • relatively harmless • practically non-toxic • slightly toxic • moderately toxic • highly toxic & • extremely toxic.
All LD50 values for conventional pest control products are obtained from their material safety data sheets.
―――――――――――――――――――――
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
―――――――――――――――――――――
Lowest Risks ―
In their concentrated forms, all pest control products used by turf managers are ranked among the LOWEST risk assessments.
The risk assessments of pest control products used by turf managers demonstrate that they are PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC to SLIGHTLY TOXIC ― in their concentrated forms.
These assessments represent the LOWEST risks.
When a turf manager does his / her job, there are NO worries with [ NO-RISK ] pest control products.
In addition to the LD50 assessment, safety factors of 10,000 or 1,000 are usually included to allow for the variability between individuals & how they react to a chemical, & for the uncertainties of experiment test results.
―――――――――――――――――――――
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
―――――――――――――――――――――
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
―――――――――――――――――――――
No Worries ―
Overall, WHEN DILUTED, the risk assessment for pest control products is PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC.
Indisputable and conclusive risk assessments show that, as reported through Health Canada’s vast toxicology database, NO harm will occur when pest control products are used properly.
When managing turfgrass, there are NO worries with pest control products.
National regulatory agencies, world-wide, have found that pest control products DO NOT present risks of concern to human health or the environment when used according to label directions.
Household Items ―
Pest control products are the most toxic products that are used around the home ?!?!
NO !
[ NO-RISK ] pest control products used by turf managers are NO MORE TOXIC than HOUSEHOLD ITEMS like TABLE SALT & even ASPIRIN & CAFFEINE.
The LD50 of CAFFEINE ( the amount that has about a 50 per cent chance of putting someone to sleep forever ) seems to be about 10 grams.
That generally comes down to about 50 to 200 cups of coffee, or 100 to 400 cans of Mountain Dew ― because a cup of coffee has about twice as much CAFFEINE as a can of Mountain Dew.
According to the esteemed Dr Keith Ross Solomon ―
These materials [ PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS USED IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPE ] are LESS TOXIC THAN TABLE SALT.
I’m not suggesting you use them on your fish and chips, but just to put it into some sort of perspective.
Dr Keith Ross Solomon is a doctorate-level expert & world-leading scientific expert in the fields of environmental biology, toxicology, & pesticide safety.
He is professor in the department of environmental biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario & director of the Centre for Toxicology in Guelph, Ontario.
[ NO-RISK ] HERBICIDES used by turf managers are NO MORE TOXIC than HOUSEHOLD ITEMS like TABLE SALT and even ASPIRIN ― IN THEIR CONCENTRATED FORMS ( i.e. the product in its form prior to mixing with water ).
[ NO-RISK ] INSECTICIDES used by turf managers are NO MORE TOXIC than HOUSEHOLD ITEMS like ASPIRIN and even CAFFEINE ― IN THEIR CONCENTRATED FORMS ( i.e. the product in its form prior to mixing with water ).
One small coffee cup contains 40 mg of CAFFEINE.
If an adult weighs 70 kg , then this person would have to drink about 261 cups of coffee to risk a 50 per cent chance of lethal dose.
The same risk would be made if this person drank 783 cups of 2,4-D or about 42 cups of THREE-WAY TURF HERBICIDE, which contains 2,4-D.
When a turf manager does his / her job, there are NO worries with pest control products.
Herbicides ―
[ NO-RISK ] TURF HERBICIDES are PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC ― the LOWEST risk assessment.
Ingesting 1 liter of concentrated HERBICIDE, ( i.e. the size of a carton of milk ) is the probable lethal dose for a person.
When a turf manager does his / her job, there are NO worries with TURF HERBICIDES.
The most prominent examples of TURF HERBICIDES include glyphosate & 2,4-D.
Glyphosate & 2,4-D Herbicides ―
Weed control products, like glyphosate & 2,4-D, are LESS TOXIC THAN several HOUSEHOLD ITEMS ― • Aspirin • baking soda • caffeine • cannabis • nicotine • table salt • Tylenol.
Glyphosate & 2,4-D are NO MORE TOXIC THAN several HOUSEHOLD ITEMS ― • ethanol ( an edible beverage constituent in beer, wine, & other intoxicating beverages ) • mouthwash ( i.e. Listerine ) • Vitamin C.
[ NO-RISK ] TURF HERBICIDES, like glyphosate & 2,4-D, are ― • scientifically-safe • practically non-toxic • will cause NO harm to human health & the environment • will NOT cause cancer • will NOT cause irreversible damage if consumed orally.
The probable lethal dose for a person ingesting the concentrated form of [ NO-RISK ] glyphosate & 2,4-D is ONE LITRE, the volume of an entire milk carton.
By comparison, drinking SIX LITRES of water, which is considered HARMLESS, can lead to water poisoning or dilutional hyponatremia, which is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions.
In essence, water is only FIVE TIMES SAFER than 2,4-D or glyphosate.
These HERBICIDES are PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC according to their LD50 assessments ― the LOWEST risk assessments.
[ NO-RISK ] THREE-WAY TURF HERBICIDES, which contain 2,4-D, are PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC according to their acute oral toxicities, which have been estimated to be 5000+ mg / kg ― in their concentrated forms.
Examples of THREE-WAY TURF HERBICIDES ― • Killex Turf Herbicide • Par III Turf Herbicide Solution • Pro Tri-Kil Turf Herbicide • Trillion-P Liquid Turf Herbicide.
Roundup Original Liquid Herbicide, which contains glyphosate, is PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC according to its acute oral toxicity, which has been estimated to be 5000+ mg / kg.
[ NO-RISK ] glyphosate s about THREE TIMES LESS DEADLY than Tylenol, & THIRTY TIMES LESS DEADLY than caffeine.
Insecticides ―
Many TURF INSECTICIDES are only SLIGHTLY TOXIC ― a LOW risk assessment.
Ingesting over ½ liter of concentrated INSECTICIDE, ( i.e. over half the size of
a carton of milk ) is the probable lethal dose for a person.
The most prominent examples of TURF INSECTICIDES include carbaryl ( Sevin T&O Carbaryl Insecticide ), clothianidin ( Arena 50 WDG Insecticide ), & imidacloprid ( Merit Solupak & Granular Insecticides ).
One particular TURF INSECTICIDE, deltamethrin ( DeltaGard SC Insecticide ), has actually been assessed as RELATIVELY HARMLESS ― the absolute LOWEST risk assessment.
When a turf manager does his / her job, there are NO worries with TURF INSECTICIDES.
What happens when we compare TURF INSECTICIDES to HOUSEHOLD ITEMS ?
What happens when HOUSEHOLD ITEMS, such as windshield washer fluid & automotive anti-freeze, are ingested ?
Windshield Washer Fluid ―
Windshield washer fluid, which contains methanol, is MODERATELY TOXIC according to its acute oral toxicity, which has been assessed to be 100 mg / kg.
Ingesting as little as 2 tablespoons ( 30 mL, 1.4 fl oz Imp ) is a probable lethal dose for a CHILD ingesting windshield washer fluid.
About 2 to 8 fl oz Imp ( 60 to 240 mL ) can be deadly for an ADULT.
Automotive Anti-Freeze ―
Anti-freeze, which contains ethylene glycol, is PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC according to its acute oral toxicity, which has been estimated to be 4700 mg / kg.
However, anti-freeze is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS in case of ingestion ― it can cause severe complications, such as kidney failure, permeant nerve damage, &, in some cases, death.
Reports of fatalities following the ingestion of ethylene glycol indicate that a volume of 150 to 1500 mL consumed at one time may be a probable lethal dose for an ADULT.
―――――――――――――――――――――
|
|
|
Acute Oral Toxicity
|
Household Items &
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relatively Harmless29700 |
|
sucrosetable sugar – edible food additive – household item |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relatively Harmless15000+ |
|
DeltaGard SC Insecticidedeltamethrin – conventional insecticide productconcentrate for insect control in turf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
vitamin Cascorbic acid – edible nutrient – household item |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
ethanolethyl alcohol – edible beverage constituent in beer,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
mouthwash i.e. Listerineethyl alcohol – antiseptic for external uses – household item |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
DiPel 2X DF Biological InsecticideBacillus thuringiensis ( Btk ) – green alternative insecticide |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
ferric phosphategreen alternative molluscicide |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
Fiesta Turf Weed Killeriron present as FeHEDTA – green alternative herbicideproduct concentrate for weed suppression in turf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
Herbicidal Soapfatty acids – green alternative herbicide |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
Insecticidal Soapfatty acids – green alternative insecticide |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
Roundup Original Liquid Herbicideglyphosate – conventional herbicide product
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
three-way turf herbicides *2,4-D, mecoprop, & dicamba – conventional herbicide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* THREE-WAY TURF HERBICIDES ― Killex Turf Herbicide, Par III Turf Herbicide Solution, Pro Tri-Kil Turf Herbicide, & / or Trillion-P Liquid Turf Herbicide ― in their concentrated forms |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
WD-40naphtha ( petroleum ) – used to protect& lubricate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
Horticultural / Dormant Oilgreen alternative insecticide |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practically
|
|
Microscopic Sulphur Fungicidesulphur – green alternative fungicide |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slightly Toxic4700 |
|
automotive anti-freezeethylene glycol – extremely dangerous
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slightly Toxic4220 |
|
baking sodasodium bicarbonate – household item |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slightly Toxic3900 |
|
Arena 50 WDG Insecticideclothianidin – conventional insecticide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slightly Toxic3000 |
|
table saltsodium chloride – edible food additive – household item |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slightly Toxic2591 – 4820 |
|
Merit Solupak & Granular Insecticidesimidacloprid – conventional insecticide productconcentrate for insect control in turf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slightly Toxic2660 |
|
Boric Acidgreen alternative insecticide |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slightly Toxic1994 |
|
Tylenolacetaminophen – analgesic – household item |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slightly Toxic867 |
|
Sevin T&O Carbaryl Insecticidecarbaryl – conventional insecticide productconcentrate for insect control in turf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slightly Toxic730 – 1270 |
|
cannabisrecreational drug – household item |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderately Toxic330 |
|
ZeroTol Broad-Spectrum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderately Toxic200 |
|
Aspirinacetylsalicylic acid – analgesic – household item |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderately Toxic192 |
|
caffeineedible beverage constituent that occurs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderately Toxic100 |
|
windshield washer fluidmethanol ( a poisonous alcohol ) – used in cleaning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highly Toxic50 |
|
nicotinetobacco constituent – household item |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highly Toxic1 – 50 |
|
Strychnine Predacidestrychnine – conventional rodenticide product
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
―――――――――――――――――――――
Drink Test ―
ANY PESTICIDE INGESTION TEST IS A RIDICULOUSLY WORTHLESS STUNT !
You could no more drink a glass of diluted pest control product than you could a glass of water filled with common table salt.
Both will upset your stomach, & only an idiot would consider drinking either of them.
Nonetheless, estimations about PESTICIDE INGESTION are used as a means of evaluating PESTICIDE TOXICITY.
Dr Carleton ―
Pest control products, like 2,4-D, are LESS TOXIC THAN several HOUSEHOLD ITEMS ― • Aspirin • baking soda • caffeine • cannabis • nicotine • table salt • Tylenol.
In fact, 2,4-D tastes like salt water.
In the early 1940s, Dr R Milton Carleton was the co-developer of 2,4-D.
Dr Carleton usually carried a flask around with him that contained 2,4-D from which he would drink on request « JUST TO PROVE IT WAS HARMLESS ».
Anyone who knew the distinctive fish smell of 2,4-D knew that Dr Carleton was actually drinking the real stuff.
Dr Carleton was NOT harmed by drinking 2,4-D ― he lived to the age of 87.
When a turf manager does his / her job, there are NO worries with 2,4-D.
Explore The Following Selected Links …
√ — Dr CARLETON — The Ultimate Drink Test Proves 2,4-D Is Safe — LINK
√ — Dr MOORE — He’s Not A Monsanto Lobbyist, & Weed Killer Isn’t Safe To Drink — LINK
√ — Dr MOORE — Lobbyist Refuses Glass Of Water Containing Carcinogen Despite Saying Its Safe — LINK
√ — Dr SOLOMON — Doctorate-Level Expert & World Leading Scientific Expert In The Field Of Environmental Biology, Toxicology, & Pesticide Safety — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/the-wisdom-of-the-solomons/
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Victories Against Anti-Glyphosate Terrжrism — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Vindicated Around The World — LINK
√ — SAFETY — History Of Pesticide Toxicology & Risk Assessment — Oregon State University — Slide Show — LINK
√ — SAFETY — Pesticides Are Scientifically-Safe — Less Lethal To Humans Than Caffeine — LINK
√ — 2,4-D — Evaluations & Assessments — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/24-d/
√ — 2,4-D — The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data — Improved 2,4-D Web-Site — Myths Versus Facts — LINK
―――――――――――――――――――――
―――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information
The Entire Glyphosate History
Explore The Following Web-Pages …
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Victories Against Anti-Glyphosate Terrжrism — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-complete-library-of-victories/
√ — GLYPHOSATE — The Library Of References — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-references/
√ — GLYPHOSATE — The Library Of Reports & Blogs — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-reports-blogs/
√ — GLYPHOSATE — The Library Of Blogs — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-blogs/
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Scientifically-Safe According To Real Experts — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate/
Explore Even More Selected Links …
√ — GLYPHOSATE — The Library Of Glyphosate References — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-references/
√ — GLYPHOSATE-GATE — Lunatжc-Liars Blair & Portier — Lies, Scientific Fraud, Pays-Off, Bribery, & Conspiracy — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Fanatжcal Demands For Municipal Prohibition — Comments By TERRЖR-Talkers — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE — $289M Jackpot Verdict That Defies Science — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Deranged Lies About School Shootings & Glyphosate — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Vindicated By The European Union — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Victories Against Anti-Pesticide Terrжrism — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/victories-against-terrorists/
―――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information
Glyphosate Vindicated
National regulatory agencies world-wide have vindicated glyphosate ― these agencies include those within the European Union, the United States, the United Nations, and Canada. These agencies have found that glyphosate DOES NOT present risks of concern to human health or the environment when used according to label directions.
Explore The Following Selected Links …
√ — VINDICATION — US EPA — EPA Reaffirms No Glyphosate Risk To Public Health — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — US EPA — Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer, Again — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — US EPA — Panel Finds Glyphosate Will Not Cause Cancer — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — US NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE — Glyphosate Will Not Cause Cancer — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — CANADA — Glyphosate Granted Continued Registration — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — CANADA — Glyphosate Re-Evaluation Decision — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — CANADA — Frequently Asked Questions On Glyphosate Re-Evaluation Decision — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — EUROPEAN UNION — Glyphosate Wins Approval For 5 Years — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — EUROPEAN UNION — Glyphosate Not Carcinogenic — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — EUROPEAN UNION — Extends Glyphosate License For 18 Months — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY — Glyphosate Not Likely Carcinogenic — LINK
√ — VINDICATION — UNITED NATIONS — Experts Find Glyphosate Unlikely To Cause Cancer — LINK
Explore More Selected Links …
√ — GLYPHOSATE — The Complete Library Of Victories Against Anti-Glyphosate Terrжrism — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-complete-library-of-victories/
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Conspiracy Against Glyphosate – Victories Against Anti-Glyphosate Terrжrism — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Will Not Cause Cancer – Glyphosate Vindicated Around The World — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE — A $289M Hit Job On Science In Jackpot Verdict — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Will Not Harm Bees — There Is NO Bee Crisis — LINK
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Scientifically-Safe According To Real Experts — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate/
√ — GLYPHOSATE — The Entire Media History Of Glyphosate — The Library Of Reports & Blogs By Force Of Nature — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-blogs/
√ — GLYPHOSATE — The Entire Media History Of Glyphosate — The Library Of Reports In Pesticide Truths — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-reports-blogs/
√ — GLYPHOSATE — The Entire Media History Of Glyphosate — The Complete Library Of Reference–— LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-references/
―――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information
Fanatжcal Lawsuits
The Roundup ( i.e. glyphosate ) kangaroo-trials are designed to impose socialism. The conspiracy against Roundup is not only an attack against scientific innovation, it is also a means of imposing socialism. In western countries, the slide towards socialism ( a.k.a. wealth re-distribution ) is taking root not only at the ballot box, but also from the jury box. In essence, the Roundup kangaroo-trials are campaigns to re-distribute wealth from innovative companies, like Bayer, to sympathetic plaintiffs who allege suffering from cancer because of their exposure to Roundup ― all while jackpot-justice plaintiff-attorneys are taking a healthy cut for themselves. Polls indicate that a majority of Americans think socialism would be a bad thing for the country. Roundup-socialism terrжr MUST end !
Explore The Following Selected Links …
√ — LAWSUITS — Roundup-Hating Socialism Attacks — LINK
√ — LAWSUITS — Bayer Cools Prospect Of Imminent Roundup Settlement — LINK
√ — LAWSUITS — Glyphosate Kangaroo-Trials In California — Sliding Towards Socialism — LINK
√ — LAWSUITS — California Lawsuits Against Glyphosate — LINK
√ — LAWSUITS — Glyphosate-Cancer Kangaroo-Trials — LINK
√ — LAWSUITS — Glyphosate Herbicide Will Not Cause Cancer — LINK
√ — LAWSUITS — Bayer Invests 5,600,000,000 Dollars US To Repair Its Reputation — LINK
―――――――――――――――――――――
―――――――――――――――――――――
About NORAHG
We Speak The Whole Truth
From An Independent Perspective
We are the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION RESPONDING AGAINST HUJE that conspire to destroy the GREEN space & other industries ( NORAHG ). As a non-profit & independent organization, we are environmentalists who are dedicated to reporting about truth-challenged subversive-fanatжcs ( HUJE ) who conspire to destroy businesses that are dependent on the use of safe & effective conventional pest control products. We also report on the work of several highly-rated leading experts who have recognized expertise, training, & background in matters concerning pest control products, & who promote environmental realism & pesticide truths. https://wp.me/p1jq40-8DV
NORAHG also produces FORCE OF NATURE, which dares to defy the pesticide-hating fanatжcs by exploring the whole truth from an independent perspective on THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE … https://pesticidetruths.com/
NORAHG produces FORCE OF NATURE, a series of reports & blogs providing UP-TO-DATE KNOWLEDGE on issues such as ― • bee conspiracies • carnage created by catastrophic anti-pesticide prohibition • complaint channels about the anti-pesticide activists, enemies lists in the 9|11 era of anti-pesticide terrжrism • financial carnage & the exorbitant cost of pesticide bans • golf industry attacks • myths about banning pesticides • pesticide bans are a farce.
FORCE OF NATURE is a series destined for the green space industry, nation-wide across Canada, the United States, & overseas, & can be found on THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE … https://pesticidetruths.com/
FORCE OF NATURE is a series committed to SOUND SCIENCE, as well as ground-breaking original KNOWLEDGE that informs, entertains, & creates real change.
FORCE OF NATURE, & its various incarnations, was the brain-child of Mr William H Gathercole ( now retired ) & his colleagues.
ALL KNOWLEDGE, excerpts, & pictures contained in FORCE OF NATURE were retrieved from the Internet, & may be considered in the public domain.
All products mentioned in FORCE OF NATURE should be used in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions, & according to provincial, state, or federal law.
For the official advantages, benefits, features, precautions, & restrictions concerning any product, the turf manager must rely only on the information furnished by the manufacturer.
The mention of trade names does not constitute a guarantee or a warranty.
Here Is A Brief Summary Of Mr Gathercole’s Career
FIELDS OF UNIVERSITY STUDY ― • Crop, Horticulture, & Turfgrass Sciences • Mathematics & Physics.
ALMA MATERS ― • McGill University • University of Guelph • the first person ever to obtain bachelors of science degrees & contribute directly to both the professional lawn care & golf maintenance industries.
EXPERTISE ― • turf & ornamental maintenance & troubleshooting • history of the green space industry • sales & distribution of seeds, chemicals, fertilizers, & equipment • fertilizer manufacturing & distribution • environmental issues & pesticide-hating fanatжcism.
NOTABLE ACTIVITIES ― • worked in virtually all aspects of the green space industry, including golf maintenance, professional lawn care, tree & shrub care, distribution, environmental compliance, government negotiations, public affairs, & workplace safety • the supervisor, consultant, &, programmer for the successful execution of hundreds-of-thousands of management operations in the golf course & urban landscape, as well as millions of pest control applications • the advisor, instructor, & trainer for thousands of turf & ornamental managers & technicians • the pesticide certification instructor for thousands of industry workers • a founder of the modern professional lawn care industry • the prolific writer for industry publications, reports, & blogs • the first to confirm the invasion of European Chafer insects in both the Montreal region & the Vancouver / Fraser Valley region • with Dr Peter Dernoeden, the first to confirm the presence of Take All Patch as a disease of turf in Eastern Canada • with Dr David Shetlar, the first to confirm the presence of Kentucky Bluegrass Scale as an insect pest in south-western Ontario, & later, in the Montreal & Vancouver regions.
SPECIAL CONTRIBUTIONS ― • the creator of the PESTICIDE BAN EXCEPTION STATUS that allowed the golf industry to avoid being subjected to anti-pesticide prohibition for a generation • the creator of the signs that are now used for posting after application • the co-founder of annual winter convention for Quebec golf course superintendents • the founder of the first ever Turf Summit with guest Dr Jack L Eggens https://wp.me/p1jq40-7dT • the major influence in the decision by Canadian Cancer Society to stop selling-for-profit fresh pesticide-treated daffodils https://wp.me/P1jq40-1OW • the only true reliable witness of the events of anti-pesticide prohibition in the town of Hudson, Quebec https://wp.me/p1jq40-asu • the founder ( now retired ) of the FORCE OF NATURE series of reports & blogs.
NOTABLE AWARD ― • the first man-of-the-year for contributions leading to the successful founding of the Quebec professional lawn care trade association, which served as a beach-head against anti-pesticide activists in the 1980s & 1990s.
LEGACIES ― Mr Gathercole & his colleagues … • designed & implemented strategies that reined anti-pesticide activists & provided peace & prosperity for the entire modern green space industry for a generation • orchestrated legal action against anti-pesticide activists in the town of Hudson, Quebec • launched the largest founding professional lawn care business in the nation • quadrupled the business revenues of one of the largest suppliers in the nation.
Mr Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as the founder of the FORCE OF NATURE series of reports & blogs.
We are the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION RESPONDING AGAINST HUJE that conspire to destroy the GREEN space & other industries ( NORAHG ).
We dare to defy by exploring the whole truth from an independent perspective on THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE … https://pesticidetruths.com/
If you wish to receive free reports & blogs on issues that concern you, please contact us at … force.of.de.nature@gmail.com WILLIAM H GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G
―――――――――――――――――――
Background Information
The Whole Truth Can Be Found On
The Pesticide Truths Web-Site
Explore The Following Selected Links …
√ — BEE CONSPIRACIES — Bee-Keepers Are Killing Bees, & Not Insecticides — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/bee-colony-collapse-disorder/
√ — CATASTROPHIC CARNAGE — Carnage Created By Catastrophic Anti-Pesticide Prohibition — Main Web-Page — LINK
√ — COMPLAINT CHANNELS — Complain About The Anti-Pesticide Lunatжcs — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/complaint-channels/
√ — ENEMIES LISTS — In The 9|11 Era Of Anti-Pesticide Terrжrism — LINK
√ — FINANCIAL CARNAGE — The Exorbitant Cost Of Pesticide Bans — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/carnage-leading-to-stunningly-exhorbitant-costs/
√ — GOLF INDUSTRY — Attacks Against Golf Facilities — LINK
√ — MYTHS ABOUT BANNING PESTICIDES — Leading Scientific Health & Policy Experts — White Paper — LINK
√ — PESTICIDE BANS ARE A FARCE — Killex For Sale To Everyone — LINK
√ — UPDATES & WARNINGS — The Media Library — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/updates-warning/
√ — USA — The Complete Media History Of US Anti-Pesticide & Environmental Terrжrism — Victories & Failures — State Pre-Emptions — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/u-s-environmental-terrorism/
√ — VICTORIES — Real Trends Against Pesticide Bans — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/victories-against-terrorists/
√ — VICTORIES — Real Trends Against Anti-Glyphosate Terrжrism — LINK
√ — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — Evaluations & Assessments — LINK
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/24-d/
―――――――――――――――――――
―――――――――――――――――――
–
