Faut-il mettre le glyphosate au frigo ?

[Cugieran]

il y a 25 minutes, frigo a dit :

A noter que sur l'affaire glyphosate le marché suisse peut se montrer plus prudent que l'administration, en effet une commission scientifique fédérale a décidé de poursuivre l'autorisation du glyphosate mais des acteurs de la grande distribution l'on proscrit de leurs rayons.

Ben tu vois, z'ont pas eu besoin de l'état

[Nathalie MP]

On a encore trouvé trop de glyphosate dans le pipi des personnalités  !

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/04/06/dans-toutes-les-urines-testees-le-glyphosate-repond-present_5106781_3244.html

 

Mais si j'ai bien tout compris, le pipi, c'est justement ce qui ne reste pas dans l'organisme. 
Il faudrait nous dire plutôt si du glyphosate reste dans l'organisme, en quelle quantité, et si en plus c'est dangereux. La comparaison avec des seuils dans l'eau potable ont pour objectif de nous impressionner (12 fois et demi la concentration ...) mais semblent complètement à côté de la plaque.

[FabriceM]

il y a 3 minutes, Nathalie MP a dit :

On a encore trouvé trop de glyphosate dans le pipi des personnalités  !

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/04/06/dans-toutes-les-urines-testees-le-glyphosate-repond-present_5106781_3244.html

 

Mais si j'ai bien tout compris, le pipi, c'est justement ce qui ne reste pas dans l'organisme. 
Il faudrait nous dire plutôt si du glyphosate reste dans l'organisme, en quelle quantité, et si en plus c'est dangereux. La comparaison avec des seuils dans l'eau potable ont pour objectif de nous impressionner (12 fois et demi la concentration ...) mais semblent complètement à côté de la plaque.

 

Ben oui. Si c'est évacué, ça montre bien qu'il n'y a pas de problème. Qu'ils aillent plutôt tester les graisses dans les cliniques spécialisées dans la liposcucion.

 

Aussi la référence à l'eau potable est complètement sortie du chapeau. Vu qu'un certain taux de résidus est accepté sur les produits de consommation, forcément, ça se retrouve dans les systèmes d'évacuation de l'organisme. Une question pertinente serait plutôt : en sort il plus ou moins que ce qui a été supposé dans les études qui ont permis de définir les normes ? S'il en sort plus que prévu, ça pourrait vouloir dire, soit qu'elles ne sont pas respectées, soit qu'elles sont trop élevées.

[Cugieran]

il y a 33 minutes, Nathalie MP a dit :

On a encore trouvé trop de glyphosate dans le pipi des personnalités  !

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/04/06/dans-toutes-les-urines-testees-le-glyphosate-repond-present_5106781_3244.html

 

Mais si j'ai bien tout compris, le pipi, c'est justement ce qui ne reste pas dans l'organisme. 
Il faudrait nous dire plutôt si du glyphosate reste dans l'organisme, en quelle quantité, et si en plus c'est dangereux. La comparaison avec des seuils dans l'eau potable ont pour objectif de nous impressionner (12 fois et demi la concentration ...) mais semblent complètement à côté de la plaque.

Les journalistes...

[Mister_Bretzel]

On 4/1/2017 at 8:25 AM, Cugieran said:

Ben tu vois, z'ont pas eu besoin de l'état

 

En bon ENTP je vais me faire l'avocat du diable : si les Etats et les ONG qu'ils financent n'avaient pas alerté sur un danger potentiel, le marché Suisse aurait-il refusé le glyphosate ?

[Cugieran]

il y a 8 minutes, Mister_Bretzel a dit :

 

En bon ENTP je vais me faire l'avocat du diable : si les Etats et les ONG qu'ils financent n'avaient pas alerté sur un danger potentiel, le marché Suisse aurait-il refusé le glyphosate ?

En bon INTJ, je remarque que tes ONG financées par les Etats sont assez peu NG au final et je vais te répondre que rien ne s'oppose à ce qu'une vraie ONG ait le même impact sur le marché.

Seulement, et c'est mon grand malheur, comme on est dans l'abstrait et que les gens agissent et décident avec tout un tas de conneries comme les émotions, ce n'est pas prévisible.

Contentons-nous alors de remarquer que la disparition de la substance n'a pas été initiée par une interdiction. Ce sera au moins un dénominateur commun.

[Neomatix]

Aujourd'hui en France, Morons inc.

Des taux hors normes de glyphosate dans les urines de personnalités

 

http://mobile.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/04/06/dans-toutes-les-urines-testees-le-glyphosate-repond-present_5106781_3244.html?xtref=https://t.co/qFmS1BqsZ9

[Cugieran]

il y a 23 minutes, Neomatix a dit :

Aujourd'hui en France, Morons inc.

Des taux hors normes de glyphosate dans les urines de personnalités

 

http://mobile.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/04/06/dans-toutes-les-urines-testees-le-glyphosate-repond-present_5106781_3244.html?xtref=https://t.co/qFmS1BqsZ9

Bel effort mais... deux posts au dessus, ça a déjà été posté.

[Neomatix]

4 en fait.
My bad.

Un tel journalimse méritait d'être posté deux fois.

[Cugieran]

il y a une heure, Neomatix a dit :

4 en fait.

Putain il se démerde de la ramener encore

[frigo]

J'ai envi de dépolluer l'eau de la source avec un filtre ceramique. Le filtre ceramique bloque au dessus de 0,2/0,5 micron et c'est  réputé suffisant pour filtrer une molécule de glyphosate, ça paraît vraisemblable ?

 

 

[Cugieran]

On contacte l'expert en filtres de liborg et on te fait savoir. Bouge pas de là où tu es.

[frigo]

[Tortue joviale]

Etant donne que le glyphosate est hydrophilique, il ne se dissout pas dans les graisses.

Par contre, il est soluble dans l'eau, et donc secrete par l'urine.

 

Les chiffres de la concentration dans l'urine sont du gros journalisme:

- L'urine est concentree avant d'etre excretee: les reins filtrent 180L par jour, ensuite environ 99% de l'eau en est reabsorbee, laissant le tout concentre dans 1.5L d'urine

- Les molecules et toxines traitees par le foie sont aussi ajoute dans cette urine

[Tortue joviale]

2 hours ago, frigo said:

J'ai envi de dépolluer l'eau de la source avec un filtre ceramique. Le filtre ceramique bloque au dessus de 0,2/0,5 micron et c'est  réputé suffisant pour filtrer une molécule de glyphosate, ça paraît vraisemblable ?

 

Tu vas avoir enormement de mal: le glyphosate ne fait que 169 daltons.

Sinon, certains se sont deja pose la question:

 

Quote

Ultrafiltration membranes and 0.45 μm filters do not remove glyphosate in Ohio River water

Source: Journal of Environmental Engineering

 

[frigo]

J'y pige quedal mais les daltons sont une unité de masse , pas de grandeur, non?

[Tortue joviale]

Ouaip, mais ca donne une bonne idee de la taille du truc.

La grandeur, c'est complique a definir.

[Adrian]

Glyphosate: Paris votera contre la réautorisation dans l'UE

[Adrian]

Le glyphosate interdit d’ici la fin du quinquennat, même dans l’agriculture

[Tortue joviale]

Excellent article de forbes sur le "glyphosate-gate".

Apparement, la classification du glyphosate par l'IARC comme cancerigene probable est une enorme escroquerie

 

 

Quote

 

IARC's Glyphosate-gate Scandal

https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10/23/iarcs-glyphosate-gate-scandal/#e7042cb1abd1

 

Converging evidence points to the agency's skewing its glyphosate report to reach a desired conclusion

 

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, issued a report labeling the weed killer glyphosate a “probable carcinogen.” This ruling caused consternation in the scientific and agricultural communities. Glyphosate, which is manufactured by Monsanto and is the active ingredient in the company’s popular Roundup, is one of the most widely-used herbicides worldwide. It is cheap, effective, and has low toxicity. IARC’s ruling goes against the assessment of every other agency that has evaluated the compound, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, and the World Health Organization, of which IARC is a part.

 

IARC, which is based in Lyon, France, makes its assessments by convening a panel of experts to consider all the available evidence from human, animal, and mechanistic studies regarding a potential cancer threat. The agency then classifies a given substance as carcinogenic (Group 1), probably carcinogenic (Group 2A), possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B), or not classifiable as to carcinogenicity. For its glyphosate evaluation IARC formed a Working Group of 16 experts who reviewed the evidence for nearly a year before issuing its report in March 2015. The Working Group was subdivided into subgroups to assess the human evidence, the animal studies, and the mechanistic/laboratory studies. At the end of the review process, the panel designated glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” based on the animal evidence, which was judged to be “sufficient.” We will come back to this point later.

 

What is not widely known is that the agency’s classification of a substance does not take into account the degree of exposure to that substance in the general population. Rather, in IARC’s terminology, it evaluates “hazard” – the possibility that a substance could cause cancer under some possible condition – as opposed to “risk,” which refers to the likelihood that actual exposure in the real world might cause cancer. Needless to say, when headlines trumpet the latest IARC assessment, the public and the media assume that classification of an agent as “probably carcinogenic” must have some direct relevance to human health, even when actual human exposures are at levels too low to cause adverse health effects.

Over the past few years, when scientists have questioned the agency’s process and some of its recent classifications, rather than addressing specific criticisms, IARC officials have argued that their methods are sound and not in need of improvement, and have implied that their critics have conflicts-of-interest.

 

In the past year, however, as IARC’s glyphosate report has been subjected to scrutiny by scientists and investigative journalists, a number of increasingly disturbing questions have come to light. Three major, independent pieces of the “back-story” on IARC’s glyphosate assessment are presented below.

 

Reanalysis of the animal and epidemiologic evidence

 

In August 2016, Robert Tarone published a commentary entitled “On the International Agency for Research on Cancer classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen” in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention. Tarone, who is a statistician who spent most of his career at the National Cancer Institute, re-examined the animal studies cited by IARC. In such studies, typically a strain of rodents is divided into one or more “treatment” groups and a control group – and the former is exposed to a test substance at increasing dose levels - in this case, glyphosate - while the control group is unexposed to the test substance. As animals die they are examined, and at the end of the study the remaining animals are sacrificed and their organs are examined for benign and malignant changes.

 

What is crucial is to determine whether the treatment group shows robust evidence of a greater “tumor yield” compared to controls. In relatively small animal experiments there will likely be ups-and-down, but one is looking for a consistent excess of tumors in the treated group. Most persuasive would be evidence of a dose-response relationship – that is, the more of the substance that the test animals are given, the greater the tumor yield. Furthermore, one might expect to see consistency in male and female animals, if the substance is carcinogenic.

 

What Tarone found is that the IARC panel highlighted certain positive results from the rodent studies they relied upon in the deliberations, and, glaringly, ignored contradictory negative results from the same studies. He also found that an inappropriate statistical test was used, making the data look more impressive than they actually were. Tarone concluded, “When all relevant data from the rodent carcinogenicity studies of glyphosate relied on by the Working Group are evaluated together, it is clear that the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence that glyphosate is an animal carcinogen is not supported empirically. Even a conclusion that there is limited evidence of animal carcinogenicity would be difficult to support…”

In reviewing the human (i.e., epidemiologic) studies, Tarone found that IARC’s case for glyphosate’s association with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma also resulted from favoring certain study results, rather than considering the totality of the evidence.

 

In the past week, two new insights into the agency’s glyphosate assessment have emerged, coalescing into a full-blown scandal.

 

Revelations from a deposition in a law suit against Monsanto

 

A blogger, who uses the pen-name Risk-Monger, examined the transcripts of a deposition related to cases against Monsanto involving the scientist Christopher Portier. Portier, an American statistician who worked for the federal government for over thirty years, was the special advisor to the IARC panel that issued the report declaring glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic.” The transcripts show that during the same week in March 2015 in which IARC published its glyphosate opinion, Portier signed a lucrative contract to act as a litigation consultant for two law firms that were preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of glyphosate cancer victims. His contract contained a confidentiality clause barring Portier from disclosing his employment to other parties. Portier’s financial conflict-of-interest has been confirmed by the UK newspaper The Times.

 

It turns out that it was Portier himself, who as chair of an IARC committee in 2014 had proposed that the agency undertake a review of glyphosate in the first place. He then went on to play a key role in the deliberations resulting in the IARC conclusion that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. In view of the new revelations, it appears that, rather than being the objective scientist he has portrayed himself to be, he may have had a preconceived plan to use the IARC ruling, which he played a major role in shaping, to cash in on the ensuing litigation campaign. In the years following the IARC glyphosate decision, Portier has frequently claimed that he had no conflicts-of-interest and that he has never taken a cent for his glyphosate work. At the same time, he and IARC generally have portrayed any scientist who questioned the evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity as being motivated by pro-industry bias. This has proved an effective tactic for suppressing substantive arguments based on the scientific evidence.

 

IARC’s editorial process in the glyphosate report

 

On the heels of Risk-Monger’s exposé, three days ago, Kate Kelland, a journalist for Reuters, who has been investigating IARC’s recent assessments, published findings indicating that the glyphosate document underwent significant editing to remove null results and to strengthen positive conclusions. Kelland obtained a draft of the key chapter of the report devoted to animal studies, which became available as part of the lawsuits against Monsanto, and she compared the draft with the final, published report. She found 10 significant instances in which “a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumors was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one.” Kelland’s findings indicate that the original draft found little animal evidence that glyphosate was a carcinogen. Her textual analysis provides confirmation of Tarone’s independent re-analysis of the original studies. Furthermore, Portier admits in his deposition that the interim report produced by the animal subgroup during the Working Group meeting also concluded that there was “limited evidence of animal carcinogenicity.” He proclaims ignorance of when or how the conclusion was upgraded to “sufficient evidence of animal carcinogenicity” during the deliberations of the entire Working Group.  It is crucial to repeat that the classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans relied entirely upon the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of animal carcinogenicity (because the epidemiologic evidence was not strong).

 

All of this points to a trusted agency redacting the evidence to suit its predetermined and preferred story-line.

 

What is at stake

 

In addition to providing the basis for litigation by US law firms, IARC’s 2015 opinion on glyphosate provided powerful ammunition to environmental activists, anti-GMO groups, NGO’s, and organic foods industry lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic in their campaign to ban glyphosate. For the past two years, the European Union has been trying to reauthorize the weed killer but has been opposed by politicians in Member States who have been swayed by the anti-glyphosate crusade. A decision to ban or to phase out use of glyphosate will hurt both farmers and consumers by decreasing crop yields, increasing the costs of produce, and requiring substitution of herbicides about which less is known and which may pose a greater health risk. A final decision is expected next month.

The revelations about IARC’s glyphosate determination carry crucial lessons regarding relations among scientific evidence, policy, and public opinion. Decisions about the safety of chemical residues in the environment are challenging and require critical evaluation of the available evidence by experts in the relevant disciplines. These can only be achieved through a hashing out of the relevant evidence in a forum in which qualified scientists with no professional or political stake in the question at hand have an important role in order to keep the proceedings honest.

 

In the highly-charged and polarized climate surrounding questions involving public health and the environment, it is only too easy for advocates to gain support for their cause by appealing to public concern. Often this concern relates to trace levels of a chemical in our food, water, or environment. But the two sides in the debate are not equal. Evidence, no matter how weak or questionable, of a positive association is readily accepted as pointing to a serious threat. In contrast, even when there is superior evidence that calls into question the existence of threat, this simply does not have the same power to persuade concerned citizens.

 

A closely related point is that the prevailing view of conflicts-of-interest is one-sided and naïve and represents a major obstacle to achieving rationality in the public discussion of hotly contested questions like glyphosate. To be sure, industry has its clear interests, and, of course, these should be taken into account. In fact, the awareness of industry interests is, by now, built into our thinking. Things are quite different when it comes to seeing the interests at work on the other side. Given that deliberations on these matters involve human beings, we need to take it as axiomatic that all parties may be influenced by financial considerations – or equally importantly -- by ideological and professional agendas. We delude ourselves if we think that environmental activists and allied scientists (including academic and government researchers) engaged in these questions are free of their own interests.

 

The recent revelations regarding IARC’s glyphosate assessment throw these issues into stark relief. Scientists and agencies need to be transparent. It’s not acceptable for an agency to argue that “we are impartial authorities, trust us.” Rather, we should follow the rule, “Trust but verify” – or rather, “Distrust but verify.” These revelations make it clear that, where high-stakes issues involve powerful beliefs, substantial financial rewards, and opportunities for advancement, neither individuals nor authoritative agencies can be assumed to be free of conflicts-of-interest.

 

Author: Geoffrey Kabat is a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and is the author of Getting Risk Right: Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks

 

 

 

 

 

[Neomatix]

l'IARC [...] est une enorme escroquerie

Fixed.

 

Alors que tous les médias français s'excitent sur le fait que l'OMS a classé le glyphosate comme cancérigène probable, c'est en réalité un acte de l'IARC, qui n'est qu'une organisation demi-dépendante de l'OMS. L'OMS elle-même a revu les éléments à disposition et n'a pas classé le glyphosate comme cancérigène.

 

D'ailleurs, des plus de 1000 substances évaluées par le CIRC, une seule a été jugée probablement pas cancérigène.

[h16]

Le CIRC (= IARC) est un repaire de dangereux idéologues qui font des dégâts mentaux. Etudes bâclées et bidonnées, orientation politique, biais scientifiques, et une presse française tendrement amoureuse, tout y est pour un désastre scientifique.

[Flashy]

La viande, c'est un cancérigène probable ou pas?

[Nigel]

 La vie est probablement cancérigène. 

[h16]

Il y a 2 heures, Flashy a dit :

La viande, c'est un cancérigène probable ou pas?

Non.

Surtout depuis que ce même CIRC a récemment répondu par oui.

[Antoninov]

7 hours ago, Tortue joviale said:

Excellent article de forbes sur le "glyphosate-gate".

Apparement, la classification du glyphosate par l'IARC comme cancerigene probable est une enorme escroquerie

 

 

Excellent article.. il faudrait un résumé / traduction sur contrepoints...

(ok je vais me porter volontaire)

[Flashy]

il y a 9 minutes, h16 a dit :

Non.

Surtout depuis que ce même CIRC a récemment répondu par oui.

 

Non mais, très concrètement, s'il convient d'interdire ce qui est probablement cancérigène, il me paraît logique de dresser la liste de ce qui relève de cette catégorie pour voir ce qui pourrait être interdit.

Par exemple les boissons chaudes à plus de 65 degrés, la viande rouge, le travail de nuit, les salons de coiffure, la friture, les insecticides, les cabines de bronzage, mais aussi la cuisson par rôtissage à haute température (qui produit de l'acrylamide), le café robusta (qui peut contenir beaucoup d'acrylamide, comme les chips ou le pain).

[frigo]

il y a 11 minutes, Flashy a dit :

 

Non mais, très concrètement, s'il convient d'interdire ce qui est probablement cancérigène, il me paraît logique de dresser la liste de ce qui relève de cette catégorie pour voir ce qui pourrait être interdit.

Par exemple les boissons chaudes à plus de 65 degrés, la viande rouge, le travail de nuit, les salons de coiffure, la friture, les insecticides, les cabines de bronzage, mais aussi la cuisson par rôtissage à haute température (qui produit de l'acrylamide), le café robusta (qui peut contenir beaucoup d'acrylamide, comme les chips ou le pain).

Il y a une grosse différence, le glyphosate tu le prends contre ta volonté. 

[Flashy]

à l’instant, frigo a dit :

Il y a une grosse différence, le glyphosate tu le prend contre ta volonté. 

 

Les agriculteurs sont obligés de l'utiliser?

[frigo]

Il y en a partout, dans l'eaur, l'air, les tampax, que sais je.