EPA won’t approve warning labels for Roundup chemical

[PSOL]

https://apnews.com/e8fe1846109c47e8979555f1391af628

The Trump administration says it won’t approve warning labels for products that contain glyphosate, a move aimed at California as it fights one of the world’s largest agriculture companies about the potentially cancer-causing chemical.

California requires warning labels on glyphosate products — widely known as the weed killer Roundup — because the International Agency for Research on Cancer has said it is “probably carcinogenic.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagrees, saying its research shows the chemical poses no risks to public health. California has not enforced the warning label for glyphosate because Monsanto, the company that makes Roundup, sued and a federal judge temporarily blocked the warning labels last year until the lawsuit could be resolved.

[Hammy]

Give people cancer to own the libs.

[dead0man]

glysophate doesn't need a warning label because with normal use it's NOT a carcinogen.  I'm not sure why some people pick and chose when to listen to science.  Oh, yeah, when it doesn't fit their politics.

[Omega21]

glysophate doesn't need a warning label because with normal use it's NOT a carcinogen.  I'm not sure why some people pick and chose when to listen to science.  Oh, yeah, when it doesn't fit their politics.

I don't believe it's not a carcinogen, at least from the quote of the International Agency for Research on Cancer guys...

You could say the same thing with cigarettes, but there are still labels on them.

If you smoke 1 a day, you'll 99% be fine.

[PSOL]

glysophate doesn't need a warning label because with normal use it's NOT a carcinogen.  I'm not sure why some people pick and chose when to listen to science.  Oh, yeah, when it doesn't fit their politics.

Do you have evidence that California, the International Agency for Research, and other followers that proscribe to glysophate restrictions are politicized? No? Then realize that the Californian state government has found that the use of this chemical compound is harmful by what the science of an institution not staffed by lobbyists tells them so.

[PSOL]

glysophate doesn't need a warning label because with normal use it's NOT a carcinogen.  I'm not sure why some people pick and chose when to listen to science.  Oh, yeah, when it doesn't fit their politics.

I don't believe it's not a carcinogen, at least from the quote of the International Agency for Research on Cancer guys...

You could say the same thing with cigarettes, but there are still labels on them.

If you smoke 1 a day, you'll 99% be fine.

The issue is that this chemical compound in Roundup is continuing to cause cancer even with its current use at an alarming rate. The company producing it wouldn’t dish out legal fees and settlements after being confronted by a legal campaign if there wasn’t truth to it.

[Omega21]

glysophate doesn't need a warning label because with normal use it's NOT a carcinogen.  I'm not sure why some people pick and chose when to listen to science.  Oh, yeah, when it doesn't fit their politics.

I don't believe it's not a carcinogen, at least from the quote of the International Agency for Research on Cancer guys...

You could say the same thing with cigarettes, but there are still labels on them.

If you smoke 1 a day, you'll 99% be fine.

The issue is that this chemical compound in Roundup is continuing to cause cancer even with its current use at an alarming rate. The company producing it wouldn’t dish out legal fees and settlements after being confronted by a legal campaign if there wasn’t truth to it.

Yeah, I imagine it isn't very beneficial health-wise, that's why it was completely banned in Austria a couple of months back.

Too bad the elite Conservative parties in the EU parliament voted against an EU wide ban.

[Hollywood]

The most recent update on the matter comes from the European Union Food Safety Authority (EFSA), who concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause DNA damage or cancer (21).

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/roundup-glyphosate-and-health#section3

I think it probably causes cancer when a person is exposed to it for many years without utilizing Body Safety protection.  Maybe some people weren't told.  I know you will feel the stuff if you get it near your nose or mouth.  The EPA should probably put a safety warning on it. 

Even though Roundup was advertised as safe to use, and plaintiffs in the case probably should win on that basis, why didn't the morons just put on masks when it was burning the hairs off the inside of their noses.  Like using a power saw is probably safe, but if I don't use goggles even though wood chips are splashing all over the place, who should I blame when a chunk of wood renders me a cyclops? 

" But your honor, the product said it was safe." 

[dead0man]

glysophate doesn't need a warning label because with normal use it's NOT a carcinogen.  I'm not sure why some people pick and chose when to listen to science.  Oh, yeah, when it doesn't fit their politics.

Do you have evidence that California, the International Agency for Research, and other followers that proscribe to glysophate restrictions are politicized? No? Then realize that the Californian state government has found that the use of this chemical compound is harmful by what the science of an institution not staffed by lobbyists tells them so.

doesn't CA say (nearly) everything is a carcinogen?  There are many more organizations (mostly not paid for by Monsanto) that say it's not a carcinogen.  It's been in widespread use since the mid 70s, all over the world, but especially the US.

[Omega21]

glysophate doesn't need a warning label because with normal use it's NOT a carcinogen.  I'm not sure why some people pick and chose when to listen to science.  Oh, yeah, when it doesn't fit their politics.

Do you have evidence that California, the International Agency for Research, and other followers that proscribe to glysophate restrictions are politicized? No? Then realize that the Californian state government has found that the use of this chemical compound is harmful by what the science of an institution not staffed by lobbyists tells them so.

doesn't CA say (nearly) everything is a carcinogen?  There are many more organizations (mostly not paid for by Monsanto) that say it's not a carcinogen.  It's been in widespread use since the mid 70s, all over the world, but especially the US.

I would like to point out, you are posting death rates, not cancer rates, and in terms of cancer rates, America is in the top 5.

https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer-frequency-country

[dead0man]

that doesn't hurt any of my arguments

[Omega21]

that doesn't hurt any of my arguments

I know, just wanted to make a comparison...

In any case, there is a reason Americans get cancer more frequently than others, whether that's pollution, genetically modified food for human consumption (which is banned EU wide for example) or something else, there's obviously something. And that's excluding the fact that countries like France or Germany have a 2 times higher smoking rate than the US. (30% vs about 16%)

If the product caused cancer and was not labelled properly, it should be, no matter how much you need to use it to actually cause any harm.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

California puts a carcinogenic warning label on almost every product known to man.  How are they not allowed to put one on Roundup?

[All Along The Watchtower]

As if most people read warning labels...

[dead0man]

that doesn't hurt any of my arguments

I know, just wanted to make a comparison...

In any case, there is a reason Americans get cancer more frequently than others, whether that's pollution, genetically modified food for human consumption (which is banned EU wide for example) or something else, there's obviously something. And that's excluding the fact that countries like France or Germany have a 2 times higher smoking rate than the US. (30% vs about 16%)

If the product caused cancer and was not labelled properly, it should be, no matter how much you need to use it to actually cause any harm.

interestingly (or not), the stats from your same site had in 2012-2014 the US 6th with 4 EU countries ahead of them (Norway,Belgium,France and Denmark).  Since Australia and NZ are consistently near the top, perhaps the sun (skin cancer) plays a big role in the numbers?  But then why is Israel (half the rate of Australia) at the bottom?  Are Jews and Arabs less likely to get skin cancer than whitey?

[All Along The Watchtower]

that doesn't hurt any of my arguments

I know, just wanted to make a comparison...

In any case, there is a reason Americans get cancer more frequently than others, whether that's pollution, genetically modified food for human consumption (which is banned EU wide for example) or something else, there's obviously something. And that's excluding the fact that countries like France or Germany have a 2 times higher smoking rate than the US. (30% vs about 16%)

If the product caused cancer and was not labelled properly, it should be, no matter how much you need to use it to actually cause any harm.

interestingly (or not), the stats from your same site had in 2012-2014 the US 6th with 4 EU countries ahead of them (Norway,Belgium,France and Denmark).  Since Australia and NZ are consistently near the top, perhaps the sun (skin cancer) plays a big role in the numbers?  But then why is Israel (half the rate of Australia) at the bottom?  Are Jews and Arabs less likely to get skin cancer than whitey?

I mean, "whitey" has only lived in Australia and NZ (and North America) for not even half a millennium, yes? As opposed to people who live and have ancestrally lived in the Middle East or Africa for many millennia...

How fast can us pale-skinned Northern Europeans evolve to get more melanin in our skin? As fast as climate change increases?

[Badger]

glysophate doesn't need a warning label because with normal use it's NOT a carcinogen.  I'm not sure why some people pick and chose when to listen to science.  Oh, yeah, when it doesn't fit their politics.

Do you have evidence that California, the International Agency for Research, and other followers that proscribe to glysophate restrictions are politicized? No? Then realize that the Californian state government has found that the use of this chemical compound is harmful by what the science of an institution not staffed by lobbyists tells them so.

doesn't CA say (nearly) everything is a carcinogen?  There are many more organizations (mostly not paid for by Monsanto) that say it's not a carcinogen.  It's been in widespread use since the mid 70s, all over the world, but especially the US.

You seriously asked whether California calls just about everything a carcinogen? Now who's being political?

[dead0man]

You seriously asked whether California calls just about everything a carcinogen? Now who's being political?

I don't think I understand what point you're making...unless it was a joke?  CA does force businesses to put cancer warnings on a bunch of goofy sh**t.  cite

[Indy Texas]

that doesn't hurt any of my arguments

I know, just wanted to make a comparison...

In any case, there is a reason Americans get cancer more frequently than others, whether that's pollution, genetically modified food for human consumption (which is banned EU wide for example) or something else, there's obviously something. And that's excluding the fact that countries like France or Germany have a 2 times higher smoking rate than the US. (30% vs about 16%)

If the product caused cancer and was not labelled properly, it should be, no matter how much you need to use it to actually cause any harm.

interestingly (or not), the stats from your same site had in 2012-2014 the US 6th with 4 EU countries ahead of them (Norway,Belgium,France and Denmark).  Since Australia and NZ are consistently near the top, perhaps the sun (skin cancer) plays a big role in the numbers?  But then why is Israel (half the rate of Australia) at the bottom?  Are Jews and Arabs less likely to get skin cancer than whitey?

Isn't it pretty well-accepted that fair-skinned people are more susceptible to a lot of skin cancers because their skin cells can't produce enough melanin fast enough to stop UV damage?

[Omega21]

that doesn't hurt any of my arguments

I know, just wanted to make a comparison...

In any case, there is a reason Americans get cancer more frequently than others, whether that's pollution, genetically modified food for human consumption (which is banned EU wide for example) or something else, there's obviously something. And that's excluding the fact that countries like France or Germany have a 2 times higher smoking rate than the US. (30% vs about 16%)

If the product caused cancer and was not labelled properly, it should be, no matter how much you need to use it to actually cause any harm.

interestingly (or not), the stats from your same site had in 2012-2014 the US 6th with 4 EU countries ahead of them (Norway,Belgium,France and Denmark).  Since Australia and NZ are consistently near the top, perhaps the sun (skin cancer) plays a big role in the numbers?  But then why is Israel (half the rate of Australia) at the bottom?  Are Jews and Arabs less likely to get skin cancer than whitey?

Yeah, Australia is #1 in terms of Melanoma I believe. Naturally, as you already said, the people living there for thousands of years adapted, so they are probably less likely to face the same illness.

As for the European countries you mentioned, it isn't too surprising. As said, France and Germany have double the smoking rate of the US, which is a really large factor when it comes to cancer statistics. Luckily it is not an environmental factor, so only individuals who partake are at risk (as opposed to pollution etc.)

It generally is very hard to draw direct parallels, since, for example, Europeans may have access to better food (No Gen. Mods by law etc.), but Americans may be exposed to less *insert whatever Diesel exhaust fumes contain here*...

[dead0man]

You keep mentioning GMOs as if there is a known cancer link there....there isn't.


I wonder how much testing for cancer is at play.  I know when there was a push to test prostrates on more and younger men in the 90s there was a large uptick in the number of prostate cancer cases.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If CA wants a warning label let them have a warning label. That is their right, you don't have to sell your products there if you don't like it.