• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Monsanto: 'They have to pay for not being honest'

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mect said:
In case you are interested in another metastudy confirming the ambiguity of Glyphosate's relationship to cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5515989/
Click to expand...

This is an interpretation that those doing the studies, among them EFSA do not agree with at all.

It's basically just an opinion piece that misinterprets articles based on studies and it's worthless.

Present the actual studies instead and ensure that they are not GTF studies which will be hard because all studies conducted that show no relevant factor in carcinogenic tracing for Glyphosate are from the GTF.

In other news, the Tobacco industry says it's not carcinogenic. It is a probable carcinogenic which some nutjob "doctorate chemist" believes means that it's not known one way or the other.
 
Josephus312 said:
This is an interpretation that those doing the studies, among them EFSA do not agree with at all.

It's basically just an opinion piece that misinterprets articles based on studies and it's worthless.

Present the actual studies instead and ensure that they are not GTF studies which will be hard because all studies conducted that show no relevant factor in carcinogenic tracing for Glyphosate are from the GTF.

In other news, the Tobacco industry says it's not carcinogenic. It is a probable carcinogenic which some nutjob "doctorate chemist" believes means that it's not known one way or the other.
Click to expand...
You need to learn the basics of what you are talking about. A metastudy is not an opinion piece. You can dismiss it because it doesn't match your world view, but that just makes you appear ignorant. Metastudies are considered by the scientific community to be more authoritative than individual papers because they look at the broad scope of the literature, and not just at a single piece of the puzzle. They provide context for the individual studies and how they all fit together. No reputable scientist is going to trust an individual paper over a metastudy of the literature. Learn how scientific communication works before trying to weigh in on the subject.
 
mect said:
You need to learn the basics of what you are talking about. A metastudy is not an opinion piece. You can dismiss it because it doesn't match your world view, but that just makes you appear ignorant. Metastudies are considered by the scientific community to be more authoritative than individual papers because they look at the broad scope of the literature, and not just at a single piece of the puzzle. They provide context for the individual studies and how they all fit together. No reputable scientist is going to trust an individual paper over a metastudy of the literature. Learn how scientific communication works before trying to weigh in on the subject.
Click to expand...

It's not a fucking meta study, it's an article on other articles. A meta study is a collection of other studies, not of other articles.

Present the ACTUAL studies and ONLY studies not sponsored by the GTF, that would impress me and everyone else a hell of a lot more than this bullshit that is only made as a hit piece for the GTF to use.

ALL actual scientists would trust a study they can peer review a HELL of a lot more than this propaganda piece that is just a collection of corroborating articles.

Doesn't it alarm you that Jose V. Tarazona co-authored (and it is authored, no scientific studies were conducted in neither this article or the articles it cites.) both this article and all of the articles cited in this article?
 
Josephus312 said:
No, a probable (as opposed to probably) carcinogenic compound is one that has been indicated to cause cancer.

For example, Arsenic is known to cause cancer and thus it's a probable carcinogen.

I do love that you bring up bacon and grilled (or fried) red meats (not "foods") though since they also produce a KNOWN carcinogen when prepared in that way.

Heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are absolutely known carcinogens or in other words probable carcinogens and those are the compounds released when frying or grilling red meats.

I note that those are also chemicals that are BANNED as food additives because .... they are carcinogenic in the same way that glyphosate is carcinogenic.

"Since EFSA's publication, the agency has been arguing that there is enough detailed information in its documentation to perform a good analysis, but IARC scientists respond that the descriptions and summaries published miss key elements and cannot replace original data."

There was no original data in the publication of that "meta study" which is just an article cherry picking points from other articles that cherry picked studies since they are sponsored by the GTF.
Click to expand...
Until you learn the categories the WHO uses for categorizing carcinogenic materials, you should probably just call it a day.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html
Relevant information:

  • Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans
  • Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans
  • Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans
  • Group 3: Unclassifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans
  • Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans
Glyphsoate is in group 2A. (Note the probably). Bacon and grilled meats are in Group 1. Exactly as I posted.
 
Josephus312 said:
It's not a fucking meta study, it's an article on other articles. A meta study is a collection of other studies, not of other articles.

Present the ACTUAL studies and ONLY studies not sponsored by the GTF, that would impress me and everyone else a hell of a lot more than this bullshit that is only made as a hit piece for the GTF to use.

ALL actual scientists would trust a study they can peer review a HELL of a lot more than this propaganda piece that is just a collection of corroborating articles.

Doesn't it alarm you that Jose V. Tarazona co-authored (and it is authored, no scientific studies were conducted in neither this article or the articles it cites.) both this article and all of the articles cited in this article?
Click to expand...
Archives of Toxicology is a peer reviewed journal genius. All review articles in peer reviewed journals are just that. Peer reviewed.

No, it doesn't concern me that Jose V. Tarzona co-authored the paper. He's the head of the Pesticides Unit at the European Food Safety Authority. The paper cites over 50 papers, the vast majority of them peer reviewed, and almost none of them authored by Tarzona. You don't even know how to find the citations in a paper? Jesus. I'll help you out. Look in the section labelled "References". I'm done with you. As the saying goes, "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience". Enjoy your ignorance.

References
  • Barlow S, Schlatter J. Risk assessment of carcinogens in food. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010;243:180–190. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2009.11.004. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Becker RA, Patlewicz G, Simon TW, Rowlands JC, Budinsky RA. The adverse outcome pathway for rodent liver tumor promotion by sustained activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;73:172–190. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.06.015. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Benachour N, Seralini G-E. Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem Res Toxicol. 2009;22:97–105. doi: 10.1021/tx800218n. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O. Nongenotoxic carcinogenicity of chemicals: mechanisms of action and early recognition through a new set of structural alerts. Chem Rev. 2013;113:2940–2957. doi: 10.1021/cr300206t. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Benner P, Mena H, Schneider R. Modeling glyphosate aerial spray drift at the ecuador-colombia border. Appl Math Modell. 2016;40:373–387. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2015.04.057. [Cross Ref]
  • Beyer LA, Beck BD, Lewandowski TA. Historical perspective on the use of animal bioassays to predict carcinogenicity: evolution in design and recognition of utility. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2011;41:321–338. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2010.541222. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Blaylock RL. Civility in scientific publishing: the glyphosate paper. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6:163–163. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.167212. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, McGregor D, Meek ME, Vickers C, et al. Ipcs framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2006;36:781–792. doi: 10.1080/10408440600977677. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Boobis AR, Doe JE, Heinrich-Hirsch B, Meek ME, Munn S, Ruchirawat M, et al. Ipcs framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2008;38:87–96. doi: 10.1080/10408440701749421. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Bryce SM, Bemis JC, Mereness JA, Spellman RA, Moss J, Dickinson D, et al. Interpreting in vitro micronucleus positive results: simple biomarker matrix discriminates clastogens, aneugens, and misleading positive agents. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2014;55:542–555. doi: 10.1002/em.21868.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Cavas T. In vivo genotoxicity evaluation of atrazine and atrazine-based herbicide on fish carassius auratus using the micronucleus test and the comet assay. Food Chem Toxicol. 2011;49:1431–1435. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.03.038. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Choi SJ, Lim KC. A study on classification and management system for carcinogens. J Korea Safety Manage Sci. 2010;12:107–119.
  • Chruscielska KGB, Brzezinski J, Kita K et al (2000) Glyphosate: evaluation of chronic activity and possible far-reaching effects-Part 1. Studies on chronic toxicity. Pestycydy (3–4):11–20
  • Clewell H. Use of mode of action in risk assessment: Past, present, and future. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005;42:3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.01.008. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Coalova I, de Molina MdCR, Chaufan G. Influence of the spray adjuvant on the toxicity effects of a glyphosate formulation. Toxicol Vitro. 2014;28:1306–1311. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2014.06.014.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Cogliano VJ, Boan RA, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, Ghissassi FE. Use of mechanistic data in iarc evaluations. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2008;49:100–109. doi: 10.1002/em.20370. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Collier ZA, Gust KA, Gonzalez-Morales B, Gong P, Wilbanks MS, Linkov I, et al. A weight of evidence assessment approach for adverse outcome pathways. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol RTP. 2016;75:46–57. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.12.014. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Cox C, Surgan M. Unidentified inert ingredients in pesticides: Implications for human and environmental health. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114:1803–1806. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Dinse GE, Peddada SD. Comparing tumor rates in current and historical control groups in rodent cancer bioassays. Stat Biopharm Res. 2011;3:97–105. doi: 10.1198/sbr.2010.09044.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Doktorova TY, Pauwels M, Vinken M, Vanhaecke T, Rogiers V. Opportunities for an alternative integrating testing strategy for carcinogen hazard assessment? Crit Rev Toxicol. 2012;42:91–106. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2011.623151. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Downes N, Foster J. Regulatory forum opinion piece: Carcinogen risk assessment: the move from screens to science. Toxicol Pathol. 2015;43:1064–1073. doi: 10.1177/0192623315598578. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Duke SO, Powles SB. Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag Sci. 2008;64:319–325. doi: 10.1002/ps.1518. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Dybing E, Sanner T, Roelfzema H, Kroese D, Tennant RW. T25: a simplified carcinogenic potency index: description of the system and study of correlations between carcinogenic potency and species/site specificity and mutagenicity. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1997;80:272–279. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0773.1997.tb01973.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Eastmond DA. Factors influencing mutagenic mode of action determinations of regulatory and advisory agencies. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2012;751:49–63. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2012.04.001.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Edwards SW, Tan Y-M, Villeneuve DL, Meek ME, McQueen CA. Adverse outcome pathways-organizing toxicological information to improve decision making. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2016;356:170–181. doi: 10.1124/jpet.115.228239. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Elmore SA, Peddada SD. Points to consider on the statistical analysis of rodent cancer bioassay data when incorporating historical control data. Toxicol Pathol. 2009;37:672–676. doi: 10.1177/0192623309339606. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • European Chemicals Agency (2015) Guidance on the application of clp criteria. European chemicals agency echa-15-g-05-en
  • European Food Safety Authority (2007) Pesticide residue intake model (primo) rev. 2
  • European Food Safety Authority (2015a) Peer review report to the conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate
  • European Food Safety Authority Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA J. 2015;13:4302–4302. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302.[Cross Ref]
  • European Food Safety Authority (2016) The 2014 European union report on pesticide residues in food. EFSA J 14:4611, p 139. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4611
  • European Food Safety Authority Final review of the Séralini et al. (2012a) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as published online on 19 september 2012 in food and chemical toxicology. EFSA J. 2012;10(11):2986. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2986. [Cross Ref]
  • Fagan J, Traavik T, Bohn T (2015) The seralini affair: degeneration of science to re-science? Environmental Sciences Europe 27🙁29 August 2015)-(2029 August 2015)
  • Faria MA. Glyphosate, neurological diseases—and the scientific method. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6:132–132. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.162550. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Gaylor DW. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005;41:128–133. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2004.11.001.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • George J, Prasad S, Mahmood Z, Shukla Y. Studies on glyphosate-induced carcinogenicity in mouse skin: a proteomic approach. J Proteomics. 2010;73:951–964. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2009.12.008.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Germany (2015) Final addendum to the renewal assessment report on glyphosate, compiled by efsa
  • Ghisi NdC, de Oliveira EC, Prioli AJ. Does exposure to glyphosate lead to an increase in the micronuclei frequency? A systematic and meta-analytic review. Chemosphere. 2016;145:42–54. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.11.044. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Greim H, Gelbke HP, Reuter U, Thielmann HW, Edler L. Evaluation of historical control data in carcinogenicity studies. Human Exp Toxicol. 2003;22:541–549. doi: 10.1191/0960327103ht394oa.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Greim H, Saltmiras D, Mostert V, Strupp C. Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2015;45:185–208. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2014.1003423. [PMC free article][PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Guyton KZ, El Ghissassi F, Benbrahim-Talaa L, Grosse Y, Loomis D, Straif K. Recent progress in mechanistic data evaluation: the iarc monographs perspective. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2015;56:S84–S84.
  • Guyton KZ, Loomis D, Grosse Y, El Ghissassi F, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, et al. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:490–491. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Hernandez LG, van Steeg H, Luijten M, van Benthem J. Mechanisms of non-genotoxic carcinogens and importance of a weight of evidence approach. Mutation Res Rev Mutation Res. 2009;682:94–109. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2009.07.002. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Heydens WF, Healy CE, Hotz KJ, Kier LD, Martens MA, Wilson AGE, et al. Genotoxic potential of glyphosate formulations: mode-of-action investigations. J Agric Food Chem. 2008;56:1517–1523. doi: 10.1021/jf072581i. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Hothorn LA. Statistical evaluation of toxicological bioassays—a review. Toxicol Res. 2014;3:418–432. doi: 10.1039/C4TX00047A. [Cross Ref]
  • IARC (2015) Monographs, volume 112: some organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon and glyphosate. Iarc working group. Lyon; 3–10 march 2015. Iarc monogr eval carcinog risk chem hum
  • Ibrahim YA. A regulatory perspective on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate. J Toxicol Health. 2015;2:1. doi: 10.7243/2056-3779-2-1. [Cross Ref]
  • JMPR (2006) Pesticide residues in food – 2004. Joint fao/who meeting on pesticide residues evaluations 2004 part ii—toxicological. Who/pcs/06.1. Who, malta.
  • JMPR (2016) Pesticide residues in food—2016. Special Session of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues. FAO Plant Protection Paper 227. Rome
  • Keenan C, Elmore S, Franckecarroll S, Kemp R, Kerlin R, Pletcher J, et al. Stp working group for historical control data of proliferative rodent lesions. Toxicol Pathol. 2008;36:157–157. [PubMed]
  • Keenan C, Elmore S, Francke-Carroll S, Kemp R, Kerlin R, Peddada S, et al. Best practices for use of historical control data of proliferative rodent lesions. Toxicol Pathol. 2009;37:679–693. doi: 10.1177/0192623309336154. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Kier LD. Review of genotoxicity biomonitoring studies of glyphosate-based formulations. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2015;45:209–218. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2015.1010194. [PMC free article] [PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Kim Y-h, Hong J-r, Gil H-w, Song H-y, Hong S-y. Mixtures of glyphosate and surfactant tn20 accelerate cell death via mitochondrial damage-induced apoptosis and necrosis. Toxicol in Vitro. 2013;27:191–197. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2012.09.021. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Kitamoto S, Matsuyama R, Uematsu Y, Ogata K, Ota M, Yamada T, et al. Optimal dose selection of n-methyl-n-nitrosourea for the rat comet assay to evaluate DNA damage in organs with different susceptibility to cytotoxicity. Mutation Res Genetic Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2015;786:129–136. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2015.05.001. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Knight A, Bailey J, Balcombe J. Animal carcinogenicity studies: 2. Obstacles to extrapolation of data to humans. Atla-Alternatives Lab Anim. 2006;34:29–38. [PubMed]
  • Kobayashi K, Sakuratani Y, Abe T, Nishikawa S, Yamada J, Hirose A, et al. Relation between statistics and treatment-related changes obtained from toxicity studies in rats: if detected a significant difference in low or middle dose for quantitative values, this change is considered as incidental change? J Toxicol Sci. 2010;35:79–85. doi: 10.2131/jts.35.79. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Lauby-Secretan B, Loomis D, Baan R, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, et al. Use of mechanistic data in the iarc evaluations of the carcinogenicity of polychlorinated biphenyls and related compounds. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016;23:2220–2229. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-4829-4.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Loomis D, Guyton K, Grosse Y, El Ghissasi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, et al. Carcinogenicity of lindane, ddt, and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:891–892. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00081-9. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Lutter R, Abbott L, Becker R, Borgert C, Bradley A, Charnley G, et al. Improving weight of evidence approaches to chemical evaluations. Risk Anal. 2015;35:186–192. doi: 10.1111/risa.12277.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Ma YP, Guo JH, Shi NZ, Tang ML. On the use of historical control information for trend test in carcinogenesis. Biometrics. 2002;58:917–927. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00917.x. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Marone PA, Hall WC, Hayes AW. Reassessing the two-year rodent carcinogenicity bioassay: a review of the applicability to human risk and current perspectives. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014;68:108–118. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.11.011. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Massarelli R, Adamou A, Henning G, Kangas L. Comparison of historical control data in two strains of rat used in carcinogenicty studies. Int J Toxicol. 2013;32:71–71.
  • McGregor D, Boobis A, Binaglia M, Botham P, Hoffstadt L, Hubbard S, et al. Guidance for the classification of carcinogens under the globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals (ghs) Crit Rev Toxicol. 2010;40:245–285. doi: 10.3109/10408440903384717. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • McInnes EF, Scudamore CL. Review of approaches to the recording of background lesions in toxicologic pathology studies in rats. Toxicol Lett. 2014;229:134–143. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2014.06.005. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Meek ME, Boobis A, Cote I, Dellarco V, Fotakis G, Munn S, et al. New developments in the evolution and application of the who/ipcs framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis. J Appl Toxicol. 2014;34:1–18. doi: 10.1002/jat.2949. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Meek ME, Palermo CM, Bachman AN, North CM, Lewis RJ. Mode of action human relevance (species concordance) framework: evolution of the bradford hill considerations and comparative analysis of weight of evidence. J Appl Toxicol. 2014;34:595–606. doi: 10.1002/jat.2984.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Mesnage R, Bernay B, Seralini GE. Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology. 2013;313:122–128. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2012.09.006.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Niemann L, Sieke C, Pfeil R, Solecki R. A critical review of glyphosate findings in human urine samples and comparison with the exposure of operators and consumers. Journal Fur Verbraucherschutz Und Lebensmittelsicherheit-Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety. 2015;10:3–12. doi: 10.1007/s00003-014-0927-3. [Cross Ref]
  • Nobels I, Spanoghe P, Haesaert G, Robbens J, Blust R. Toxicity ranking and toxic mode of action evaluation of commonly used agricultural adjuvants on the basis of bacterial gene expression profiles. PLOS ONE. 2011;6(11):e24139. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024139. [PMC free article][PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Ntzani EECM, Ntritsos G, Evangelou E, Tzoulaki I (2013) Literature review on epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects. Efsa supporting publication 2013:En-497, pp 159
  • OECD (2012) Guidance document 116 on the conduct and design of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies, supporting test guidelines 451, 452 and 453 2nd edition. Series on testing and assessment no. 116. Env/jm/mono(2011)47.
  • Osimitz TG, Droege W, Boobis AR, Lake BG. Evaluation of the utility of the lifetime mouse bioassay in the identification of cancer hazards for humans. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013;60:550–562. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2013.08.020. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, et al. Iarc monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123:507–514.[PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Peddada SD, Dinse GE, Kissling GE. Incorporating historical control data when comparing tumor incidence rates. J Am Stat Assoc. 2007;102:1212–1220. doi: 10.1198/016214506000001356.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Portier CJ, Goldman LR, Goldstein BD. Inconclusive findings: now you see them, now you don’t! Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:A36–A36. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1408106. [PMC free article][PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Pratt IS. Global harmonisation of classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals. Toxicol Lett. 2002;128:5–15. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4274(01)00529-X. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Rhomberg L. Hypothesis-based weight of evidence: an approach to assessing causation and its application to regulatory toxicology. Risk Anal. 2015;35:1114–1124. doi: 10.1111/risa.12206.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Rhomberg LR. Contrasting directions and directives on hazard identification for formaldehyde carcinogenicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;73:829–833. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.10.012.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Rhomberg LR, Goodman JE, Bailey LA, Prueitt RL, Beck NB, Bevan C, et al. A survey of frameworks for best practices in weight-of-evidence analyses. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2013;43:753–784. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2013.832727. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Rolando CA, Garrett LG, Baillie BR, Watt MS. A survey of herbicide use and a review of environmental fate in new zealand planted forests. N Z J For Sci. 2013;43(1):17. doi: 10.1186/1179-5395-43-17. [Cross Ref]
  • SCOEL (2013) Methodology for the derivation of occupational exposure limits (version 7). Scientific committee on occupational exposure limits, scoel
  • Seralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, et al. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and a roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environ Sci Eur. 2014;26:14. doi: 10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Shao-Wen H, Chun-Hong L. Toxic effects and exposure risk assessment of glyphosate. J Food Saf Quality. 2015;6:880–885.
  • Smith MTGK, Gibbons CF, Fritz JM, Portier CJ, Rusyn I, DeMarini DM, Caldwell JC, Kavloc RJ, Lambert P, Hecht SS, Bucher JR, Stewart BW, Baan R, Cogliano VJ, Straif K. Key characteristics of carcinogens as a basis for organizing data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124:713–721. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1408166. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Solomon KR, Anadon A, Carrasquilla G, Cerdeira AL, Marshall J, Sanin L-H (2007) Coca and poppy eradication in colombia: environmental and human health assessment of aerially applied glyphosate. In: Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology, vol 190, (Ware GW (ed)), 43–125 [PubMed]
  • Sonich-Mullin C, Fielder R, Wiltse J, Baetcke K, Dempsey J, Fenner-Crisp R, et al. Ipcs conceptual framework for evaluating a mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2001;34:146–152. doi: 10.1006/rtph.2001.1493. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Straif K, Loomis D, Guyton K, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, et al. Future priorities for the iarc monographs. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:683–684. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70168-8.[Cross Ref]
  • United Nations (2003) Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (ghs), first edition. United nations, new york and geneva.
  • United Nations (2015) Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (ghs), revision 6. United nations, new york and geneva
  • Wakeford R. Association and causation in epidemiology—half a century since the publication of bradford hill’s interpretational guidance. J R Soc Med. 2015;108:4–6. doi: 10.1177/0141076814562713. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000;31:117–165. doi: 10.1006/rtph.1999.1371. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Wood CE, Hukkanen RR, Sura R, Jacobson-Kram D, Nolte T, Odin M, et al. Scientific and regulatory policy committee (srpc) review*: interpretation and use of cell proliferation data in cancer risk assessment. Toxicol Pathol. 2015;43:760–775. doi: 10.1177/0192623315576005. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Yauk CL, Aardema MJ, van Benthem J, Bishop JB, Dearfield KL, DeMarini DM, et al. Approaches for identifying germ cell mutagens: report of the 2013 iwgt workshop on germ cell assays. Mutation Res Genetic Toxicol Environ Mut. 2015;783:36–54. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2015.01.008.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Zhou B. Adverse outcome pathway: framework, application, and challenges in chemical risk assessment. J Environ Sci. 2015;35:191–193. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2015.07.001. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
 
I'm really not aware of any nefarious activity by Monsanto. I'm not saying there isnt any, but all those rumors of them suing random farmers cause seeds "blew into their crops" were determined to be BS.

The rest is just standard IP issues.
 
uclaLabrat said:
I'm really not aware of any nefarious activity by Monsanto. I'm not saying there isnt any, but all those rumors of them suing random farmers cause seeds "blew into their crops" were determined to be BS.

The rest is just standard IP issues.
Click to expand...
PCB pollution ring a bell? How about Agent Orange?
 
PCB pollution I wasn't aware of, I was referring more to the GMO issues. Agent orange, they made, but what was their role in its deployment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top