Good morning Fudd!
The headline actually reads:
Controversial weedkiller in Roundup 'does not cause cancer', says European expert committee.
'The overwhelming weight of evidence shows that glyphosate poses no risk to human health when used correctly,' says farmers' leader
"when used correctly" being the operative word. Which is subjective to farmer using it. And with the overproduction of soil, it's constantly being bombarded with these chemicals.
This same link had an opposing opinion:
Mr Smith said the European Commission now had “no reason” not to relicense glyphosate.
However Greenpeace EU’s food policy director Franziska Achterberg insisted glyphosate was dangerous.
“The data vastly exceeds what’s legally necessary for the EU to ban glyphosate, but ECHA has looked the other way,” she said.
“For the EU to make decisions based on science, it can’t distort the facts.
“If the EU doesn’t get this right, people and the environment will continue to be the lab rats of the chemical industry.”
This link may explain the discrepancies in opinions
How does glyphosate work?
Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, meaning it will kill most plants. It prevents the plants from making certain proteins that are needed for plant growth.
Glyphosate stops a specific enzyme pathway, the shikimic acid pathway. The shikimic acid pathway is necessary for plants and some microorganisms.
My opinion is, if this changes a plants basic growth structure, it can't be good for consumption of plants. Reading on regarding how long it stays……..
Glyphosate binds tightly to soil. It can persist in soil for up to 6 months depending on the climate and the type of soil it is in. Glyphosate is broken down by bacteria in the soil.
……..so with the overworking of soil for high production, this stuff never has a chance to breakdown.
Is glyphosate likely to contribute to the development of cancer?
When high doses were administered to laboratory animals, some studies suggest that glyphosate has carcinogenic potential. Studies on cancer rates in people have provided conflicting results on whether the use of glyphosate containing products is associated with cancer. Some studies have associated glyphosate use with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
With the advent of this ruling, I'd say that Monsanto conveniently says they haven't done extensive human studies, even with all the complaints. They've let outside sources do the testing. Different years different outcome of testing results.
I'm thinking it can't be both ways. You cannot say it has minimal affects on humans and wildlife and still read how genetically modifies the plant, without doing extensive human study.
If it were in use 1 time a season and with constant monitoring of soil, I would say it couldn't be that bad, but food production for the world doesn't slow down to allow that.
These are just my takes on this chemical. First it's very bad and being banned and now being touted as safe.
Anyway, I've been a naturalist to the extent I can be, but can't ever say I haven't used Monsanto for weeds (prior to knowing all of this). Using any chemical that gets introduced into the body makes me balk. I just don't see how one can escape it in today's environment.