New EU independent herbicide glyphosate study shows no toxic effects or genetic changes

| | April 17, 2017

Results of a new animal study into possible health risks of the weedkiller glyphosate will be published in time to inform a key EU re-licensing vote due by the end of 2017, according to the researcher leading the trial.

A row over possible effects of glyphosate – an ingredient in Monsanto’s big-selling herbicide Roundup – has prompted investigations by congressional committees in the United States and forced a delay in Europe to a decision on whether it should be banned or re-licensed for sale.

Italian scientist Fiorella Belpoggi said experimental rats exposed to the herbicide at levels equivalent to those allowed in humans showed no initial adverse reaction.

“Exposed animals had no evident differences from non-exposed animals,” Belpoggi, who is director of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Centre at the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, said in a telephone interview.

Related article:  Rogue GMO wheat in Washington State? Latest anti-GMO attempt to pump scare fizzles

“But this tells us very little at the moment, because the examinations of key parameters that could be affected by exposure are still being done (and) we are waiting for those results,” Belpoggi added.

Those parameters include any genetic changes, as well as potential toxic effects on measures related to fertility, such as sperm, embryo development and offspring growth, she said.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: New study on Monsanto weedkiller to feed into crucial EU vote

For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.

11 thoughts on “New EU independent herbicide glyphosate study shows no toxic effects or genetic changes”

  1. Again a very poor article from genetic illiteracy project.
    Not even a link to more information.
    This is probably because ” she stressed that due to time constraints, the study is not able to analyze the weed killer’s potential carcinogenicity, which would take several years to research properly, given the time any tumors might take to develop and grow.”
    Technically we know that it’s not a poison, but a microbacterial disrupter which damages our gut microbiome and so our immunity. It causes an effect, which can lead to cancer. Telling people that that is okay as it takes 20 years or so to develop is like saying it’s okay to smoke.
    Oddly enough the same financial investmentors of tobacco used that argument . The difference is they now have government protection from being sued, as happened to the tobacco companies.

  2. Here is a fine example. One makes a point and the other attacks. You see the same nonsense over and over again. One study shows no effect, another shows devastating effects. One study says it’s safe and another comes out saying quite the opposite. First butter is bad for your heart and 20 years later butter appears to be ok. Once FAT made you fat and today we know that FAT doesn’t make you fat. We demonize RED meat but we know why, all the nonsense that cows are fed in the industrial fed lots. Sickening. It’s all BS for massive profits under the idea of food security. It’s the same marketing scare tactics. NEVER let fear control you. The vaccine industry is famous for that. I would argue that with nearly 75+% of the American people being overweight or obese and we throw over 40% of our food away, do we really need more food? Like sexuality, we have allowed corruption in our food industry – call it foodporn. It’s best to avoid all these chemicals and GMOs and never trusting MAN corporations. It’s best to keep with your local farmer who welcomes you to their farm. Thank goodness the local farms are making a huge come back.

    • And yet there is an overwhelming consensus that GE derived foods are as safe as any. You need to learn how to analyze and thus avoid the crap sites you obviously visit.

      • Obviously is not a fact. When you dump a little glyphosate in a dirty toilet with mineral deposits lining the water line and it becomes clean after roughly 24 hours, common sense says that glyphosate shouldn’t be introduced into the body even at miniscule amounts. It’s quite understanding the ‘overwhelming’ consensus argument. But if you recall, there was an ‘overwhelming’ consensus that ‘fat’ made you fat yet today you have nearly 80% of Americans overweight or obese. We can argue all day from a science prospective as industry will do everything to protect its core profit center. They will attack you if you do have a reasonable suspicion from a negative study. I don’t blame them. Like the industry, I will do everything possible to protect my long term health, trusting true to nature foods avoiding ALL of man’s industrial alterations, processed foods and synthetic chemicals. I will also encourage others to do the same.

        • “dump a little?” Not real precise while making up stuff are you? Miniscule amounts well below the MRLs have not been shown to have any deleterious effect. Fat and obesity are no analogous. Entirely different situation. Also, Your leftist crap regarding protecting profit is poorly thought through as well as evidence free. To protect profit it is sometimes needed to abandon a product. Especially if it is a liability risk. Recent rulings by regulators have said there is not a big risk.

        • First of all why would you dump glyphosate in the toilet? Kind of an expensive way to clean the bowl. Pepsi and Coke work far better and some people drink gallons if it everyday.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend