The state of California can now require Roundup to have a label on it stating that it is a possible carcinogen.
The problem here is that a majority of regulatory scientific bodies of evidence prove that it is not a carcinogen. The only regulatory body that claims it is a possible carcinogen is the International Agency for Research on Cancer by the World Health Organization, which has been under much scrutiny lately….The IARC measures hazards, not risks.
The fact that Roundup will carry a carcinogenic label now has ruffled some feathers, no doubt. But in my opinion, Proposition 65 labels pretty much everything carcinogenic, including matches, aloe vera, soda pop, Christmas lights, fishing poles, and even Disneyland. If there is a 1 in 100,000 chance of developing cancer over 70 years, a prop 65 label is required in California. This has resulted in a significant number of lawyers filing proposition 65 lawsuits and has brought lawyers over $150 million in fees since 2000.
Related on the SLP
Roundup has been off patent for decades and is made by many different companies, and chemical pesticides have been used in agriculture for thousands of years. How come Roundup is such a big deal when it is one of hundreds of crop protectant products farmers use? Roundup is less toxic than table salt (the dose makes the poison) and has been a very safe and effective product for us as farmers. They need to focus their energy on things that are far worse for us
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Farm Babe: What do fishing poles, Disneyland, and Monsanto’s Roundup all have in common in California?
For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia
