note: monsanto's roundup chemical is an endocrine disruptor. we put it on most of our food supply. this contributes to the high cost burden.
secondary note: you don't want to have endocrine disruptors anywhere. they aren't good for you.
secondary note: you don't want to have endocrine disruptors anywhere. they aren't good for you.
"The current assessment concluded that glyphosate does not have oestrogen, androgen, thyroid and steroidogenesis (EATS)‐mediated endocrine disrupting properties based on the facts that no endocrine‐mediated adverse effects were identified in apical studies; the weak evidence seen in a limited number of supplementary in vitro studies was inconsistent with the findings of the acceptable OECD (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development) tests and it was not expressed in vivo in the OECD Level 4 and 5 studies; and no EATS‐mediated endocrine mode of action was identified. Since the database available to reach this conclusion was quite comprehensive, it was concluded that the data gap identified in the previous EFSA conclusion (EFSA Journal 2015;13(11):4302) was adequately addressed."
Source: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X0...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/ "Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient... We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-006-0154-8
"The cytotoxic, and potentially endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup are thus amplified with time. Taken together, these data suggest that Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact."
All animals with a nervous system have hormone-secreting structures, analogous to the endocrine system of mammals. Several studies have highlighted serious sub-lethal neurological impacts of glyphosate (not as a formulation) on agriculturally-important arthropods. I'm not aware of any conclusive research, but it seems reasonable to anticipate some of these effects may be related to endocrine signaling. Either way, the toxicity is clearly more severe for non-mammals, and their disease burden has direct and indirect costs to us.
EPA selected glyphosate for screening based on the widespread use of the chemical. Not because it was suspected to be endocrine disruptor for any real reason. After tier 1 screening did not find any evidence no other testing was considered necessary.
Glyphosate gets most of the (cooked up) research to the detriment of the people being exposed to many other mostly ignored co-formulants. Here is a study that says as much: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4808927/
>It was demonstrated for the first time that endocrine disruption by GBH could not only be due to the declared active ingredient but also to co-formulants. These results...challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value for GBHs exposures, currently calculated from toxicity tests of the declared active ingredient alone.
Even dumber is that Beyer is retiring the brand Monsanto which will result in Beyer itself being named in the lawsuits and media.
They probably thought they could shake it off like Dow chemical when they aquired Union Carbide and claimed they are no longer responsible for the Bhopal disaster.
There was no social media in 1994, there is now.
See Chemours