Glyphosate Registration Rejected by Federal Court – EPA Ignored Cancer Risks, Endangered Species Risks

“Today’s decision gives voice to those who suffer from glyphosate’s cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,”

On the day Roe v Wade was overturned, you may not have heard, The carcinogenic weed killer sprayed on your streets parks and schools – Federal Court Reject EPA Glyphosate Registration – EPA SAY Glyphosate is IS SAFE

“Today, in a historic victory for farmworkers and the environment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with Center for Food Safety (CFS) and its represented farmworker and conservation clients by overturning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision that the toxic pesticide glyphosate is safe for humans and imperiled wildlife. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto-Bayer’s flagship Roundup weedkiller, the most widely used pesticide in the world.

The 54-page opinion held the 2020 interim registration of glyphosate to be unlawful because “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).” Represented by Center for Food Safety, the petitioners in the lawsuit included the Rural Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida, Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas, and Beyond Pesticides. A consolidated case is led by Natural Resources Defense Council and includes Pesticide Action Network.

“Today’s decision gives voice to those who suffer from glyphosate’s cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,”

Centre for food Safety
Centre For Food Safety

Eu approve Glyphosate Use

On May 30th 2022 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – No changes to the Glyphosate classification – classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen is not justified

(link found on BAYER website who will stop using Glyphoste in USA in 2023)

“We share the same values as the public when it comes to the safety of our families, our food and our environment

We care about not getting fined Bayer

Hundred of Studies prove it is carcinogenic including – Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC

“The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review its conclusions about the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, a popular herbicide created by Monsanto—which Bayer acquired in 2018

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/17/major-victory-court-orders-epa-review-glyphosates-cancer-and-endangered-species

EPA says Glyphosate is Safe, EPA are the Advisory body for Croplife, who partner with UN – Letter to UN to Stop partnership with Croplife – Human Right concerns

Today, 430 civil society and Indigenous peoples organisations from 69 countries around the world called on the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to uphold human rights and end its partnership with CropLife International. CropLife is the industry association that represents the world’s largest pesticide manufacturers.

Pesticide Action Network

SIGN THE PETITION

Sign the Petition
CROPLIFE and UN Support the use of Glyphosate under EPA instruction
Croplife
$2Billion Fine

Monsanto, owned by the pharmaceutical company Bayer, is nearly synonymous with one of its most contentious products, Roundup. The weed killer, which causes cancer, will no longer be sold to everyday consumers starting 2023.

BILLIONS PAID OUT TO GLYPHOSATE USES

GLYPHOSATE SELLER BAYER FINED $2 Billion – Appeal Denied August 2021

And a recent court decision from the state of California only adds to the pharmaceutical company’s woes.

Bayer-owned Monsanto acts with “reckless disregard” and loses recent appeal, struggles to hide from litigation against its beleaguered and cancer-causing weed killer, Roundup

On August 9, 2021, the 1st Appellate District in the Court of Appeal for California rejected a bid from Monsanto to overturn a recent trial they lost against a husband and wife duo of plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod.

BBC Headline 2018

A US jury has found that chemical giant Monsanto knew its Roundup weedkillers were dangerous.

A man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer is to receive $289m (£226m) in damages from the company

Mr Johnson was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2014. His lawyers said he regularly used a form of RangerPro while working at a school in Benicia, California.

The ruling said the potential risks of the product were known by the scientific community and Monsanto failed to “adequately warn” of the danger.

From:Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairsand Forestry CommissionPublished31 August

UK Gov

GLYPHOSATE, GMO, Damages Pineal Gland

Glyphosate Induces:

  • induces Neurological Damage
  • Disrupts gut bacteria
  • Linked to Autism
  • Anemia
  • Hypoxia
  • Premature birth

The pineal gland is highly susceptible to environmental toxicants. Two pervasive substances in modern industrialized nations are aluminum and glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup?. In this paper, we show how these two toxicants work synergistically to induce neurological damage. Glyphosate disrupts gut bacteria, leading to an overgrowth of Clostridium difficile. Its toxic product, p-cresol, is linked to autism in both human and mouse models. p-Cresol enhances uptake of aluminum via transferrin. Anemia, a result of both aluminum disruption of heme and impaired heme synthesis by glyphosate, leads to hypoxia, which induces increased pineal gland transferrin synthesis. Premature birth is associated with hypoxic stress and with substantial increased risk to the subsequent development of autism, linking hypoxia to autism. Glyphosate chelates aluminum, allowing ingested aluminum to bypass the gut barrier. This leads to anemia-induced hypoxia, promoting neurotoxicity and damaging the pineal gland. Both glyphosate and aluminum disrupt cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved in melatonin metabolism. Furthermore, melatonin is derived from tryptophan, whose synthesis in plants and microbes is blocked by glyphosate. We also demonstrate a plausible role for vitamin D3 dysbiosis in impaired gut function and impaired serotonin synthesis. This paper proposes that impaired sulfate supply to the brain mediates the damage induced by the synergistic action of aluminum and glyphosate on the pineal gland and related midbrain nuclei.

Studies on Dangers of Glyphosate

  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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.[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Choi SJ, Lim KC. A study on classification and management system for carcinogens. J Korea Safety Manage Sci. 2010;12:107–119. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Duke SO, Powles SB. Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag Sci. 2008;64:319–325. doi: 10.1002/ps.1518. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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.[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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.[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hothorn LA. Statistical evaluation of toxicological bioassays—a review. Toxicol Res. 2014;3:418–432. doi: 10.1039/C4TX00047A. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [PMC free article][PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Shao-Wen H, Chun-Hong L. Toxic effects and exposure risk assessment of glyphosate. J Food Saf Quality. 2015;6:880–885. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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.[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

After ALL the Cases of Death and Cancer Caused by Glyphosate: ECHA ANNOUNCE “GLYPHOSATE IS NOT CARCINOGENIC!’

Published by J.Anand

🎤I believe in the beauty of my dreams 😍

2 thoughts on “Glyphosate Registration Rejected by Federal Court – EPA Ignored Cancer Risks, Endangered Species Risks

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: