1. See below I did list Glyphosate in group 2A.
2. Whole Aloe Vera sure is listed as 2B animal carcinogen and I expect if they can find enough fools who drink whole aloe juice to study, we will have human data as well. The whole plant contains both some anthraquinones and some anthrone glucosides, classes of chemicals in which other members tested usually turn out to be carcinogens. The mechanism is even thought to be known.
3. If you kill off all the plants in your garden that have enough carcinogens in them to qualify for 2B when tested, you'll be down to a handful of those plants we've interbred to obtain the useless characteristics we prize at the expense of the chemical weapons wild plants make to defend themselves against pests and encroachment by each other. In other words, most wild plants manufacturer pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals designed to guard their bit of dirt and patch of sunlight.
4. The charcoal-filtered and purified aloe gel used in cosmetics, lotions and medications is not a carcinogen because the cancer-causing compounds been removed. I choose products that contain highly refined chemicals, preferably of synthetic origin, over an uncontrolled natural source every time.
5. When are we going to grow up and realize that Mother Nature never loved us?
Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: Zack Mansdorf <mansdorfz**At_Symbol_Here**BELLSOUTH.NET>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2019 11:29 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Evolution of chemical law and toxicology...
With all due respect to our award winning Monona, they also list in category 2A:
Red Meat
Barbering
Shift Work (that disrupts sleep)
Hot Beverages
And a huge listing in category 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) including many common household remedies such as aloe Vera. I have one in my yard as a plant but I am thinking of getting rid of it with Roundup.
Zack
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:10 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Evolution of chemical law and toxicology...:
The 17 IARC reviewers from 11 countries did not convene in 2015 for the purpose of sticking it to Monsanto. Read the monograph. They reviewed over 1000 studies and found limited evidence of carcinogencity in humans, a positive association between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and sufficient evidence in experimental animals -- enough to list it as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A)
Get over it, there is some evidence in that monograph. The real issue is a cultural one:
US SIDE: The US laws require proof beyond reasonable doubt. IARC doesn't have that, of course. But they don't have bupkes -- they got some real stuff. The question is: what does that real stuff mean to you as a citizen of the US? And the issue of whether or not glyphosate is needed to feed 10 billion people by 2050 is not a scientific argument, it is a cultural and economic one. We can figure something else out.
EU SIDE: The EU believes when there is a pretty good probability that people are going to die from exposure, don't expose more people in order to develop iron-clad proof. Been there, done that for 100 years. Enough already.
.
As we say in the union biz: Whose side are you on?
Fyi.. Tilak
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-next-step-review-process-herbicide-glyphosate-reaffirms-no-risk-public-health
"If we are going to feed 10 billion people by 2050, we are going to need all the tools at our disposal, which includes the use the glyphosate," U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said. "USDA applauds EPA's proposed registration decision as it is science-based and consistent with the findings of other regulatory authorities that glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans."
-----Original Message-----
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Stuart, Ralph
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:06 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Evolution of chemical law and toxicology...
>a timeline of where chemical law has been and where it has led us to now...I am looking for a helpful website (or several) that gives an overview.
>
>
That would be a great resource to have for many different reasons, and I have looked for something like that on a couple of occasions with no luck. Walking through the history of specific chemicals, such as DDT, asbestos or radium paints can be used to highlight the interplay of technical issues and cultural influences on the history of chemical law, but there is no single pathway that they have in common (with the possible exception of a landmark event, either physical or social, that raises the profile of that issue in isolation).
There is also the challenge of trying to identify "obviously skewed or un-fundamental science" when the evidence base is continuously changing and the range of scientific and regulatory literacy is so wide, both in the general population and among technical experts. Developing a legal response in this setting become unpredictable due to its complexity, due to everyone's frustration.
Thanks for asking a good question!
- Ralph
Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
Environmental Safety Manager
Keene State College
603 358-2859
ralph.stuart**At_Symbol_Here**keeneedu
---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
