I'm not sure one needs to take sides when there's a middle ground.  I think we can all reasonably assume that on many, if not most, farms few PPE precautions are taken among the farm workers who are the only ones likely to suffer harm from chronic exposure to the stuff.  The dose makes the poison and I doubt there's a single homeowner out there who has  died from occasionally using Roundup around their home. And the material is not what one would deem environmentally persistent. So, 1) educate farmers and farmworkers and get them to take proper controls and 2) reduce the need to use the stuff in the first place.

# 2 is easy - start with a worldwide ban on the idiocy of breeding and selling plants with Roundup resistance genetically engineered in (something companies are already pursuing for other front-line herbicides, alas).  The idea here is that you can plant a field full of Roundup-resistant soybeans (bought under license from Monsanto, of course), and then instead of worrying about farming practices or tilling, simply saturate your fields with Roundup every now and then to control weeds.  It's a clever idea until you realize that a) plants freely swap genetic material and b) repeated exposures breed resistance. Two factors that any agricultural chemist should have realized before starting the project.  It's right up there with the stupidity of giving farm animals prophylactic antibiotics - and we all know how that worked out for us.  And, like antibiotic resistance, that's come home to roost:

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weeds-are-winning-the-war-against-herbicide-resistance1/

            https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/04/11/710229186/as-weeds-outsmart-the-latest-weedkillers-farmers-are-running-out-of-options

            https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/agronomy/library/glyphosate-resistance-in-weeds/

One could posit that with herbicide resistance now firmly entrenched, it's likely that the glyphosate manufacturers have probably genetically engineered their way out of the agricultural market as quickly as they engineered their way in and the number of exposed workers will plummet.  But that won't stop the big Ag.  They'll tinker with another gene, and do this all over again.  I'm not at all against genetic engineering, but I am against rampant stupidity.

But don't worry, the EPA has its best scientistsÉoh, wait, right.

Rob Toreki

On May 21, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU> wrote:

 

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?

 

Monona

--- 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