DeNunCianDo - Ver Mensaje Individual

DarkPit · 11-05-2015 , 16:24:05

Cita:

Iniciado por Marinero Falton

Como próximo a graduarme de ingeniería ambiental en la Universidad de Antioquia, les diré que la mayoría de los estudios a nivel mundial aprueban el glifosfato para su uso regular. Que belleza que Santos si lo va a aprobar para el arroz (que realmente nos comemos a diferencia de la coca), eso implica que el sabe que este producto no implica ningún riesgo para la salud, y solo está cediendo a las peticiones de las fart.

IARC:

IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of
five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides

For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogen tity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals. On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985. After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble. The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogen tity in experimental animals. Glyphosate also caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, although it gave negative results in tests using bacteria. One study in community residents reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby.

How were the evaluations conducted?

The established procedure for Monographs evaluations is described in the Programme's Preamble. Evaluations are performed by panels of international experts, selected on the basis of their expertise and the absence of real or apparent conflicts of interest. For Volume 112, a Working Group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at IARC on 3-10 March 2015 to assess the carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. The in-person meeting followed nearly a year of review and preparation by the IARC secretariat and the Working Group, including a comprehensive review of the latest available scientific evidence. According to published procedures, the Working Group considered "reports that have been published or accepted for publication in the openly available scientific literature" as well as "data from governmental reports that are publicly available". The Working Group did not consider summary tables in online supplements to published articles, which did not provide enough detail for independent assessment.