Latest news with #Roundup
Scoop
3 days ago
- Health
- Scoop
EPA's Glyphosate Decision Challenged In Court
The Environmental Protection Authority is being taken to court over its decision not to re-assess the pesticide glyphosate. The Environmental Law Initiative is arguing that there is enough new evidence around the human health and environmental effects of glyphosate, or Roundup, to warrant a reassessment from our chemicals regulator. The hearing has now finished and we are awaiting the judge's decision. Professor of Toxicology Ian Shaw, School of Physical & Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, comments: 'Glyphosate, the active compound in Roundup, was licensed in the mid-1970s. We have learned much about the compound since then and, importantly, its use profile has changed significantly. This points to the need for a review to determine the current risk-benefit balance for environmental and human impact (via operator exposure and food residues). In 2022, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) decided that a review was not warranted based on its call for information upon which it based its decision. The EPA's report quotes farmers who extol the virtues of glyphosate as evidence against the need for a review. The farmers' views illustrate the key role (benefit) that glyphosate plays in New Zealand agriculture, but does not take account of its risks. 'In my opinion, there are too many unknowns relating to glyphosate's long-term environmental impact and its effects in humans not to review the compound. In addition, the current approval is largely based on 1970s toxicity data (environmental and human): we have learned much (risks and benefits) in the intervening 50-years that warrants consideration via a review. Importantly, other countries have reviewed or are in the process of reviewing glyphosate. 'More recently, the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) has proposed an increased maximum residue level (MRL) for glyphosate in some crops and their food products from the default 0.1 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg. This is a completely different issue to the need for a glyphosate review. Indeed, a simple glyphosate residue in food intake calculation shows that the proposed MRL increase will have negligible or no health impact on consumers. This is not evidence against a review of glyphosate's use in New Zealand.' No conflict of interest declared. Professor Oliver Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, comments: 'In my view, the New Zealand EPA was entirely correct to state that there isn't enough new evidence to support another review of glyphosate. There have been extensive reviews by regulatory agencies worldwide on this issue, including those of the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, and the European Union (the EU Commission reapproved glyphosate for 10 years in July 2023). There would have to be substantive new information indicating the risk has changed to warrant the expense of another review in New Zealand, and there just isn't any. 'Judges and court decisions don't make science. Science is based on evidence and logical deduction. However, the Federal Court of Australia reached a similar judgment to others in 2024 in what is known as the McNickle case. The court found no conclusive scientific evidence linking glyphosate/Roundup to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 'It is also worth noting that non-Hodgkin lymphoma is not a single disease but rather a catch-all term for approximately 60 different lymphoma subtypes that are not all the same. It is a little like classifying all voters as Labour voters or non-Labour voters. It is technically correct but misses essential context. 'Bayer and Monsanto may or may not be perfect corporate citizens, but the overwhelming scientific evidence from over thirty years of testing is that glyphosate does not cause cancer even in the most exposed users such as farm workers.
Time of India
14-06-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Glyphosate can trigger "multiple" types of cancer, even at safe levels, says study
Glyphosate, an active ingredient of the herbicide Roundup, has long been under the scanner for its potential health risks. Now, a landmark long-term study has confirmed that glyphosate exposure starting before birth causes cancer in animals. Let's find out more... The Study The study, known as the Global Glyphosate Study, was led by the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, and involved scientists from multiple international institutions. It examined the effects of glyphosate and two glyphosate-based herbicide formulations on Sprague Dawley rats, a common model for toxicology studies. The study was designed this way: the rats were exposed to glyphosate starting from the prenatal stage and continuing for two years, which is essentially their lifespan. The doses given through drinking water were 0.5, 5, and 50 mg per kg of body weight per day — levels that correspond to what regulatory agencies currently consider safe for humans or what they are exposed to. The results The results were shocking, to say the least. The study found a dose-related increase in both benign and malignant tumors in the rats exposed to glyphosate and its formulations compared to the control group. These tumors appeared in multiple organs, including the liver, ovary, thyroid, nervous system, and blood (leukemia). Not only this, about 40% of leukemia-related deaths occurred early in the animals' lives, indicating that glyphosate exposure before birth heightened vulnerability to cancer at a young age, that can turn terminal. This study confirms and expands on previous findings by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' in 2015 based on animal and limited human evidence. However, glyphosate use has been constantly approved, due to insufficient evidence of risk. This new research challenges all previous approvals, by showing that even doses considered safe can cause cancer when exposure starts before birth. (in all mammals, including humans) The risk to humans Though this study was conducted on rats, long-term animal studies are a standard method to predict cancer risk in humans. Many carcinogens, such as asbestos and benzene, were first identified through rodent experiments only. Why it is alarming The finding that prenatal exposure increases cancer risk is particularly concerning, because it suggests that human fetuses and infants may be especially vulnerable. What makes this even more scary is that other studies have detected glyphosate in the urine of nearly all pregnant women tested in some regions, with higher levels linked to lower birth weight, and increased risk of neonatal intensive care admission. Not only this, epidemiological studies have linked glyphosate exposure to an increased risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in humans, with some research showing up to a 41% higher risk among heavily exposed groups such as farmers and pesticide applicators. This growing body of evidence points to glyphosate as a potential health hazard not just for adults but also for developing babies. What can you do to reduce the risk Given the evidence, one must make all efforts to minimize glyphosate exposure, especially for pregnant women and children. Here are some practical steps: Avoid using glyphosate-based herbicides at home or in gardens. If you must use them, wear protective clothing such as long sleeves, long pants, closed-toe shoes, and chemical-resistant gloves, and a thick mask. Avoid spraying on windy days to prevent inhalation or skin contact. Wash hands thoroughly (with soap and not just sanitizer) after handling glyphosate or touching plants that may have been sprayed. Avoid eating, drinking, or smoking during and immediately after application. Keep children and pets away from treated areas for at least 24 hours or as recommended on labels. Choose organic foods when possible. Glyphosate is banned in organic farming, and switching to organic has been shown to reduce glyphosate levels in the body by up to 70% within days. Wash fruits and vegetables thoroughly to reduce residues. Use warm water and baking soda if needed. One step to a healthier you—join Times Health+ Yoga and feel the change
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Big One
Israel attacks Iran: We're all waking up to a much less stable Middle East this morning. "Israel's action to cripple Iran's nuclear program is a service to all civilized people," offers AIPAC. This attack "risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America," offers Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Conn.). Israel presents its actions as a "response to the Iranian regime's ongoing aggression against Israel" and declares that this, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, is only "the first stage." Explosions were seen all across Iran early Friday morning, hitting Tehran, the main uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, Isfahan (near a nuclear facility), Tabriz (near a nuclear research center and two military facilities), Khondab (near a nuclear site), and Khorammabad (near a nuclear site). The cities of Arak and Kermanshah were also hit. At least six military bases were hit around Tehran. Some residential areas were struck (death toll currently unknown). Israel killed the commander in chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Hossein Salami; the deputy commander of Iran's armed forces, Gen. Gholamali Rashid; the chief of staff of the military, Mohammad Bagheri; the head of the airspace unit of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh; and Ali Shamkhani, one of Iran's most influential politicians and a close advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini, who had been overseeing the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States. Israel also attacked the homes of nuclear scientists Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoun Abbasi, assassinating both. Several other nuclear scientists were killed as well: Abdolhamid Minouchehr, who "conducted extensive research on improving the efficiency and safety of nuclear plants" (per Al Jazeera); Ahmad Reza Zolfaghari, who taught nuclear engineering at Shahid Beheshti University; Amir Hossein Faghihi, who previously helmed Iran's Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute; and a scientist known as Motallebzadeh. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Iran's nuclear program "a clear and present danger to Israel's very survival," claiming that Tehran had "taken steps that it has never taken before—steps to weaponize this enriched uranium." He added: "If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It could be within a few months." As reported in Roundup yesterday, a U.N. body—the International Atomic Energy Agency—just found Iran to be in violation of its nuclear obligations and censured it due to its refusal to work with the agency's inspectors. The U.S. clearly had advance warning of the attacks and had started to evacuate certain personnel and family members of government employees from the Middle East. Trump had also presaged two months ago that Iran needed to agree to a nuclear deal on the timeline Trump had proposed or there would be consequences. For an alternative take, go here. A third take is below: "I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal," Trump said on Truth Social, but "they just couldn't get it done." Trump added that "the next already planned attacks" could be "even more brutal," and warned that Iran "must make a deal, before there is nothing left." "I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come—And they know how to use it," he said. What happens next? Israel says it wants to completely cripple Iran's nuclear program, preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran maintains its innocence, repeatedly claiming the scaled-up nuclear capacity is for civilian energy purposes only. Iran's "axis of resistance"—its proxies and allies in the region, including Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqi militias, and Yemeni Houthis—does not seem prepared to rush to its aid. Israel's already spent many months fighting Hamas, most obviously, but also Hezbollah (for which domestic support has waned). U.S. strikes on the Houthis have left the group weak. Alerts sent out to Israelis told them to stay near bomb shelters, and later to collect essential items. All gatherings in the country were banned. Schools and workplaces are closed. Flights arriving in and departing from Tel Aviv were canceled as the airspace was closed to civilians. Iran launched a barrage of drones at Israel, which were shot down by Israel's defense systems. But Iran still vows retaliation at Israel, as well as the United States. "We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region," Secretary of State Marco Rubio replied. "Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel." It remains to be seen whether Iran finds this plausible, given Trump's rhetoric, the timing of the nuclear negotiations, and the U.S.'s closeness to Israel. Iran has moved quickly to get its top military brass replaced, and Khameini has wasted no time decrying Israel's targeting of residential areas full of civilians. Crowds of protesters have formed, calling for Iran to retaliate. I am getting very worried about an actual socialist getting elected to lead my city. "Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California, was forcibly removed on Thursday from a news conference being held by Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, and handcuffed after he interrupted Ms. Noem at a federal building in West Los Angeles," reports The New York Times. "'Sir! Sir! Hands off!' Mr. Padilla, 52, shouted as federal agents tried to muscle him out of the room inside a government office building about 15 miles west of downtown Los Angeles where Ms. Noem was speaking. 'I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have a question for the secretary.'" Padilla was handcuffed and then, later, vouched for by…Corey Lewandowski. The FBI insists that it acted properly: "When an unrecognized Senator in plain clothes and wearing no security pin became disruptive and subsequently resisted law enforcement, our F.B.I. L.A. personnel responded in support of Secret Service completely appropriately." Unrest at New Jersey's migrant detention center, Delaney Hall. "The House on Thursday narrowly approved a request from the White House, known as a rescissions package, to claw back funding for NPR, PBS and international aid that lawmakers had previously appropriated," reports CBS. Robert Malone, a total quack, was appointed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to one of the vacancies on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. (A more promising pick is Martin Kulldorff, a former guest on Just Asking Questions.) "Reporters in this era have been asked to abandon objectivity and adhere to it. They've been urged to be public figures with heavy social media presences, but also told they'll be fired if they say what they think," writes Matt Taibbi on the firing of ABC anchor Terry Moran for a social media post criticizing Stephen Miller. The post The Big One appeared first on
E&E News
12-06-2025
- Health
- E&E News
Cancer patient urges SCOTUS not to dismiss Roundup verdicts
A Missouri man who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using a popular weedkiller for decades wants the Supreme Court to reject the manufacturer's request to grant it immunity from his lawsuit and thousands of others. John Durnell in a brief filed Monday says a jury found that Monsanto's Roundup caused his blood cancer and that the company is liable for damages. But, he added, the company is arguing 'as it has argued with little success for years' that it should be immune from lawsuits that it says are barred by federal law. His filing comes after Bayer in April asked the high court to determine whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) should invalidate thousands of lawsuits that claim the company has a duty to warn about health risks from the product. Advertisement Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, and the company has been inundated with what it says were 'unfounded' legal challenges across the country from customers alleging the weedkiller was responsible for their cancers.
Buzz Feed
11-06-2025
- Health
- Buzz Feed
Experts Explain Why European Food Is Better For You
We've all been there. You go abroad — or have a friend who did (let's call her Rebecca) — and suddenly she's unbearable. She won't stop talking about Bar-the-lona and how the tomatoes just tasted better, how walking everywhere changed her life, how pasta in Rome doesn't even count as carbs, and how Americans 'just don't get it.' But as insufferable as she may be, Rebecca might actually have a point — especially when it comes to the food. At some point, a lot of us come back from Europe feeling…better. Healthier. Lighter. More alive. Maybe it's the slower pace, the extra steps on cobblestone streets, the two-day vacationship with a man named Matteo, or the fact that your nervous system finally got a break from interpreting every period in a Slack message as a personal attack. Or maybe it's because you inhaled bread, cheese, wine, and pasta daily, and somehow came back feeling leaner. So what gives? Is the food actually better over there, or are we all just drunk on Aperol and vacation delusion? Dr. Sandy Ziya, a functional medicine physician, says food quality in Europe really does make a difference. One of the biggest culprits behind that post-vacation glow? A break from ultra-processed foods. 'In my experience, when my patients visit Europe, they do feel healthier,' she says. 'There are many aspects of the processed food and the preparation of food that contribute to that.' And here's the thing: ultra-processed foods aren't just heavily refined — they're also loaded with additives, preservatives, and lab-made ingredients you can't pronounce. That's where the real trouble starts. 'In Europe, food colorings like Red Dye 3 and additives such as glyphosate [yep, the same stuff in Roundup weed killer] are prohibited,' says Dr. Ziya. That's because the European Food Safety Authority requires additives to be proven safe before they're approved. In the U.S., the FDA is a little looser. Instead, we've got the GRAS loophole — short for 'Generally Recognized As Safe.' It allows companies to add ingredients based on expert opinion or historical use, which sounds okay in theory, until you remember that food companies have literally paid scientists to claim cereal was a health food. So, yeah — 'safe' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Hey, you! Wanna cook easy recipes in step-by-step mode? Download the free Tasty app right now. Dr. Supriya Rao, a gastroenterologist, explains that all those additives and preservatives can do more than just make you feel sluggish — they can mess with your gut on a cellular level. 'Some common American additives (like carrageenan, polysorbate 80, and certain oils) may alter gut bacteria or increase permeability and increase cytokine production, contributing to inflammation and digestive issues over time,' she says. Zooming out, Dr. Rao adds that the broader issue is how the Standard American Diet stacks all of this together. 'It's full of processed foods, sugary drinks, fast foods, red meat, alcohol, and additives. Eating like this consistently drives chronic inflammation, insulin resistance, gut dysbiosis, weight gain, and more — all of which are foundational triggers for diseases like type 2 diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and cardiovascular issues.' So yes, our food might be slowly killing us. But, hey, at least it's convenient, right? Here's the thing: It's not about guilt-tripping you into growing your own kale or never eating a gas station Snickers again. It's about awareness. Because once you know what you're up against, you can actually do something about it. 'Most people don't even know they're consuming ultra-processed food at every meal,' says Dr. Ziya. 'But the lack of satiety — that never-full feeling — is a major clue. Processed foods hijack your hunger cues.' If you've ever eaten a full bag of Doritos and still felt snacky, you know what she's talking about. So what can we do? Short of moving to a seaside village in Sicily, eating tomatoes grown out of your own garden, and making your own pasta with locally milled flour (honestly, tempting), here are a few real-world tips: — Read ingredient lists. If it has 32 ingredients and you can't pronounce half of them, maybe skip it.— Prioritize organic when possible. Yes, it's more expensive. But when you can, do it. Especially for produce and animal products.— Look for 'banned in Europe' ingredients. If it's banned over there and allowed here, consider it a red flag (not a sexy red flag either).— Cook more at home. Even just a couple of meals a week can help cut down on additives.— Follow the 80/20 rule. You don't have to eat clean all the time; just try to make it your maybe, just maybe, we start holding food manufacturers and government regulators accountable: lobby for better labeling, ask questions, and vote with your fork. Because right now, Europe isn't winning the food game by accident. They're winning because they actually care about public health. Wild, right? TL;DR: Yes, European food is generally healthier. Their food safety standards are stricter, and their ingredient lists are shorter. Your vacation glow isn't all in your head — your gut, your sleep, and your mood probably did improve because of what (and how) you ate. But you don't have to hop on a plane every time you want to feel better. Start small. Stay curious. And hey, if you happen to meet a hot man while shopping for organic zucchini in Trader Joe's, that's just a bonus. Thinking of cooking at home tonight? Download the free Tasty app, where you can follow step-by-step instructions for over 7,500 recipes — no subscription required.
