Brief Note from Kip Hansen
On December 18, 2017, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a paper titled “Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential” as part of a larger release of its latest findings on glyphosate, the main active ingredient in the world’s most used weed killer, Monsanto’s Roundup.
The revised issue paper was part of a larger timed release of a number of EPA statements on the 18th December.
The finding?
“For cancer descriptors, the available data and weight-of-evidence clearly do not support the descriptors “carcinogenic to humans”, “likely to be carcinogenic to humans”, or “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential”. For the “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” descriptor, considerations could be looked at in isolation; however, following a thorough integrative weight-of-evidence evaluation of the available data, the database would not support this cancer descriptor. The strongest support is for “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans”.
The reaction of the American press was astonishing — almost complete silence. The major “Newspaper of Record” for the United States, The NY Times, did not mention the report at all — not a single line, anywhere in the paper. Of major US papers, based on a search for mention of the report in each of the following, these papers and news outlets did not mention the new finding: NY Times, Washington Post, Portland Tribune, Seattle Times, Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press, UPI and CNN.
My online search only turned up three (3) Main Stream Media outlets that carried the news: the LA Times [and here on Twitter](my lifetime, hometown paper), the St Louis Post-Dispatch, and Reuters.
[Personal Disclosure: In my youth, I delivered the LA Times seven days a week for several years, including the Sunday edition, weighing several pounds.]
As a measure of interest in the general topic, a Google search for “news Monsanto’s Roundup” returns 3,820,000 results — there has been a lot of news about Monsanto’s Roundup product — yet when the US EPA finally issues the results of if oft-delayed findings (delays which were reported by all major US news outlets) — the majority of US news sources remained silent. The EPA made public announcements of the release of the reports, including advanced copies to the press with an embargo date of 18 December.
There is no more powerful way to bias news coverage than this: simply to not report the news at all.
I have my opinion on why this non-event happened. What’s yours?
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
Always glad to engage in civil conversation about the topic at hand — in this case the non-coverage of this major and long-awaited EPA report by MSM in the United States.
I will reveal my personal opinion later on in my usual Epilogue in the comment section, after I feel that most of you have had your say.
If you expect a reply from me, please address you comment to “Kip …” so I can see it.
I don’t intend to argue the case for or against Roundup and I will not entertain general discussion of Monsanto-hating conspiracy theories.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The War against Leftist anti-science and propaganda has to be fought report by report, page by page and line by line until these is nowhere for the corruption and distortion to exist. It is a War of Attrition. It is time to revisit DDT and undo some of the massive damage done by its brainless banning.
But unfortunately… “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” – Alberto Brandolini
If you drink it in concentrate it will probably kill you and it will do a LOT of damage to your tissues.
If you drink it in ready-to-use application rate it will likely put you in the hospital.
If you consume the amount normally applied to a plant or weed your body might notice.
If you consume the amount that remains in a plant 90 days after application nothing will happen.
If you consume the amount that happens to enter a fruit/grain/nut/tuber that began to form AFTER 90 days after application it will literally be undetectable in your bodily fluids.
If you consume foods prepared by cooking that were sourced from fruit/grain/nut/tuber that was exposed to (or directly applied with) Glyphosate then there is ZERO chance of glyphosate entering your body.
The mechanism(chemichism?) that Round-Up uses is chemical conversion on ingestion by the plant, it breaks off one way when it enters a living FLORAL organism and a different way when it TOUCHES dirt and yet another way when it is ingested into the human stomach. With a storage temp of about 120F max there’s no way it isn’t turning into an inert crystal when heated to 200F or above.
The one that remains biologically active is the one inside the plant.
So when asking if Round-Up causes cancer…. you’re asking the wrong goddamned question because once it enters your body OR a plant it is no longer “glyphosate” to begin with.
If glyphosate caused cancer then Doritos would have a California warning, its been more than THIRTY YEARS and there’s been no spike in cancer from the food products that Round-Up is used to protect.
The GROUNDWATER issue has yet to be fully resolved, it looks like the combination of a hundred years of atmospheric pollution and the overspray onto soil may be producing a groundwater pollutant OTHER THAN the one we know about (since the molecule literally breaks up on dirt).
But in the end, we know that said groundwater pollutant is also not carcenogenic, just toxic.
prjindigo, Just toxic? the Chelate ability of Glyphosate is an issue. We [1000 tradesman] were inhaling a Chelate used to remove heavy metals from Pulp Fibre. It diminished our Nutritional Minerals except for Potassium and Manganese that we were inhaling in the emissions from 27 Vents and Chimneys. The imbalances were noted in comparative Hair Samples Vs length of Exposure. Dr Harada from Japan who helped the people from Grassy Narrows with their mercury contamination from eating fish downriver of the same Pulp Mill suggested we get Hair Samples. The toll of cardiac issues from elevated potassium was quite high, with diminished Electrolyte’s, the following months were a battle with severe cramping with full body arcing from head to toe, chemically induced neuropathy and neurotoxic issues.
The following Journal Article describing health impacts from farming areas in India is a caution for Western farmers that have shallow wells for drinking and ponds for watering livestock.
I suspect the Indian farmers working in Rice Paddies had IDI routes from dermal absorption from possibly being barefooted. If they were hand spraying with backpacks inhalation would be likely from [evaporation] spray drift, then Ingestion from contaminated drinking wells.
I would also question the Uptake in potato tubers when Glyphosate is used as a Desiccant to dry the vines pre-harvest here in North America. So prjindingo, your statement that “you’re asking the wrong goddamned question because once it enters your body OR a plant it is no longer “glyphosate” to begin with”. I have lived the cellular impacts of inhaling a Chelate. I was fortunate to survive the following months of Electrolyte imbalance.
Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits …
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945589/
by C Jayasumana – 2014 – Cited by 111 – Related articles
Feb 20, 2014 – Furthermore, it may explain similar kidney disease epidemics observed in Andra Pradesh (India) and Central America. Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms …
I think the reason behind a lack of response is really simple. For the MSM a ‘not carcinogenic’ finding is not news. Will the finding frighten people? Will the finding expose a great scandal? Will the finding cause hysteria among ‘celebrities’? Will the finding provide information to lambast someone’s, anyone’s reputation among industry or Trump aligned politicians? If they think of a way to spin it so that any of those questions answers yes it will be front page news, if not, for them it simply isn’t news.
I just offered to my wife, we will see this in the MSM only if they can attach a headline such as “Trump’s EPA Approves Sales of Baby-Killing Chemical”. Then it will be front page news!
Red ==> LOL…probably right.
The 11th issue of Merck Index (1989) for DDT–“This substance may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen.” Haven’t checked later, but this sounds like another hypothetical so common now. Chlorinated hydrocarbons can be toxic, Round-Up not so much. Advisory not to use around tree roots valid, but not too effective based on my one attempt with sprouting Laurel Oaks. Interesting book definition for word ‘affective.’– “relating to, arising from, or influencing feelings or emotions.”
Merck Index listed Glyphosate orally with LD50, 4873 mg/kg for rats, 1568 for mice. Nothing about cancer. It has the amino acid glycine in its structure.
Course I used to teach a little toxicology in taken over by someone who ignored my materials, changed it to something like Sustainability and Biodiversity. In my course these were taken for granted, we taught real stuff. Like everything can be toxic, some necessary for life. I hope people researching cancer don’t come out of courses like that. Back in the 1980s “Environmental Science” textbooks were all the rage, often with lots of good information but political, refused to use them.
So, if we extrapolate the toxic threshold for mice to a 70-kg (154 lb) human, a person would have to drink about 110 grams (about 3.9 oz) of pure glyphosate to have a 50% chance of dying. This would justify putting a child-proof cap on Roundup to prevent toddlers from drinking it, but since the glyphosate is diluted in water in weed-killer, it’s highly unlikely that a farmer using Roundup could accidentally ingest anywhere near 110 grams of pure glyphosate.
But the main story here is media bias. When there was some suspicion that glyphosate “may” be carcinogenic, the mass-media were all-too ready to jump to conclusions and demonize the manufacturers of Roundup. But when a government (EPA) study concludes that it is NOT carcinogenic and safe to use as directed, the media offer no apologies to Monsanto for the economic damage they inflicted by falsely causing potential customers to fear using the product for its intended purpose.
Steve ==> There’s an idea — Monsanto sues Greenpeace, EDF, NRDC, and a dozen newspapers.
Can we expect a similar admission soon that GMO is safe? I believe the risks are over-hyped but that is way beyond my pay grade.
BillT ==> There has never been any reason to even think that GMOs are NOT safe.
It miggt be possible to create an “unsafe for human consumption” GMO — maybe by splicing in a gene for a known toxic substance — but I don’t know of anyone working in that direction.
starlink corn ONLY licensed for animal feed. got into human chain people had adverse reactions.
csiro developed a pea in aus that had unexpected side effects and got halted.
hybrid strains tend to be great for one yr. most gmos are hybrids with tinkering for tolerance.
waste of money and time.
grow old varieties that are suited to the area and save your seed
the cost on NOT paying for the new seed the chemicals it requires etc is worth the.. maybe…lesser harvest total.
Overhyped risk is an understatement. A little science goes a long way here. The GM in GMO are almost always proteins coded by inserted genes (usually but not always the protein subset enzymes). As a pertinent example, Roundup Ready maize, soybean, and canola are created by inserting two genes from different bacteria that code for the enzymes EPSPS and GOX. That is all. Just two genes for two enzymes.
Now, mammalian immune systems will immediately attack and destroy any ‘non-self’ proteins in the blood stream. Nature solved that “food is not-self” dilemma very handily. All proteins are comprised of just 20 amino acids. The digestive tract breaks down all proteins into the constituent amino acids, and only the amino acids are absorbed by the gut and transported by the bloodstream to nourish the rest of the body. So literally NOTHING of any protein, of any sort, in any food, gets anywhere it can do anyone harm.
GMO fear is based in irrational ignorance of basic biology.
“All proteins are comprised of just 20 amino acids.”
…
That is not true. You are neglecting selenocysteine.
ristvan ==> True that…almost all “fear of science” is based on near total ignorance of basic science.
RDF, true yet not true. There is no genetic code for selenocystine, a ‘21st’amino variant of cystine where selenium substitutes for sulfur. Nor is there any biological pool of selenocysteine within cells—too reactive. So I look at it as a metabolic product rather than a basic life building block.
“Prion” proteins are a little scary. Somehow they retain their scariness, even after/through digestion)
Yeah. My whitetails on the farm now occasionally have CWD prion disease. So you make an excellent point countering my general standard protein biology. Butceot prion disease does not spread thru ruminant stomachs, but rather other more direct exposures such as saliva from livking. Does not change protein amino acids. Does change their biological rear rangement outcomes. Knew it since circa 2000 on my farm near original Wisconsin CDW ground zero at the state park, yet did not think it. Point conceded.
Well stated. Same thing with carbohydrates and triglycerides although a few diglycerides make it into the blood.
This is why snake venom can be consumed if one doesn’t have any ulceration or other open wounds in the digestive tract.
On cancer, the number one cause is oxygen. Specifically, free radical oxygen damage to genetic material.
Glyphosate is safe to drink. Patrick Moore says so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
The EPA also says so. The MSDS for RoundUp has about the same LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of population) as that of beer.
Though I doubt that RoundUp will make you “dance better”, “wittier”, or the opposite sex more attractive, like beer does.
DDT was safe to eat
Carbon monoxide is not carcinogenic, nor is hydrogen cyanide.
RDW ==> Better check that with the IARC — they’ve only met one substance that they decided wasn’t carcinogenic.
“The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) began categorizing substances based on their likelihood of causing cancer in 1970.
Since then, they’ve categorized 989 different substances — and only one has made it into Group 4, the “probably not carcinogenic to humans” category.
That one that is probably not a carcinogenic substance? Caprolactam. The chemical is a precursor to nylon and “used in stretchy yoga pants and toothbrush bristles,”
[ http://www.businessinsider.com/almost-everything-causes-cancer-2016-5 ]
Kip, I know one substance that isn’t carcinogenic….. dihydrogen monoxide.
Not if the dihydrogen is the tritium isotope rather than proteum isotope. Then the beta particles from radioactive decay with half life 12.3 years can kill directly or indirectly via cancer. Former KGB agent Litvinenko was assassinated in Londen by tea spiked with polonium 210,which also radioactively decays by emitting beta particles. More radioactive than tritium, and killed him by radiation poisoning in less than a month.
Don’t worry, ristvan its so rare in nature, background radiation swamps beta from tritium. Oh, and another thing, your body will dilute and pass any tritium you consume unlike how it will retain polonium.
PS ristvan, I forgot to thank you for noting that Litvinenko died of acute radiation poisoning, and not from cancer.
RDW ==> Yeah, so YOU say! Dihydrogen monoxide is found in every cancer cell…that’s got to mean something!
Kip, you just might have found one of the root causes…..but how will you deal with the fact that non cancerous cells ALSO have dihydrogen monoxide in them???
Sorry, Ralph, It’s been on the internet for a decade or more. (Maybe before the “World Wide Web”?)
http://www.dhmo.org/cancer.html
It must be true.
The internet is settled.
Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned!
RDW ==> …non cancerous cells ALSO have dihydrogen monoxide in them…” Mere Coincidence, of course.
Well Hydrogen Hydroxide isn’t toxic either but it can give you a bad case of pneumonia.
But back to the Tritium or the Polonium 210. The latter is really bad because it has the temerity to crystalize is a simple cubic lattice, instead of belonging to either the face centered or body centered clan. I believe Polonium is also chemically toxic.
But as to the beta emission, is it the charged electron that kills, or is it the accompanying gamma radiation. The betas would hardly make it through any cell walls to do much damage. I know for example that a Polonium/Beryllium neutron source emits around 10^4 gammas per neutron, and those can only come from the Polonium.
G
george e. smith
From wikipedia, about Polonium/Beryllium neutron sources
From my old nuclear radiation safety classes, you’re correct about the “harmless” effects of normal beta radiation: The high speed electrons hit the dead layer of skin cells, are absorbed, and have no real effect on the body. (Internal beta-emitters inside the body are much more dangerous, because they dump all of their energy into a limited area around the embedded beta-emitter. That damage (broken cell structure and broken DNA and physical damage) can be very real. )
But there is usually only one high-energy gamma ray from each reaction that emits a neutron, but many gamma rays coming from “failed” (non-neutron events). So, a neutron source that emits that many gamma rays per second is emitting few neutrons. But the gammas are not coming on a “per neutron reaction” basis, but on a “per neutron source basis” (per gram per second measured outside the source). Subtle difference.
Kip, I’m quite sure that when the two above mentioned substances were tested on subjects, no cancer developed.
RDW ==> yeah..but … but …but …. if the subjects hadn’t died, they would have developed cancer! for sure !
😉
I think this boils down to how you name them. If you call them pre-cancerous cells, as all must be, then you can have 100% of cells covered.
Well outside of California, Royalty is in decline, so subjects are hard to come by for testing; but as I said that is Outside of California.
g
EPA: “Roundup Not Carcinogenic”
Alar not available for comment
Matthew ==> We currently live in “apple country” (Central Hudson Valley of New York state) — the alar scare was horrible for apple growers here — and as with almost all “probable carcinogens” the science is very thin to non-existent.
Yep!
I could barely tell the difference in Real Coke and the diet Coke sweetened with Cyclamate (Tab?), Then in 1969 the whacos got Cyclamate banned and they used a different low calorie sweetener. To date there is still no proof that Cyclamate causes cancer AND all low calorie drinks taste like medicine. And the whacos still get stuff band based upon opinion and phony science.
usurbrain ==> As for Coke, I prefer, for the sugared variety, Mexican “Hecho In Mexico” type, sold in all the groceries in our area in NY state.
Six pack, glass bottles.
But, but, what about the glass bottles? Surely the silicon will leach out causing sillycosis.
Well there isn’t any “real” Coke any more, so who cares what it tastes like.
When ” Coke ” …. (real) …. was replaced by ” New Coke ” , nobody liked the taste, so they then replace ” New Coke ” again with “Classic Coke “.
Nobody knows why the just don’t replace “Classic Coke ” with just “Coke ” ( the original ‘real’ one that is ??)
Well there’s probably nobody alive who even remembers what ” Coke ” tasted like, when you could get it.
G
This is terrible news. Do you know how many low life ambulance chasing lawyers this will affect? How will they bring a class action suit now?
Hopefully all, permanently and terminally. And I am among other things a lawyer.
So you will get closer to the fire when you get there ?
g ggg I said g.
Thank you. Now tell the EU political courts.
Whatever the USEPA or rest of the World says, it will still carry the label, “This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.” 😎
(In California everything but pot causes cancer.)
too late…
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/marijuana-smoke
I’m sure it will be granted “sanctuary status”. 😎
Perhaps “this pot contains chemicals known to cause the state of California” would be more appropriate.
Pot cures smoking !
They don’t call it ” Dope ” for no reason.
g
I bought a plumbing part for my bathroom sink here in British Columbia and it had that label attached to it.
I got a rock chisel for Christmas with the CA cancer warning. Never mind smashing one’s fingers.
Gunga ==> I escaped the California Lunatic Asylum when I was 21 years old, and never returned, except as a tourist.
Silica is a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer. Beware of beaches.
And it has been the “go to” for the USEPA for WAY to long.
Give it another 8 or 10 years and maybe the sane can move back if they want?
(Voter ID laws may need to be in place first.)
Is anyone really surprised by this? Really? These are the same lie spewing (Snip) who lied about eggs, milk, wheat, butter, CO2, spring water, sea levels and the cost of tax cuts. (Snip) them.
2hotel9 ==> I am pleasantly pleased that the EPA (both Obama’s and Trump’s) have come down on the side of real scientific evidence instead of kowtowing to eco-presssure groups demands.
A small win for Science.
Three years ago, I was spraying the lawn with Roundup to kill weeds. It was in a container that has to be attached to the garden hose Unfortunately, I turned the hose on myself and sprayed myself with it, and of course, in the surprise my mouth was open.
The obvious thing to do was hose myself down, which i promptly did, and rinsed out my mouth and then I went and called the Poison Center, and they said I should be fine.
I am fine. But the weeds that were growing in my yard died a sorry death in those three years.
Now I have sunflowers growing in that spot, and the goldfinches came by the dozens last summer (yes, I have photos) to raid the sunflower seed heads. The lawn looks great, too.
Not carcinogenic. Driving a spike through your head doesn’t cause cancer either. Does that mean it’s safe?
Albert ==> I guarantee that if your drive a railroad spike all the way into your skull., you will [most likely] not die of cancer.
Heavy application of glysophate has not been shown to cause gout or gingivitis either.
No but the acetamenophin you take for the headache the spike gives you , will !
g
Next thing you know they will try to ban quadrotiticale as a cancer causing grain.
Tom ==> That’s the tribble with the EPA……
Can’t get very fur without any guts !
g
These selective non-reporting incidents must be recorded and used as evidence of politically motivated media bias: in short, media corruption.
Media types like to look back on events like Watergate to glow in the light of their own self-righteousness hero-worship.
But today’s media have become Watergate.
Can’t happen. Nixon is dead.
The way to get a new fact out is to publish in a peer-reviewed paper. Is an EPA paper considered a peer-reviewed publication? It should be published in whatever esteemed journal originally published a “cancerous” finding.
Grass seeds live for over seven years in soil before taking advantage of the chance to germinate, and an acre of land has hundreds of thousands to of these seeds below the soil surface (continually accumulating). Grass is extraordinarily aggressive, and it is multi-generational per season.
In Africa, women are stuck hoeing the grass and often cannot clear an entire hectare for planting. They also cannot keep up with the growing season, and their children obviously want to leave for the city as soon as they can to escape that life.
The problem is grass. So people who hate pesticides need to pull the grass out by hand for themselves and leave the farmers who use a litre or so of chemicals per acre out of their idyllic organic paradigm.
Please, beware of hand weeded crops. You yourself may end up being the bent over laborer, if things tilt further.
Anyone who has eaten a carrot will die.
It causes global warming don’t ya know. Just look at the correlation.
Lawyers crying themselves to sleep.
Still kissing themselves goodnight though.
Most class-action and environmental law firms are left-wing amoral white-collar criminals.
Another win against the opportunistic followers of Marx & Engels.
And just to be inclusive of other points of view here are the links to Dr Seneff’s presentations and published works.
https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
TRM ==> Dr. Seneff is a computer scientist that has been dabbling in health and medical fields for a while — she publishes mostly in non- or barely-peer-reviewed junk journals and her specious opinions are not to be taken seriously. She is a campaigner and not a medical researcher.
If you have some specific critiques of her work and errors she has made that would be helpful but just brushing her off on the grounds you have stated above is not helpful. Her work is very technical and not refuted yet as far as I have seen.
https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2016/Glyphosate_V_glycine_analogue_2016.pdf
Saying that she is “a computer scientist that has been dabbling in health and medical fields for a while” is like saying that Lord Monckton’s work on climate should be dismissed because he’s not a climate scientist. Dismissing someone’s work because it is outside their main field of work is not a valid response IMHO.
Thank you
TRM ==> Like all authors here, I reserve the right to have my own opinion about science and its personalities.
I gave fair warning in the Author’s Comment Policy section at the end of the essay that “I don’t intend to argue the case for or against Roundup and I will not entertain general discussion of Monsanto-hating conspiracy theories.”
If you take a look at both her faculty page and her Wikipedia page, you will see that I am not even in the minority in this opinion.
I do, however, thank you for contributing the link to her work for those who wish to take advantage of it.
No problem. I was just looking for some rebuttals to her work and while it was outside the scope of your article I thought I’d ask.
Have a happy holiday and a great 2018.
No endangerment from glyphosate.
It is so obvious glyphosate is not carcinogenic, as tens of thousands of farm workers have been drenched in it every year for decades and no upticks of cancer beyond background expectation.
And Keeping fingers crossed:
An EPA correction of a grievous wrong: No endangerment from the MagicMolecule™️.
joelobryan December 27, 2017 at 6:31 pm
It is so obvious glyphosate is not carcinogenic, as tens of thousands of farm workers have been drenched in it every year for decades…
You know how aggies can’t follow written instructions, and tend to dump liquids over their own heads. (:
It’s indeed strange that the reaction of the American press on the EPA report was almost complete silence. I read the book “Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science”, written by Carey Gillam (2017). When 300 million pounds of glyphosate are used each year in the U.S. alone, one has to be very sure of its safety. However this is not the case. The current generation will pay the price.
The reaction of the Center for Biological Diversity: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/pesticides-12-18-2017.php
Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity: “The EPA’s biased assessment falls short of the most basic standards of independent research and fails to give Americans an accurate picture of the risks posed by glyphosate use.”
From the glyphosate.eu website:
“Glyphosate has undergone more thorough toxicological testing than almost any other active substance used in pesticides. As part of the latest risk assessment, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) evaluated more than 3,000 studies. They found no indications of nerve damage or of carcinogenic or mutagenic properties. Nor is glyphosate associated with reproductive toxicity.
The public had been concerned, among other things, by a classification of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” (category 2A) by the IARC, the WHO’s cancer research agency. However, the IARC does not look at actual risks to consumers, but at theoretical considerations. It does not consider how the assessed substances are handled, or look at actual exposure to them in everyday life. This explains why the same body has classified sausages and sawdust as “carcinogens” (category 1A).”
But obviously, who cares about 3000 studies by real scientists compared to a politically correct book by an investigative non-scientist journalist?
RPT ==> Thankfully, even the wildly anti-chemical biased EPA cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence.
Rik ==> Thanks for the link to the opinions of the rabid anti-GMO crowd. If you are truly interested in the Science — and not the eco-politics — you should actually read the EPA document — at least the Revised Issue Paper.
Note that
..”I don’t intend to argue the case for or against Roundup “