EPA キャッチ チェリー ピッキング グリホサート研究 - アメリカ中のママ

EPAはチェリーピッキンググリホサート研究をキャッチ

Screen_shot_2019-01-14_at_4.04.11_pm.pngなぜ多くの農民、科学者、規制当局がグリホサートが安全であると主張しているのか疑問に思っていますか? EPAがグリホサートは発がん性物質ではないことを示す科学があると言っている理由について混乱していますか?我々は持っています!

科学者のチャールズ・ベンブルックが両機関によって分析された研究を精査し、彼らが彼らの決定に至った理由を正確に発見したことを感謝します。推測して...サプライズ!チェリーピッキングは間違いなくプレイ中です!

要約すると: 

EPA cited 109 total assays not included in the IARC report, 87% of which were regulatory studies commissioned by industry, and all but one was negative.

IARC included the results from 67 assays not included in EPA’s analysis, all of which were from peer-reviewed publications, and 82% of which had at least one positive result for genotoxicity.

遺伝学では、遺伝毒性とは細胞内の遺伝情報を損傷し、がんを引き起こす可能性のある突然変異を引き起こす化学物質の特性を表します。遺伝毒性はしばしば変異原性と混同されるが、すべての変異原性は遺伝毒性であるが、すべての遺伝毒性物質が変異原性ではない。

Watch our Facebook live discussing the issue with Zen Honeycutt here.

 

The following is the full paper by Charles Benbrook PhD. published on www.hygeia-analytics.com

2019 グリホサートの遺伝毒性に関する論文

IARC vs EPA 遺伝毒性論文

 

How did the U.S. EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?“,  Environmental Sciences Europe, 1月 15, 2019, DOI: 10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7.

著者: チャールズ ベンブルック博士

主な査結果:

Genotoxicity studies cited in EPA’s 2016 “Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential” and in the glyphosate chapter of IARC’s 2017 carcinogenicity evaluation “Monograph 112: Some organophosphate insecticides and herbicides” are compared and contrasted.

主な調査結果を以下に示します。グラフィックはさまざまな形式で利用できます (以下を参照)。

主な調査結果 #1:  Glygenotox-graphic1-regpl-numpos-1-768x439.png

While IARC referenced only peer-reviewed studies and reports available in the public literature, EPArelied heavily on unpublished regulatory studies commissioned by pesticide manufacturers. In fact, 95 of the 151 genotoxicity assays cited in EPA’s evaluation were from registrant studies (63%), while IARC cited 100% public literature sources.

There is also a stark difference in the outcomes of registrant-sponsored assays versus those in the public literature.  Of the 95 regulatory assays taken into account by EPA, only 1 reported a positive result, or just 1%.  Among the total 211 published studies (right circle in the graphic), 156 reported at least one positive result, or 74%!

主な調査結果 #2: GlyGenotox-Graphic2-Number-and-Percent-Positive-1-768x452.png

Another important difference is that EPA focused their analysis on glyphosate in its pure chemical form, or “glyphosate technical.”

IARC, on the other hand, placed considerable weight on 85 studies focused on formulated GBHs, the herbicide people actually use and are exposed to (“Glyphosate Herbicides” in the graphic). 79% of the GBH assays published in public literature reported one or more positive result.

While EPA did list studies on formulatedglyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) in an Appendix F of its report, EPA acknowledges it placed little to no weight on GBH assay results.

This difference is reflected in the overall percent of positive assays.  Just 24% of the 151 assays cited by EPA reported positive results, while 76% of those cited by IARC had at least one positive result.

主な調査結果 #3

  露出-768x570.png

EPA’s analysis was limited to typical dietary exposure to the general public as a result of legal uses on food crops, and did not address occupational exposure and risks.

IARC’s assessment encompassed data from typical dietary, occupational, and elevated exposure scenarios.   Elevated exposure events caused by spills, a leaky hose or fitting, or wind are actually common for people who apply herbicides several days a week, for several hours, as part of their work. The highest exposures typically occur when herbicides are applied with a handheld or backpack sprayer, or an ATV or truck-mounted sprayer.

The equipment used to apply GBHs has a huge impact on applicator exposures, as does whether applicators use Personal Protective Equipment like gloves. The applicator driving the modern, large-scale sprayer pictured on the left might typically spray around 500 acres in an 8-hour day, apply 700 pounds of glyphosate technical, and be exposed to 3.5 milligrams (3,500 ug, or micrograms). The applicator using a backpack sprayer without gloves would apply only about 3 pounds of glyphosate in 8 hours, but would be exposed to around 175 milligrams of glyphosate, 50-times more than the driver of the spray rig. And that driver would spray more than 230-times more glyphosate in an 8 hour day. In virtually all high-exposure scenarios, wearing gloves makes a big difference, reducing exposures by around one-half to one-tenth of “no gloves” exposure levels. The estimated exposures in the scenarios in the graphic represent applications during which everything goes “by the book,” but in the real-world a variety of factors can, and frequently do dramatically increase exposure levels.

主な調査結果 #4 

GlyGenotox-Graphic-4-Assays-Cited-by-One-Agency-768x733.png

A closer look at the assays referenced by EPA but not IARC, and by IARC but not EPA helps explain why EPA and IARC reached opposite conclusions.

EPA cited 109 total assays not included in the IARC report, 87% of which were regulatory studies commissioned by industry, and all but one was negative.

IARC included the results from 67 assays not included in EPA’s analysis, all of which were from peer-reviewed publications, and 82% of which had at least one positive result for genotoxicity.

グラフィック ファイル:

Related EPA and IARC Resources:

EPA Documents:

IARC Documents:

その他のリソース:


最初にコメントする

アカウントを有効にするためのリンクについては、電子メールを確認してください。

ここでフォローしてください

-->
日本語EspañolEnglish