1. A Rational and Sourced Consideration into Glyphosate on Cotton Fibers - Addressing Fear
Mongering Concerns
Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine)isabroad-spectrumsystemicherbicide andcrop
desiccant.Itis an organophosphoruscompound andisusedtokill weeds,especiallyannual
broadleaf weedsandgrassesthatcompete with crops Monsantobroughtit tomarket in1974 under
the trade name Roundup,andMonsanto'slastcommerciallyrelevantUnitedStates patentexpiredin
2000.
Farmersquicklyadoptedglyphosate,especiallyafterMonsantointroducedglyphosate-resistant
RoundupReadycrops,enablingfarmerstokill weedswithoutkillingtheircrops.In2007, glyphosate
was the mostusedherbicide inthe UnitedStates'agricultural sectorandthe second-mostusedin
home and garden,government,industry,andcommerce. In2015, 89% of corn, 94% of soybeans,
and 89% of cotton producedinthe US were geneticallymodifiedtobe herbicide-tolerantBy2016
there wasa 100-foldincrease inthe frequencyof applicationsandvolumesof glyphosate-based
herbicides(GBHs) applied,partlyinresponse tothe unprecedentedglobal emergenceandspreadof
glyphosate-resistantweeds.
Cottongrowersare veryaware of many ongoing negative concernsinconnectionwiththe safetyof
glyphosate.Manyof these concernsare “political”andneedtobe “weededout” – excuse the pun!A
surveyof recentmaterial inthisareais the basisof thisarticle.
The beginningof these mostrecentconcerns wasa pressrelease fromananti-GMO/anti-
agribusinessgroupfromArgentina,the "Congressof Physiciansof FumigatedVillages".There wasno
study,peerreview,methodology,etcreleasedanywhere onthese findings.The informationwas
conveyedtothe publicvia a pressrelease. See:

2. http://www.reduas.com.ar/declaration-of-the-3rd-national-congress-of-physicians-in-the-crop-
sprayed-towns/
The pressrelease fromthis“Congress”wasthenpickedupbymany eco/earthblogs forexampleat:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/26/cotton-glyphosate-cancer/
https://www.rt.com/usa/319524-tampons-cotton-glyphosate-monsanto/
http://www.naturalnews.com/051669_tampons_glyphosate_GMO_cotton.html
A furthergroupof scientists hasputouta pressrelease ontheirfindingsbeforepublishingastudyor
waitingforcompletionof the peerreview process. http://www.laolla.tv/2015/10/el-glifosato-
tambien-en-tu-botiquin/
Reportingtonewsagenciesbeforepeerreview isthe same tacticusedbyotheranti-GMOgroups,
such as Gilles-EricSeralini inhisnowinfamousGMOrat feedingstudy,whichhassince been
retracted. See http://www.vegangmo.com/?p=711
It needstobe notedthat glyphosate canbe foundat these levelsonanythingthatgrowsinsoil oris
subjectedtorainfall inagricultural areas.Theseare referredtoas“backgroundlevels”andcanbe
confirmedthroughtestingof rain,watersystems,un-farmedsoil,andfood. Rainwatercontains2.5
ppb:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21128261 and our surface waterscontaintrace
amountsof glyphosate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21681915. The researchers
responsible forthispressreleaseintheirownformerstudyevenshowsthatun-farmedsoilcontains
5 ppbof glyphosate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26254069 .Furthermore, there is
glyphosate infoodsthatwe eatat much higherlevelsthanthose foundoncotton.See:

3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1783592 and
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/ppps/pdf/ma_reding_annex4.pdf
Anyglyphosate foundoncottonfibreswouldlikelybe fromresidential/commercialusage,rainwater
or soil,asthere are no fieldpracticesduringcottonharvestseasonwhichutilize glyphosate. For
instance, RoundupReady cottonplantsare appliedwithglyphosate,butinnormal production
practicesthisoccurs monthsbefore the cottonfibresare evenformedbythe plant.
The World HealthOrganizationhassetthe lowestNOAEL(NoObservedAdverse EffectLimit) for
glyphosate as.15 g/kg formaternal toxicity(http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8141e/w8141e0u.htm ),
and the "findings"fromthisgroupclaimthattheyfound4ppbon tampons.Giventhata tampon
containsabout5 grams of fibre,a single tamponwouldcontain.000000002 grams of glyphosate.
Since NOAELreferstooral toxicity,a60 kg expectingmotherwouldtheoreticallyneedtoingest
(note:DONOT EAT TAMPONS) 750 milliontamponsbefore anynegativeeffectswouldbe expected.
Furthermore,glyphosate itselfisnon-toxic,non-carcinogenic,non-teratogenic,andnon-mutagenic.
It isthe safestherbicideeverusedbymanand has replacedfarmore dangerousherbicidessuchas
atrazine,gramoxone,andotherorganophosphate herbicides.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html
http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/the_bfr_has_finalised_its_draft_report_for_the_re_evaluation_of_glyphosat
e-188632.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15626647
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302
The onlycredible grouptoeverclassifyglyphosate asa“probable”carcinogenisthe International
AgencyforResearchon Cancer (IARC),anarm of the WHO. Thissame group has recentlyclassified
manyother itemsas“probably”carcinogenic,suchascured meats,night-shiftwork,andworkingat
a barbershop. See https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

4. Many groupshave since thenrefutedthe IARC’sfindings.Some examples whichI’ve searchedand
thenquoted include:
European Crop ProtectionAssociation
{The IARCconclusionspublishedinLancetOncologycontradictthe world’smostrobustandstringent
regulatorysystems –namelythe EuropeanUnionandthe UnitedStates – inwhichcrop protection
productshave undergone extensive reviewsbasedonmulti-yeartestingandinwhichactive
ingredientssuchasglyphosate andmalathionbeenfoundnottopresentacarcinogenicriskto
humans.”“Fromthe summaryconclusionsitappearsthatIARChas made itsconclusionsasa resultof
an incomplete datareviewthathasomittedkeyevidence.}
http://www.ecpa.eu/news-item/human-health/03-19-2015/2565/ecpa-statement-reacting-iarc-
review-pesticides
American Cancer Society
{Evenif a substance or exposure isknownorsuspectedtocause cancer,thisdoesnotnecessarily
meanthat it can or shouldbe avoidedatall costs.For example, oestrogenisaknowncarcinogen
that occurs naturallyinthe body.Also,exposure toionizingradiationisknowntocause cancer,with
increasedrisksevenatlowlevelsof exposure.Yetthere isnowayto completelypreventexposureto
natural sourcesof radiationsuchas cosmicradiationfromthe sunor radonin soil.These listsalso
include manycommonlyusedmedicines,particularlysome hormonesanddrugsusedtotreat
cancer. For example,tamoxifenincreasesthe riskof certainkindsof uterine cancer butcan be very
useful intreatingsome breastcancers,whichmaybe more importantforsome women.} See:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogen
s/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

5. US Environmental ProtectionAgency
{InMarch 2015, the IARC evaluatedthe carcinogenicpotential of glyphosate.The IARC
determinedthatthere wasa positive trendinthe incidence of arare tumourtype,renal tubular
carcinomaand renal tubule adenomaorcarcinoma(combined) inmalesinone feedingstudyin
CD-1 mice.A secondstudyreportedapositive trendforhemangiosarcomasinmale CD-1mice.
Thus,in accordance withone of the preamble criteria,“the occurrence of tumoursintwostudiesin
one species,”IARCdeterminedthatthere is“sufficientevidence”inexperimental animalsforthe
carcinogenicityof glyphosate (IARC,2015)
In contrast,the USEPA’scarcinogenicityclassificationisbasedonweight-of-evidence considerations
inaccordance withthe agency’s2005 GuidelinesforCarcinogenRiskAssessment.The cancer
guideline emphasizesthe importance of weighing all of the evidenceinreachingconclusionsabout
the humancarcinogenicpotential of agents.Thisevaluationisaccomplishedinasingle integrative
stepafterassessingall of the individual linesof evidence.Evidenceconsideredincludestumour
findings,orlackthereof,inhumansandlaboratoryanimals;anagent’schemical andphysical
properties;itsstructure-activityrelationships(SARs)ascomparedwithothercarcinogenicagents;
and studiesaddressingpotential carcinogenicprocessesandmode(s) of action,eitherinvivoorin
vitro.Data fromepidemiological studiesare generallypreferredforcharacterizinghumancancer
hazard andrisk.However,all of the informationdiscussedabovecouldprovidevaluable insightinto
the possible mode(s) of actionandlikelihoodof humancancerhazardand risk(USEPA,2005)
The IARC attributedthe kidneytumoursobservedinmale CD-1mice at the highdose inthe feeding
study(MRID No.00251007) to treatmentsince theyare rare and there wasborderline significancein
trendtest(P=0.034 for carcinomaand P=0.037 for combinedadenomaorcarcinoma) ina Cochran-

6. Armitage trendtest.However,the agency’sstatisticalanalysesdidnotshow asignificanttrendfor
eithercarcinoma(P=0.06345) or the combined adenomaorcarcinoma(P=0.06483). In a Fisher’s
exacttest,whencomparedtothe concurrentcontrol,there wasnopairwise significance forany
tumourtype (adenoma,carcinoma,orcombined).There werenopre-neoplasticrenal tubular
lesionssuchastubularnecrosis/regeneration,hyperplasiaorhypertrophy,despiteahighdose level
(4945 mg/kg/day) thatwasapproximately5-foldhigherthanthe limitdose (1000mg/kg/day)
recommendedbythe agency’sguidelines.Examinationof multiple sectionsof kidneysfromall
animalsbymore than one pathologistdidnotresultinanyadditional neoplasms.Althoughthe
highestdose tested(4945mg/kg/day) wasapproximately5-foldhigherthanthe limitdose (1000
mg/kg/day) recommendedbythe agency’sguideline,the incidence of the kidneytumourswas
minimal (1/50adenomasand2/50 carcinomas) comparedtocontrols(1/49 adenomas).An
evaluationbythe PWGconcludedthatthe renal tumoursare not treatment-relatedsince therewere
no compoundrelatednephrotoxiclesions,includingpre-neoplasticchanges,multipletumourswere
not foundinanyanimals,andthere wasno evidence of asignificantlineartrendatthe 0.5 level ina
one-tailedCochran-Armitagetestorpairwise significance inaFisher’sexacttest.Furthermore,
kidneytumourswere notseenwhentestedatlower(85to 1000 mg/kg/day) dosesorat a
comparable (4116 mg/kg/day) dose inthisstrainof mice inthe otherthree studies.Thus,the totality
of data available from4carcinogenicitystudiesprovidesastrong supportfor the conclusionthatthe
kidneytumoursseeninone studyisnotthe resultof a carcinogenicresponse toglyphosate.} See:
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Prof_Portier_letter.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/
https://risk-monger.com/2016/04/13/iarcs-unprofessional-and-unethical-behaviour-time-to-retract-
their-glyphosate-monograph/
Dr EdmundCarus/LawsonGary