News
Monsanto glyphosate statement
RE: IARC categorise glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” 20/03/2015
You may have read that glyphosate was recently classed as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by a committee called the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This, and the many responses to the report, have been sporadically appearing in the media since the original article was published in March.
Key comments on the IRAC conclusion are that members of both the EU and US glyphosate taskforces and many independent experts disagree with this classification for several reasons;
- there is no new research or data that was used
- the most relevant, scientific data was excluded from review
- the conclusion is not supported by scientific data
- there is no link between glyphosate and an increase in cancer when the full data set is included in a rigorous review
Additionally, it should be noted that IARC’s classification does not establish a link between glyphosate and an increase in cancer, therefore;
- IARC’s review is limited and the process is designed to result in ‘Possible’ and ‘Probable’ classifications
- IARC’s assessment of glyphosate is similar to their contested assessment of other everyday items, such as coffee, mobile phones, pickled vegetables and occupations including hairdresser and chip shop worker
It is important to note that glyphosate-based herbicides are among the most thoroughly tested and evaluated herbicide products on the market.
- Their 40-year history of safe 4 I JUNE/JULY 2015
use is supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health, crop residue and environmental databases ever compiled on any pesticide
- Safety is a priority for Monsanto and all Monsanto products have been fully assessed and approved as safe for use according to the label, both by the EU and the Chemicals Regulation Directorate in the UK. These approvals are only granted after extensive safety data has been evaluated
- As recently as January, the German Government completed a rigorous, four- year evaluation of glyphosate for the European Union. They reviewed all the data IARC considered, plus significantly more, and concluded “glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk in humans”
Given the importance of the safety of glyphosate to members of the public, operators and growers alike, we will continue to urgently pursue our request that the World Health Organisation (WHO) provide transparency on the IARC process and account for the studies, both used and disregarded, in drawing its conclusion.
In the meantime, we are able to reassure you that IARC is not a regulatory body and that there are no changes to product approvals or restrictions to labels. There is no justification to stop your use of Roundup or other commercially available glyphosate products in public areas.
If you wish to find out more on this subject please visit:
www.glyphosate.eu or contact Monsanto at email:
technical.helpline.uk @
monsanto.com Tel: 01954 717575
Apply
science first ...
Amenity Forum calls for scientific evidence to allay public concern
Following Dave Saltman’s item in our May e-newsletter, in which he asked if any prosecutions relating to the misuse or mis-selling of pesticides in the amenity sector had ever been made, and further suggested that we are the ‘whipping boys’ of knee jerk reactions, John Moverley, Independent Chairman of the Amenity Forum, has commented:
“The Amenity Forum is the voluntary Initiative for the sector promoting best and safe practice in all aspects of weed, pest and disease control. It currently has some 55 organisations in its membership, representing all aspects, including manufacturers, distributors, contractors, local authorities, greenkeepers, groundsmen and more. All those involved are committed to the Forum’s objectives, operating at Amenity Assured standards and meeting legal requirements to ensure safe and best practice.
Decisions need to be made after considering the science and all evidence available.
It is in this context that recent media coverage regarding the use of pesticides such as glyphosate is disappointing, to say the least. In this world of 24 hour news, items can get distorted and publicised, perhaps without sufficient research. This creates public concern, understandably.
Glyphosate is used widely as an active ingredient in products to control weeds on areas such as streets and pavements, parks and transport infrastructure. It keeps them safe and clean and fit for purpose. It is a substance which has been rigorously tested, gone through extensive approval processes and meets the strictest specifications set by countries all over the world. Ongoing monitoring is equally thorough and, again, it meets all standards set. Yet a single piece of work suggesting a possible carcogenic link creates much publicity and, understandably, public concern.
It is absolutely essential that decisions are based upon the full facts and properly referenced scientific evidence. Without glyphosate as part of amenity maintenance programmes, we would have lower standard sports
surfaces and potentially less safe and certainly more unsightly public areas. In an amateur context, it would also make keeping pathways and driveways clean and safe much more difficult.
The Amenity Forum promotes an integrated approach to weed, pest and disease control, making the most appropriate and effective use of all approaches available, pesticide and non-pesticide. Its members adhere to standards set out in guidance notes which can be found on its website.
Industry is better working together with one voice, to be proud of what it achieves and to get its message across.
The Forum has recently urged its members to stand up and be proud of the essential work they undertake and has asked everyone in the sector to join and get behind our aims and objectives. It is in continuing dialogue with policy makers and all key stakeholders and will always stand for very best practice and standards, ensuring decisions are always based upon the very best information and requirements.
It is very important that we get our message across, especially at this time and, in doing that, we are better together, appropriately enough the topic for our annual conference on October 15th at Leicester, a must attend event for all involved in amenity weed, pest and disease control. Full information is available on the website.
The Forum will continue to strongly represent the sector in all aspects of weed, pest and disease control and seek to ensure decisions are based on well considered scientific and other evidence, not on instant reaction to pressure groups and the like. It is vital for it to retain all the tools available in maintaining the current high standards of control safely and effectively.
www.amenityforum.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156