Publications of the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer

1982 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-80
Keyword(s):  
World Health Organization ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Agency ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization

scholarly journals Critical Review of the Effects of Glyphosate Exposure to the Environment and Humans through the Food Supply Chain

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Torretta ◽  
Ioannis Katsoyiannis ◽  
Paolo Viotti ◽  
Elena Rada
Keyword(s):  
World Health Organization ◽  
Human Health ◽  
Global Market ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Agency ◽  
Synthesis Product ◽  
Great Success ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization

Glyphosate is a synthesis product and chemical substance that entered in the global market during the 70s. In the beginning, the molecule was used as an active principle in a wide range of herbicides, with great success. This was mainly due to its systemic and non-selective action against vegetable organisms and also to the spread of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) crops, which over the years were specifically created with a resistance to glyphosate. To date, the product is, for these reasons, the most sprayed and most used herbicide in the world. Because of its widespread diffusion into the environment, it was not long before glyphosate found itself at the center of an important scientific debate about its adverse effects on health and environment. In fact, in 2015 the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France), an organization referred to as the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), classified the substance as “likely carcinogenic” to humans. This triggered an immediate and negative reaction from the producer, who accused the Agency and claimed that they had failed to carry out their studies properly and that these conclusions were largely contradictory to published research. Additionally, in 2015, just a few months after the IARC monography published on glyphosate, the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy), another WHO related organization, declared that it was “unlikely” that the molecule could be carcinogenic to humans or that it could cause any type of risk to human health. The conflict between the two organizations of the World Health Organization triggered many doubts, and for this reason, a series of independent studies were launched to better understand what glyphosate’s danger to humans and the environment really was. The results have brought to light how massive use of the herbicide has created over time a real global contamination that has not only affected the soil, surface and groundwater as well as the atmosphere, but even food and commonly used objects, such as diapers, medical gauze, and absorbent for female intimate hygiene. How human health is compromised as a result of glyphosate exposure is a topic that is still very debatable and still unclear and unambiguous. This paper is a review of the results of the main independent recent scientific studies.

California's Glyphosate Judgement – Emotion, Bad Science and Greed Win the Day

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 204-205
Author(s):  
Alex Berezow
Keyword(s):  
World Health Organization ◽  
Hodgkin’S Lymphoma ◽  
Hot Water ◽  
Hodgkin's Lymphoma ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Agency ◽  
Non Hodgkin’S Lymphoma ◽  
Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization

Jurors in California have awarded $289 million to a man who claimed that his cancer was due to Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate, even though that is biologically impossible. Even the judge acknowledged that there was no evidence of harm. Yet, trial lawyers manipulated a jury's emotions and the public's misunderstanding of science to score another jackpot verdict. The plaintiff, Dewayne Johnson, claims that glyphosate gave him non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer that occurs when the immune system goes awry. There are three major problems with this claim. First, as stated above, glyphosate does not cause cancer because it does not harm humans. It is an herbicide, so it is only toxic to plants. There is no known biological mechanism by which glyphosate could cause cancer, therefore its carcinogenicity is not even theoretically possible. That is why there is not a single reputable public health agency that believes glyphosate causes cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization, and the European Food Safety Authority all reject claims of any link. The only organization of note that rejects this scientific consensus is a group within the World Health Organization called the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Contrary to all evidence, the group insists that glyphosate causes cancer – along with bacon and hot water. The truth is that IARC is a fringe outlier, staunchly ideological rather than scientific, and rife with financial conflicts of interest. Christopher Portier, a special adviser to the IARC working group that examined glyphosate, was also working for the activist organization the Environmental Defense Fund and received $160,000 from trial lawyers who stood to profit handsomely if IARC declared glyphosate a carcinogen because they could file suits in lawsuit-happy California. IARC's credibility has been so thoroughly shattered that Congress recently pulled its funding. Secondly, although the root cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is unknown, that does not mean its etiology is completely open to speculation. Lymphomas originate from white blood cells, so scientists believe that autoimmune disease or chronic infections play a role. Just because the plaintiff's attorneys can fool a jury into believing that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma does not mean there is any scientific evidence – and there is not. Thirdly, glyphosate has been off-patent for 18 years, and about 40% of the world's glyphosate is made in China. So, why pick on Monsanto when several different companies could have supplied the glyphosate the plaintiff used?

Erstes Instrument zur standardisierten Erfassung der Teilhabe Behinderter

2017 ◽  
Vol 79 (07) ◽  
pp. 526-527
Keyword(s):  
World Health Organization ◽  
World Health ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Menschen Mit Behinderung

Coenen M et al. [Recommendation for the collection and analysis of data on participation and disability from the perspective of the World Health Organization]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2016; 59: 1060–1067 Um eine gleichberechtigte Teilhabe an der Gesellschaft von Menschen mit Behinderung zu ermöglichen, werden zunächst Daten zu vorhandenen Einschränkungen gebraucht. Erst wenn diese detailliert erhoben wurden, können Konzepte zur Beseitigung von Problemen entwickelt werden. Ein standardisiertes Erhebungsinstrument für alle Aspekte der Funktionsfähigkeit fehlte jedoch bisher.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document