About This Archive  | DCHAS-L 2019 Index   | DCHAS-L Yearly Index
person wearing a disposable face shield and surgical style mask

Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.

Previous by Date:
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Evolution of chemical law and toxicology...
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 9:52:02 AM
Author: Jeffrey Lewin <jclewin**At_Symbol_Here**MTU.EDU> 		Next by Date:
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Evolution of chemical law and toxicology...
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 10:46:14 -0400
Author: James Keating

From: Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Evolution of chemical law and toxicology...
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 14:10:13 +0000
Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Message-ID: 2034712539.3750757.1558447813103**At_Symbol_Here**mail.yahoo.com


The 17 IARC reviewers from 11 countries did not convene in 2015 for the purpose of sticking it to Monsanto.  Read the monograph.  They reviewed over 1000 studies and found limited evidence of carcinogencity in humans, a positive association between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and sufficient evidence in experimental animals -- enough to list it as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A)

Get over it, there is some evidence in that monograph.  The real issue is a cultural one:  

US SIDE:  The US laws require proof beyond reasonable doubt.  IARC doesn't have that, of course.  But they don't have bupkes -- they got some real stuff. The question is: what does that real stuff mean to you as a citizen of the US?  And the issue of whether or not glyphosate is needed to feed 10 billion people by 2050 is not a scientific argument, it is a cultural and economic one.  We can figure something else out.

EU SIDE: The EU believes when there is a pretty good probability that people are going to die from exposure, don't expose more people in order to develop iron-clad proof.  Been there, done that for 100 years.  Enough already.
.  
As we say in the union biz:  Whose side are you on?

Monona



-----Original Message-----
From: TILAK CHANDRA <0000058f112ac338-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2019 9:16 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Evolution of chemical law and toxicology...

Fyi. Tilak

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-next-step-review-process-herbicide-glyphosate-reaffirms-no-risk-public-health

"If we are going to feed 10 billion people by 2050, we are going to need all the tools at our disposal, which includes the use the glyphosate," U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said. "USDA applauds EPA's proposed registration decision as it is science-based and consistent with the findings of other regulatory authorities that glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans."

-----Original Message-----
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Stuart, Ralph
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:06 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Evolution of chemical law and toxicology...

>a timeline of where chemical law has been and where it has led us to now...I am looking for a helpful website (or several) that gives an overview.
>
>
That would be a great resource to have for many different reasons, and I have looked for something like that on a couple of occasions with no luck. Walking through the history of specific chemicals, such as DDT, asbestos or radium paints can be used to highlight the interplay of technical issues and cultural influences on the history of chemical law, but there is no single pathway that they have in common (with the possible exception of a landmark event, either physical or social, that raises the profile of that issue in isolation).

There is also the challenge of trying to identify "obviously skewed or un-fundamental science" when the evidence base is continuously changing and the range of scientific and regulatory literacy is so wide, both in the general population and among technical experts. Developing a legal response in this setting become unpredictable due to its complexity, due to everyone's frustration.

Thanks for asking a good question!

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
Environmental Safety Manager
Keene State College
603 358-2859

ralph.stuart**At_Symbol_Here**keene..edu

---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas


---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post


The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary@dchas.org.
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.