RE: Interesting study out of Sweden   1 comment

I too want to thank Jenny for posting this article. The purpose of this blog is to discuss “the science of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and its causes” and this article sheds light on a very alarming issue.

So thanks again Jenny for posting this…

“New Study Links Monsanto’s Roundup to Cancer

PRESS RELEASE – 22 JUNE – New Study Links Monsanto’s Roundup to Cancer

A recent study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden [1], has revealed clear links between one of the world’s biggest selling herbicide, glyphosate, to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer [2].
In the study published in the 15 March 1999 Journal of American Cancer Society, the researchers also maintain that exposure to glyphosate ‘yielded increased risks for NHL.’ They stress that with the rapidly increasing use of glyphosate since the time the study was carried out, ‘glyphosate deserves further epidemiologic studies.’

Glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, is the world’s most widely used herbicide. It is estimated that for 1998, over a 112,000 tonnes of glyphosate was used world-wide. It indiscriminately kills off a wide variety of weeds after application and is primarily used to control annual and perennial plants.

71% of genetically engineered crops planted in 1998 are designed to be resistant to herbicides such as glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto as Roundup. Companies developing herbicide resistant crops are also increasing their production capacity for the herbicides such as glyphosate, and also requesting permits for higher residues of these chemicals in genetically engineered food. For example, Monsanto have already received permits for a threefold increase in herbicide residues on genetically engineered soybeans in Europe and the U.S., up from 6 parts per million (PPM) to 20 PPM.”


Posted August 4, 2010 by lymphomactivist in Uncategorized

One response to “RE: Interesting study out of Sweden

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Actually, the authors themselves stated that the study proved nothing and just wrote, as you have quoted above, the matter deserves further study. The observed results were within the noise level of the data; that is, if you picked a similarly sized group at random from the population, sometimes you would get as higher or higher rate of NHL. The way they collected their data would cast doubts on the results, as well.

    I help scientists and engineers design studies and experiments for a living, and I would tell anyone who brought me these results: “Interesting. Now let’s figure out how to get some meaningful results.”

    A very quick web-search turned up nothing more convincing on this subject, but I could easily have missed the good stuff. None of which means it doesn’t contribute to NHL, of course, merely that we can’t prove it does.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: