global transport and production, fumigants, containers, chemicals, glyphosate
Selected publications related to global transport and production, fumigants, containers, chemicals, glyphosate by Prof. Dr. med. Xaver Baur:
Health risk due to fumigants in dock workers
125 French dockers answered the Fum Ex 2 questionnaire in a face-to-face interview. 83.5% were not aware of any exposure to fumigants or pesticides. Most frequently declared symptoms during workshifts were fatigue and neurological disorders for dockers and respiratory irritation for refrigeration technicians. Only 28 workers wore regularly individual protection equipment. A "healthy worker" effect could explain the low level of symptoms. Our findings show that workers in all steps of the logistic transport chain and also consumers are endangered to be exposed to hazardous containers' atmospheres. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31891171
Fum-EX 2 Questionnaire fumigants, chemicals
Creation of a world‑wide ecological problem and the role of PCB - Reassuring customers and government alike though questionable decision-making process Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner point in their article "Industrially produced chemicals have become an essential ingredient in virtually all of our lives. Our kitchens are filled with detergents; household sprays are made from a variety of solvents; our walls and floors are made of ‘vinyl’; our foods are packaged in wrappings made of clear plastics; our vegetables are grown with synthetic fertilizers and covered with pesticides; our computers, desks, and mechanical devices are filled with synthetic materials. It is not surprising that chemicals are in our bodies as well, where literally hundreds of chemicals have been identified”……” Scientists barely understand what long-term dangers these substances may present to human health and the environment. Some of these chemicals are especially worrisome“…….”Of special concern are a variety of chlorinated hydrocarbons, including DDT and other pesticides that were once spread freely………... Despite being banned decades ago, they have accumulated in the bones, brains, and fatty tissue of virtually all of us. Their close chemical carcinogenic cousins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), were found in innumerable household and consumer products—like carbonless copy paper, adhesives, paints, and electrical equipment—from the 1950s through the 1970s.”
2.3 Anthropogenic emission sources Prev Chapter 2. Emission of air pollutant
The Monsanto papers: Poisoning the Scientific Well
The Monsanto Papers Analyzing, 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, McHenry has reveal “Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products”. by LB McHenry in Int J Risk Saf Med. 2018;29(3-4):193-205.
“The Monsanto Papers” is a set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-2741, Northern District of California. The documents include: internal Monsanto emails, manuscript drafts, peer review reports, deposition testimony, powerpoint presentations and text messages. Plaintiffs’ attorneys sought the release of these documents on the grounds that none contain trade secrets that are the basis for maintaining confidentiality. These documents and others obtained from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are posted on the websites of U.S. Right to Know (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/) and the law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/). The public release of the Monsanto Papers was controversial since there was a legal dispute over whether the case’s protective order had been violated. Monsanto’s attorneys sought sanctions from the court against the plaintiffs for the release of some of the documents. This request was denied”
Further information on pollution and glyphosate:
The Agricultural Health Study Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. Andreotti et al.,
The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) is a ongoing prospective cohort of licensed pesticide applicators enrolled in Iowa or North Carolina, Note that the authors do not provide data on expose (no human biomonitoring no ambient monitoring data is collected within the study). The pesticide use data is based on a follow-up questionnaire that was administered five years after enrollment and completed by 63% of the participants. In the recent data update the authors could not observe a associations between glyphosate use and overall cancer risk or total lymphohematopoietic cancers, including NHL and multiple myeloma. However, there was evidence of an increased risk of AML (acute myeloid leukemia) for applicators, particularly in the highest category of glyphosate exposure compared with never users of glyphosate. The authors truncated cancer incidence follow-up in 2005 to be concurrent with the last exposure information. Based on 26 exposed cases,there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with never users (RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 0.94 to 6.32, Ptrend = .11), though this association was not statistically significant. Expeditious efforts to replicate these findings are warranted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert opinion on adherence to the rules of good scientific practice in the subsections “B.6.4.8 Published data (released since 2000)”, “B.6.5.3 Published data on carcinogenicity (released since 2000)” and “B.6.6.12 Published data (released since 2000)” in the report “Final addendum to the Renewal Assessment Report. Risk assessment […] for the active substance GLYPHOSATE […]”, October 2015, 4322 pages
by Dr. Stefan Weber
Expert opinion on Glyphosate Task force report
“The expert’s task was to compare the three subsections B.6.4.8, B.6.5.3 and B.6.6.12 of the report “Final addendum to the Renewal Assessment Report. Risk assessment […] for the active substance GLYPHOSATE […]”, October 2015, 4322 pages (hereafter: report) with document M in annex II, section 3, point 5: “Toxicological and toxicokinetic studies” of the license application “Glyphosate & the IPA-, K-, NH4- und DMA salts of glyphosate […] Application for Renewal of Approval […]” by the ‘Glyphosate Task Force’ (author reference: “Monsanto Europe S.A. on behalf of the ‘Glyphosate Task Force’”), May 2012, Belgium, 1027 pages (hereafter: application) for text concordances.”
Summary: “It is absolutely correct to call this plagiarism in the sense of scientific misconduct because the presumed author, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), is committed to the same principles of good scientific practice as universities, and defines the concept of plagiarism in the same way. The systematic omission of 1) indications and 2) source references over several pages can only be interpreted as deliberately concealing the origin of the text in the sense of conditional intent. Formal errors must be excluded…… All in all, the writers of the report must be accused of significant scientific misconduct and of fulfilling all the definitional criteria of text plagiarism in the sense of conscious deception about the true authorship.”
Titel: Poisoning the Scientific Well
Content/Text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29843257
Published in The International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, June, 2018.
The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the Scientific Well[1]
LEEMON B. McHENRY
Department of Philosophy, California State University, Northridge, California, USA
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examination of de-classified Monsanto documents from litigation in order to expose the impact of the company’s efforts to influence the reporting of scientific studies related to the safety of the herbicide, glyphosate.
METHODS: A set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation were examined.
RESULTS: The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products.
CONCLUSION: The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyhphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation.
“The Monsanto Papers” is a set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-2741, Northern District of California. The documents include: internal Monsanto emails, manuscript drafts, peer review reports, deposition testimony, powerpoint presentations and text messages. Plaintiffs’ attorneys sought the release of these documents on the grounds that none contain trade secrets that are the basis for maintaining confidentiality. These documents and others obtained from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are posted on the websites of U.S. Right to Know (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/) and the law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/). The public release of the Monsanto Papers was controversial since there was a legal dispute over whether the case’s protective order had been violated. Monsanto’s attorneys sought sanctions from the court against the plaintiffs for the release of some of the documents. This request was denied”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An academic researcher's guide to increased impact on regulatory assessment of chemicals by Marlene Ågerstrand, Anna Sobek, Karl Lilja, Maria Linderoth, Lina Wendt-Rasch, Ann-Sofie Wernerssond and Christina Rudéna This work deals with the many factors deciding a research study's regulatory use. According to several EU chemical legislations, all available and relevant studies can be used in hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. However, in practice, standard tests conducted under GLP and sponsored and provided by industry are predominantly used. Peer-reviewed studies from independent sources are often disregarded or disputed since they often do not comply with regulatory data requirements and quality criteria. Shortcomings in regulatory assessment of chemicals
Transparency of chemical risk assessment data under REACH by Ingre-Khans E, Ågerstrand M, Beronius A, Rudén C The authors mention that conclusions on hazard and risk are influenced by expert judgements as well as potential conflict of interests. The REACH regulation requires EU manufacturers and importers of substances to register information on the hazard and risk of their substances with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The transparency of information on the hazard and risk of substances was found to be limited for several reasons. First, certain information was removed due to confidentiality and certain fields were not published because they could contain confidential information although the information had not been claimed confidential. Also, the extent to which registrants reported information varied, and the presentation of some data and certain terminology required further clarification. In addition, the data source for the majority of the key and supporting studies could not be identified due to confidentiality. Since registrants are only required to summarise studies, it cannot be verified whether all relevant information from non-public industry reports have been reported. Lastly, certain information related to the hazard and risk assessment were only reported in the CSR which is only available upon request; a time-consuming and work-intensive process. As information on registered chemicals is currently provided to the public, it is difficult to follow steps that are undertaken in the hazard and risk assessment.REACH: limited transparencies and corporate influences