24 September, 2018

Blog

Can A California Jury Decide If A Pesticide Caused Gardener Johnson’s Cancer?

By Chandre Dharmawardana

Dr. Chandre Dharmawardana

A set of California Jurors has decided that the use of the herbicide Roundup was the cause of the cancer contracted by Mr. Johnson, a California-school gardener. This is an alarming warning to modern technical societies. Modern societies are still using ancient instruments of judgement, namely, the old court system which came into being mainly to preserve property rights of landed aristocracies. 

Should they be called upon to make decisions on technical questions within the existing judicial framework, often within a few weeks where the jurors – people off the street – are called upon to understand the complex submissions? While the public should in the end decide, such a decision must come through a series of deliberations and conclusions graded in technicality, and not in “one shot”. 

In fact, how the tobacco companies misused  the court system at a time when public lobby groups were poorly established is well known. At the time the public actually supported smoking and considered it to have psychological and even physicological benefits, rejecting the views of academic scientists, and leaning on company propaganda. Today, lobby groups  who are heavily funded by “natural-foods” supermarket chains, anti-GMO activists, as well as a public frightened by the false belief that their “food is poisoned”, have grouped together. They are underwritten by  fortune-hunting “class-action” lawyers.

When juries are called upon to decide on extremely complex technical questions that experts have debated for decades, in a mere two weeks, and when huge fines are determined on that basis, then justice is miscarried and the public good is endangered. Furthermore, each such case adds vast amounts to lawyers pockets. It is the mercenary legal system of the United States that fuels this type of process which transforms into “class-action” projects leveled against public and private enterprises, with the sole intent of extracting money by using the psychological tactics of ancient witch hunts.

The idea that a jury picked up form the street can quickly decide if a cancer contracted by a farmer is due to use of glyphosate, or some other cause, is absurd. Only detailed lab tests, carried out over a period of time can say if a substance causes cancer or not. The belief  that expert presentations brought in by the two litigating sides will bring the jurors up to the task goes contrary to our knowledge that even students selected by rigorous examinations take many years of study and training to acquire the necessary capacity to evaluate such complex information. Can a jury determine if the gardener’s family shows any genetic propensity to such cancers, or if he had been exposed to other carcinogens? The gardener can refuse to release such information using his rights to prevent self-incrimination.

Modern research on the causes of disease uses advanced statistical methods applied to extensive health records of patients and control groups. However, the more intuitive, easily understood “common-sense” approach is still based on a number of “criteria” used by field epidemiologists. When such criteria point to a possible causal link, more expensive statistical studies involving long-term monitoring can be taken up.

Thus the so-called Bradford-Hill criteria are often used as a “common-sense” way to related putative causes with a diseases. They are usually stated as  seven criteria. 

(I) Strength of association between so called “cause and effect (disease)”.

That is, when the strength of the cause is doubled (say, by using more of the pesticide), the illness or the epidemic increases proportionately. Thus countries which use a very large amount of agrochemicals and pesticides should show higher incidence of, say, cancer. However, no such correlation is seen. For instance, New Zealand or Qatar uses far more glyphosate per hectare than California, but no cases of cancer associated with glyphosate use have been reported from such countries. The use of agrochemicals is proportionate to the use of fertilizers. The figures for New Zealand and USA are 1717 and 137 kg/hectare (2015 World bank data) respectively, while Qatar uses  over 7100 kg/hectare.

(ii) Consistency: a causal factor must be consistently associated with the “effect” (the disease). That is, the disease should manifest when the cause is present unless clear mitigating effects are seen. Although glyphosate is extensively used in soya, maize and tea plantations all over the world, no correlated presence of cancer has been observed. 

(iii) Plausibility: the proposed cause and the effect (i.e., the disease) must be connected by a plausible physiological or environmental mechanism, or by statistical  data.

The US department of health studied  90,000 farmers for nearly 25 years and found no signs of any cancer attributable to glyphosate formulations, and yet, the one alleged case of the farmer Johnson is enough for the California Jurors even when a cause-effect relationship is not scientifically plausible. 

(iv)The proposed cause must be coherent (not contradictory) with existing chemical, physiological and epidemiological knowledge. 

For instance, the claim by Dr Jayasumana (physician and politican), Dr. Sanath Gunatillleke (physician from California) and Ms. Senanayake (“Natha-Deviyo” clairvoyant) that glyphosate joins with hard water and arsenic to form a  new substance that causes a new kind of kidney disease is contrary to well established chemistry and  to available epidemiological data. This claim was made in 2014 and publicized by Dr Mercola, Ven. Ratana and others, but the authors have not produced even an iota of evidence for the existence of the alleged substance.

(v) There should be experimental evidence linking the proposed cause to the disease. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence of glyphosate or its agricultural formulations causing cancer. The classification that it could probably be carcinogenic was made in 2014 by the IARS, an arm of the WHO. It is purely a hazard classification and NOT a health-risk classification. The IARC classification  has been misconstrued and used as publicity against glyphosate formulations by the “organic food” lobby. A further clarification by the WHO on 16th May, 2016 clearly stated that no chronic toxicity is expected from Glyphosate use. However, this as well as the study on 90,000 farmers for 25 years (showing no cancer) have been ignored and swept under the carpet, even in the reporting of the California judgment by the news media.

(vi) Analogy: there should be analogous models of disease causation.

(vii) A proposed causal factor must be absent when the disease is absent. Thus, if glyphosate causes a particular kind of kidney diseases (as has been claimed by Ven. Ratana and his followers) or cancer, that kidney disease or cancer should not be found where glyphosate has not been used. This is in fact NOT the case.

Hence we see that the Bradford-Hill criteria are NOT satisfied by the claim that the use of glyphosate in agriculture causes cancer. Furthermore, there is now strong experimental evidence against it, coming from the USD Dept. of Health study on some 90,000 Glyhosate-Roundup users extending over a period of nearly 25 years (see: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 110, Issue 5,  2018, Pages 509-516) which found  NO evidence linking  glyphosate formulations with increased incidence of any type of cancer.

Instead, the jury’s main reason for awarding a huge some of money seems to be to punish Monsanto, stating  that Monsanto’s  internal documents showed that they too were wondering if glyphosate causes cancer, and had examined the issue but not disclosed their concerns to the public.

Surely, ALL pesticide markers and pharmaceutical manufacturers ask themselves if their product can have bade side effects such as causing cancer or any other illness, and they do debate about it in their labs. That does not mean that they CONCLUDE that their product is carcinogenic etc. They cannot disclose all  internal scientific debates to the public in a useful manner. However, if needed, they should  make such discussions available to other scientists who understand the scientific process of drug discovery and testing, without hiding under the right to protect oneself. It appears that  Monsanto’s internal documents were indeed available to the trial.

The California jurors  could not have evaluated the internal papers, or the causes of the cancer. In fact, even an expert committee already familiar with a lot of scientific knowledge would not be able to make any credible decision within such a court setting. 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 3
    1

    Even though you worked as a Food Scientist, you look that you are not aware how Cancer and Food are related. I have heard that 40% of the cancers are because of food. Human body over the time has adopted to natural food. but, even the processed food are carcinogenic because of the chemiclas that were synthesized during the processing as well as because of additives added. Do you accept that that food additives cause cancer. IF you accept why glyphosate over the time cannot add additives food in small amounts. do you know there are other toxicities other than chronic and acute toxicity. IF you live in the american society or in the europena society you would understand how prevalent the cancer in that society i s there and how many have died from the same faimly all because of cancer. Human can accept a certqin amount of toxic material in their body. IF you read you can understand that there are people who can take excess amounts of Arsenic. What you saying is every toxin has daily acceptable amounts. but researchers say even those amounts over the time can cause problems. There is overwhelming evidence that Glyphosate as a synthetic chemical, toxins added because of the manufacturing process, detergents added to solubilize the chemical cause cancer. You should not try to justify these things in a news ablog. Instead, you should talk these things in a CONFERENCe, for example Sri lankan association for the advancement of Science.

    • 1
      0

      Lankens in general – perhaps valid to all regional neigbours too, are so cheap whenver donar bodies help their hand for anything, … they would even start doing lot more .. just foregetting their home coutnry and people.
      This is very common medical professionals now ve been on a murder attempts by going to strikes upon the guidence of former President and vicious groups.
      There these buggers would never listen to their hearts – but just go for it. Even a school would not have been found for their children within the vicinity, that would be considered as a groudn to go on strikes.. very funny ? IF THAT was the case in Europe, these buggers would loose their jobs for ever.
      We should have national policies.
      We should have nation policies that work beyond the margins.
      First COUNTRY and nation, then anything else.

  • 2
    0

    As you are living in Canada, There was a class action suit if you remember even for glsass ware used in cooking. they were of different colours owing to different chemicals such as Chromium. Those were banned and no longer are available for sale. that is a produce manufactured by a big company. Anyway, in Sri lanka the approval of Glyphosate is completly political process. IF the govt get commis or politcal donation they will approve it. Otherwise, British did not make Sri lankan Tea the best in the world not by spraying Glyphosate. I don’t think Assam tea, Kenyan Tea, chinese Tea etc., are glyphosate sprayed. JUST THINK ONE DAY SOME ONE FROM THESE COUNTRIES SUE SRI LANKA FOR DAMAGE. wHAT YOU WILL SAY.

  • 1
    0

    Dr. Dharmawardane you say, WHO is OK wioth GLyphosate. Read this article FRench Bee keepers suing BAYER/MPNSANTO for Glyphosate in Honey.: https://www.globalresearch.ca/french-beekeepers-sue-bayermonsanto-on-glyphosate-in-honey-u-s-court-allows-glyphosate-contamination-of-honey-labeled-100-pure/5644873 (article published in June 2018); Some scientist Wrote an article in Island, I suppose saying that It has a very short half life. Read this article which says it cam bind to soil and afterthat it is very stable. https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-study-shows-glyphosate-contaminated-soils-put-half-of-europe-at-risk/5614245 {Published November 2017]; https://www.globalresearch.ca/world-health-organizations-new-q-a-on-glyphosate-confirms-toxicity-of-round-up/5513497 – Itis well known that WHO publishes article which are contraversial because of influence from a exceptionally rich chemical manufacturer. Other than that, as per the above article, WHO says all formulations of Glyphosate are GENOTOXIC.

  • 1
    4

    California is the land of Kangaroo courts when it comes to demanding money for claimed “grievous hurt”. Even a tiny ant on a hamburger is enough for someone to sue MacDonalds or Burger King for grevious mental agony., and there are lawyers ready to support such nonsense as they too make a fast buck.
    As this author says “ Can a jury determine if the gardener’s family shows any genetic propensity to such cancers, or if he had been exposed to other carcinogens? The gardener can refuse to release such information using his rights to prevent self-incrimination.

  • 6
    1

    If Roundup wasn’t the cause of the horrendous lesions and skin eruptions on Mr. Johnson after accidentally spilling some Roundup on himself, what do you think it was? Have you seen the horrifying pictures of Mr. Johnson’s body after he spilled Roundup on himself? If not, please do, it may help you to review your views.

    In March 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said the key ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” “For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” the report states.

    That was in 2015. Now we have empirical evidence from the recent developments and Mr. Johnson’s case.

    What makes Dharmawardana so insistent for so long that Monsanto and Glyphosate are innocent and not responsible for Glyphosate’s harmful effects?

    Hmmm, food for thought?

    • 1
      0

      Chemist, I am a biochemist. What i think is, anyone that brings articles on the topics should belong either of th efollowing groups

      1) Monsanto supporting research group – that would want to prove the other way around about the effects of Glypo

      2) Researchers do believe Glyphosat could directly be the case with Neprological problems in developing farming communities

      Neither of above groups can succeed since the issue with Glypo is a complex issue:
      Not a single paper pablications proved yet the direct involvment of Glyphosat to be the key componenet to create nephrological or other cancers. All is written on the hypotheses where the etiology of those kidney patients cant be explained correctly. So in such a situation, i really dont hink the gardner of the US should be blessed with that much of funds.

      • 0
        1

        Pidiris Appu, as Bodhi from Quebec noted (below):

        “Also, out of the $289 million awarded to Johnson, only $39 million was compensatory damages. $250 million was a fine for Monsanto’s breaking of the law by hiding the evidence and thuggery and corruption.”

        Also, with regard to proving beyond doubt that Glyphosate is to blame for all the problems faced by those exposed to it, under the prevailing circumstances isn’t it better to be ‘safe than sorry’?

        And then there’s also that bit about “$250 million was a fine for Monsanto’s breaking of the law by hiding the evidence and thuggery and corruption”.

        Do the apologists for Monsanto (Chandre?) have some rationale for this as well, or are they fueled by Monsano’s payments to the extensive network of apologists for sale?

        • 0
          0

          This is not the first time, Chandre comes iwth proxy articles on the issue.

          But I am doubt and cant draw conclusions either, going by the statement ” GLYPHOSATE CAN BE CANCEROGENIC”… what matters is the dose which make any chemical even paracetomol poisonous to us human beings.
          Even WATER can be dangerous for heart patients if they would not hold it within the limits.
          So this issue is complex and I stay with that.. not being partial to any side.
          But mine would be pleased, if ban would be imposed to DEVELOPING folks where farming communites are not accessed to healthy ground water.

      • 2
        0

        I am biochemst, but dont have any links with agro companies. But I do believe some researchers that bring articles may have closer links with Monsantho research groups.

        Nevetheless, I wonder why the researchers fail yet to find direct relation ship between UKKD and Glyposat usage in lanken farming.

        Just bringing statements that can always be valid cant bring us forward.

        At least we should be introdcued with an alternative if Tea plantation would not surivie without round up since OUR tea has been the best for the world yet today.

  • 2
    1

    Singing for his supper, this mighty scientist shows that he knows better than any fool appointed to a jury, no precautionary principle here !

    • 0
      0

      Under the RTI law, we can ask the gentleman to expose where his funds come from

      This is so simple – if the information contain any body that has linked with Monsantho, that will reveal why he has been crying this much or… else, we can see, he is a hearted person to see it for the sake of entire huminity.

  • 5
    1

    Why is this Dr. rushing frantically to question a decision by a Californian court that ruled Glyphosate Roundup causes cancer? He finds the jury verdict “absurd”. His well-researched article provides us with details that must have come direct from Monsanto/Bauer. During the decades-long media debates on whether tobacco caused cancer, there were many such doctors who passionately sided with the tobacco industry. Those doctors never smoked nor did they end up with smoking-related cancer. But their bank balances benefitted immensely from the many who puffed merrily away into the grave. Monsanto/Bayer are globally powerful when it comes to money and influence. Disbursing a few hundred-thousand dollars to their many lapdogs wouldn’t leave a single crease in their bottom line.

  • 1
    0

    Plants & animals are organic products & in natural environment they nurture on organic matters.

    We have been compelled to use chemical fertilizer for 2 reasons; to maximize production thus maximizing profit & to face the challenge of catering to ever increasing population. But it is recently that we came to know the bad/side effects of using external matters to living matters.

    In SL the controversy over using the said chemical has now become a political matter so supporting the use of it or opposing it based on politics.

    Isn’t it a sad development?

    Taking into the consideration of concept “CEYLON TEA” it’s always natural Sri Lankan environment so It’s a responsibility for us to keep chemicals aside & maintain the uniqueness of our product.

  • 3
    2

    Rathana (thero?) is causing huge uproar and stir in the country for nothing. He brings things time and time to show he is still relevant.

  • 5
    0

    “The idea that a jury picked up form the street can quickly decide if a cancer contracted by a farmer is due to use of glyphosate, or some other cause, is absurd.” I respectfully disagree with the learned academic on the implication done by that statement. True! No layman can conclude on a scientific investigation. However, a jury can take into account the expert evidence presented before it. How many sexual offenders were punished all over the world based on expert evidence? How many people were convicted and executed based on expert evidence? In countries where jury trials take place, like in the US and UK, all these punishments were meted out to the accused after a panel of jury found them guilty.

  • 1
    0

    Science and law work in different ways. In science, absence of scientific proof proves the non existence of what was to be proven. In law, absence of proof proves nothing. Civil cases are decided on a balance of probabilities and criminal cases must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    Obviously the jurors were provided with scientific evidence by both sides. And they made an informed decision.

    Scientific community is divided on the Glyphosate-cancer, CKD, etc. link. Not everyone in the scientific community agrees Glyphosate causes cancer and not everyone disagrees on it. Therefore, it is wrong to say the jury is wrong. The jury is as correct as the scientific community.

    • 2
      0

      Chula@

      as is added below, it is the dosis makes it a poison.

      Even Milk could be harmful to some while some would not be without intake of milk

      This issue is very complex and no researchers yet brought any unbeatable thoughts to say, the bioside is the key component to have created neprological problems in farming communities around the world.
      Here Rathana Thero would aim to collect bonus points in his radical movement. I am not into Glyphosat and nor woudl I support glypo being part of lanka.
      What we have to focus on is to provide those communities healthy wather which is the cheapest food items of the human beings and see, how things coudl change it. It should change since no such health problems are being reported in EUrope WHERE they analaysis of ground water is kept above anything else. I believe our food and technologists or chemists in the area should work regularly to keep their waters cleaner. Lanken water contain ferrous and other heavy metals. Agro chemicals after being spread to fields become derivatives of those heavy metals and through food chains their end up in human bodies. Be through vegetables or rice they enter in human body.
      Latter is the case even in Eruope for Glyphosate and other chemicals. But what matters is the doses. If harmful levels of chemicals enter the human body .. that is not the case in Europe. So, if the levels of doses would have been controlled in ground water, the health problems in devleoping world should go backward. Latter is the only solution not just accusing not knowing the real etiological grounds.

  • 3
    2

    Being impartial, we know perfectly there two groups of researchers in terms of Glyphosat and its harm presumably being done to the users specially among the farming community.

    1) Monsantho- manufacturing company – their supporters to prove that Round up would not make direct harm to the human beings

    2) Researchers stand against Monsantho company- they want to find a relation between GLYPHOSAT and the health hazaards being reported across the world since round up has been introduced to agro communities in the world

    What they have been proved sofar – is nothing directly but probabiliteis that the compounds that Glyphosate could form with heavy metals could harm the cortex of human or mamallian kidneys. The harm being seen in cortex or other organs are multifactorial damages. So no researchers can categorically say that unknown kidney diseases came into being through GLYPHOSATE ALONE.
    Those derivatives have been tested, but no significant results have been prodcued by researchers. Just few papers have been written by lanken and foreign researchers but none the summary is that a hypothesis has been made Glyphosate could damage human life.
    Given this background, how can they the lawyers in the US or in the future in SL would be able to challenge the way they hav ebeen doing ? How can Rev Rathana Thero prove it while world pioneering researchers have failed to do so ?

    And to your knoweldge, there are also anti-cow milk protesters in the world. They believe human consumption of milk can bring you some health problems. I really don tknow how many of the millions being affected by that, but we have been witnessing unknown allergies among us being become known day to another.

    So what I am telling is this is an area where broader grey zone is covering each of the hyppothesis not being allowed to draw conclusions easily.

  • 3
    2

    In Srilanka even profs have been fallen down to the levels that there should be AS gods to have formed such unknown kidney disease in farming community. This came into being because the etiology of the disease is so complex. SO how can any researchers incl newly become profs of Jayasumanna nature could ever bring evidence against Glyphosat.
    The harm being done by Glyphost is seen minumum in developed world than those in developing world. Latter is combined with the manner they the developed world get on with their ground water in contrary to stagnated situations in developing countries.
    I have no idea if Lanken farmers have now been provided with healthy water for their consumption since the NUMBERs of patients went up as never expected. If any significant values have been noticed since the water is introdcued to them, so, I believe, we need to find lot more until anyone can catergorically say, that unknown kideny diseases are due to ROUND up use in farming lively hoods in those affected countries.

  • 4
    2

    Toxicology
    Paracelsus extended his interest in chemistry and biology to what is now considered toxicology. He clearly expounded the concept of dose response in his Third Defense, where he stated that “Solely the dose determines that a thing is not a poison.” (Sola dosis facit venenum

    “Only the dose makes the poison”

    This was used to defend his use of inorganic substances in medicine as outsiders frequently criticized Paracelsus’ chemical agents as too toxic to be used as therapeutic agents.His belief that diseases locate in a specific organ was extended to inclusion of target organ toxicity; that is, there is a specific site in the body where a chemical will exert its greatest effect. Paracelsus also encouraged using experimental animals to study both beneficial and toxic chemical effects.

    I have listened to few profs added their thoughts on the Glyphosat health problems.

    Above all there is one Jayasumana just became a prof by having published few articles on the topic. His is beyond all levels, he has been telling the world as if he himself found more than enough to draw conclusions as if the relation between Glyphosate the nephrological problems facing the lanken farming community is 100% proved.Latter is 100% wrongful information. Even some German researchers have found out nearing evidences however, none of them would help them draw final conclusions.
    This has been a complex problem with heavy metals (Fe, Cd, and other) play a huge role. And the real role of any of them have been not yet proved by anyone.
    So how can Rathana Thero or the like self proclaimed men in lanken radical movement give a lead to prove the complex issues ?

  • 3
    2

    Dharme, even though I am your alter ego, I must tell you your attempts to defend this indefensible poison is failing. The Californian decision will be the final nail on the poison’s coffin.

    Your blaming the jury as ignorant is smellier than the f**t you let go while we were having coffee together in Toronto! The Federal judge allowed one whole week for the prosecution expert witnesses to give evidence and be cross examined and even the worst idiot in the jury had enough information to decide on.

    Also, out of the $289 million awarded to Johnson, only $39 million was compensatory damages. $250 million was a fine for Monsanto’s breaking of the law by hiding the evidence and thuggery and corruption.

    Darme, I feel sorry you are going to end your time on earth a very disappointed man, because there are nearly 400 more cases in California and 4000 all over America, and now the precedent is created for the system to follow. The verdict s written now.

    I won’t be with you anymore on this losing battle of a poison. May be if you want help, I can give you the contact details of a committed Monsanto man (foreigner, former Canadian) in Sri Lanka, using the government rubber subsidy (he is not entitled to), for lands between Kandy and Kurunegala.

    Relax old man. More money is not going to be of any use. You can’t take it with you. Quit now and enjoy the blood money.

    I plan to go back to my usual job of science education.

    • 0
      2

      Now, now, now……either this bugger “Bodhi from Quebec” is an imposter, or the real Bodhi bugger has finally become an Arahat and realised that Dharme’s game is up….. only time will tell, and those who know the energy you spent and the depths the two of you went to tarnish the creds of those who espoused the most likely cause of the CKDu epidemic in Sri Lanka (which is cadmium and other heavy metals from excess TSP fertilizer used since the 19070-s), will be watching every future step you take with interest!

      You truly are a duo of good_for_nothings.

  • 1
    0

    Is it possible to use this to kill weeds around the House of Parliament in Sri Jeyawardene Pura?

  • 0
    3

    The US trial by jury is notorious for arriving at verdicts that are totally wrong and unjust. Many have been convicted of murder and either sentenced to death or life inprisonment only to later be proved innocent by DNA, new scientific and technical methods. Some have by that time served over twenty years for crimes that they had not committed.
    The writers argument is mainly concerning the fairness of allowing a jury to decide on whether Glyphosate was the cause of Mr Johnson’s cancer. I agree that this is unfair and no layman should ever be permitted in this day and age to make such a profound judgement when we have recourse to more modern and sophisticated technology to determine this.

    • 2
      0

      Good old Jeevaka, go to a corner and lick your wounds. There is absolutely no point in what you are saying, scum.

    • 3
      1

      surely the juries were provided with all the facts and figures and evidence for them to arbitrate and reach a verdict?

      here is a link to how do juries decide a case
      https://ukcrime.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/how-do-juries-decide-a-case

  • 1
    0

    Chula, I’m with you.

  • 1
    1

    Chandre Dharmawardana poses the question ~ “Can A California Jury Decide If A Pesticide Caused Gardener Johnson’s Cancer?”.
    A jury decides on the for-&-against arguments. Of course juries can be influenced but rarely in high profile cases. ‘The jury picked from the streets’ (words used by Chandre) have common-sense.
    .
    The man asks (sagaciously to boot!) ~ “Can a jury determine if the gardener’s family shows any genetic propensity to such cancers, or if he had been exposed to other carcinogens?”.
    This argument was used by tobacco-skeptics. Such childish questions were (and still are) raised by Evolution-skeptics.

    The Chandre sermon ~ “Modern research on the causes of disease uses advanced statistical methods applied to extensive health records of patients and control groups.”.
    Does he not know that massaging results statistically to suit an interested party, is not at all uncommon?
    Are the lobbyists for multi-nationals ‘experts’?
    .
    When Trump came up with herbicide remarks one wondered “Where the hell is Chandre? Here he is!
    Get lost Chandre. We can see through your duplicity. Try selling your ideas to your peers. Not THE one or two bigots..

    • 1
      0

      Etiology of a cancer is always complex

      You cant categoarically say, that came int o being due to one factor. Cancer occurences are connected to multi factorial grounds.

      So, knowing all these, but to go for the court verdict is a joke. I am supporting neither of parties But I do believe, ban should be where no proper water analyses are held on a regular manner. Latter is no validity in Europe. So their numbers that have been subjected to damages is zero.

      Lanken or other like minded nations should be provided with healthy ground water.
      Then the numbers of patients decrease can drastically be observed, for sure.
      But this should be monitored on a long term slike 5 to 10 years or longer.

      Besides, we also need to focus on the heavy metals and their derivatives in the water in affected areas. And always improve the awarness among the poor farming community.
      Even if all is exclused, there can still be other factors that the reserach focus would not capture. The reason has been … the cancer. itself is an inbalance of any forms of cells in the body, but some causations can be explained while other hidden factors always lie there.(Genetics and food are both most evident factors in lanken affected people).

  • 1
    1

    DR.CHANDRE IS TRYING TO MAKE SOME QUICK BUCKS DURING HIS RETIRENMENT.

  • 2
    1

    Being a scientist does not make one an authority on everything in his/her field and grant the right to put down any view that disagrees with his/her view.
    Dr CD sounds rather like an arrogant a lobbyist.

  • 1
    0

    I belong to the class of “Food Consuming” population on this planet Earth. Since of late, to what “Thunderous” bombardment, I have been subjected to by these EXPERTS viz. the “Scientists” of all sorts; “Sales & Marketing” brigades of “Giant Pharmaceutical Conglomerates”; a UNO Agency named WHO; the Social & Civil Society Activists; the Black Coated Legal Luminaries and now the “Newest Jurors” ( named by this writer Prof. as “Picked up from the street”). At the going rate, the DEPENDENCY on food for SURVIVAL cannot in any way be GUARANTEED. Now this Prof., for some reason got worked up , perhaps he is unable to bear the “Rusty Smell” of those “PICKED UP FROM THE STREET” called in our common parlance as “Jurors”. With all these “Technicalities” involved in the basic need of FOOD, I would now have to select “Life Be Gone” and starve to death.

    • 1
      1

      Poor Douglas
      He wants to be left alone to eat his food.
      He has to breath in all the Petrol exhaust, the coal power-plant emissions, the particulate dust, the emissions from the caulking in his wall, from the synthetic fibers in his carpets, the radiation from his cell phone, take in all the antibiotics from his meat, chlorine from the water he drinks, and take statins to control his cholesterol, and the Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) to keep his blood pressure at normal levels, and the insulin to keep his sugar at normal levels.

      Now he has to worry about glyphosate (10 parts per billion) in his food that Monsanto is supposed to have added to spice up his food.

      May be we need to add more of the stuff to get a taste of it as it is completely swomped but all the rest of the stuff (a million parts per billion?) that gets in.

      • 1
        0

        Edward: YOu are an arrogant idiot. but, you do ot understand it and just wants to show off.

  • 1
    4

    Here is the reaction of a concerned australian:

    Brent Smedley 🥚 @boring_smed
    · Aug 11, 2018

    The two Roundup decisions this week (the cancer compensation decision in the USA against Monsanto and the [partial] Brazilian ban) leave me shuddering for the future of agriculture if this increases political momentum for a global ban.

    The net effect would be to shut off agriculture, mass starvation, and then returning to correct the error after millions have perished. Who will perish?
    NOT the Organic food eating wealthy elite.
    Fortunately most regulatory authorities will not follow in the footsteps of the drug sniffing grown-up hippy Californians. Here is what the Australian regulatory authority said:

    National regulator the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) released a statement saying APVMA-approved products containing glyphosate could continue to be used safely according to label directions.
    APVMA said it had reviewed glyphosate in 2016 and would not conduct another review “at this time”.

    Australian DIY giant Bunnings said it would continue to stock Roundup.
    Marketing and merchandise director Clive Duncan said in a statement the chain followed the APVMA’s advice regarding the product.”We also routinely review our product range to ensure that everything we sell meets the appropriate standards, and will continue to do so,” he said.

    The author is right.
    In this type of court setting, the plaintiff brings three or four experts, and the accused is also allowed to bring three or four experts. The fact that the VAST MAJORITY of experts believe that glyphosate formulations (inclusive of additives) have NO CARCINOGENIC effect does not come out clearly in an evenly matched jury hearing.

    • 1
      0

      Don Bradman – Playing with a straight bat, are you???

      If so, could you possibly substantiate your statement that ” ..the VAST MAJORITY of experts believe that glyphosate formulations (inclusive of additives) have NO CARCINOGENIC effect “?

      Also, tell us what credence you give to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) with regard to their findings.

      Then you say that “The net effect would be to shut off agriculture, mass starvation, and then returning to correct the error after millions have perished. Who will perish?
      NOT the Organic food eating wealthy elite.
      Fortunately most regulatory authorities will not follow in the footsteps of the drug sniffing grown-up hippy Californians.”

      Wow! Sounds decidedly scaremonger-ish! Pray tell how “mass starvation” did not occur before Roundup and Glyphosate appeared.

      And what the hell have drug-sniffing hippies got to do with any of this? Or is this another bid to defend Monsanto / Glyphosate?

      Please, Don, give us a frigging break!

      • 1
        1

        Dear Freddie,
        ” Pray tell how “mass starvation” did not occur before Roundup and Glyphosate appeared. “
        You really must have been born yesterday. Or quite recently.
        You really don’t know what the Green Revolution was about, and when? Hint: No it had nothing to do with the UNP. It had all to do with how countries like India went from regular mass famine (2 MILLION dead in 1942) to surplus today even with 3 times the population. Synthetic fertilizer, weedkillers, hybrids, the whole lot.
        Please, before you make fat-headed assertions in public, do some research. Google is free, you know.

    • 2
      1

      As a person with inside knowledge ofAPVMA (the Australian bodythat issues agro-chemical licenses, I can tell you tha Australia just follows American and European lead.

      The US EPA and all approving authorities are in Monsanto pocket, and they just publish ‘assessments’ written by Monsanto, under the name of these authorities. This is why the Johnson case was lost and Monsanto was fined $250 million (as against $39 mil damages to Johnson).

      Don Bradman is a thief involved in this scam, and he is a friend of Chandare. That is why he is acting like this

  • 1
    3

    This author’s views are in exact agreement with what the British Framing experts have said:

    A spokesman for the Crop Protection Association insisted that the ruling would have no implications for the continued availability of glyphosate to UK farmers.

    “The opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) are newly on the books, and the EU Commission issued a new five-year licence at the end of last year. The findings of a California jury should NOT have any impact on that,” the spokesman said.

    “Yes, certain lobby groups looking to get the product banned will ramp up their activity and there will be some political pressure. But from a regulatory point of view, glyphosate remains safe and should be available to British farmers.”
    This view was echoed by National Farmer’s Union deputy president Guy Smith. “Last year the relevant authorities in Europe reviewed all the evidence and deemed glyphosate safe,” he said.

    “EFSA and ECHA are comprised of scientific experts in toxicology, whereas the Californian jury of lay-people in this case are not.

    “We see no reason why this US court case should stop UK farmers from using this safe herbicide that delivers environmental benefits by reducing greenhouse gases from extra cultivations, while keeping soil structure in good order.”

    • 1
      0

      Dr Guruge,

      with all respect to your thoughts, but one thing should be made clear is in EU countries we dont have the problem regarding pollution of ground water which has been used by consumers. But in develoing world they have it – the grenz werte – of the chemicals found in GROUND water are not regularly controlled in developing countries.
      So in that context, I believe, taking all the valauble info of researchers into consideration, banning GLYPHOSATe to developing world shoudl be compulsary.
      I know german farmers would go mad if a ban on round up would be announced in next days. However, they dont seem to have any problems with the ground water being polluted or not. Water analytics companies do their job, which holding the levels of poisons in water within the margins..

      • 1
        0

        Stupids say we do not have ground water problems. On what basis you are telling this. How did the WORD ORGANIC is so famous and it came because the westerners was tired eating produce and grqains sprayed with pesticides and applied artifical fertilizers. so,they use COMPOST highly. what BABANSINCHO right is utter CRAP. Guruge is another. Just browse and see what the truth is. Understand Monsanto/BAYOR can buy Sri lanka like countries ten or 100 times. Glyphosate PAtent is expired long ago. russia is also manufacturing it. Besides they developed anti-GLYPHOSATE Crops and without tillage those seeds can be sown. So, if they fight qand build the system, it is completely a new cultivation method and the money is like flowing a big river. Monsanto has Genetically MOdified crops even in INDIA. corrupt Sri lanka, I heard no longer maintainds the PADDY VARITEY seed bank and has fgvien it to BANGLADESH to protect. Now, Sri lanka applies fertilizer I think evento trees. Stupid idiots.

    • 0
      0

      As said by some one, ban should only be valid for the developing nations.

      • 0
        2

        Indeed, right-wing Eugenics organizations, organizations like the Larouche organization have championed the idea of banning pesticides and even fertilizers from developing countries because they see that as a way of destroying their food supply and eliminating those populations.
        This view is based on the economic theory that the world population is too excessive (indeed true), and that the “hoards of people in Africa, India, China and Latin America ” should be sacrificed for the good of “Western Civilization”. Of course, now China has broken free of the West and it is in a dominating position, and the West cannot dictate to China.
        But western NGOs, (and their fellow travelers like Ven. Ratana and Jayasumana whose agenda of elitist organic food is borrowed from the West) still think that India, Africa and the Middle East can be undermined, and that they can be the source of raw materials and for the continued prosperity and well being of the West. The attack on the instruments of the Green Revolution (modern agriculture, modern types of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides etc) is part of this strategy.
        The attack on glyphosate (while ignoring the 1000 times more heinous pollution from the burning of fossil fuels on our roads, and on farms via farm machinery) where the residues are extremely miniscule compared to other pollutants, is part of this game plan. Rudloph Steiner, the mystic Swiss thinker who even dabbled in theosophy claimed to marshall cosmic and “Telluric forces” for agriculture and started “bio-dynamic” organic farming.
        It was quickly taken over by the Eugenics movement which looked for selectively breeding humans also on organic lines.
        That is the origin of the “bad water” and many diseases like CKDu in Sri Lanka as condirmed by CERTKID – a joint University-KandyHospital research Unit on kidney disease

    • 1
      0

      Dr. GURUGE: what is your area of expertise. UK is a vry corrupt country. what do they grow only the grass and flowers in the garden. How much Monsanto (UK) would have paid for the Crop protection associatio and to the farmers UNion. In the west, FAKE research and claims are very very common. We get Calcium in ample amounts from plants. At one time, they were promoting Calcium tablets because after the onset of menopuase women need calcium, that was the argument.

  • 0
    0

    Just 55 percent of the world’s crop calories are actually eaten directly by people. Another 36 percent is used for animal feed. And the remaining 9 percent goes toward biofuels and other industrial uses.

  • 3
    3

    Recently Grusha Andrews made a very serious allegation against the Sangakkara family that they are indirectly spreading cancer in this country also diabetes and obesity among school children. In this context, Chandre Dharmawardane should be congratulated for keeping us constantly informed about what is right and what is wrong when it comes to food toxiology. His opponent Rathana Thero is a totally useless creature who cannot be trusted even 1%.

  • 2
    1

    CT, writing from London and as a keeper of details of all living Sri Lankan professionals in the UK, I write to inform you for the record that there is no Dr Guruge that we know o in this country.

    Chandare has a sneaky habit of trolling (like with the Bodhi Dhanapala character) and you have to put the record strait on this.

    If he wants to support his own trash, he needs to do it under his real name, please.

  • 2
    0

    English cricket player Ben Stokes was on trial for knocking out two men in the southwest English city of Bristol last September.
    Stokes chose a trial by jury and pleaded he was acting in self-defence. Few hours back the jury returned a “Not Guilty” verdict for his role in the street fight.
    No no no. The role of Ben Stokes in English cricket was NOT taken into account by the jury. So they say!
    By the way Chandre, the jury did NOT sight as to whether or not the Stokes family had ‘any genetic propensity to violence’.

  • 1
    1

    /Check and see, IT is well known except in the USA where they are in big trouble, Monsanto is spending bi gmoney for Round up. They HAVE BUILT A COMPLETE NO -TILLAGE CULTIVATION PRACTICE BASED ON ROUND UP. GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEEDS ARE AVAIALBLE. WITHOUT TILLAGE SOIL EROSIN IS PREVENTED. GMO SEEDS NA DROUND UP GIVES THEM AN ETERNAL SOUCE OF COME. Yet, Long ternm residual effects destroy the ecosystem and age old cultuvation pratices of societies and that destroy the society. Even for round up connection with heavy metqal hondling inthe solil solution and kidney fauilrue are well known. but that can not be the only problem. WE CAN NOT HELP WHEN RETIRED SCIENTISTS WRITE FOR MONEY BECAYSE THEY HAVE TO FIND MONEY FOR THE RENT AND MONTHLY BILLS SOME HOW.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.