Linkedin Facebook X-twitter Youtube Pinterest Envelope Viber

Should We Round Up Round-Up?

 

“IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER FROM THE USE OF GLYPHOSATE……”. – I’m sure you’ve heard this on TV or a phone message. Glyphosate, also known as Roundup, is very effective and useful for controlling weeds, thus improving yields and reducing soil compaction, saving fuel for farmers, and helping us get a grip on the weeds that invade every garden every day of the week. You’ve no doubt heard it is safe, yet you’ve also probably heard a California court awarded millions of dollars to a man who suffered from cancer he said was from his use of Roundup,

So what’s the scoop? Does Roundup cause cancer or not? It probably will not surprise you to Uind that government and industry groups around the world have studied this very question a lot. After reviewing hundreds of studies, they have uniformly determined that ROUNDUP DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. In fact it is one of the safest chemicals that has ever been developed to kill weeds.

So if this is the case, why is it that we still see these commercials on TV? Well I’m afraid that this might be an example where one needs to follow the money. In this case a lot of money is being spent in lawsuits claiming cancer from Roundup exposure base on the findings of only one organization located
in France. All government groups disagree with this organization.

Of course like any chemical, too much Roundup can be harmful. However, the safe level of Roundup determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) where I worked for a number of years is 0.1 milli-grams per kilo-gram of body weight per day. This amount is about 100 sugar granules consumed every day for a lifetime—hardly a small amount. This safe dose by EPA is designed to protect sensitive human subgroups (like our kids), and EPA’s pesticide reviews even today continue to agree that this level is safe.

So let’s do a preliminary “risk assessment” review. What if we just decided to eliminate Roundup anyway? Certainly for the homeowners, get down and pull those weeds – every week? And for those that don’t pull, get out the hoe or shovel and dig. For the farmer, weeds are economically ruinous. No Roundup means a return to the many trips needed to prepare and plant: plowing, discing, planting, weed control round 1, weed control round 2, and perhaps weed control round 3. The result? More tractors traveling through the Uields while the crops are still small, churning the soil between the rows, disturbing the growing weeds. But this does not kill all of the weeds, nor does it get to the weeds growing in the rows of crops. More tractor trips use more fuel and creates more emissions, compacts the soil and causes more soil erosion. And the crop yield is decreased because of the weeds in the rows of crops, and the farmers needing to spend more time doing all of this. Less crops usually means higher prices at the store.

So should we round up Roundup? You would have some support IF organically grown produce was more nutritious than conventionally grown produce. But studies have shown that organically produced crops are no more nutritious than conventionally produced crops, although other beneUits from organic production might be likely. We might also forgo Roundup if more of us wanted to farm, which has enabled some of the current organic farming. However, if you do not want to take up farming or lose the use of Roundup, you may wish to contact your local Farm extension agent or local congressman to ask for their thoughts on its use. The US agricultural system is one of the best in the world. Let’s keep it that way.

As to those ads you see on TV for lawsuits? Don’t waste your time. Go plant a garden!

Corporate Info

Resources

Our Brands

  • ITER ITER

Contacts

  • 1250 Ohio Pike, Suite 197, Cincinnati Ohio 45102
  • 513.488.1990
  • TERA@TERA.ORG

You will be redirected to a secure payment portal

Linkedin Facebook X-twitter Youtube Pinterest

WEEL OEL

Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) are designed to safeguard the health of healthy workers during their careers. These limits are based on the assumption of repeated daily exposure throughout a working lifetime, typically averaged over an 8-hour workday. Their purpose is to prevent both immediate (acute) and long-term (chronic) health issues arising from workplace exposures. It’s important to note that OELs are not intended for the general public, which includes vulnerable groups like infants, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions.

Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs) are health-based guidelines for chemical hazards in the workplace. These values represent air concentrations believed to protect the majority of workers from negative health effects resulting from occupational chemical exposure.

The WEEL Process
Click Here

The development of new or revision of existing WEELs is typically assigned to voluntarily designated subcommittees. A subcommittee usually comprises 3 – 4 members from the WEEL Committee. New WEELs are developed using the OARS-WEEL administrative standard operating procedure (SOP), while existing WEELs are usually revised every 10 years, unless the availability of significant new data which may impact the existing WEEL value compels the committee to make a revision sooner. The OARS-WEEL SOP contains procedures and guidelines governing conflicts of interest, draft document preparation, literature searches, draft document review, balloting process, post-ballot WEEL documentation quality assurance scientific review, and publication.

Once a subcommittee has prepared a draft WEEL document, a review of the draft is scheduled for the next available Committee meeting. The WEEL Committee members are expected to have reviewed all such drafts prior to the meeting. If no major changes are necessary to a draft, the attending Committee membership may, by a simple majority, approve the WEEL for balloting. Alternatively, the Committee may direct the subcommittee to revise the WEEL and present it for further discussion at a future meeting. If a ballot is not approved by a two-thirds majority of non-abstaining Committee members, it is discussed at the next Committee meeting to determine the appropriate course of action. Once the WEEL is approved by a two-thirds majority of non-abstaining Committee members, copies of ballot comments are forwarded to the designated subcommittee and all substantive comments must be addressed in the final draft. If resolution of a substantive comment results in a change to the WEEL value or a change in the basis for the value, the draft must be re-balloted.

Once all comments have been addressed on a successfully balloted draft, document formatting and editorial review are performed by TERA, before the draft WEEL document is made available for public comment (usually for a period of 30 days but may be extended if the need arises). After the public comment period has elapsed, comments are addressed by the subcommittee responsible for that specific draft, after which the WEEL documentation is submitted to Toxicology and Industrial Health (TIH), a peer-reviewed medical journal that covers research in the fields of occupational health and toxicology, for publication. A thorough review of the galley proof by the scientific content quality coordinator at TERA, and proofreaders and editors at TIH is the penultimate step before eventual publication of the WEEL documentation.

The WEEL Committee

The OARS-WEEL Committee is composed of volunteer experts specializing in the scientific determination of occupational exposure levels. This committee actively seeks a balanced representation of professionals from toxicology and industrial hygiene, drawing upon a diverse range of experience from industry, government, academia, and consulting. Importantly, each member contributes to the Committee based on their individual expertise and not as an official representative of their respective employer, organization, or agency.