Tag Archives: Ecologic

How Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other Works: In-Depth Analysis

📰 Updated: 18/04/2026

Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other — here’s everything you need to know about this topic, which has been widely circulating in online communities, social media, and major news outlets in recent hours.

Below is a complete analysis: what happened, the context, the implications, and what to expect in the coming weeks.

What We Know So Far

Information about Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other continues to develop. This article is updated as new official details emerge. Currently, sources agree on the significance and potential impact of this development.

The Context

To fully understand Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other, it’s useful to place the event in its broader context. In recent months, attention to this topic has grown significantly, with multiple stakeholders closely monitoring developments.

The Implications

This development could have significant repercussions across several fronts: from public opinion to institutional decisions. It’s too early for definitive conclusions, but the signals warrant close attention.

What to Expect in the Coming Days

The situation regarding Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other is rapidly evolving. In the coming hours and days, new details, official statements and reactions from those involved are likely to emerge. We recommend following updated sources to stay informed on this topic.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this news story about?

This news is about "Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other". It's a recent development generating attention across media and online communities. Full details are continuously updated as new official information emerges.

Why is this news important?

The significance of "Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other" lies in the fact that it involves notable parties and could have concrete implications in the short to medium term. Tracking this story is valuable for anyone who wants to stay current on the topics shaping public discourse.

Where can I follow updates on this topic?

To stay updated on "Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other", we recommend following major online news outlets, sector RSS feeds, and relevant social media communities. This article is periodically updated with the latest available information.

Who are the main parties involved?

The parties involved in "Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other" are emerging as the story develops. Official statements and reactions from key figures are among the most-watched elements and will be reported as soon as available.

Summary

Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other is an evolving story. This article will be updated with the latest information as it becomes available. Leave a comment if you have questions or want to share additional information on the topic.

Canned hunting is not protecting wild lions! Updated for 2026





As the United for Wildlife conference begins in Kisane, Botswana today, here’s something for delegates to ponder.

In 1980 more than 75,000 wild lions roamed the African Continent. Today it is estimated that fewer than than 25,000 survive in 23% of the territory they once inhabited.

The world has at last woken up to the tragedy facing Africa’s elephants and rhinos but has been far too slow to realise the desperate plight of Africa’s lions. From habitat loss to human-wildlife conflict and hunting, the African lion is facing a battle on all sides to survive.

To shoot a wild lion in Tanzania may cost in the region of $50,000 to $80,000 a price beyond the reach of all but a small number of extremely wealthy hunters.

However, in South Africa, farmers have gone into the bargain basement hunting business by breeding lions to be shot by hunters for a fraction of the price, in so called ‘canned hunting’ operations.

Killing tame lions in cold blood

Unlike Tanzania where a hunter might only expect a 35% success rate in hunting a wild lion, the South African canned hunting operations guarantee a kill by supplying a lion who has normally been hand-reared from a cub and by placing the animal in an enclosure, where there is likely to be no escape from the hunter.

A female lion in a canned hunting operation in South Africa can be killed for as little as $5,000; males are more expensive in the region of $25,000, but still less than half the cost of shooting a wild lion in Tanzania.

The canned hunting operations now even breed a genetic variant of a lion for the hunter, white lions with blue eyes are in high demand and command a significant price premium in the global trophy hunting market.

This massive reduction in the cost of lion shooting is bringing in hundreds of new amateur trophy hunters into South Africa every year and this has led to a huge increase in the lion breeding business.

South Africa is now home to around 160 lion farms breeding more than 5,000 lions a year on a conveyer belt of brutality and cruelty for trophy hunters from Dallas to Shanghai.

These canned hunting operations are very poorly regulated and the animal welfare conditions of the lions in what is an intensive breeding process are often extremely poor.

Although Provincial Regulations do set criteria on the minimum size for holding facilities and the time limits for the transfer of lions from the breeding farm to the hunting enclosure, these are not effectively enforced.

Many canned hunting operations allow poorly trained marksmen to shoot lions with a high powered rifle or a bow. In many cases the lions are only wounded by the amateur hunters, and have to be killed by a professional marksmen, resulting in a prolonged painful death.

Protecting wild lions? Or endangering them?

The canned hunting operators claim they are protecting the future of wild lions by breeding lions for trophy hunters, however this could not be further from the truth. Most trophy hunters are only interested in taking the skin or the head of the lion they have shot, leaving the most valuable part of the carcass, which are the bones.

The canned hunting operators have seized on this valuable commodity and are now exporting lion bone to the lucrative medicine markets of China, Laos and Vietnam. The lion bone trade is now a growing source of revenue for the canned breeding facilities and there are concerns this could be leading to an increasing level of poaching of wild lions.

The fear is that the mostly legal trade in bones from farmed lions killed in canned hunts could provide cover for an illegal trade in wild lion bones – and possibly tiger bones as well.

We have no direct evidence that this is the case, but clearly the possibility is there, and it’s a high priority for conservation organizations including Born Free Foundation to investigate whether this is actually taking place.

Farmed lions are likely to be more genetically uniform than wild ones, and some ‘breeds’ – like the white-skinned blue-eyed lions mentioned above – will carry specific genetic markers, so DNA analysis of ‘legal’ bones could give important indications of the presence of wild lion remains.

Another sinister side of the canned hunting business is the exploitation of lion cubs and young lions. As the number of lions bred for trophy hunters has increased, so have the number of tourist attractions in South Africa offering the opportunity to spend time in close contact with cubs and young lions.

Many of these operations claim to be conservation projects and even enlist volunteers to help look after the lions, but in many cases the dark truth is that the lions are destined for the guns and bows of trophy hunters.

Lions need ‘endangered species’ protection

Public anger over the canned lion hunting business is growing rapidly and on the 13 March protests took place in London and cities and around world as part of the Global March for Lions. The Australian government has reacted by banning the import of hunting trophies from the body parts of lions.

The Environment Minister Greg Hunt who announced the crackdown at the Global March for Lions in Melbourne’s Federation Square said “the practice of canned hunting was cruel and barbaric.”

Following this move by the Australian government, the focus now moves to Brussels where the European Commission has agreed to introduce a new system of import permits for body parts from endangered species including lions. This measure is intended to ensure that any imported hunting trophies are both legal and sustainable.

The new rules should result in the ban on the import of lion hunting trophies from a number of West African countries where there is real concern that lions are not being hunted sustainably including Benin, Burkina Faso and potentially Cameroon.

However these new regulations are unlikely to stop the import of hunting trophies from South African canned lion hunting operations, which account for the vast majority entering the EU every year. As the EU currently views these operations as legal and not a threat to wild lion populations.

The US Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service is currently finalizing a rule to list the African lion as a ‘threatened species’ under the US Endangered Species Act, with a special rule that would only allow lion trophy imports from countries with an approved, scientifically-sound, management programme for the species.

An unacceptable trade that must be ended

To help draw global attention to the cruelty and greed behind the canned lion hunting business an award winning film maker and photographer Marta Ariza, is producing a film called ‘Death for a Trophy‘ to be released in the Autumn.

It is hoped this film will do for the canned hunting what Black Fish did for SeaWorld, by raising global awareness of the cruelty, exploitation and greed which lie at the heart at of the booming canned hunting business in South Africa.

Time is running out for the African Lion, the king of the jungle is fast heading towards extinction. If we are to protect their future, there can be no justification for the continued hunting of wild lions and the cruel canned hunting business should be shut down for good.

 


 

Dominic Dyer is Policy Advisor at the Born Free Foundation, which recently merged with Care for the Wild.

 




391595

IARC: Glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic’ Updated for 2026



As indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

 


A monograph published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – of which a summary is published in the scientific journal The Lancet Oncology – has branded the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

The insecticides malathion and diazinon received the same calassification (Group 2A) while the tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on convincing evidence that these agents cause cancer in laboratory animals.

The designation follows a meeting earlier this month of 17 IARC experts at the orgnization’s headquarters in Lyons, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of the five widely used organophosphate pesticides.

According to the Lancet article, “Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides, and as IARC notes, “it is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties.”

The full assessments of the five chemicals will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.

Supported by animal and cell line studies

Additional evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity arose from animal experiments: “In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma.

“A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice.”

The paper adds that glyphosate and its numerous formulations “induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

“One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro.”

Glyphosate “has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption”, the paper notes. It adds that the presence of aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA) in human blood after glyphosate poisoning “suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans” similar to that performed by soil bacteria.

The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

‘You can drink it like lemonade’

The findings are a fatal blow to industry claims that glyphosate is harmless and the oft-repeated canard that “you can drink it like lemonade” without ill-effect.

It also adds to pressure for regulators including the Europeran Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) to re-examine the basis on whicht he product has been licenced.

The IARC draws attention to regulatory anomalies in the press release that accompanies the Lancet publication, noting: “On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985.

“After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble.

“The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

Agro-chemical industry rejects IARC findings

Monsanto, which owns to now-expired patents on glyphosate and maker of the world’s leading glyphosate formulation, Roundup, rejects the IARC findings, insisting that “all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.”

The conclusion, said Monsanto’s Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs Philip Miller, “is not supported by scientific data … We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

But as indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

And of course the IARC study excludes other concerns as to glyphosate’s wider toxicity, for example as a teratogen that gives rise to birth defects, as a endocrine disruptor and as a genotoxin.

It also does not consider the critical issue of the enhancement of glyphosate’s toxicity caused by other elements such as adjuvants and surfactants in herbicide formulations.

 


 

The paper:Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate‘ is published in The Lancet Oncology.

More information:

 

 




391513

IARC: Glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic’ Updated for 2026



As indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

 


A monograph published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – of which a summary is published in the scientific journal The Lancet Oncology – has branded the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

The insecticides malathion and diazinon received the same calassification (Group 2A) while the tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on convincing evidence that these agents cause cancer in laboratory animals.

The designation follows a meeting earlier this month of 17 IARC experts at the orgnization’s headquarters in Lyons, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of the five widely used organophosphate pesticides.

According to the Lancet article, “Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides, and as IARC notes, “it is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties.”

The full assessments of the five chemicals will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.

Supported by animal and cell line studies

Additional evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity arose from animal experiments: “In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma.

“A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice.”

The paper adds that glyphosate and its numerous formulations “induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

“One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro.”

Glyphosate “has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption”, the paper notes. It adds that the presence of aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA) in human blood after glyphosate poisoning “suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans” similar to that performed by soil bacteria.

The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

‘You can drink it like lemonade’

The findings are a fatal blow to industry claims that glyphosate is harmless and the oft-repeated canard that “you can drink it like lemonade” without ill-effect.

It also adds to pressure for regulators including the Europeran Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) to re-examine the basis on whicht he product has been licenced.

The IARC draws attention to regulatory anomalies in the press release that accompanies the Lancet publication, noting: “On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985.

“After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble.

“The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

Agro-chemical industry rejects IARC findings

Monsanto, which owns to now-expired patents on glyphosate and maker of the world’s leading glyphosate formulation, Roundup, rejects the IARC findings, insisting that “all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.”

The conclusion, said Monsanto’s Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs Philip Miller, “is not supported by scientific data … We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

But as indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

And of course the IARC study excludes other concerns as to glyphosate’s wider toxicity, for example as a teratogen that gives rise to birth defects, as a endocrine disruptor and as a genotoxin.

It also does not consider the critical issue of the enhancement of glyphosate’s toxicity caused by other elements such as adjuvants and surfactants in herbicide formulations.

 


 

The paper:Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate‘ is published in The Lancet Oncology.

More information:

 

 




391513

IARC: Glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic’ Updated for 2026



As indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

 


A monograph published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – of which a summary is published in the scientific journal The Lancet Oncology – has branded the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

The insecticides malathion and diazinon received the same calassification (Group 2A) while the tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on convincing evidence that these agents cause cancer in laboratory animals.

The designation follows a meeting earlier this month of 17 IARC experts at the orgnization’s headquarters in Lyons, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of the five widely used organophosphate pesticides.

According to the Lancet article, “Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides, and as IARC notes, “it is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties.”

The full assessments of the five chemicals will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.

Supported by animal and cell line studies

Additional evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity arose from animal experiments: “In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma.

“A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice.”

The paper adds that glyphosate and its numerous formulations “induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

“One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro.”

Glyphosate “has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption”, the paper notes. It adds that the presence of aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA) in human blood after glyphosate poisoning “suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans” similar to that performed by soil bacteria.

The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

‘You can drink it like lemonade’

The findings are a fatal blow to industry claims that glyphosate is harmless and the oft-repeated canard that “you can drink it like lemonade” without ill-effect.

It also adds to pressure for regulators including the Europeran Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) to re-examine the basis on whicht he product has been licenced.

The IARC draws attention to regulatory anomalies in the press release that accompanies the Lancet publication, noting: “On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985.

“After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble.

“The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

Agro-chemical industry rejects IARC findings

Monsanto, which owns to now-expired patents on glyphosate and maker of the world’s leading glyphosate formulation, Roundup, rejects the IARC findings, insisting that “all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.”

The conclusion, said Monsanto’s Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs Philip Miller, “is not supported by scientific data … We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

But as indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

And of course the IARC study excludes other concerns as to glyphosate’s wider toxicity, for example as a teratogen that gives rise to birth defects, as a endocrine disruptor and as a genotoxin.

It also does not consider the critical issue of the enhancement of glyphosate’s toxicity caused by other elements such as adjuvants and surfactants in herbicide formulations.

 


 

The paper:Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate‘ is published in The Lancet Oncology.

More information:

 

 




391513

IARC: Glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic’ Updated for 2026



As indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

 


A monograph published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – of which a summary is published in the scientific journal The Lancet Oncology – has branded the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

The insecticides malathion and diazinon received the same calassification (Group 2A) while the tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on convincing evidence that these agents cause cancer in laboratory animals.

The designation follows a meeting earlier this month of 17 IARC experts at the orgnization’s headquarters in Lyons, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of the five widely used organophosphate pesticides.

According to the Lancet article, “Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides, and as IARC notes, “it is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties.”

The full assessments of the five chemicals will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.

Supported by animal and cell line studies

Additional evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity arose from animal experiments: “In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma.

“A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice.”

The paper adds that glyphosate and its numerous formulations “induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

“One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro.”

Glyphosate “has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption”, the paper notes. It adds that the presence of aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA) in human blood after glyphosate poisoning “suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans” similar to that performed by soil bacteria.

The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

‘You can drink it like lemonade’

The findings are a fatal blow to industry claims that glyphosate is harmless and the oft-repeated canard that “you can drink it like lemonade” without ill-effect.

It also adds to pressure for regulators including the Europeran Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) to re-examine the basis on whicht he product has been licenced.

The IARC draws attention to regulatory anomalies in the press release that accompanies the Lancet publication, noting: “On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985.

“After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble.

“The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

Agro-chemical industry rejects IARC findings

Monsanto, which owns to now-expired patents on glyphosate and maker of the world’s leading glyphosate formulation, Roundup, rejects the IARC findings, insisting that “all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.”

The conclusion, said Monsanto’s Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs Philip Miller, “is not supported by scientific data … We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

But as indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

And of course the IARC study excludes other concerns as to glyphosate’s wider toxicity, for example as a teratogen that gives rise to birth defects, as a endocrine disruptor and as a genotoxin.

It also does not consider the critical issue of the enhancement of glyphosate’s toxicity caused by other elements such as adjuvants and surfactants in herbicide formulations.

 


 

The paper:Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate‘ is published in The Lancet Oncology.

More information:

 

 




391513

IARC: Glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic’ Updated for 2026



As indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

 


A monograph published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – of which a summary is published in the scientific journal The Lancet Oncology – has branded the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

The insecticides malathion and diazinon received the same calassification (Group 2A) while the tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on convincing evidence that these agents cause cancer in laboratory animals.

The designation follows a meeting earlier this month of 17 IARC experts at the orgnization’s headquarters in Lyons, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of the five widely used organophosphate pesticides.

According to the Lancet article, “Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides, and as IARC notes, “it is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties.”

The full assessments of the five chemicals will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.

Supported by animal and cell line studies

Additional evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity arose from animal experiments: “In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma.

“A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice.”

The paper adds that glyphosate and its numerous formulations “induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

“One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro.”

Glyphosate “has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption”, the paper notes. It adds that the presence of aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA) in human blood after glyphosate poisoning “suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans” similar to that performed by soil bacteria.

The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

‘You can drink it like lemonade’

The findings are a fatal blow to industry claims that glyphosate is harmless and the oft-repeated canard that “you can drink it like lemonade” without ill-effect.

It also adds to pressure for regulators including the Europeran Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) to re-examine the basis on whicht he product has been licenced.

The IARC draws attention to regulatory anomalies in the press release that accompanies the Lancet publication, noting: “On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985.

“After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble.

“The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

Agro-chemical industry rejects IARC findings

Monsanto, which owns to now-expired patents on glyphosate and maker of the world’s leading glyphosate formulation, Roundup, rejects the IARC findings, insisting that “all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.”

The conclusion, said Monsanto’s Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs Philip Miller, “is not supported by scientific data … We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

But as indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

And of course the IARC study excludes other concerns as to glyphosate’s wider toxicity, for example as a teratogen that gives rise to birth defects, as a endocrine disruptor and as a genotoxin.

It also does not consider the critical issue of the enhancement of glyphosate’s toxicity caused by other elements such as adjuvants and surfactants in herbicide formulations.

 


 

The paper:Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate‘ is published in The Lancet Oncology.

More information:

 

 




391513

IARC: Glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic’ Updated for 2026



As indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

 


A monograph published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – of which a summary is published in the scientific journal The Lancet Oncology – has branded the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

The insecticides malathion and diazinon received the same calassification (Group 2A) while the tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on convincing evidence that these agents cause cancer in laboratory animals.

The designation follows a meeting earlier this month of 17 IARC experts at the orgnization’s headquarters in Lyons, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of the five widely used organophosphate pesticides.

According to the Lancet article, “Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides, and as IARC notes, “it is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties.”

The full assessments of the five chemicals will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.

Supported by animal and cell line studies

Additional evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity arose from animal experiments: “In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma.

“A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice.”

The paper adds that glyphosate and its numerous formulations “induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

“One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro.”

Glyphosate “has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption”, the paper notes. It adds that the presence of aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA) in human blood after glyphosate poisoning “suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans” similar to that performed by soil bacteria.

The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

‘You can drink it like lemonade’

The findings are a fatal blow to industry claims that glyphosate is harmless and the oft-repeated canard that “you can drink it like lemonade” without ill-effect.

It also adds to pressure for regulators including the Europeran Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) to re-examine the basis on whicht he product has been licenced.

The IARC draws attention to regulatory anomalies in the press release that accompanies the Lancet publication, noting: “On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985.

“After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble.

“The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

Agro-chemical industry rejects IARC findings

Monsanto, which owns to now-expired patents on glyphosate and maker of the world’s leading glyphosate formulation, Roundup, rejects the IARC findings, insisting that “all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.”

The conclusion, said Monsanto’s Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs Philip Miller, “is not supported by scientific data … We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

But as indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

And of course the IARC study excludes other concerns as to glyphosate’s wider toxicity, for example as a teratogen that gives rise to birth defects, as a endocrine disruptor and as a genotoxin.

It also does not consider the critical issue of the enhancement of glyphosate’s toxicity caused by other elements such as adjuvants and surfactants in herbicide formulations.

 


 

The paper:Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate‘ is published in The Lancet Oncology.

More information:

 

 




391513

Truth is our country Updated for 2026





As Jesus told the people of Nazareth, a prophet is without honor in his own country. In the United States, this is also true of journalists.

In the United States journalists receive awards for lying for the government and for the corporations. Anyone who tells the truth, whether journalist or whistleblower, is fired or prosecuted or has to hide out in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, like Julian Assange, or in Moscow, like Edward Snowden, or is tortured and imprisoned, like Bradley Manning.

Mexican journalists pay an even higher price. Those who report on government corruption and on the drug cartels pay with their lives.

The Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has as an entry a list by name of journalists murdered in Mexico. This is the List of Honor. Wikipedia reports than more than 100 Mexican journalists have been killed or disappeared in the 21st century.

Despite intimidation the Mexican press has not abandoned its job. Because of your courage, I regard this award bestowed on me as the greatest of honors.

A daily fraud perpetuated on readers, viewers and listeners

In the United States real journalists are scarce and are becoming more scarce. Journalists have morphed into a new creature. Gerald Celente calls US journalists “presstitutes”, a word formed from press prostitute. In other words, journalists in the United States are whores for the government and for the corporations.

The few real journalists that remain are resigning. Last year Sharyl Attkisson, a 21-year veteran reporter with CBS resigned on the grounds that it had become too much of a fight to get truth reported. She was frustrated that CBS saw its purpose to be a protector of the powerful, not a critic.

Recently Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraph’s chief political commentator, explained why he resigned. His stories about the wrongdoings of the banking giant, HSBC, were spiked, because HSBC is an important advertiser for the Telegraph. Osborne says:

“The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.”

Last summer former New York Times editor Jill Abramson in a speech at the Chautauqua Institution said that the New York Times withheld information at the request of the White House. She said that for a number of years the press in general did not publish any stories that upset the White House. She justified this complete failure of journalism on the grounds that “journalists are Americans, too. I consider myself to be a patriot.”

So in the United States journalists lie for the government because they are patriotic, and their readers and listeners believe the lies because they are patriotic.

Stripped of Truth, journalism becomes propaganda

Our view differs from the view of the New York Times editor. The view of those of us here today is that our country is not the United States, it is not Mexico, our country is Truth. Once a journalist sacrifices Truth to loyalty to a government, he ceases to be a journalist and becomes a propagandist.

Recently, Brian Williams, the television news anchor at NBC, destroyed his career because he mis-remembered an episode of more than a decade ago when he was covering the Iraq War. He told his audience that a helicopter in which he was with troops in a war zone as a war correspondent was hit by ground fire and had to land.

But the helicopter had not been hit by ground fire. His fellow journalists turned on him, accusing him of lying in order to enhance his status as a war correspondent. On February 10, NBC suspended Brian Williams for 6 months from his job as Managing Editor and Anchor of NBC Nightly News.

Think about this for a moment. It makes no difference whatsoever whether the helicopter had to land because it had been hit by gun fire or for some other reason or whether it had to land at all. If it was an intentional lie, it was one of no consequence. If it was a mistake, an episode of ‘alse memory’, why the excessive reaction? Psychologists say that false memories are common.

The same NBC that suspended Brian Williams and the journalists who accused him of lying are all guilty of telling massive lies for the entirety of the 21st century that have had vast consequences.

The United States government has been, and still is, invading, bombing, and droning seven or eight countries on the basis of lies told by Washington and endlessly repeated by the media. Millions of people have been killed, maimed, and displaced by violence based entirely on lies spewing out of the mouths of Washington and its presstitutes.

We know what these lies are: Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Assad of Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Iranian nukes. Pakistani and Yemeni terrorists. Terrorists in Somalia. The endless lies about Gaddafi in Libya, about the Taliban in Afghanistan. And now the alleged Russian invasion and annexation of Ukraine.

All of these transparent lies are repeated endlessly, and no one is held accountable. But one journalist mis-remembers one insignificant detail about a helicopter ride and his career is destroyed.

Truth is the enemy of the state

We can safely conclude that the only honest journalism that exists in the United States is provided by alternative media on the Internet. Consequently, the Internet is now under US government attack. ‘Truth is the enemy of the state’ – and Washington intends to shut down truth everywhere.

Washington has appointed Andrew Lack, the former president of NBC News, to be the chief executive of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. His first official statement compared RT, Russia Today, the Russian-based news agency, with the Islamic State and Boko Haram. In other words, Mr. Lack brands RT as a terrorist organization.

The purpose of Andrew Lack’s absurd comparison is to strike fear at RT that the news organization will be expelled from US media markets. Andrew Lack’s message to RT is: “lie for us or we are going to expel you from our air waves.”

The British already did this to Iran’s Press TV.

In the United States the attack on Internet independent media is proceeding on several fronts. One is known as the issue of ‘net neutrality’.

There is an effort by Washington, joined by Internet providers, to charge sites for speedy access. Bandwidth would be sold for fees. Large media corporations, such as CNN and the New York Times, would be able to pay the prices for a quickly opening website.

Smaller independent sites such as mine would be hampered with the slowness of the old ‘dial-up’ type bandwidth. Click on CNN and the site immediately opens. Click on paulcraigroberts.org and wait five minutes. You get the picture. This is Washington’s plan and the corporations’ plan for the Internet.

The vindictive state against the honest citizen

But it gets worse. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which attempts to defend our digital rights, reports that so-called ‘free trade agreements’ such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (and the Trans Atlantic Trade & Investment Partnership / TTIP) impose prison sentences, massive fines, and property seizures on Internet users who innocently violate vague language in the so-called trade agreements.

Recently, a young American, Barrett Brown, was sentenced to 5 years in prison and a fine of $890,000 for linking to allegedly hacked documents posted on the Internet. Barrett Brown did not hack the documents. He merely linked to an Internet posting, and he has no prospect of earning $890,000 over the course of his life.

The purpose of the US government’s prosecution, indeed, persecution, of this young person is to establish the precedent that anyone who uses Internet information in ways that Washington disapproves, or for purposes that Washington disapproves, is a criminal whose life will be ruined.

The purpose of Barrett Brown’s show trial is to intimidate. It is Washington’s equivalent to the murder of Mexican journalists.

The aim is simple – world domination

But this is prologue. Now we turn to the challenge that Washington presents to the entire world.

It is the nature of government and of technology to establish control. People everywhere face the threat of control by government and technology. But the threat from Washington is much greater. Washington is not content with only controlling the citizens of the United States. Washington intends to control the world.

Michael Gorbachev is correct when he says that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that has happened to humanity, because the Soviet collapse removed the only constraint on Washington’s power.

The Soviet collapse released a terrible evil upon the world. The neoconservatives in Washington concluded that the failure of communism meant that History has chosen American ‘democratic capitalism’, which is neither democratic nor capitalist, to rule the world. The Soviet collapse signaled ‘the End of History’, by which is meant the end of competition between social, political and economic systems.

The choice made by History elevated the United States to the pre-eminent position of being the “indispensable and exceptional” country, a claim of superiority. If the United States is “indispensable”, then others are dispensable. If the United States is exceptional, then others are unexceptional. We have seen the consequences of Washington’s ideology in Washington’s destruction of life and stability in the Middle East.

Washington’s drive for World Hegemony, based as it is on a lie, makes necessary the obliteration of Truth. As Washington’s agenda of supremacy is all encompassing, Washington regards truth as a greater enemy than Russians, Muslim terrorists, and the Islamic State.

As truth is Washington’s worst enemy, everyone associated with the truth is Washington’s enemy.

The empire of chaos and lawlessness

Latin America can have no illusions about Washington. The first act of the Obama Regime was to overthrow the democratic reformist government of Honduras. Currently, the Obama Regime is trying to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina.

As Mexicans know, in the 19th century Washington stole half of Mexico. Today Washington is stealing the rest of Mexico. The United States is stealing Mexico via financial imperialism, by subordinating Mexican agriculture and self-sustaining peasant agricultural communities to foreign-owned monoculture, by infecting Mexico with Monsanto’s GMO’s, genetically modified organisms, seeds that do not reproduce, chemicals that destroy the soil and nature’s nutrients, seeds that leave Mexico dependent on Monsanto for food crops with reduced nutritional value.

It is easy for governments to sell out their countries to Washington and the North American corporations. Washington and US corporations pay high prices for subservience to their control. It is difficult for countries, small in economic and political influence, to stand against such power. All sorts of masks are used behind which Washington hides US exploitation-globalism, free trade treaties …

But the world is changing. Putin has revived Russia, and Russia has proved its ability to stand up to Washington. On a purchasing power basis, China now has the largest economy in the world. As China and Russia are now strategic allies, Washington cannot act against one without acting against the other. The two combined exceed Washington’s capabilities.

The United States government has proven to the entire world that it is lawless. A country that flaunts its disrespect of law cannot provide trusted leadership. My conclusion is that Washington’s power has peaked.

One ring to rule them all …

Another reason Washington’s power has peaked is that Washington has used its power to serve only itself and US corporations. The Rest of the World is dispensable and has been left out.

Washington’s power grew out of World War 2. All other economies and currencies were devastated. This allowed Washington to seize the world reserve currency role from Great Britain.

The advantage of being the world reserve currency is that you can pay your bills by printing money. In other words, you can’t go broke as long as other countries are willing to hold your fiat currency as their reserves.

But if other countries were to decide not to hold US currency as reserves, the US could go broke suddenly.

Since 2008 the supply of US dollars has increased dramatically in relation to the ability of the real economy to produce goods and services. Whenever the growth of money outpaces the growth of real output, trouble lies ahead. Moreover, Washington’s policy of imposing sanctions in an effort to force other countries to do its will is causing a large part of the world known as the BRICS to develop an alternative international payments system.

Washington’s arrogance and hubris have caused Washington to ignore the interests of other countries, including those of its allies. Even Washington’s European vassal states show signs of developing an independent foreign policy in their approach to Russia and Ukraine. Opportunities will arise for governments to escape from Washington’s control and to pursue the interests of their own peoples.

The media’s new imperatives: make money; serve the state

The US media has never performed the function assigned to it by the Founding Fathers. The media is supposed to be diverse and independent. It is supposed to confront both government and private interest groups with the facts and the truth.

At times the US media partially fulfilled this role, but not since the final years of the Clinton Regime when the government allowed six mega-media companies to consolidate 90% of the media in their hands.

The mega-media companies that control the US media are GE, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. (GE owns NBC, formerly an independent network. News Corp owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and British newspapers. Disney owns ABC. Time Warner owns CNN.)

The US media is no longer run by journalists. It is run by former government officials and corporate advertising executives. The values of the mega-media companies depend on their federal broadcast licenses.

If the companies go against the government, the companies take a risk that their licenses will not be renewed and, thus, the multi-billion dollar values of the companies fall to zero. If media organizations investigate wrongful activities by corporations, they risk the loss of advertising revenues and become less viable.

Ninety percent control of the media gives government a Ministry of Propaganda, and that is what exists in the United States. Nothing reported in the print or TV media can be trusted.

Today there is a massive propaganda campaign against the Russian government. The incessant flow of disinformation from Washington and the media has destroyed the trust between nuclear powers that President Reagan and President Gorbachev worked so hard to create. According to polls, 62% of the US population now regards Russia as the main threat.

I conclude my remarks with the observation that there can be no greater media failure than to bring back the specter of nuclear war. And that is what the US media has achieved.

 


 

Paul Craig Roberts won the International Award for Excellence in Journalism 2015. This article is a transcript of his acceptance speech at the Club De Periodistas De Mexico, March 12, 2015. It was first published on his website, also available in Spanish.

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

 

 




391469

Amazon carbon sink declines as trees grow fast, die faster Updated for 2026





Tropical forests are being exposed to unprecedented environmental change, with huge knock-on effects. In the past decade, the carbon absorbed annually by the Amazon rain forest has declined by almost a third.

At 6 million sq.km, the Amazon forest covers an area 25 times that of the UK, and spans large parts of nine countries. The region contains a fifth of all species on earth, including more than 15,000 types of tree.

Its 300 billion trees store 20% of all the carbon in the Earth’s biomass, and each year they actively cycle 18 billion tonnes of carbon, twice as much as is emitted by all the fossil fuels burnt in the world.

The Amazon Basin is also a hydrological powerhouse. Water vapour from the forest nurtures agriculture to the south, including the biofuel crops which power many of Brazil’s cars and the soybeans which feed increasing numbers of people (and cows) across the planet.

What happens to the Amazon thus matters to the world. As we describe in research published in Nature, the biomass dynamics of apparently intact forests of the Amazon have been changing for decades now with important consequences.

Is climate changing the Amazon?

There are two competing narratives of how tropical forests should be responding to global changes. On one hand, there is the theoretical prospect (and some experimental evidence) that more carbon dioxide will be ‘good’ for plants.

Carbon dioxide is the key chemical ingredient in photosynthesis, so more of it should lead to faster growth and thus more opportunities for trees and whole forests to store carbon. In fact almost all global models of vegetation predict faster growth and, for a time at least, greater carbon storage.

Arrayed against this has been an opposing expectation, based on the physical climate impacts of the very same increase in atmospheric CO2. As the tropics warm further, respiration by plants and soil microbes should increase faster than photosynthesis, meaning more carbon is pumped into the air than is captured in the ‘sink’.

More extreme seasons will also mean more droughts, slowing growth and sometimes even killing trees.

Which process will win?

The work we have led takes a simple approach. With many colleagues, we track the behaviour of individual trees through time across permanent plots distributed right across South America’s rain forests.

Together with hundreds of partners in the RAINFOR network, this close-up look at the Amazon ecosystem has been underway since the 1980s, allowing an unprecedented assessment of how tropical forests have changed over the past three decades.

Our analysis – based on work across 321 plots, 30 years, eight nations, and involving almost 500 people – first of all confirms earlier results. The Amazon forest has acted as a vast sponge for atmospheric carbon. That is, trees have been growing faster than they have been dying.

The difference – the ‘sink’ – has helped to put a modest brake on the rate of climate change by taking up an additional two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.

This extra carbon has been going into ostensibly mature forests, ecosystems which according to classical ecology should be at a dynamic equilibrium and thus close to carbon-neutral.

Amazon trees are finding it harder to survive

However we also found a long and sustained increase in the rate of trees dying in Amazon forests that are undisturbed by direct human impacts.

Tree mortality rates have surged by more than a third since the mid-1980s, while growth rates have stalled over the past decade. This had a significant impact on the Amazon’s capacity to take-up carbon.

Recent droughts and unusually high temperatures in the Amazon are almost certainly behind some of this ‘mortality catch-up’. One major drought in 2005 killed millions of trees. However the data shows tree mortality increases began well before then. Some other, non-climatic mechanism may be killing off Amazonian trees.

The simplest answer is that faster growth, which is consistent with a CO2 stimulation, is now causing trees to also die faster. As the extra carbon feeds through the system, trees not only grow quicker but they also mature earlier. In short, they are living faster, and therefore dying younger.

Thus, 30 years of painstakingly monitoring the Amazon has revealed a complex and changing picture. Predictions of a continuing increase of carbon storage in tropical forests may be overly optimistic – these models simply don’t capture the important feed-through effect of faster growth on mortality.

Forests’ ability to store carbon is reducing

As the Amazon forest growth cycle has been accelerating, carbon is moving through it more rapidly. One consequence of the increase in death should be an increase in the amount of necromass – dead wood – on the forest floor.

While we haven’t measured these changes directly, our model suggests the amount of dead wood in the Amazon has increased by 30% (more than 3 billion tonnes of carbon) since the 1980s. Most of this decaying matter is destined to return to the atmosphere sooner rather than later.

More than a quarter of current emissions are being taken up by the land sink, mostly by forests. But a key element appears to be saturating.

This reminds us that the subsidy from nature is likely to be strictly time-limited, and deeper cuts in emissions will be required to stabilise our climate.

 


 

Published on #IntlForestDay, 21st March 2015.

Oliver Phillips is Professor of Tropical Ecology at the University of Leeds.

Roel Brienen is NERC Research Fellow at the University of Leeds.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

The Conversation

 




391468