Tag Archives: Ecologic

Grib skov.jpg

Ecologic: details and useful information

Key Takeaways

  • Central theme: The analysis of Ecologic focuses on these fundamental aspects: Ecology is the natural science of the relationships among living organisms and their environment. Ecology considers organisms at the individual, population, community, ecosystem, and biosphere levels. Ecology overlaps with…
  • Context: It fits within the dynamics related to Ecologic.
  • Article objective: To provide a clear and detailed overview based on the latest information.

Updated: 19/04/2026

Grib skov.jpg
Grib skov.jpg — Fonte: Wikimedia Commons

The topic Ecologic is closely related to the Ecologic sector. Current information allows us to draw a precise picture of the situation and understand what the most relevant elements to consider are.

Here are the main data and details emerging from the analysis of the sources: Ecology is the natural science of the relationships among living organisms and their environment. Ecology considers organisms at the individual, population, community, ecosystem, and biosphere levels. Ecology overlaps with the closely related sciences of biogeography, evolutionary biology, genetics, ethology, and natural history.. This informational basis is essential to understand the nuances of the problem and evaluate the possible practical implications.

Dettagli su: Ecology

Ecology is the natural science of the relationships among living organisms and their environment. Ecology considers organisms at the individual, population, community, ecosystem, and biosphere levels. Ecology overlaps with the closely related sciences of biogeography, evolutionary biology, genetics, ethology, and natural history.

Fonte: Wikipedia

In-depth analysis of Ecologic

Delving into the issue of Ecologic, we note how the dynamics at play are complex. Understanding these mechanisms requires analyzing not only the basic concepts but also their direct applications.

In particular, further details indicate that: the closely related sciences of biogeography, evolutionary biology, genetics, ethology, and natural history.. This element adds another layer of reading to our analysis.

Perspectives for 2026

The evolution of Ecologic during 2026 will depend on several key factors. The information gathered so far suggests a precise direction, but it will be necessary to continue monitoring the situation to promptly catch any significant changes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the essential information about Ecologic?

The essential information concerns the data and details analyzed in this article, which outline the context and practical implications of the topic.

How is Ecologic related to Ecologic?

Ecologic represents one of the specific and relevant aspects within the Ecologic sector, influencing its dynamics and developments.

Where can I find updates on this theme?

It is advisable to consult authoritative sources, specialized discussion forums, and dedicated information portals to stay updated.

Final Thoughts

We have examined Ecologic in detail, based on data and the current context. Understanding these elements is fundamental to having a clear and complete view. We will continue to provide relevant updates on this and other related topics.

Dolina Kochłówki tabliczka 2026.jpg

Why is everyone talking about Ecologic April 2026?

Key Takeaways

  • Main focus: Interest in Ecologic April 2026 is mainly about: This topic is generating a lot of interest. People are looking for detailed information on how to address it, what…
  • Why it is relevant: It is a highly topical subject that offers practical insights and concrete solutions.
  • What you will learn: We will analyze the details, trends, and the most useful information to fully understand the issue.

Updated: 19/04/2026

Dolina Kochłówki tabliczka 2026.jpg
Dolina Kochłówki tabliczka 2026.jpg — Fonte: Wikimedia Commons

When talking about Ecologic April 2026, we refer to a subject that is capturing a lot of attention and curiosity. It is not just a topic of discussion, but an issue with direct and practical impacts.

Here are the main details emerging from the latest information: This topic is generating a lot of interest. People are looking for detailed information on how to address it, what the practical implications are, and what tools or strategies to adopt to manage it best.. Fully understanding these dynamics is the first step to getting a clear picture and making informed decisions.

Detailed analysis of Ecologic April 2026

To truly understand Ecologic April 2026, we must go beyond superficial definitions. This topic involves various facets that directly influence those seeking information about it. Analysis of current data shows that the search for clarity is a priority.

People seek information on this theme to find answers to specific problems or to discover new opportunities. The best approach is to analyze the facts objectively, evaluating pros, cons, and practical applications. Only in this way is it possible to transform information into useful knowledge.

What to consider and pay attention to

When seeking information about Ecologic April 2026, it is easy to come across partial or decontextualized information. One of the most important aspects is to always verify the reliability of sources and understand the specific context in which the data is presented.

It is advisable to compare different perspectives and not stop at the first answer found. Delving into the details and asking specific questions allows you to avoid misunderstandings and get a much more complete and realistic view of the situation.

Developments and perspectives for 2026

Looking ahead, Ecologic April 2026 will continue to evolve. Current trends indicate that there will be an increasing demand for precise information and applicable solutions. Staying updated on these developments is essential for anyone interested in the topic.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main aspects of Ecologic April 2026?

The main aspects concern its practical applications, the basic information to understand it, and the details emerging from the most recent discussions and research.

Where can I find more details on Ecologic April 2026?

You can find in-depth information on encyclopedic sources, specialized information portals, and discussion forums where users share direct experiences.

Why is it important to learn about Ecologic April 2026?

Because it allows you to make more informed decisions, avoid common mistakes, and stay updated on a topic that generates great interest and debate.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, Ecologic April 2026 is a broad topic full of interesting insights. We have analyzed the key points and the most relevant information to offer you a clear overview. Continue to explore and learn more to stay updated.

Dolina Kochłówki tabliczka 2026.jpg

Complete guide to Ecologic April 2026: trends and analysis 2026

What People Are Searching For (Key Takeaways)

  • Current focus: Interest around Ecologic April 2026 centers on: Ecologic April 2026 represents a key element for those operating in Ecologic. Current trends show….
  • Sector relevance: It has become a central topic for those following Ecologic.
  • Practical impact: Understanding these dynamics allows anticipating market needs.

Updated: 19/04/2026 | Sector: Ecologic

Dolina Kochłówki tabliczka 2026.jpg
Dolina Kochłówki tabliczka 2026.jpg — Fonte: Wikimedia Commons

Analyzing recent searches and discussions in the Ecologic sector, a strong interest in Ecologic April 2026 emerges. People are looking for clear answers and applicable solutions.

Here is the current picture: Ecologic April 2026 represents a key element for those operating in Ecologic. Current trends show growing interest in practical solutions and measurable strategies. Many people are looking for information on how to implement Ecologic April 2026 effectively and what tools to use.. This shows how the topic is not just theoretical, but has very practical implications for anyone wanting to stay updated.

Why people are searching for Ecologic April 2026 in 2026

The surge of interest in Ecologic April 2026 is no accident. In the context of Ecologic, users are increasingly oriented towards solving specific problems or understanding new dynamics. Online discussions and search data confirm that the main need is clarity.

Instead of relying on fragmented information, those interested in this topic look for authoritative sources and direct applications. The evolution of the sector requires an approach based on real data, just like those pushing this topic to the top of the trends.

What to avoid when approaching this topic

A common mistake when approaching Ecologic April 2026 is stopping at the surface. Searches show that users often get confused due to conflicting information. It is crucial to always verify sources and contextualize data.

Furthermore, ignoring community discussions (like on Reddit or industry forums) means losing the real pulse of the situation. True questions and authentic doubts emerge precisely from these channels.

Future perspectives for Ecologic April 2026

Looking at current data, the trajectory of Ecologic April 2026 in 2026 indicates consolidation. This is not a passing interest, but a structural evolution. Online communities will continue to shape how this topic is perceived and used.

Frequently Asked Questions from the Community

Why is Ecologic April 2026 so discussed right now?

Because it intercepts a real need in the Ecologic sector, confirmed by search volumes and discussions on major online platforms.

Where can I find reliable information on Ecologic April 2026?

In addition to institutional sites, industry communities and discussion platforms (like Reddit) offer highly valuable practical insights based on real user experience.

How will interest in Ecologic April 2026 evolve?

Trends indicate that interest will continue to grow, shifting from theory to the search for increasingly practical and applicable solutions.

Conclusions

Monitoring Ecologic April 2026 means staying tuned to real market needs. We will continue to analyze search data to provide relevant and useful updates.

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