RT @GMOFreeUSA: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed…
RT @GMOFreeUSA: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed…
RT @GMOFreeUSA: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed…
RT @GMOFreeUSA: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed…
RT @GMOFreeUSA: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed…
RT @GMOFreeUSA: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed…
RT @GMOFreeUSA: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed…
RT @GMOFreeUSA: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed…
RT @GMOFreeUSA: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed…
Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of #glyphosate-based herbicides?” and its implications Environ Sci Eur (2019) 31: 3. https://t.co/a9
RE RoundUp & Monsanto/Bayer Main take home: Exposure to glyphosphate in food appears to be much less harmful (nothing is harmless) than long & large exposures to workers. Occupational risk might be herbicide formulation rather than glyphosphate alo
RT @sfoucart: @RoulotteScience @fmbreon @FabTdz AMHA, le papier le plus instructif sur la question (raisons de la divergence entre avis rég…
@asenar @L1nsoumise @Jehan_Menthion @lemondefr C'est souvent résumé ainsi, mais je crois que c'est un peu plus complexe. Hier, @sfoucart a posté un article que j'ai trouvé intéressant https://t.co/RnvAcvzx1E
RT @yaours: Signé Charles Benbrook militant anti pesticide historique. https://t.co/nfGZQ2EuHK
RT @yaours: Signé Charles Benbrook militant anti pesticide historique. https://t.co/nfGZQ2EuHK
Signé Charles Benbrook militant anti pesticide historique.
RT @sfoucart: @RoulotteScience @fmbreon @FabTdz AMHA, le papier le plus instructif sur la question (raisons de la divergence entre avis rég…
RT @sfoucart: @RoulotteScience @fmbreon @FabTdz AMHA, le papier le plus instructif sur la question (raisons de la divergence entre avis rég…
RT @sfoucart: @RoulotteScience @fmbreon @FabTdz AMHA, le papier le plus instructif sur la question (raisons de la divergence entre avis rég…
RT @sfoucart: @RoulotteScience @fmbreon @FabTdz AMHA, le papier le plus instructif sur la question (raisons de la divergence entre avis rég…
RT @sfoucart: @RoulotteScience @fmbreon @FabTdz AMHA, le papier le plus instructif sur la question (raisons de la divergence entre avis rég…
Ce ne sont pas les mêmes usages qui sont considérés, par exemple. Pour ceux qui lisent l'anglais, les articles cités par @sfoucart sont en libre accès et analysent cette question https://t.co/QNM4Ab98Kp
RT @sfoucart: @RoulotteScience @fmbreon @FabTdz AMHA, le papier le plus instructif sur la question (raisons de la divergence entre avis rég…
RT @sfoucart: @RoulotteScience @fmbreon @FabTdz AMHA, le papier le plus instructif sur la question (raisons de la divergence entre avis rég…
@RoulotteScience @fmbreon @FabTdz AMHA, le papier le plus instructif sur la question (raisons de la divergence entre avis réglementaire et avis scientifique) est ici : https://t.co/4pJjZ20Kwp. Il a subi les commentaires de 10 reviewers avant d'être publié
RT @SETAC_GLB: News from our associated journal: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and…
Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis https://t.co/9H88uIDzrp via International Journal of Cancer @IntJCanc "our earlier indication of an association between #glyphosate and NHL has been co
RT @miquelporta: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically oppose…
Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases IV: cancer and related pathologies https://t.co/38HQcflRa0 via @ResearchGate - Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis https://t.co/9H88uIDzrp via @Int
Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?” and its implications https://t.co/WZGlZDXDW3 #
@factsory ...maybe we can ask @ThoBaSwe (one of the two authors of the editorial https://t.co/GeaEyYq7Jw) wether it could be possible, for the sake of transparency, to publish the 10 anonymous reviews... ?
RT @ThoBaSwe: Our editorial accompanying @chuckbenbrook 's new #glyphosate paper in Environmental Sciences Europe. https://t.co/mI3Z4fltCC
RT @ThoBaSwe: Our editorial accompanying @chuckbenbrook 's new #glyphosate paper in Environmental Sciences Europe. https://t.co/mI3Z4fltCC
Some definite food for thought in this... #expertscience #glyphosate #monsantopapers #letnothinggo https://t.co/IeaEX9I693 https://t.co/IeaEX9I693
RT @lizabio: Remarkable: Environmental Sciences Europe secured 10 anonymous reviews of @chuckbenbrook's review of EPA and IARC's opposing c…
Remarkable: Environmental Sciences Europe secured 10 anonymous reviews of @chuckbenbrook's review of EPA and IARC's opposing conclusions about #glyphosate toxicity (2-3are typical). Only 2 reviewers requested major changes, say Henner Hollert and @ThoBaSwe
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
RT @ThoBaSwe: Our editorial accompanying @chuckbenbrook 's new #glyphosate paper in Environmental Sciences Europe. https://t.co/mI3Z4fltCC
RT @RobertLepenies: When the same experimental study is interpreted differently by different regulatory agencies/research institutions: wow…
When the same experimental study is interpreted differently by different regulatory agencies/research institutions: wow - interesting story about #Glyphosate - would be good to further study the political impact that *research/assessment* decisions had.
@NilsDroste if your still planning on the MS this seems like a good resource
RT @ThoBaSwe: Our editorial accompanying @chuckbenbrook 's new #glyphosate paper in Environmental Sciences Europe. https://t.co/mI3Z4fltCC
RT @ThoBaSwe: Our editorial accompanying @chuckbenbrook 's new #glyphosate paper in Environmental Sciences Europe. https://t.co/mI3Z4fltCC
RT @ThoBaSwe: Our editorial accompanying @chuckbenbrook 's new #glyphosate paper in Environmental Sciences Europe. https://t.co/mI3Z4fltCC
RT @ThoBaSwe: Our editorial accompanying @chuckbenbrook 's new #glyphosate paper in Environmental Sciences Europe. https://t.co/mI3Z4fltCC
Our editorial accompanying @chuckbenbrook 's new #glyphosate paper in Environmental Sciences Europe. https://t.co/mI3Z4fltCC
RT @vixenvalentino: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opp…
Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?” and its implications https://t.co/cu4WnRwkRv
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
“We are convinced that the article provides new insights on why different conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and GBH were reached by the US @EPA and @IARCWHO,” journal editors https://t.co/eKW1sYIecf on new @chuckbenbrook report https:
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?” and its implications https://t.co/dtdyUR7r9R
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
RT @careygillam: Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renown…
Environmental Sciences Europe journal says this analysis out today https://t.co/WEsZnVXg6w was peer reviewed by 10 "renowned experts in genotoxicity" Editor's note here: https://t.co/QBNYpevEvS
News from our associated journal: Some food for thought: a short comment on Charles Benbrook´s paper “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?” and its implications https://t.co