The excesses of green activists lead them very far from the truth

The recent comment of Ségolène Royal former minister of "écologie" in French governments about the carcinogenicity of different foods and of glyphosate needs some precisions (https://twitter.com/i/status/1065231286376243203):

1/ Coffee




"To date, IARC has only classified one substance in Group 4. In June 2016, IARC downgraded their original 1991 classification of coffee from Group 2B ('possibly carcinogenic to humans') to Group 3: 'Not classifiable as to carcinogenicity'."







So let us be clear, Coffee is no longer classified as a possible carcinogen by IARC since mid-2016. Despite by-products of high-temperature roasting including acrylamide, there is no scientific evidence that coffee is carcinogenic. This is the scientific evidence. But activists (https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2018/02/18/in-california-coffee-may-soon-be-listed-as-a-carcinogen/#20e6559d48f4) are presently trying to push a ban on coffee because of the presence of acrylamide.

It is paradoxical and ideological:

"What these meta-analyses and qualitative reviews show is that coffee drinking is associated with reduced risk of several cancers, including endometrial, colorectal, liver, and postmenopausal breast cancer. In the case of liver cancer, coffee drinkers have roughly a 50 percent reduction in risk. For other cancers, including bladder, kidney, prostate, pancreas, and ovary, there is no consistent evidence of an association.




In a rational discussion, the existence of solid epidemiologic evidence showing no positive association of coffee-drinking with the risk of cancer should be highlighted and should help to put the presence of acrylamide in coffee in its proper perspective."




Contrary to the assumption of Mrs Royal, organic coffee contains the same acrylamide quantity in the same conditions of roasting. So organic coffee is not an answer to the presence of acrylamide. The solution for this inconsequential presence could be non-roasted coffee which is called green coffee and produce a very bitter taste. I bet that it will not be adopted soon.










2/ Ham and sausages

These products are made of processed meat which is added with nitrates. They are considered carcinogenic using the last epidemiological studies (colon cancer) and the measured relative risk is about 25%.










3/ Glyphosate is not present in coffee. In coffee the reason is simple, glyphosate is a herbicide and it is toxic to coffee plant (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048357514001382).




Glyphosate is present in very small concentrations in foods and consequently in meat.

One reason is cattle feeding with cereals containing glyphosate. The reason why concentrations are tiny is that glyphosate is rapidly broken down in the environment and excreted in animals. As recalled by Van Eenennaam (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28727079):




"Given sufficiently sensitive analytical techniques, a large number of chemicals can be detected in any food. In fact, Ames et al. (1990) estimated that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in our food are naturally occurring chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. The important toxicological concept is that the dose makes the poison. Therefore, models are required to accurately estimate exposures (McQueen et al., 2012) and determine the risk."










About the risk of carcinogenicity of glyphosate this author summed the literature as follows:




"Concerns around glyphosate residues in food were heightened in 2015 when the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)” (IARC, 2015). It is important to note that this hazard classification is not a health risk assessment. International scientists and agencies continue to maintain that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic or to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans through dietary exposure based on the available data (JMPR, 2016). Other regulatory agencies in the United States (USEPA, 2016) as well as Europe (EFSA, 2015; European Chemicals Agency, 2016), Canada (Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, 2015), Japan (Japan Food Safety Commission, 2016), New Zealand (New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, 2016), and Australia (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, 2016) have reaffirmed that data do not suggest that glyphosate is carcinogenic at typical levels of exposure. Furthermore, 4 independent expert panels pertaining to glyphosate exposure, animal carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and epidemiologic studies that were convened in the wake of the IARC decision did not support IARC's conclusion and, in concordance with previous regulatory assessments, showed that glyphosate is not a carcinogen in laboratory animals and “further concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” (Williams et al., 2016, p. 3)."

Consequently, Mrs Royal could improve the pieces of advice that she wants to give to her supporters:

1- they can drink coffee conventional or organic, it is not scientifically considered as a carcinogen
2- processed meat carry a small risk of colon cancer which is mainly due to adding nitrates for the curing process.
3- glyphosate is not a molecule of concern for cancer through food, especially in coffee and processed meat.

4- regarding the risk for pregnant women: "In a survey-based study to assess maternal and prenatal glyphosate exposure in humans, 75% of the 20 composite food samples analyzed showed quantifiable glyphosate residues across a wide range of low concentrations."
As the mean quantity of glyphosate ingested is 0,4% (id est less than 1%) of the maximal dose, it is prudent to consider that glyphosate in food is not a risk for pregnant women.