Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-16-2017, 08:13 AM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,602

Key data on glyphosate concealed from WHO cancer panel


After all the fuss and angst over an IARC ruling that glyphosate (Roundup) is a "probable carcinogen" (leading to calls for a ban on the herbicide and multiple lawsuits), it turns out that important research was withheld from the panel that made the ruling.

A Reuters investigative report found that a researcher who was part of the deliberations knew of long-delayed but unpublished data from a National Cancer Institute study which showed no cancer link. Questions are also being raised about why the data was never published (the researcher claims the paper would have been too "big" if it had been included).

The (IARC's assessment) is at odds with other international regulators who have said the weedkiller is not a carcinogenic risk to humans. It led to a delay in Europe on a decision on whether to re-license or ban EU-wide sales of pesticides containing glyphosate. That decision is still pending. In the meantime, some countries have tightened restrictions on the weedkiller’s use in private gardens and public spaces and on crops before harvest.

In the United States, a California judge took the IARC assessment into account in a separate legal case in March when ruling that the state can require RoundUp to carry a warning label that it may cause cancer. Monsanto is now facing further litigation from hundreds of plaintiffs across the United States who say glyphosate gave them or their loved ones non-Hodgkin lymphoma, citing the IARC assessment as part of their claims.

Yet if the IARC panel experts had been in a position to take into account Blair’s fresh data, IARC’s analysis of the evidence on glyphosate would have been different, Blair acknowledged in the court documents reviewed by Reuters.


Somehow, I doubt these new revelations will quell the Internet-fueled hysteria about Roundup, which is arguably overused, but hardly the bogeyman that anti-GMOers have made it.

This reminds me to mix up a small batch to zap my poison ivy vines this weekend (I'd use my trusty propane torch which works great on patio and sidewalk weeds, but you don't want to inhale smoke from scorched-out poison ivy plants).
  #2  
Old 06-16-2017, 02:17 PM
markdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,976
Glyphosate is perhaps the most-used, most-studied, and safest herbicide in human history. Any argument that it is carcinogenic is at best willfully ignorant. I work in this industry and we find it baffling that this is even a discussion.
  #3  
Old 06-16-2017, 02:47 PM
Strassia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,599
But MOnSANTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/mons...ad-pr-problem/
  #4  
Old 06-16-2017, 03:03 PM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,602
Another take on the story from the right-wing, pro-corporate shills at Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...te-cancer-who/
  #5  
Old 06-18-2017, 12:10 AM
race_to_the_bottom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 577
If anyone but Monsanto made it, nobody would be interested.
  #6  
Old 06-19-2017, 09:33 AM
drewder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,057
But I thought science was good and pure and never allows politics to sway outcomes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
  #7  
Old 06-19-2017, 09:15 PM
Kiwi Fruit's Avatar
Kiwi Fruit is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hamilton, NZ, Male
Posts: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Another take on the story from the right-wing, pro-corporate shills at Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...te-cancer-who/
Is this comment genuine or inverted? They don't seem RW, pro-corporate to me.
  #8  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:26 PM
lisiate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,665
Exactly, that's why it's such a damning article.

Oh, and respect to Mother Jones for reporting the truth even when it differs from their normal editorial line.
  #9  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:13 AM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,389
There is not a significant amount of research proving such harmful effects, mostly in isolated cases in which many extraneous circumstances and exposures could have resulted in disorders or illness. It is really the safest and most effective herbicide around. I still don't want it in my body in large amounts, but outside of taking a shot of glyphosate, people will be fine. This crap about roundup has been regurgitated forever by overly-left leaning professors, who want you to cite your papers properly, yet they can't provide any evidence or cites except propaganda videos to prove otherwise. People need to eat, roundup helps plants we use for food to grow well, that's all there is to it. Sure these companies are greedy, most are, but there is no vast conspiracy to poison the population. Why kill your consumer? I absolutely despise arguments against glyphosate usage and its effects on "runoff". Do you know how much other nasty crap is in water runoff? Anti-freeze? Never heard of a anti-Peak or anti-Prestone propaganda crapfest.

Sorry for the rant, sincerely. I just cannot stand that tired argument.
  #10  
Old 06-21-2017, 11:37 AM
Rushgeekgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Memphis
Posts: 6,066
Well the people have spoken. We're not allowed to be concerned about this now. Move along.
  #11  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:47 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,505
Updating this thread:

Quote:
A jury handed a $2.055 billion verdict in favor of a couple in California who say their cancer was caused by long-term exposure to Monsanto's popular weed killer Roundup, according to the plaintiffs' attorneys.
The verdict in Oakland includes more than $55 million in compensatory damages to the couple and $2 billion in punitive damages, a statement said.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/healt...-bn/index.html
  #12  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:39 PM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
You may have intended to post this in the "Is this a good time to buy Bayer stock?" thread.
  #13  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:11 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,870
I heard a snippet about this, this morning. I have three questions.

What is the cancer risk (I think it's specifically non-Hodgkins lymphoma) of a typical person using glyphosate according to directions, compared to never having used any herbicide?

What is the incidence of cancer that can be linked to glyphosate when used as directed compared to other herbicides?

Other than the risk to humans, what is the overall environmental impact of glyphosate compared to other herbicides.

I am far more concerned about the effect of neonicotinoids on bees than I am about the entire impact of glyphosate across the entire Earth, and I'm including glyphosate-resistant "superweeds."

Last edited by Kent Clark; 05-16-2019 at 05:12 PM.
  #14  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:29 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
Seems like Monsanto's inevitable appeal will actually have some real traction after this finding.
  #15  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:43 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
I followed the link and I was surprised -- I thought this would be the Dewayne Johnson case. Nope. It was another billion-dollar award against Bayer/Monsanto due to non-Hodgkin lymphoma attributed to glyphosate. And yet a third one here, though that one has been less publicized because there's been no monetary award yet.

Look, folks, I don't claim that glyphosate is unsafe, or even potentially unsafe. I don't know. I'm all for the scientific method leading to the facts, but when there are jury verdicts like this -- and Bayer faces glyphosate lawsuits from roughly 13,400 more plaintiffs in the US alone -- some persuasive evidence must have been presented. But perhaps the juries were all hoodwinked by clever lawyers despite all the efforts of Bayer's high-priced legal teams.

I'm all for the efforts of science to get to the truth, but I'm not persuaded that we're there yet. The study cited in the OP, described as a "study which showed no cancer link", is prima facie not being factually described, since no such study is possible. This was a study which did not show a cancer link, which is not the same thing at all.

Indeed, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, US National Institutes of Health, believes that more independent research is needed on glyphosate. We were once inundated with studies "which did not show a cancer link" between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, many of them funded by tobacco companies. I know tobacco is the Great Boogeyman serving as a poster child for skepticism about the safety of products that represent tremendous corporate profits, but it's hardly the only one. Have we forgotten tetraethyl lead, the additive that made leaded gasoline? It was absolutely everywhere; cars couldn't run without it, yet it turned out to be the most pervasively hazardous substance ever introduced into the environment.

I'm in no way suggesting that glyphosate has any potential to be even remotely on that scale of hazard, or necessarily any hazard at all. What I'm suggesting is that the US in particular places too much reliance on industry self-policing, as with relying too much on Monsanto's own internal research instead of sufficient independent research, or for another example, the current fiasco implicating the FAA, Boeing, and the 737 Max 8. We need to ensure that our own government agencies do a better job, and then we need to listen to them, because they're the only entities that should be motivated solely by the public interest they're supposed to protect. In this era of deregulation that may not be enough, but it's the only protection we have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markdash View Post
Glyphosate is perhaps the most-used, most-studied, and safest herbicide in human history.

... I work in this industry ...
  #16  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:38 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,723
Keep in mind that it's civil court, not criminal court. This means the standards for proof differ- it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt", but rather "preponderance of evidence".

So there's no requirement to draw a direct, clear, and provable link using studies and biochemical experiments, etc... in order to prove that glyphosate causes cancer, and that it caused *that* guy's cancer. All they really have to do is convince the jury that it's likely that it did.

So there's no conclusion to really be drawn from the outcome of civil trials in an epidemiological or scientific sense, and all we can really draw from it is that lawyers are able to convince a jury of average people that this drug might have caused some people's cancer, using a mix of science, expert witnesses, sob stories, and anything else they could have. And the magnitude of the penalty award isn't indicative of anything, except the jury's emotion at the time of sentencing.
  #17  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:04 AM
Disheavel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm in no way suggesting that glyphosate has any potential to be even remotely on that scale of hazard, or necessarily any hazard at all. What I'm suggesting is that the US in particular places too much reliance on industry self-policing, as with relying too much on Monsanto's own internal research instead of sufficient independent research, or for another example, the current fiasco implicating the FAA, Boeing, and the 737 Max 8. We need to ensure that our own government agencies do a better job, and then we need to listen to them, because they're the only entities that should be motivated solely by the public interest they're supposed to protect. In this era of deregulation that may not be enough, but it's the only protection we have.

There may be far more health beneficial herbicides out there, but your solution means we'll never know. It takes >15 years and >>$1B to bring a new mode of action (i.e. chemical) to FDA/USDA/EPA approval. Agriculture is far slower and more expensive than new drugs. The major agrichemical companies have all but stopped their investigation for new chemicals due to the time and money vs. the public risk and uncertainty. The anti-Monsanto campaign has worked dramatically and in all the wrong ways... we are stuck with molecules from the 30s and 40s because the hurdles for approval are already too high.

Glyphosate (RoundUp) entered the market in 1974 and has been one of the largest herbicides since 1980. 40+ years on the market. Literally billions of healthy people exposed over those 4 decades. 20 years of a Monsanto and/or roundup witch hunt and still no smoking gun. But I think the most damning piece of evidence against these absurd jury awards, the people most exposed to glyphosate (farmers) are buying 6% more glyphosate this year than last. Not only that, but the CAGR has been increasing over the past several years!

You want evidence of non-toxicity, the people who actually use it and use it properly want more of it. That is the complete opposite of the 737 Max 8 where airlines don't want it until proven safe and the public is in the same boat.

Last edited by Disheavel; 05-17-2019 at 11:05 AM.
  #18  
Old 05-17-2019, 01:31 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disheavel View Post
There may be far more health beneficial herbicides out there, but your solution means we'll never know. It takes >15 years and >>$1B to bring a new mode of action (i.e. chemical) to FDA/USDA/EPA approval. Agriculture is far slower and more expensive than new drugs. The major agrichemical companies have all but stopped their investigation for new chemicals due to the time and money vs. the public risk and uncertainty. The anti-Monsanto campaign has worked dramatically and in all the wrong ways... we are stuck with molecules from the 30s and 40s because the hurdles for approval are already too high.
I reject the argument that we should not have proper safety certification procedures because it takes too damn long. If procedures need to be more efficient, then find ways to make them more efficient. Outsourcing it to the companies themselves for self-certification, or doing it superficially, is not the answer to public safety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disheavel View Post
But I think the most damning piece of evidence against these absurd jury awards, the people most exposed to glyphosate (farmers) are buying 6% more glyphosate this year than last. Not only that, but the CAGR has been increasing over the past several years!
"More people are smoking CAMELS than ever before!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disheavel View Post
You want evidence of non-toxicity, the people who actually use it and use it properly want more of it. That is the complete opposite of the 737 Max 8 where airlines don't want it until proven safe and the public is in the same boat.
I don't know if you're aware, but airlines were perfectly fine with it despite numerous concerns and warnings from pilots:
Audio reveals pilots angrily confronting Boeing about 737 Max feature before second deadly crash

Everybody suddenly developed a conscience and "deep concern" only after the details all went public and all hell broke loose.

IOW, it's not "the complete opposite of the 737 Max 8". It's exactly the same syndrome.
  #19  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:38 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
As I have disclosed in previous posts, Monsanto, and specifically Roundup herbicide, was one of my clients.

Feel free to rolleyes at me, too. I stand by my post.
  #20  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:49 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
As I have disclosed in previous posts, Monsanto, and specifically Roundup herbicide, was one of my clients.

Feel free to rolleyes at me, too. I stand by my post.
I have no issues with your post at all. Where did you get that impression? You asked perfectly reasonable questions. I think the big problem here is that no one really has the answers to those questions, and we should. And I agree with you about neonicotinoids, although it's not clear why this is relevant to this discussion.

For the record, the rolleyes was intended solely for the poster who "works in the industry" and incidentally knows for a fact, absolutely no question about it, that glyphosate is the safest stuff in the history of the human race. Unfortunately when Disheavel quoted me in post #17, he included the rolleyes emoticon, but the system removed the embedded quote that it referred to, so it was confusing what the emoticon was in reference to.
  #21  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:57 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I have no issues with your post at all. Where did you get that impression? You asked perfectly reasonable questions. I think the big problem here is that no one really has the answers to those questions, and we should. And I agree with you about neonicotinoids, although it's not clear why this is relevant to this discussion.

For the record, the rolleyes was intended solely for the poster who "works in the industry" and incidentally knows for a fact, absolutely no question about it, that glyphosate is the safest stuff in the history of the human race.
IMHO many more people are much more upset about glyphosate than they are about bees.

For the record, my position is that glyphosate is the least dangerous herbicide that is also effective, and that it's also the most versatile weed killer.

And that will ultimately be its undoing. So many people use Roundup for so many things that weeds ultimately become resistant to it, and it isn't effective anymore. No regulation, no court case can stop it. Be patient.
  #22  
Old 05-18-2019, 02:28 PM
dtilque is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
IMHO many more people are much more upset about glyphosate than they are about bees.
Glyphosate may be harmful to bees
__________________
“This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.”
-- Albert Einstein, 12 September 1920

Last edited by dtilque; 05-18-2019 at 02:29 PM.
  #23  
Old 05-18-2019, 03:15 PM
DummyGladHands is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,072
Bring back the original triox
  #24  
Old 05-18-2019, 08:07 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by DummyGladHands View Post
Bring back the original triox
Here's the 2007 EPA reregistration notice on Triox. I'll stay with Roundup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque
Glyphosate may be harmful to bees
So are all these pesticides.

That list includes 2,4-D, one of the oldest weed killers, which has been in commercial use since 1945, was a component of Agent Orange and is still approved for use by the EU, the U.S. and many other countries.

I'm standing firm on this.
  #25  
Old 05-19-2019, 01:56 AM
dtilque is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
I'm standing firm on this.
You may have missed this part of that paper:

Quote:
The discovery also raises questions about whether glyphosate is affecting the microbiome of other animals, including people. The role of microbes in the human gut has a lot of similarities to bee guts, Moran says. More research is needed; humans have different microbes in their guts, they have vastly larger bacterial populations and are likely exposed to much lower doses of glyphosate than are bees.
(Emphasis mine.)

Not saying it causes cancer, or is worse than other pesticides, just that it's not necessarily completely harmless.
  #26  
Old 05-20-2019, 08:27 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
That list includes 2,4-D, one of the oldest weed killers, which has been in commercial use since 1945, was a component of Agent Orange and is still approved for use by the EU, the U.S. and many other countries.

I'm standing firm on this.
Probably because the problem with Agent Orange wasn't the herbicides(it was a mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T), per-se, but rather impurities like dioxin that were generated as part of the manufacturing process.

It's very, very similar to the ongoing blood pressure medication recalls we're in the midst of- it's not the losartan or valsartan that are the problem, it's the NDMA and NDEA that are manufacturing process impurities that are the problem.
  #27  
Old 05-21-2019, 04:26 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
You may have missed this part of that paper:



(Emphasis mine.)

Not saying it causes cancer, or is worse than other pesticides, just that it's not necessarily completely harmless.
Name a more environmentally benign, more cost-effective alternative.

If you want more studies, I'm all for that.

If you want to restrict the use of glyphosate and make sure it's used only by certified applicatiors under controlled conditions, I'm also fine with that. As I said upthread, glyphosate's biggest threat is that everyone uses it everywhere with little concern for best management practices, or even without any attempt at integrated weed management.

But I'm really tired of singling out glyphosate as this generation's DDT.

Full disclosure, again. Before I worled on the Roundup herbicide account, I worked on the Lasso herbicide account. Lasso was alachlor. Monsanto doesn't even make that stuff anymore, although you can still buy generic stuff.
  #28  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:34 PM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
...when there are jury verdicts like this -- and Bayer faces glyphosate lawsuits from roughly 13,400 more plaintiffs in the US alone -- some persuasive evidence must have been presented.
So when court cases decided that cellphones cause brain cancer and a vaccine was responsible for autism, the evidence must have been persuasive?* I don't think so.

The suggestion that reports of glyphosate safety are all Monsanto-derived is not factual, as voluminous research including independent comprehensive reviews by governmental oversight agencies in Canada, Germany, and by the WHO reaffirm a lack of convincing data associating glyphosate with increased cancer risk. One comprehensive review from the EPA in 2016 concluded:

"there is not strong support for the “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” cancer classification descriptor based on the weight-of-evidence, which includes the fact that even small, non-statistically significant changes observed in animal carcinogenicity and epidemiological studies were contradicted by studies of equal or higher quality. The strongest support is for “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at the doses relevant to human health."

Those who are JAQing off about glyphosate should be embarrassed at bringing up tobacco, lead gasoline and Boeing aircraft in an effort to excuse their lack of evidence. It's the same tactic used by antivaxers who chant "Vioxx!" or invoke Semmelweis while attacking vaccines.

Pathetic.

*Italian court judgments.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017