It seems like one of the oft-cited studies showing that RoundUp is safe for humans may have been ghostwritten by its manufacturer: Glyphosate safety article retracted eight years after Monsanto ghostwriting revealed in court – Retraction Watch
Womp womp. At least we’ll all get $2.50 from the inevitable class action.
Monsanto is in a tough spot. In addition to the famous $286 million settlement in a single case in California, they currently have 61,000 other lawsuits pending, and this is going to weaken their case in every one. These are just the ones still pending. They’ve already settled nearly 100,000 others with payouts totalling $11 billion.
All I can say about Roundup is that at least it works. I had a gigantic mutant shrub that was chopped down twice with a chainsaw and just started growing again from the stump. Nothing could kill it. Roundup finally did. In order to buy it I had to sign a special form indicating appropriate and not-appropriate uses and necessary precautions.
That it does — it’s quite an effective herbicide. In the decades since its development, have there been any more effective but safer alternatives made?
Not that I know of. The other stuff I tried on the Giant Mutant Shrub, including homemade concoctions recommended on the internet, only seemed to make it grow faster! I imagine Roundup is probably reasonably safe if you use it occasionally in small amounts and wear appropriate protection. In the California case with the massive settlement, IIRC the guy was a groundskeeper who had been subject to long-term chronic exposure and probably didn’t have adequate protection.
For the rest of us, the environmental destiny of it was also a concern… what happens after it ends up in groundwater or runoff, for example. When I last researched it, it seemed to have quite a short half-life, but I’m not sure which of those studies are trustworthy — seems like quite a range, from a few days to several months.
While the now-retracted study when originally published cited assistance from Monsanto, ghost-writing by company staffer(s) properly discredits it.
Media coverage is unlikely to mention a couple relevant factors: one, that this is not the only scandal to affect the debate over glyphosate. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)'s report blaming glyphosate as a probable carcinogen involved selective deletion of countervailing evidence, and an adviser to IARC supporting its declaration of hazard had a gross conflict of interest, including being paid major $$ to be a witness in legal action against Monsanto.*
Secondly, this study is one of numerous ones on glyphosate’s safety, including this one which found no significant association between agricultural workers exposed to glyphosate and cancer. Even if you toss out the partially ghostwritten study, others supporting its conclusions exist and can’t be dismissed via “shill” accusations. The bottom line remains: while some studies indicate health risks of glyphosate, most do not.
In a push for further glyphosate bans, the inevitable result will be farmers resorting to other herbicides with considerably greater risk profiles. Not optimistic about safety of 2,4-D-ready crops.
*BTW, railing against Monsanto these days is way out of touch, as the company was bought out long ago by Bayer, which probably has deep regret over the transaction.
Should say “even if you toss out the known partislly ghostwritten study”. They got away with this fraudulent study for 25 years. Once I know someone is untrustworthy I’m suspicious of them by default.
Yeah, the reason we have safety studies is to get an accurate picture of risk and if a risk is worth it. Violating the integrity of these studies means people are going to have to go on who they trust which is a much more subjective assessment. In order to take the objective data at face value you have to have confidence that it wasn’t manufactured. The lack of trust is entirely on Monsanto and these corrupt scientists, not on anyone who understandably doesn’t trust anything from them anymore.
For better or worse roundup resistant weeds are going to force farms to find alternatives in the near future anyway.
By disregarding all the studies validating glyphosate safety because, well, others might be industry-influenced, you must be consistent and refuse to entertain any studies suggesting glyphosate harms, because they might be just as corrupted as IARC’s reporting citing glyphosate as “a probable carcinogen”.
That “logic” seems problematic.*
*it’s also reminiscent of those who tell us to avoid all prescription drugs and vaccines, because studies validating their safety and efficacy are all tainted by Big Pharma and thus unreliable. 
At least they’ll have something to take for the headaches.
Nope, right after that I said we have to go on subjective assessments about who we trust because we can’t trust the data we’d like tovrely on as objective.
In this murky world I would say that of course the IARC themselves have every reason to lie in the opposite direction, however at least the article you linked shows them and Chris Portier as essentially slimy ambulance chasers which is not as bad as being caught ghostwriting a study.
Yeah I think they’re mostly wrong but I don’t entirely blame people who refuse drugs given scandals like oxycontin. You genuinely would’ve had to do your own research and not trusted your doctor or the FDA if they wanted to proscribe oxy to you. And some people were in enough pain that even in hindsight thr risks eere worth it to take it, but how can anyone know that?
Alternatively, he was an adviser to IARC because he was expert on the subject, and he was a witness against Monsanto because who else would you expect the plaintiffs to call but an expert who supported their case. And it’s not unusual for expert witnesses to be paid for their time. I don’t necessarily see a conflict of interest here at all, let alone a “gross” one.
This is not to say I have a strong position one way or the other on glyphosate. I’ve used it myself. But I wouldn’t want to be chronically exposed to it.
That would all be fine if he disclosed those relationships.
Likewise if Monsanto had done an internal study and been honest about that to let people draw their own conclusions that would’ve been fine.
Dunno, it seems like announcing a conclusion that glyphosate is a “probable” cause of cancer while hiding a bunch of evidence that shows it isn’t, is at least as bad as letting corporate ghostwriters add to your paper.
Riight - like RFK Jr., an “expert witness” who’s made $$$ by testifying for plaintiffs in lawsuits against vaccine makers and is instrumental in making U.S. vaccine policy. No conflict of interest there, no sirree, nope.
And Portier is a perfectly balanced, unbiased scientist, you betcha.
As suggested previously, it’s worthwhile to consider every study on its own merits. Noting who financed them is certainly fair game. What is not is declaring that studies on pesticides, drugs, etc. are corrupt in general so you should go with your gut and suspicions.
Had you tried the blue Dawn recipe?
A common “blue Dawn” weed killer recipe uses
a mixture of white vinegar, salt, and Dawn dish soap to create a non-selective, natural herbicide. The solution dehydrates and kills weeds, often within 24 hours, but can also harm any other plant it touches, including grass and desirable garden plants.
Ingredients
- 1 Gallon white vinegar (5% acetic acid is common, though horticultural vinegar with 20-30% is stronger but requires more caution)
- 1 to 2 cups table salt or Epsom salt
- 1 tablespoon liquid dish soap (Dawn is frequently mentioned, but any brand works as a surfactant)
Instructions
- Mix the vinegar and salt in a large container or garden sprayer until the salt is completely dissolved.
- Add the dish soap and stir the mixture gently to combine (mixing the soap in last helps prevent excessive suds).
- Pour the solution into a spray bottle or a pump-pressure sprayer for easy application.
Application Tips & Warnings
- Apply on a sunny, dry day: Heat and direct sunlight help activate the weed-killing properties of the vinegar and salt.
- Avoid rain: Ensure no rain is expected for at least 24 hours after application to prevent the solution from being diluted.
- Target the weeds: This solution is non-selective and will kill most plants it touches. Apply it directly and carefully to the unwanted weeds, avoiding contact with desired plants, lawns, or garden vegetables.
- Use caution in garden beds: The high salt content can alter the soil pH and make it difficult to grow future plants in the treated area. It is often best suited for use in sidewalk cracks, driveways, or gravel paths.
- Reapply as needed: Tougher or deep-rooted weeds may require a second application to be completely eradicated
Oh, my sweet summer child, you’re thinking of weeds, plants, and grass. This is not how to think of my Giant Mutant Shrub. The appropriate way to think of it is like something out of the movie Alien.
Yes, I tried home weed killer recipes like that when I didn’t know better. It just made it shoot up even faster, like the beanstalk in the fairy tale. The chainsaw guy who cut it down twice in the space of a few years, each time hauling away a full load in his pickup truck, could not identify what kind of mutant shrub it was. My theory is that it was not of this earth, and the seeds arrived on a meteorite.
Glyphosate killed it. Nothing else could touch it. And I mean that part seriously.
Did you try exorcism?
doctors who proscribed oxy were never the problem.
Just because it’s made from stuff you have in the house doesn’t mean it’s actually safe for the environment at all- this sort of DIY herbicide can actually be more damaging than stuff like glyphosate to non-target organisms. This is especially the case because people assume it’s safe and ‘natural’ so you don’t need to be careful at all, just spray it around, it’s fine. That recipe would certainly be killing worms, beneficial fungi, insects of many kinds…
I mean, it’s pretty clear your recipe is written by someone who has no knowledge of actual soil chemistry- it claims that adding salt ‘can alter the soil pH’ and that’s why you should be careful. That is nonsense. It’s not impacts on pH that makes salt problematic at all.
If glyphosate is gonna give me cancer, it’s way back in line behind lots of stuff that will do it sooner.
I just checked, and the Roundup concentrate I have on a shelf has it, but looking online all the hardware and big box stores around me now sell the rejiggered stuff. Triclopyr and 2-4D are OK, but not nearly as effective as glyphosate.
Fortunately there are other brands that still use glyphosate, and with higher percentages than Roundup used to have. Gonna have to go to Tractor Supply and stock up before the lawsuit craziness takes them away too.
One good thing about getting older is that it costs less and less to buy a lifetime supply of anything. 
Did you adjust for inflation?