Key data on glyphosate concealed from WHO cancer panel

[Jackmannii]

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A Reuters investigative report found that a researcher who was part of the deliberations knew of long-delayed but unpublished data from a National Cancer Institute study which showed no cancer link.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).

[markdash]

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.

[Strassia]

But MOnSANTO!!!

Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto?

[Jackmannii]

Another take on the story from the right-wing, pro-corporate shills at Mother Jones:

A scientist didn’t disclose important data—and let everyone believe a popular...

[race_to_the_bottom]

If anyone but Monsanto made it, nobody would be interested.

[drewder]

But I thought science was good and pure and never allows politics to sway outcomes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Kiwi_Fruit]

@Jackmannii

Another take on the story from the right-wing, pro-corporate shills at Mother Jones:

A Scientist Didn’t Disclose Important Data—and Let Everyone Believe a Popular Weedkiller Causes Cancer – Mother Jones

Is this comment genuine or inverted? They don’t seem RW, pro-corporate to me.

[lisiate]

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.

[anomalous1]

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.

[Rushgeekgirl]

Well the people have spoken. We’re not allowed to be concerned about this now. Move along.

[PastTense]

Updating this thread:

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/health/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict-bn/index.html

[Jackmannii]

@PastTense

Updating this thread:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/health/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict-bn/index.html

You may have intended to post this in the “Is this a good time to buy Bayer stock?” thread.

[Kent_Clark]

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 beesthan I am about the entire impact of glyphosate across the entire Earth, and I’m including glyphosate-resistant “superweeds.”

[bump]

@PastTense

Updating this thread:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/health/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict-bn/index.html

Seems like Monsanto’s inevitable appeal will actually have some real traction after this finding.

[wolfpup]

@PastTense

Updating this thread:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/health/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict-bn/index.html

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.

@markdash

Glyphosate is perhaps the most-used, most-studied, and safest herbicide in human history.

… I work in this industry …

:rolleyes:

[bump]

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.

[Disheavel]

@wolfpup

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.

:rolleyes:

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.

[wolfpup]

@Disheavel

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.

@Disheavel

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!”

@Disheavel

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. **

[Kent_Clark]

@wolfpup

:rolleyes:

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.

[wolfpup]

@kunilou

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.