It would help if you listed the actual scientific studies you’ve read on the topic to give us a baseline for your evidence.
A statistician, Robert Tarone, reviewed the IARC publication that classified glyophosphate as probably carcinogenic. Tarone retired in 2016 after “after 28 years as Mathematical Statistician at the US National Cancer Institute and 14 years as Biostatistics Director at the International Epidemiology Institute.” From the abstract of his commentary on the IARC publication:
I can’t find an open source version of the complete paper but Forbes has an article on it with another relevant quote from Tarone’s paper:
The Forbes article also points out a different conspiracy theory. The chair of the IARC working group, that found glyphosate as probably carcinogenic, had a potential conflict of interest. He signed a large contract to act as a litigation consultant with two law firms preparing to sue Monsanto over glyphosate caused cancer.
The biggest point is the case against glyphospate is currently driven primarily by one review of the research. Without that review, the case against glyphosate isn’t much more than an anti-Monsanto conspiracy theory. That review was flawed.
I haven’t so I want to be clear on my ignorance here. I’ve read the slate article linked upthread and the links underneath it, along with the reason article linked. I read through several of the court discovery documents and summaries ( Link provided above). And some abstracts. So consider me a scientific study virgin on this topic.
This issue is coming up where I live so I want to get educated. I’ll read whatever is available if presented.
The EPA also published their mandatory re-review draft results last December…with ongoing government process to finish the review. That’s another study looking at the broad spectrum of research results available. In “Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential” they look at where to classify glyphosphate. In section 6.7, on pg 144, they state:
It will take me some time to read through the documents, but I went to the page referenced and saw this:
Is that mostly hedging?
Having worked for a toxicologist, that’s boilerplate hedging. “We don’t know what we don’t know, and the data are only as good as the data are good.”
Pointing out that Christopher Portier withheld exculpatory evidence from his colleagues at the IARC before that agency issued its report citing glyphosate as a carcinogen does not qualify as a “conspiracy theory” - the evidence speaks for itself, much as Andrew Wakefield’s similarly undisclosed conflict of interest heavily damaged his stature as a researcher attempting to link vaccination to autism.*
*"In a deposition…for a court case pending against Monsanto for glyphosate “damages,” Christopher Portier, the scientist who initially encouraged the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to conduct the glyphosate analysis and served as a special advisor to the committee that drafted the final IARC report] admitted he was retained by a law firm representing glyphosate victims less than two weeks after the IARC report was published. Since then, Portier has been a hired gun, giving expert testimony on behalf of cancer-stricken farm workers and their family members who believe glyphosate caused the disease.
It has been a profitable gig. Over the past two years, Portier has banked about $160,000 for his time and has another $30,000 in billable hours now outstanding. During that time, as he pressured EU and U.S. agencies not to publish favorable findings about glyphosate, Portier failed to disclose his conflict of interest; in fact, Portier insisted “nobody has paid me a cent to do what I am doing with glyphosate.”*
In the end, you can cite conflicts of interest until the cows come home**, but what matters most is the quality of the evidence - and as regards the proposition that glyphosate causes cancer, it just isn’t there.
A reminder that the standard of proof in science is not based on demonstrating that something can’t possibly occur; the burden is on those making the claim to substantiate it with good evidence.
*It’s ironic that both antivaxers and anti-glyphosate advocates rail (falsely) about all the science debunking their claims being industry-tainted, yet studiously ignore the outrageous examples of conflict of interest and ethical misconduct in their own ranks.
**whether or not said bovines have “altered gut flora”.
Why is anti-glyphosate more like anti vax than it is anti big tobacco research?
Actually, I don’t think it’s helpful to compare either since the science should stand on its own. As for the burden of proof, I’d say it’s a toss up on where it rests. Monsanto is asserting the safety of their product so I’d think they have the burden. And given the WHO and state of CA already concluded, that seems to me their burden is greater.
In addition to the reasons already mentioned (both antivax and anti-glyphosate ideology are heavily dependent on dubious and outright bad science, unreliable anecdotes, shill-accusing and fearmongering based on hostility to corporations), the same players (individuals, various organizations and popular websites) are often involved in hostility to both vaccines and glyphosate (as well as damning all GMOs*).
Prime example of this cross-fertilization (though far from the only one): Stephanie Seneff.
As for not depending on research sponsored by Monsanto, apparently I need to reiterate that there’s major study evidence from independent sources backing glyphosate safety. And other companies make glyphosate, since Monsanto’s patent ran out a long time ago.
*amusingly, one of these sites (NaturalNews) ran a story awhile back gleefully predicting an end to chemotherapy since a major cancer center had sponsored research showing effectiveness of using the body’s T-cells to fight leukemia. What the story’s author missed was that the cancer-fighting T-cells had been produced using genetic engineering. 
**obviously, vaccines are far more vital to our health and well-being than any herbicide, or even GM crops. However, allowing pseudoscience to rule sets a very bad precedent no matter what the value of the intervention under attack.
I’m definitely not antivax, and I have no problem with GMOs, so I’ll leave alone the idea of cross polonization.
The omitted information from the WHO study seems to be a key piece of information as noted upthread. I would assume editing reports until final publication is fairly normal, so why is it so critical in this case?
I grant there is evidence that supports the view that it’s not carcinogenic, but doesn’t the WHO view need to be addressed, or is that dismissed as an outlier?
Should cities allow the use of cars? Because it seems that cars are just as carcinogenic as round up.
We have had a statistician with significant experience applying his craft to cancer research look at their methodology and publish his view “was the result of a flawed and incomplete summary of the experimental evidence.” He characterized the WHO IARC finding as “erroneous.”
There’s certainly room for someone to respond and try to justify the IARC methodology. The IARC classification has been directly addressed, though.
IARC’s conclusions regarding glyphosate and cancer lack credibility due to selective omission of key data that contradicted its findings.
http://reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/
More on IARC’s severe credibility problem here.
*see link to this study a few posts back.
Bumping this thread.
A new research study shows exposure to glyphosate results in a 41% increase in cancer risk for for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Exposure to weed killing products increases risk of cancer by 41% – study
From the Abstract:
… We conducted a new meta-analysis that included the most recent update of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) cohort published in 2018 along with five case-control studies. Using the highest exposure groups when available in each study, we report the overall meta-relative risk (meta-RR) of NHL in GBH-exposed individuals was increased by 41% (meta-RR = 1.41, 95% CI, confidence interval: 1.13–1.75). For comparison, we also performed a secondary meta-analysis using high-exposure groups with the earlier AHS (2005), and we determined a meta-RR for NHL of 1.45 (95% CI: 1.11–1.91), which was higher than the meta-RRs reported previously. Multiple sensitivity tests conducted to assess the validity of our findings did not reveal meaningful differences from our primary estimated meta-RR. …
Overall, in accordance with evidence from experimental animal and mechanistic studies, our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL.
141% of what? There’s a big difference between increasing the number of cancers from 5 to 7, and increasing the number of cancers from 5,000 to 7,000.
And how is society supposed to deal with such information? You can’t very well ban all carcinogens — isn’t oxygen carcinogenic? :rolleyes:
One idea is that a manufacturer of pesticides (or whatever) would pay $X per unit to the single-payer (ha!) for health care, where $X is computed “fairly”, and then be absolved from any lawsuits. But then where do you stop? Would the cost of allergic reactions be added to the price of peanuts?
I wouldn’t call it a research study. It’s a meta-analysis of other research studies. It also does not show that exposure (any exposure) to glyphosate results in a 41% increase in cancer risk for NHL. They’re looking only at high cumulative GBH exposure. No further comment until I’ve reviewed their methods.
Per ** septimus**’ question, US NHL incidence rate is ~20 per 100k. About 4.3% of all new cancers and ~75k/year. I’m not sure how that ranks but certainly top ten.
And what’s the incidence among farm workers exposed to it all the time, due to their job? It’s not a risk to the general public, it’s a risk to workers in certain industries.
Oh, right! Those people are all illegal immigrants, and the less said about their skin color the better. So they don’t matter, and a few more deaths will reduce the excess population. After all, it’s cheaper to use Roundup rather than other safer pesticides, and that’s what really matters - the profits of the large agricultural companies.
Ever wonder why the EPA ignored it’s own rules to declare Roundup safe? Who was paid off or threatened? Ever wonder how much money Monsanto spends on financing research studies that produce the results it wants, and getting pro-Roundup articles into the media?
It’s the same story as big tobacco a few decades ago, and it’s surprising how many people who should know better are taken in.
Per the only study that actually followed people over time and tried to assess dosage (the “gold standard” according to the recently linked meta), there’s no difference.
I’m reserving judgment until I see how this group conducted its meta-analysis (as previously noted, it’s not new epidemiologic data) and what others knowledgeable on the subject have to say (incluuding the regulators both here and in Europe who conducted their own evaluations and found no increased cancer risk).
I’m puzzled by your apparent belief that all farmers and farm workers are illegal immigrants.
It would also be helpful to know what “safer pesticides” (i.e. herbicides) could be used in place of Roundup. 2,4-D? Atrazine?
I hear the Germans invented some a while back.