17 ms·

Unsealed Documents Raise Questions on Monsanto Weed Killer

302 points by sdomino 10y ago

terravion 10y ago
I don't really understand why the NYT is so terrible on ag policy issues--they could really do some of the heavy lifting here for us and at least try and evaluate the claims being made--like severity and concurrence rates being claimed by the plaintiffs. The NYT apples to oranges study on rate of yield increase in countries that don't use GMOs (lower starting point) to countries that do (higher starting point) over the same time really undermines their editorial credibility on these kinds of issues with people, like me, who actually deal with agriculture.
- marcell 10y ago
  Gell-Mann effect? https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/ https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnes...
  - phs318u 10y ago
    Thanks for posting. I hadn't heard of that.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    God knows their coverage of other topics I'm knowledgeable about isn't much better. They cover some political and recent-events stuff solidly (international topics much less so), but the domain-specific sucks well outside of agricultural policy. If ag policy and computer security and rock climbing are all poorly covered, I eventually have to assume they aren't doing any better on the topics I don't know. (Where, of course, "terrible" and "better than most" are not contradictory.)
- nerdponx 10y ago
  Is there a better source for reading about agriculture policy issues? I feel like all of my sources have a subtle anti-ag bias or a blatantly pro-ag one. Maybe an ag econ blog?
  - CapTVK 10y ago
    Dr. Steve Savage's blog: "Applied Mythology" is a good start. http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/ http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/ But I wonder what is "subtle anti-ag" or "blatantly pro-ag" means in this context. Can you give some examples?
    - nerdponx 10y ago
      Subtly anti-ag: one-sided articles in liberal news outlets about the dangers and social injustices associated with ag tech like GMOs, and books like The Omnivore's Dilemma. Purporting to be unbiased but might not be. Blatantly pro-ag: research funded by agribusiness or the USDA. Clearly intended to benefit the industry.
- mmjaa 10y ago
  Maybe its not the NYT's job to do these things, but rather just inform those who know better, such as yourself, that the docs have been un-sealed, and we can get better analyses of this previously-hidden material in order that lay people, such as myself, can better understand just how Monsanto have fooled so many people into poisoning the world with their highly profitable product.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    The problem is that lay people are the audience for NYT. Most of the population won't really understand it, honestly. If they wanted to make sure someone informed knew, they could have easily reached out. The truth is that this was published without because it is an issue that gets folks to read, making their job of selling newspapers easier.
    - mmjaa 10y ago
      Doesn't matter, still read about the crimes Monsanto commits in order to maintain its power over the worlds food supply ..
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      And this happens everywhere. My favorite example is the coverage of the Dawn Wall rock climb a few years back. It was 'news', but there was very little time pressure for coverage, there was (almost) no divisive/political aspect, and the technical aspects were easy to break down to lay-reader level. Plus, there were thousands of online guides and experts willing to clarify context and terminology for free. It should have been covered flawlessly, just because there was nothing standing in the way of that. And instead, the results were shameful. There was no real harm done, but most of the articles were less accurate than a Simple English Wikipedia page would have been. It made for an interesting demonstration of how atrocious any form of expert-knowledge news is, even by sites like the NYT, even on uncontroversial topics.
  - wcummings 10y ago
    That sounds a lot like journalism, which is the nyt's job
teslabox 10y ago
Glyphosate/Roundup is basically the amino acid glycine with a phosphorous structure tacked on [0]. Glycine is the simplest possible amino acid. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Chemistry One theory is that glyphosate causes harm because it gets weaved into protein chains instead of glycine. Proteins made with roundup don't work the same as proteins with glycine. Experiments to figure out if this is what's happening would be relatively simple and cheap. Now that lots of weed are resistant, farmers will have to figure out how to farm without this shortcut. Roundup is obsolete, so nothing of value will be lost.
- adsfqwop 10y ago
  Anthony Samel, a chemist researching glyphosate, has already practically proven this weaving is happening. He is finding glyphosate in everything that has proteins in it. Especially things that contain gelatin, where gelatin is made out of animal collagen, and collagen is the most abundant protein in mammals. For example gummy bears, protein powders, nutritional supplements, and even in vaccines (several vaccines contain gelatin). So we are eating it, getting injected with it, and it is integrating into our own proteins as well.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    The results are fairly easy to find on Google, but I'm disappointed how hard it could be for someone without academic experience to find reasonable summary. This news is a perfect mix of Monsanto, GMO, vaccines, and animal products. The amount baseless speculation is insane...
  - 7sigma 10y ago
    You mean Anthony Samsel ? If so, he's known to have published shoddy research along with Seneff that makes wild claims about glyphosate being the cause of many ills like autism and celiac disease based on correlation and without much evidence Steven Novella thoroughly debunks this: http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ Edit: spelling
DarkKomunalec 10y ago
"The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services." This is the real story - Monsanto interfering with our ability to find out what is safe. But I'm sure needless endangerment of the health of ~tens of thousands of farmers will carry a stiff prison sentence for all involved...
- tudorw 10y ago
  Do we know if this something that happened and stopped, or something that could still be happening?
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Some journals have a policy of rejecting ghostwritten stuff, and there have been some retractions. But it's still happening, I think.
- mmjaa 10y ago
  Monsanto have been very, very good at controlling the discussion regarding the negative impact their products have had on the world - they're very well known for the investment made in astro-turfing various and sundry places that Monsantos' crimes are discussed. I think that, besides the obvious corruption that these court documents reveal, another conversation has to be had about how disingenuous Monsanto and its agents have been in discussing these things - using classic deflection, obfuscation techniques online. The "Monsanto Field Manual for Internet Representatives" would be a very interesting leak indeed ..
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    This is an interesting comment on HN, where the most vociferous defenders of Monsanto are high-karma accounts rather than sockpuppet greenbeans. Are you saying they've been influenced by such techniques in other fora?
tyingq 10y ago
From the Wikipedia plot summary for the movie "Michael Clayton": "Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), U-North's general counsel, discovers that Arthur had come into possession of a confidential U-North document detailing the company's decision to manufacture a weed killer it knew to be carcinogenic."[1] [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clayton_(film)#Plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clayton_(film)#Plot
- maxerickson 10y ago
  That there is debate about the health effects and environmental impact of glyphosate is a huge improvement over many previous pesticides which where obviously toxic to humans and environmentally persistent.
mrfusion 10y ago
Is there a way to avoid foods with roundup? Is it allowed in organics?
- 6d6b73 10y ago
  Yes there is a way to avoid foods with roundup - grow them yourself.. Sorry but this is the only somehow* guaranteed way to avoid roundup.. * Even if you're growing food yourself, some roundup might still get in it if your neighbor is using it for example.
  - 09bjb 10y ago
    Or...develop a decent, trusting relationship with your local farmer and ask them about their practices.
- mkesper 10y ago
  Roundup is (and many other treatments are) definitely not allowed for organical farming. There are several certifications checking that farmers comply to their rules.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Yep. Instead, they allow things like copper and, until recently, rotenone. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogs...
- patrickg_zill 10y ago
  according to: http://www.naturalnews.com/047868_glyphosate_contamination_organic_food_pesticide_residue.html http://www.naturalnews.com/047868_glyphosate_contamination_o... USDA does allow some level of glyphosate in organic products, if they are seen as residual and not from pesticides being applied during farming.
  - 10y ago
kapauldo 10y ago
Free market only works when properly regulated.
- programmarchy 10y ago
  Time and time again we see regulators working for the monopoly corporations, not against them. Monopolies like Monsanto only exist /because/ of regulation. If the market were free, both Monsanto and the EPA would have to compete. In a regulated market, neither of them do. Edit: Realize there's a good chance you're being sarcastic, but responding anyway since there are many people who'd take this at face value.
  - chii 10y ago
    > both Monsanto and the EPA would have to compete. what does the EPA have to compete against? They regulate! Unless you mean monsanto could choose to be regulated by a different agency, whose funding comes from monsanto, hence regulators will tend to weaken regulation to get "business"!
    - programmarchy 10y ago
      Nobody, which is exactly my point. In an actual free market, people would still want consumer information (e.g. Consumer Reports magazine, Organic-certified labels). Therefore, consumer information companies would be required to compete with each other by offering better products i.e. accurate information, and a solid reputation. The EPA has a terrible reputation and a long track record of failures, but it doesn't matter, because they have a state-enforced monopoly. They can take bribes all day long. However, if they existed in a competitive market, their reputation would be ruined and the market would be ripe for new competitors to enter.
      - n10 10y ago
        And what is to stop those consumer information companies taking similar bribes. Especially without any regulatory agencies. Or do we just need another free market for consumer information on the consumer information companies.
JohnJamesRambo 10y ago
As a scientist, I had read the research on glyphosate and felt pretty safe about it. The surfactant used with it seemed more dangerous, which tells you a lot. But what do I do if the science, was just untrue? This is the ugly secret about science I keep discovering the longer I am in it. Science is great, but people are so fallible.
- searine 10y ago
  I agree. As a biologist, Glyphosate and it's concoctions aren't a concern in terms of environmental exposure. The concentrations simply aren't there.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - n4r9 10y ago
    Can't remember where I read this, but I believe in the EU the "maximum residue levels" of the active ingredients of pesticides are set orders of magnitude lower than the estimated safe ingestion threshold. That gives a significant leeway for errors in judgement or scientific process, which is understandable when it comes to public health. Must be a major concern for homeopaths, mind.
  - spcelzrd 10y ago
    Probably correct. But if the studies are suppressed or influenced, we can't know for sure.
  - jly 10y ago
    There have been many studies in recent years examining the sub-lethal effects of agricultural dosages of glyphosate on honeybees. Newer research is showing conclusions of long-term negative consequences. Renewed studies have been done in the face of devastating managed bee losses, which widespread deployment of ag chemical combinations are undoubtedly direct contributors. Glyphosate application is susceptible to extensive drift, affecting non-target vegetation and animals potentially hundreds of meters from the target site. Beyond direct exposure, this results in habitat destruction for many organisms. It seems like we're a long way from claiming there is no environmental concern. The effects on non-target organisms through both direct exposure and indirect exposure through ecosystem (food, habitat, etc) changes may be far more widespread than we realize.
phkahler 10y ago
I look at things like the articles claim: >> The safety of glyphosate is not settled science. and then Monsantos claim: >> In a statement, Monsanto said, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen.” >> It added: “The allegation that glyphosate can cause cancer in humans is inconsistent with decades of comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world. which is backed by "leading regulatory authroities around the world" and then I reflect on the CO2 / climate change issue which is also claimed by a lot of people to be settled science. I just found that comparison (mine, not the articles) interesting.
diogenescynic 10y ago
There are several shill accounts on Reddit that pop up to defend Monsanto in every thread. I would be interested to see how much money companies like Monsanto are spending on disinformation campaigns. I bet it's much more active than we are aware.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 09bjb 10y ago
  Agree here. Definitely some comments in this thread that look suspicious...only because Monsanto already does this on a closely related platform :) Hi Guys! Thanks for tuning in!
  - 09bjb 10y ago
    My suspicions are only getting worse as I click through some comment history. Really? The debate on GMOs is the _only_ discussion on HN you want to partake in?
    - throwaway2048 10y ago
      mail hn@ycombinator.com with evidence/suspicions you have of shilling.
brooklynmarket 10y ago
I'm always reminded of my Wall Street trader friend, and his chat with me: From 9:30 to 4, I'd kill my mother to make a dime on a trade. My own mother, that's how driven I am to make money. I'd kill her on the spot for that dime if I could get away with it. Of course, after 4, she's my mom. And I'd love her to death. He works for a very well respected Wall Street Firm. Food for thought. What people will do for money.
- dgellow 10y ago
  > What people will do for money Or: What people will say to impress their friends
  - codingdave 10y ago
    I'm not sure what kinds of friends would be impressed by such things.
exabrial 10y ago
Why is it that people take a hysteria based approach to GMOs/glyphosate but the same people claim global warming is solid science? Can the scientific method be trusted or not?
- grecy 10y ago
  > Can the scientific method be trusted or not? The scientific method can be trusted, but how it is implemented can not. Science only considers something to be "fact" or "true" when a large (and usually expensive) study has been conducted, the results have been peer reviewed, and the results are then published. The problem comes when the people paying for research only pay for research they want to be "true" and nobody will pay for research leading to things that might not be so good for sales. As an example - think about how much money it cost to do a study on this Monsanto chemical to find out if it's "safe". Monsanto are paying for the study - do you really think if that study finds out it's not safe that it will be peer reviewed and published and then considered "true" (that it's not safe). Or will the whole study be swept under the rug, and therefore never be found to be unsafe in the eyes of science? How many multi-million dollar studies have ever been conducted, peer reviewed and published (therefore making them "true" in the eyes of science) that tell us really anything in today's world is "bad" for us? I'm willing to bet that number is close to zero. Any published study was paid for by a system with very, very strong interests in the results, so science will only ever "learn" what the people with money want it to.
  - exabrial 10y ago
    Great, so if I think there are a lot of companies (solar, wind, "sustainable materials", etc) that have a vested interest in trying to prove that global warming is a man made construct, then I'm just practicing good science?
  - arca_vorago 10y ago
    "Science only considers something to be "fact" or "true" when a large (and usually expensive) study has been conducted, the results have been peer reviewed, and the results are then published." If it hasn't or can't be replicated by and independent entity it's not good science. Peer-reviewed is simply not a high enough bar to consider something fact.
brightball 10y ago
Some of the connections out there between glyphosate, it's effects on gut bacteria, the rise IBS/Crohn's Disease/Celiac and even connections autism are pretty incredible. The autism speculation has gone on for as long as it has because we have an information vacuum and nobody is outright publishing a "cause". Until that vacuum is filled, you leave people free to speculate. Most of what I've seen at this point (recently from a lady at MIT[1] who presented in a Congressional Hearing) points to a serious need for a study of aluminum...and glyphosate supposedly allows a lot more aluminum into your system. Would be great if we could get a study on both independently and both combined. 1 - https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
- seattle_spring 10y ago
  > Some of the connections out there between glyphosate, it's effects on gut bacteria, the rise IBS/Crohn's Disease/Celiac and even connections autism are pretty incredible. Can you point to some credible sources that show these connections? The only time I've ever seen Glyphosate linked to these ailments is from quack doctor Mercola or fake news sites like Natural News.
  - brightball 10y ago
    Look up the MIT professor linked above and her research.
    - seattle_spring 10y ago
      A brief search reveals that her assertions are based purely on correlation, with no actual links. * http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/glyphosate.asp http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/glyphosate.asp * https://www.biofortified.org/2015/01/medical-doctors-weigh-in-on-glyphosate-claims/ https://www.biofortified.org/2015/01/medical-doctors-weigh-i... * https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman... * https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/09/20/glyphosate-herbicide-vaccines-frightened-parents-know/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/09/20/glyphosate... She does seem to be loved by Mercola, captain of the fake science team.
dmix 10y ago
Another example of a company's liberal use of email to discuss potentially incriminating things (ie, ghostwriting studies). The glyphosate stuff still seems debatable - the PR team could handle that easily - but now we have employees on record acting shady and conspiratorial, that just makes them look more guilty. I wonder if we'll ever enter a time where people won't be dumb enough to put this stuff down on paper and just assume an FBI agent will read anything they write in email at a future date? Especially when you work for such a villianized company like Monsanto... with so many people chomping at the bit to bring them down. From another perspective this is (still) a golden era of criminal investigations.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  There's selection bias here. In my experience people rarely email or write dubious stuff down and prefer to meet in person or informally off-site, but obviously all the people who get caught due to what they've emailed or written down did email it or write it down.
NicoJuicy 10y ago
Monsanto always reminds me of their lobbiest that says it's even drinkable.. Guess if he drank it and then watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
- ino 10y ago
  So they only know it's safe because people try to commit suicide with it and fail?
- cholantesh 10y ago
  Kale juice is potable too; I'll still never touch the stuff.
pessimizer 10y ago
The best thing they can do for public health is to jail Jess Rowland for a very long time, and prosecute the scientists who took payments to add their names to papers that Monsanto wrote and Monsanto itself for conspiracy to commit fraud. My guess is that searching for payments between Rowland and Monsanto will be exceptionally and immediately fruitful, and that should result in prosecutions for people within Monsanto who planned and approved those payments. None of that will prove whether there's any connection between glyphosate and cancer, but it will do a lot to make sure that studies that are done by Monsanto are signed by Monsanto, and regulators might second-guess themselves for a moment when they see an easy buck to be made by becoming corrupt. This comment counts as government fan-fic for all the likelihood that anyone will see any punishment here other than a fine for Monsanto resulting in an immediate stock bump for being lower than expected.
arca_vorago 10y ago
I've been telling HN about this, and mostly derided for it. I was working as a sysadmin for a bigag company in 2010 or so, who touted themselves as good ol local farm people who take care of their own. Come to find out, the millions the owner got to fund his extravagant lifestyle (besides from daddy), was from selling some of the genetic modifications to Monsanto. I was in the middle of my Decartes reset after getting back from Iraq, and dug into Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the worst companies in America. As a constitutionalist, my primary issue is with their blatant undermining and corruption of the legal process, for example a SCOTUS who formerly worked for them refusing to recuse himself from relevant cases, infiltration and takeover of the top positions at the FDA and other regulatory capture issues, and the stifling of free speech through their massive propaganda machine, which includes online. As a military person, I came to find out they were the ones who had been responsible for agent orange in Vietnam. Something many of my friends and family have directly had to deal with. (to be fair, it was a different business than the current Monsanto, the same in name only) I learned they were one of the main sources of lobbying to allow patenting of organtic material (so they could patent genes in their gmos), that they created the BT killer strain of seeds designed to prevent farmers from saving their seeds, (incidentally Monsanto gmo seed business has been tied to large numbers of farmer suicides in India), and have brought legal action against farmers who saved their seeds. They have participated in farm mergers in aquisitions to the point that almost no farm is truly a family farm anymore, and they have been involved in illegal waste dumping more than once. Once I learned all these things, I quit the job on principle. As luck would have it, the good ol rich guy who "would always take care of his people" subsequently, a year later, sold the company and fired half the staff... and now the local "community", despite protests from many of the farmers, decided to give Monsanto a 5.8 million dollar tax break to built a state of the art facility because it will "bring jobs". To top it all off, our anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws seem to be completely dead and ignored, because the Bayer Monsanto $66bn merger seems to be full steam ahead at the moment. They have created a sitution that requires more chemicals, causes more nitrogen runoff, have drastically reduced seed diversity (therefore setting up a massive crop failure potential across many crops), and continue to ignore GMO warnings. Having sysadmined in a bigag company with a genetics department, and at a genetics company, my primary issues with GMO's is that there is a lack of rigourous scientific testing, especially over longer time frames. It wasn't uncommon to see a new GMO go from testing to prod within a year! That's not enough time to truly understand the implications of those kinds of products. Not to mention, as the article suggests, that they have artifically affected the actual science to be in their favor regardless of the real results. If there ever is ecocide, Monsanto will be the primary hand to have caused it. I am willing to bet roundup will be the new agent orange. And finally, for your viewing pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM Relevant past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969
twothamendment 10y ago
Sell some great cars that "cheat"? Slapped down. Sell poison the world with and cover it up? Nothing will happen.
equalarrow 10y ago
What still gets me is how people could justify this type of behavior. I suppose, it's not just one person, but a group (possibly large) that are complicit in all of this. At the end of the day, Jim or Monica goes home and thinks "sure, I know this was an immoral course of action, but I'm glad we just got control of the narrative". We see these scenarios in movies all the time, but I just wonder how people could do these things in real life? Are people really that short sighted that they think it's ok to own the patent on genes for a plant created in nature just because the law says so? And then on top of that, they make some nasty chemicals that kill things other than their patented plant.. I'm not a dystopian acknowledger really, but wow, life is stranger than fiction sometimes. Anyway, I just don't understand how Monsanto could be seen by any rational person as a step forward in humanity's progress.. To me, they are a prime example of how humanity will self destruct at some point.
- accountface 10y ago
  I'm going to Godwin myself here, but it kind of echoes Hannah Arendt's 'Banality of Evil' — this summary from Wikipedia covers it a bit, but I recommend reading the actual text, especially in the context of today's political climate... for those who aren't familiar, Eichmann was a Nazi on trial in Israel who was defending his complicity as "following orders." "Arendt's book introduced the expression and concept "the banality of evil". Her thesis is that Eichmann was not a fanatic or sociopath, but an extremely average person who relied on clichéd defenses rather than thinking for himself and was motivated by professional promotion rather than ideology. Banality, in this sense, is not that Eichmann's actions were ordinary, or that there is a potential Eichmann in all of us, but that his actions were motivated by a sort of stupidity which was wholly unexceptional. She never denied that Eichmann was an anti-semite, nor that he was fully responsible for his actions, but argued that these characteristics were secondary to his stupidity."
  - rosser 10y ago
    "Godwin"-ing is comparing your opponents in an internet argument to Hitler/Nazis, not relying on their historical example as an existence proof for how terribly our cognitive gaps can be exploited.
deelowe 10y ago
From the article, it just shows that emails had suggested academics edit and sign their name to documents written by Monsanto. It appears that everyone involved claims they never actually carried through with this. Anyone else see evidence that they actually did it? It wouldn't surprise me if they did. I'm genuinely curious.
- Para2016 10y ago
  That's all I saw as well. It just looks like someone spitballing over email. That being said, I looked up some information regarding the safety of glysphosphate using Ames testing and other methodologies. It looks to be safe according to this presentation-pdf by the European Food Safety Authority: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/22863068/glyphosate_efsa_en.pdf/dc25996f-53b3-c9a7-f0d7-415169061a02 https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/22863068/glyphosate_e... Anyways, one could argue that the studies have been tampered with by dastardly Monsanto agents. Also it's a presentation and I didn't follow through to the studies themselves, I just trusted the information as it was presented. I'm going to trust that glysphosphate is not a carcinogen and that multiple protection agencies worldwide haven't been duped/sold out to Monsanto. The cost of independent testing by any competitor or curious party is low, these are just toxin tests and Ames tests that have to be done. If it really was a dangerous carcinogen, Monsanto would have its pants sued off already.
lutusp 10y ago
Quote: “People should know that there are superb scientists in the world who would disagree with Monsanto and some of the regulatory agencies’ evaluations, and even E.P.A. has disagreement within the agency,” ... (emphasis added) Without addressing the article's basic thrust, which seems meritorious, this talk about "superb scientists" contradicts the most basic premise of science, which is that science rejects authority, relying instead on evidence -- some superb, some not. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence. Worse, to begin a debate that pivots on the authority of scientists only invites a reply in kind -- whose scientists are more authoritative, more "superb"? The process quickly loses any resemblance to science. So for those responsible for the tone of this debate, it seems there are two goals. First, achieve some immediate, tangible goal. Second and more nefarious, turn a scientific debate (relying on evidence) into a political one (relying on eminence).
notadoc 10y ago
Sounds like corruption to me. Interestingly, the primary reason people I know who eat organic or non-GMO foods are doing so specifically to avoid glyphosate and other pesticide/herbicides.
- DINKDINK 10y ago
  >Sounds like corruption[...] Specifically Regulatory Capture[1] >The records [...] indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- a3n 10y ago
  That's exactly why I buy organic produce, to (hopefully, who really knows) avoid eating pesticides, and to (hopefully) reduce the pesticide exposure of agriculture workers.
swsieber 10y ago
Duplicate post of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13873798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13873798 (which is also on the front-page)
jwilk 10y ago
Please use the original title.
NicoJuicy 10y ago
Monsanto always reminds me of their lobbyist that says it's even drinkable.. Guess if he drank it and then watch it: https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM
- alevskaya 10y ago
  Oh come on - this is a disingenuous stunt masquerading as debate. Salt is safe to drink, but I'm not going to down a mystery glass filled with putative 5 molar solution of it on stage like a trained circus animal.
  - 5mk 10y ago
    Normally I would agree, but the lobbyist said that someone could "drink a whole quart of it" without any ill effect.
    - searine 10y ago
      I could drink a glass of urine without any ill effect. That doesn't mean I am waiting beside the urinal with my coffee cup ready.
      - mikeyouse 10y ago
        Lol, I posted the same thing at nearly the exact same time.. amusing how the mind converges on certain things when you think of "Gross things to drink".
      - coolgeek 10y ago
        You're not trying to force your urine into substantial parts of the food chain. And you're not lobbying (paying off governments at state and federal levels) to prevent that from showing up on food labels. All of which Monsanto is trying to do with their products.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      I get the sentiment, and it makes for good TV, but you could also drink a whole quart of urine without any ill effect and you can be sure I would decline that opportunity.
marze 10y ago
Good thing this sort of thing doesn't happen in heath care. It would totally destroy people's trust in the medical industry if, for example, drug companies did this sort of thing.
- YCode 10y ago
  Not sure if sarcasm. Seriously, do they do that?
  - bognition 10y ago
    With literally billions of dollars on the line what do you think?
    - YCode 10y ago
      I don't know. That's why I asked.
    - devy 10y ago
      > With literally billions of dollars on the line That's EXACTLY the reason big corporations and pharma would cheat to conceal truth from their products. The stake is too high to lose.
  - jmcmichael 10y ago
    Yes: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000156 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...
  - mbillie1 10y ago
    Yes. I recall learning that the clinical trials proving the effectiveness of Effexor, among other things, being shown to have been faked/not actually completed, which lead to a recall of the drug.
trentnix 10y ago
Next thing you know we will find out lobbyists are writing legislation!</snark> Seriously though, is the content of the research valid, or not?
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  Conflicts of interest throw serious doubt on the validity of the research. There's always a certain degree of trust in the people who do every phrase of the research, and obvious biases should at least be reason to not draw strong conclusions from the research. Especially if they're going out of their way to not upfront about the conflict of interest / bias.
  - trentnix 10y ago
    You don't trust Monsanto, someone else only trusts Monsanto, and I don't trust anyone. But trust doesn't matter because the system isn't built on trust. It's built on peer review and repeatability. Right?
    - philipkglass 10y ago
      The underlying incentives can influence which studies make it all the way to publication. This has happened with drug trials, for example; if you don't force drug companies to pre-register trials and publish the results after the fact for every trial, they can run multiple for the same drug and only report the ones that show favorable results. I could imagine something similar happening if you wanted to "prove" the safety of a particular herbicide. Run tests for carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, whatever across common test species A, B, C, D, and E. D shows significant adverse effects from exposure to your product. The others don't. Silently drop the D results, write up the "proof of safety" from the others, and optionally launder the origins of the research through unaffiliated scientists. Repeat for a few years and later a completely independent researcher may say "all N of these published papers used sound methodology, and a meta-review of this high-quality subset shows no demonstrated risk at ordinary exposure levels." That last researcher won't know about the deliberately introduced systemic error that influenced which results were published.
alevskaya 10y ago
I won't defend Monsanto's behavior here, but this is all arising as a response from the IARC's determination that glyphosate is a potential carcinogen. As a cell-biologist/biophysicist, this determination seemed primarily politically motivated by anti-GMO crusaders - existing evidence really doesn't seem to support it. Glyphosate isn't at all like known mutagens. Longer-format critique: https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/06/iarcs-disgrace-how-low-can-activist-science-go/ https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/06/iarcs-disgrace-how-low-ca...
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  My problem with glyphosate isn't related to health concerns. It's related to the fact that I grow crops (grapes) which it drifts over and kills, and roundup ready (and even worse, the new 2-4d resistant GMO corn/soy) now means there's nowhere safe in the entire northeast to grow anymore. Every spring I come out to find many plants damaged. Infuriating. Farmers behave entirely irresponsibly with it and if it's damaging my grapes imagine what it's doing to the natural ecosystem, riparian buffers, etc. near their farms. 2,4-d can drift for several miles and both volatilize on hot days.
  - alevskaya 10y ago
    Thanks so much for the insight (grew up on a small farm in the northeast)! I'm curious how much worse you've found the "drift-killing" of these newer chemicals than traditional herbicides - are farmers simply being more reckless with application of glyphosate and 2,4-d or are they intrinsically more volatile?
    - cmrdporcupine 10y ago
      RoundupReady GMO corn and soy means they just blast the crap out of it without fear of where it will go. They are supposed to pay attention to wind speed etc. and I suspect most _try_ but every year I get damage from one of the three -- glyphosate, 2-4,d [the worst], or glufosinate (most harmless). And again my concern is primarily ecological. It will kill any herbaceous plant. Natural plant diversity within any wooded area nearby is going to be a problem. The other issue is that while glyphosate itself may be unproblematic from a health POV the formulations it comes in (stickers, spreaders, applicator solutions) are known to be nasty but are not required to go through the same kind of testing or disclosure really. So spraying RoundUp near streams etc. means the detergents that it is bound up with are getting into the water system. Which is trouble for amphibians, fish, and insects at least. Glyphosate is known to be safe for mammals, at least for now. I have been known to use it here or there. I have my sprayers application license, tho I don't really use it.
Zaheer 10y ago
Seems like every other day when special interests were allowed to do something they should not have been due to their large financial backing. Corruption isn't as obvious in the U.S., but never mistake that as lack of prevalence.
godgod 10y ago
They're killing us and lying to us.
7sigma 10y ago
This is the complaint: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU... Its basically a motion to compel an EPA guy to go under oath and sounds like the complainant had some run ins with Rowland. The complainant, Marion, makes some claims about the effects of glyphosate without really citing any scientific evidence. Marion also claims there is a lot of evidence to back it up, but if so why not cite it? "Your trivial MS degree from 1971 Nebraska is far outdated, thus CARC science is 10 years behind the literature in mechanisms." So we have to take her word that Rowland didn't keep up to date with the literature? I find that hard to believe that someone would still be in a position that requires constant learning to keep their job. Not really a smoking gun, if this is all there is
cool_look 10y ago
It is common in many fields for a small group to produce 'agreed text', that other parties then sign off on * PR pieces ( http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html ) * Legislation ( http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1005Newsletter/UK-corporate-update-December-2016/Pages/Prospectus-Regulation%E2%80%93text-agreed.aspx http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1005Newsletter... ) * Standards Body text ( say Oracle for OpenJDK, MS for Mono ) ( https://www.taylorwessing.com/globaldatahub/nisd-draft-text-agreed.html https://www.taylorwessing.com/globaldatahub/nisd-draft-text-... ) The NY Times itself will accept Associated Press articles ( say on an Afghan Election result ) and mostly just clone the words 1-to-1.
- rosser 10y ago
  Maybe that's okay in PR and legislation. But not in science.
partycoder 10y ago
Monsanto also developed another herbicide, Agent Orange. Areas were it was used are still affected to this date.
trimble 10y ago
roundup is 125 times more toxic than glyphosate
- castis 10y ago
  Do you have a source for this very specific fact you brought to the table?
  - trimble 10y ago
    BioMed Research International Volume 2014, Article ID 179691 'Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/
tdhz77 10y ago
Probably my old University -- University of Missouri which is currently under the tight control of Monsanto.
williamle8300 10y ago
This is beating a dead horse... but look up the ties between Hillary and Monsato. Monsato is one of the most crooked, and corrupt corporations out there.
Gravityloss 10y ago
They use glyphosate profusely around trees in parks here. No need to cut the grass so precisely.

302 points by sdomino 10y ago

I don't really understand why the NYT is so terrible on ag policy issues--they could really do some of the heavy lifting here for us and at least try and evaluate the claims being made--like severity and concurrence rates being claimed by the plaintiffs. The NYT apples to oranges study on rate of yield increase in countries that don't use GMOs (lower starting point) to countries that do (higher starting point) over the same time really undermines their editorial credibility on these kinds of issues with people, like me, who actually deal with agriculture.

marcell 10y ago
Gell-Mann effect? https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/ https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnes...
- phs318u 10y ago
  Thanks for posting. I hadn't heard of that.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  God knows their coverage of other topics I'm knowledgeable about isn't much better. They cover some political and recent-events stuff solidly (international topics much less so), but the domain-specific sucks well outside of agricultural policy. If ag policy and computer security and rock climbing are all poorly covered, I eventually have to assume they aren't doing any better on the topics I don't know. (Where, of course, "terrible" and "better than most" are not contradictory.)
nerdponx 10y ago
Is there a better source for reading about agriculture policy issues? I feel like all of my sources have a subtle anti-ag bias or a blatantly pro-ag one. Maybe an ag econ blog?
- CapTVK 10y ago
  Dr. Steve Savage's blog: "Applied Mythology" is a good start. http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/ http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/ But I wonder what is "subtle anti-ag" or "blatantly pro-ag" means in this context. Can you give some examples?
  - nerdponx 10y ago
    Subtly anti-ag: one-sided articles in liberal news outlets about the dangers and social injustices associated with ag tech like GMOs, and books like The Omnivore's Dilemma. Purporting to be unbiased but might not be. Blatantly pro-ag: research funded by agribusiness or the USDA. Clearly intended to benefit the industry.
mmjaa 10y ago
Maybe its not the NYT's job to do these things, but rather just inform those who know better, such as yourself, that the docs have been un-sealed, and we can get better analyses of this previously-hidden material in order that lay people, such as myself, can better understand just how Monsanto have fooled so many people into poisoning the world with their highly profitable product.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  The problem is that lay people are the audience for NYT. Most of the population won't really understand it, honestly. If they wanted to make sure someone informed knew, they could have easily reached out. The truth is that this was published without because it is an issue that gets folks to read, making their job of selling newspapers easier.
  - mmjaa 10y ago
    Doesn't matter, still read about the crimes Monsanto commits in order to maintain its power over the worlds food supply ..
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    And this happens everywhere. My favorite example is the coverage of the Dawn Wall rock climb a few years back. It was 'news', but there was very little time pressure for coverage, there was (almost) no divisive/political aspect, and the technical aspects were easy to break down to lay-reader level. Plus, there were thousands of online guides and experts willing to clarify context and terminology for free. It should have been covered flawlessly, just because there was nothing standing in the way of that. And instead, the results were shameful. There was no real harm done, but most of the articles were less accurate than a Simple English Wikipedia page would have been. It made for an interesting demonstration of how atrocious any form of expert-knowledge news is, even by sites like the NYT, even on uncontroversial topics.
- wcummings 10y ago
  That sounds a lot like journalism, which is the nyt's job

teslabox 10y ago

Glyphosate/Roundup is basically the amino acid glycine with a phosphorous structure tacked on [0]. Glycine is the simplest possible amino acid. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Chemistry One theory is that glyphosate causes harm because it gets weaved into protein chains instead of glycine. Proteins made with roundup don't work the same as proteins with glycine. Experiments to figure out if this is what's happening would be relatively simple and cheap. Now that lots of weed are resistant, farmers will have to figure out how to farm without this shortcut. Roundup is obsolete, so nothing of value will be lost.

adsfqwop 10y ago
Anthony Samel, a chemist researching glyphosate, has already practically proven this weaving is happening. He is finding glyphosate in everything that has proteins in it. Especially things that contain gelatin, where gelatin is made out of animal collagen, and collagen is the most abundant protein in mammals. For example gummy bears, protein powders, nutritional supplements, and even in vaccines (several vaccines contain gelatin). So we are eating it, getting injected with it, and it is integrating into our own proteins as well.
- viraptor 10y ago
  The results are fairly easy to find on Google, but I'm disappointed how hard it could be for someone without academic experience to find reasonable summary. This news is a perfect mix of Monsanto, GMO, vaccines, and animal products. The amount baseless speculation is insane...
- 7sigma 10y ago
  You mean Anthony Samsel ? If so, he's known to have published shoddy research along with Seneff that makes wild claims about glyphosate being the cause of many ills like autism and celiac disease based on correlation and without much evidence Steven Novella thoroughly debunks this: http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ Edit: spelling

DarkKomunalec 10y ago

"The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services." This is the real story - Monsanto interfering with our ability to find out what is safe. But I'm sure needless endangerment of the health of ~tens of thousands of farmers will carry a stiff prison sentence for all involved...

tudorw 10y ago
Do we know if this something that happened and stopped, or something that could still be happening?
- mirimir 10y ago
  Some journals have a policy of rejecting ghostwritten stuff, and there have been some retractions. But it's still happening, I think.
mmjaa 10y ago
Monsanto have been very, very good at controlling the discussion regarding the negative impact their products have had on the world - they're very well known for the investment made in astro-turfing various and sundry places that Monsantos' crimes are discussed. I think that, besides the obvious corruption that these court documents reveal, another conversation has to be had about how disingenuous Monsanto and its agents have been in discussing these things - using classic deflection, obfuscation techniques online. The "Monsanto Field Manual for Internet Representatives" would be a very interesting leak indeed ..
- jessaustin 10y ago
  This is an interesting comment on HN, where the most vociferous defenders of Monsanto are high-karma accounts rather than sockpuppet greenbeans. Are you saying they've been influenced by such techniques in other fora?

tyingq 10y ago

From the Wikipedia plot summary for the movie "Michael Clayton": "Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), U-North's general counsel, discovers that Arthur had come into possession of a confidential U-North document detailing the company's decision to manufacture a weed killer it knew to be carcinogenic."[1] [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clayton_(film)#Plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clayton_(film)#Plot

maxerickson 10y ago
That there is debate about the health effects and environmental impact of glyphosate is a huge improvement over many previous pesticides which where obviously toxic to humans and environmentally persistent.

mrfusion 10y ago

Is there a way to avoid foods with roundup? Is it allowed in organics?

6d6b73 10y ago
Yes there is a way to avoid foods with roundup - grow them yourself.. Sorry but this is the only somehow* guaranteed way to avoid roundup.. * Even if you're growing food yourself, some roundup might still get in it if your neighbor is using it for example.
- 09bjb 10y ago
  Or...develop a decent, trusting relationship with your local farmer and ask them about their practices.
mkesper 10y ago
Roundup is (and many other treatments are) definitely not allowed for organical farming. There are several certifications checking that farmers comply to their rules.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Yep. Instead, they allow things like copper and, until recently, rotenone. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogs...
patrickg_zill 10y ago
according to: http://www.naturalnews.com/047868_glyphosate_contamination_organic_food_pesticide_residue.html http://www.naturalnews.com/047868_glyphosate_contamination_o... USDA does allow some level of glyphosate in organic products, if they are seen as residual and not from pesticides being applied during farming.
- 10y ago

kapauldo 10y ago

Free market only works when properly regulated.

programmarchy 10y ago
Time and time again we see regulators working for the monopoly corporations, not against them. Monopolies like Monsanto only exist /because/ of regulation. If the market were free, both Monsanto and the EPA would have to compete. In a regulated market, neither of them do. Edit: Realize there's a good chance you're being sarcastic, but responding anyway since there are many people who'd take this at face value.
- chii 10y ago
  > both Monsanto and the EPA would have to compete. what does the EPA have to compete against? They regulate! Unless you mean monsanto could choose to be regulated by a different agency, whose funding comes from monsanto, hence regulators will tend to weaken regulation to get "business"!
  - programmarchy 10y ago
    Nobody, which is exactly my point. In an actual free market, people would still want consumer information (e.g. Consumer Reports magazine, Organic-certified labels). Therefore, consumer information companies would be required to compete with each other by offering better products i.e. accurate information, and a solid reputation. The EPA has a terrible reputation and a long track record of failures, but it doesn't matter, because they have a state-enforced monopoly. They can take bribes all day long. However, if they existed in a competitive market, their reputation would be ruined and the market would be ripe for new competitors to enter.
    - n10 10y ago
      And what is to stop those consumer information companies taking similar bribes. Especially without any regulatory agencies. Or do we just need another free market for consumer information on the consumer information companies.

JohnJamesRambo 10y ago

As a scientist, I had read the research on glyphosate and felt pretty safe about it. The surfactant used with it seemed more dangerous, which tells you a lot. But what do I do if the science, was just untrue? This is the ugly secret about science I keep discovering the longer I am in it. Science is great, but people are so fallible.

searine 10y ago
I agree. As a biologist, Glyphosate and it's concoctions aren't a concern in terms of environmental exposure. The concentrations simply aren't there.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- n4r9 10y ago
  Can't remember where I read this, but I believe in the EU the "maximum residue levels" of the active ingredients of pesticides are set orders of magnitude lower than the estimated safe ingestion threshold. That gives a significant leeway for errors in judgement or scientific process, which is understandable when it comes to public health. Must be a major concern for homeopaths, mind.
- spcelzrd 10y ago
  Probably correct. But if the studies are suppressed or influenced, we can't know for sure.
- jly 10y ago
  There have been many studies in recent years examining the sub-lethal effects of agricultural dosages of glyphosate on honeybees. Newer research is showing conclusions of long-term negative consequences. Renewed studies have been done in the face of devastating managed bee losses, which widespread deployment of ag chemical combinations are undoubtedly direct contributors. Glyphosate application is susceptible to extensive drift, affecting non-target vegetation and animals potentially hundreds of meters from the target site. Beyond direct exposure, this results in habitat destruction for many organisms. It seems like we're a long way from claiming there is no environmental concern. The effects on non-target organisms through both direct exposure and indirect exposure through ecosystem (food, habitat, etc) changes may be far more widespread than we realize.

phkahler 10y ago

I look at things like the articles claim: >> The safety of glyphosate is not settled science. and then Monsantos claim: >> In a statement, Monsanto said, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen.” >> It added: “The allegation that glyphosate can cause cancer in humans is inconsistent with decades of comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world. which is backed by "leading regulatory authroities around the world" and then I reflect on the CO2 / climate change issue which is also claimed by a lot of people to be settled science. I just found that comparison (mine, not the articles) interesting.

diogenescynic 10y ago

There are several shill accounts on Reddit that pop up to defend Monsanto in every thread. I would be interested to see how much money companies like Monsanto are spending on disinformation campaigns. I bet it's much more active than we are aware.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
09bjb 10y ago
Agree here. Definitely some comments in this thread that look suspicious...only because Monsanto already does this on a closely related platform :) Hi Guys! Thanks for tuning in!
- 09bjb 10y ago
  My suspicions are only getting worse as I click through some comment history. Really? The debate on GMOs is the _only_ discussion on HN you want to partake in?
  - throwaway2048 10y ago
    mail hn@ycombinator.com with evidence/suspicions you have of shilling.

brooklynmarket 10y ago

I'm always reminded of my Wall Street trader friend, and his chat with me: From 9:30 to 4, I'd kill my mother to make a dime on a trade. My own mother, that's how driven I am to make money. I'd kill her on the spot for that dime if I could get away with it. Of course, after 4, she's my mom. And I'd love her to death. He works for a very well respected Wall Street Firm. Food for thought. What people will do for money.

dgellow 10y ago
> What people will do for money Or: What people will say to impress their friends
- codingdave 10y ago
  I'm not sure what kinds of friends would be impressed by such things.

exabrial 10y ago

Why is it that people take a hysteria based approach to GMOs/glyphosate but the same people claim global warming is solid science? Can the scientific method be trusted or not?

grecy 10y ago
> Can the scientific method be trusted or not? The scientific method can be trusted, but how it is implemented can not. Science only considers something to be "fact" or "true" when a large (and usually expensive) study has been conducted, the results have been peer reviewed, and the results are then published. The problem comes when the people paying for research only pay for research they want to be "true" and nobody will pay for research leading to things that might not be so good for sales. As an example - think about how much money it cost to do a study on this Monsanto chemical to find out if it's "safe". Monsanto are paying for the study - do you really think if that study finds out it's not safe that it will be peer reviewed and published and then considered "true" (that it's not safe). Or will the whole study be swept under the rug, and therefore never be found to be unsafe in the eyes of science? How many multi-million dollar studies have ever been conducted, peer reviewed and published (therefore making them "true" in the eyes of science) that tell us really anything in today's world is "bad" for us? I'm willing to bet that number is close to zero. Any published study was paid for by a system with very, very strong interests in the results, so science will only ever "learn" what the people with money want it to.
- exabrial 10y ago
  Great, so if I think there are a lot of companies (solar, wind, "sustainable materials", etc) that have a vested interest in trying to prove that global warming is a man made construct, then I'm just practicing good science?
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  "Science only considers something to be "fact" or "true" when a large (and usually expensive) study has been conducted, the results have been peer reviewed, and the results are then published." If it hasn't or can't be replicated by and independent entity it's not good science. Peer-reviewed is simply not a high enough bar to consider something fact.

brightball 10y ago

Some of the connections out there between glyphosate, it's effects on gut bacteria, the rise IBS/Crohn's Disease/Celiac and even connections autism are pretty incredible. The autism speculation has gone on for as long as it has because we have an information vacuum and nobody is outright publishing a "cause". Until that vacuum is filled, you leave people free to speculate. Most of what I've seen at this point (recently from a lady at MIT[1] who presented in a Congressional Hearing) points to a serious need for a study of aluminum...and glyphosate supposedly allows a lot more aluminum into your system. Would be great if we could get a study on both independently and both combined. 1 - https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

seattle_spring 10y ago
> Some of the connections out there between glyphosate, it's effects on gut bacteria, the rise IBS/Crohn's Disease/Celiac and even connections autism are pretty incredible. Can you point to some credible sources that show these connections? The only time I've ever seen Glyphosate linked to these ailments is from quack doctor Mercola or fake news sites like Natural News.
- brightball 10y ago
  Look up the MIT professor linked above and her research.
  - seattle_spring 10y ago
    A brief search reveals that her assertions are based purely on correlation, with no actual links. * http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/glyphosate.asp http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/glyphosate.asp * https://www.biofortified.org/2015/01/medical-doctors-weigh-in-on-glyphosate-claims/ https://www.biofortified.org/2015/01/medical-doctors-weigh-i... * https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman... * https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/09/20/glyphosate-herbicide-vaccines-frightened-parents-know/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/09/20/glyphosate... She does seem to be loved by Mercola, captain of the fake science team.

dmix 10y ago

Another example of a company's liberal use of email to discuss potentially incriminating things (ie, ghostwriting studies). The glyphosate stuff still seems debatable - the PR team could handle that easily - but now we have employees on record acting shady and conspiratorial, that just makes them look more guilty. I wonder if we'll ever enter a time where people won't be dumb enough to put this stuff down on paper and just assume an FBI agent will read anything they write in email at a future date? Especially when you work for such a villianized company like Monsanto... with so many people chomping at the bit to bring them down. From another perspective this is (still) a golden era of criminal investigations.

pessimizer 10y ago
There's selection bias here. In my experience people rarely email or write dubious stuff down and prefer to meet in person or informally off-site, but obviously all the people who get caught due to what they've emailed or written down did email it or write it down.

NicoJuicy 10y ago

Monsanto always reminds me of their lobbiest that says it's even drinkable.. Guess if he drank it and then watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

ino 10y ago
So they only know it's safe because people try to commit suicide with it and fail?
cholantesh 10y ago
Kale juice is potable too; I'll still never touch the stuff.

pessimizer 10y ago

The best thing they can do for public health is to jail Jess Rowland for a very long time, and prosecute the scientists who took payments to add their names to papers that Monsanto wrote and Monsanto itself for conspiracy to commit fraud. My guess is that searching for payments between Rowland and Monsanto will be exceptionally and immediately fruitful, and that should result in prosecutions for people within Monsanto who planned and approved those payments. None of that will prove whether there's any connection between glyphosate and cancer, but it will do a lot to make sure that studies that are done by Monsanto are signed by Monsanto, and regulators might second-guess themselves for a moment when they see an easy buck to be made by becoming corrupt. This comment counts as government fan-fic for all the likelihood that anyone will see any punishment here other than a fine for Monsanto resulting in an immediate stock bump for being lower than expected.

arca_vorago 10y ago

I've been telling HN about this, and mostly derided for it. I was working as a sysadmin for a bigag company in 2010 or so, who touted themselves as good ol local farm people who take care of their own. Come to find out, the millions the owner got to fund his extravagant lifestyle (besides from daddy), was from selling some of the genetic modifications to Monsanto. I was in the middle of my Decartes reset after getting back from Iraq, and dug into Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the worst companies in America. As a constitutionalist, my primary issue is with their blatant undermining and corruption of the legal process, for example a SCOTUS who formerly worked for them refusing to recuse himself from relevant cases, infiltration and takeover of the top positions at the FDA and other regulatory capture issues, and the stifling of free speech through their massive propaganda machine, which includes online. As a military person, I came to find out they were the ones who had been responsible for agent orange in Vietnam. Something many of my friends and family have directly had to deal with. (to be fair, it was a different business than the current Monsanto, the same in name only) I learned they were one of the main sources of lobbying to allow patenting of organtic material (so they could patent genes in their gmos), that they created the BT killer strain of seeds designed to prevent farmers from saving their seeds, (incidentally Monsanto gmo seed business has been tied to large numbers of farmer suicides in India), and have brought legal action against farmers who saved their seeds. They have participated in farm mergers in aquisitions to the point that almost no farm is truly a family farm anymore, and they have been involved in illegal waste dumping more than once. Once I learned all these things, I quit the job on principle. As luck would have it, the good ol rich guy who "would always take care of his people" subsequently, a year later, sold the company and fired half the staff... and now the local "community", despite protests from many of the farmers, decided to give Monsanto a 5.8 million dollar tax break to built a state of the art facility because it will "bring jobs". To top it all off, our anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws seem to be completely dead and ignored, because the Bayer Monsanto $66bn merger seems to be full steam ahead at the moment. They have created a sitution that requires more chemicals, causes more nitrogen runoff, have drastically reduced seed diversity (therefore setting up a massive crop failure potential across many crops), and continue to ignore GMO warnings. Having sysadmined in a bigag company with a genetics department, and at a genetics company, my primary issues with GMO's is that there is a lack of rigourous scientific testing, especially over longer time frames. It wasn't uncommon to see a new GMO go from testing to prod within a year! That's not enough time to truly understand the implications of those kinds of products. Not to mention, as the article suggests, that they have artifically affected the actual science to be in their favor regardless of the real results. If there ever is ecocide, Monsanto will be the primary hand to have caused it. I am willing to bet roundup will be the new agent orange. And finally, for your viewing pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM Relevant past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969

twothamendment 10y ago

Sell some great cars that "cheat"? Slapped down. Sell poison the world with and cover it up? Nothing will happen.

equalarrow 10y ago

What still gets me is how people could justify this type of behavior. I suppose, it's not just one person, but a group (possibly large) that are complicit in all of this. At the end of the day, Jim or Monica goes home and thinks "sure, I know this was an immoral course of action, but I'm glad we just got control of the narrative". We see these scenarios in movies all the time, but I just wonder how people could do these things in real life? Are people really that short sighted that they think it's ok to own the patent on genes for a plant created in nature just because the law says so? And then on top of that, they make some nasty chemicals that kill things other than their patented plant.. I'm not a dystopian acknowledger really, but wow, life is stranger than fiction sometimes. Anyway, I just don't understand how Monsanto could be seen by any rational person as a step forward in humanity's progress.. To me, they are a prime example of how humanity will self destruct at some point.

accountface 10y ago
I'm going to Godwin myself here, but it kind of echoes Hannah Arendt's 'Banality of Evil' — this summary from Wikipedia covers it a bit, but I recommend reading the actual text, especially in the context of today's political climate... for those who aren't familiar, Eichmann was a Nazi on trial in Israel who was defending his complicity as "following orders." "Arendt's book introduced the expression and concept "the banality of evil". Her thesis is that Eichmann was not a fanatic or sociopath, but an extremely average person who relied on clichéd defenses rather than thinking for himself and was motivated by professional promotion rather than ideology. Banality, in this sense, is not that Eichmann's actions were ordinary, or that there is a potential Eichmann in all of us, but that his actions were motivated by a sort of stupidity which was wholly unexceptional. She never denied that Eichmann was an anti-semite, nor that he was fully responsible for his actions, but argued that these characteristics were secondary to his stupidity."
- rosser 10y ago
  "Godwin"-ing is comparing your opponents in an internet argument to Hitler/Nazis, not relying on their historical example as an existence proof for how terribly our cognitive gaps can be exploited.

deelowe 10y ago

From the article, it just shows that emails had suggested academics edit and sign their name to documents written by Monsanto. It appears that everyone involved claims they never actually carried through with this. Anyone else see evidence that they actually did it? It wouldn't surprise me if they did. I'm genuinely curious.

Para2016 10y ago
That's all I saw as well. It just looks like someone spitballing over email. That being said, I looked up some information regarding the safety of glysphosphate using Ames testing and other methodologies. It looks to be safe according to this presentation-pdf by the European Food Safety Authority: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/22863068/glyphosate_efsa_en.pdf/dc25996f-53b3-c9a7-f0d7-415169061a02 https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/22863068/glyphosate_e... Anyways, one could argue that the studies have been tampered with by dastardly Monsanto agents. Also it's a presentation and I didn't follow through to the studies themselves, I just trusted the information as it was presented. I'm going to trust that glysphosphate is not a carcinogen and that multiple protection agencies worldwide haven't been duped/sold out to Monsanto. The cost of independent testing by any competitor or curious party is low, these are just toxin tests and Ames tests that have to be done. If it really was a dangerous carcinogen, Monsanto would have its pants sued off already.

lutusp 10y ago

Quote: “People should know that there are superb scientists in the world who would disagree with Monsanto and some of the regulatory agencies’ evaluations, and even E.P.A. has disagreement within the agency,” ... (emphasis added) Without addressing the article's basic thrust, which seems meritorious, this talk about "superb scientists" contradicts the most basic premise of science, which is that science rejects authority, relying instead on evidence -- some superb, some not. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence. Worse, to begin a debate that pivots on the authority of scientists only invites a reply in kind -- whose scientists are more authoritative, more "superb"? The process quickly loses any resemblance to science. So for those responsible for the tone of this debate, it seems there are two goals. First, achieve some immediate, tangible goal. Second and more nefarious, turn a scientific debate (relying on evidence) into a political one (relying on eminence).

notadoc 10y ago

Sounds like corruption to me. Interestingly, the primary reason people I know who eat organic or non-GMO foods are doing so specifically to avoid glyphosate and other pesticide/herbicides.

DINKDINK 10y ago
>Sounds like corruption[...] Specifically Regulatory Capture[1] >The records [...] indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
a3n 10y ago
That's exactly why I buy organic produce, to (hopefully, who really knows) avoid eating pesticides, and to (hopefully) reduce the pesticide exposure of agriculture workers.

swsieber 10y ago

Duplicate post of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13873798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13873798 (which is also on the front-page)

jwilk 10y ago

Please use the original title.

NicoJuicy 10y ago

Monsanto always reminds me of their lobbyist that says it's even drinkable.. Guess if he drank it and then watch it: https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

alevskaya 10y ago
Oh come on - this is a disingenuous stunt masquerading as debate. Salt is safe to drink, but I'm not going to down a mystery glass filled with putative 5 molar solution of it on stage like a trained circus animal.
- 5mk 10y ago
  Normally I would agree, but the lobbyist said that someone could "drink a whole quart of it" without any ill effect.
  - searine 10y ago
    I could drink a glass of urine without any ill effect. That doesn't mean I am waiting beside the urinal with my coffee cup ready.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      Lol, I posted the same thing at nearly the exact same time.. amusing how the mind converges on certain things when you think of "Gross things to drink".
    - coolgeek 10y ago
      You're not trying to force your urine into substantial parts of the food chain. And you're not lobbying (paying off governments at state and federal levels) to prevent that from showing up on food labels. All of which Monsanto is trying to do with their products.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    I get the sentiment, and it makes for good TV, but you could also drink a whole quart of urine without any ill effect and you can be sure I would decline that opportunity.

marze 10y ago

Good thing this sort of thing doesn't happen in heath care. It would totally destroy people's trust in the medical industry if, for example, drug companies did this sort of thing.

YCode 10y ago
Not sure if sarcasm. Seriously, do they do that?
- bognition 10y ago
  With literally billions of dollars on the line what do you think?
  - YCode 10y ago
    I don't know. That's why I asked.
  - devy 10y ago
    > With literally billions of dollars on the line That's EXACTLY the reason big corporations and pharma would cheat to conceal truth from their products. The stake is too high to lose.
- jmcmichael 10y ago
  Yes: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000156 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...
- mbillie1 10y ago
  Yes. I recall learning that the clinical trials proving the effectiveness of Effexor, among other things, being shown to have been faked/not actually completed, which lead to a recall of the drug.

trentnix 10y ago

Next thing you know we will find out lobbyists are writing legislation!</snark> Seriously though, is the content of the research valid, or not?

TallGuyShort 10y ago
Conflicts of interest throw serious doubt on the validity of the research. There's always a certain degree of trust in the people who do every phrase of the research, and obvious biases should at least be reason to not draw strong conclusions from the research. Especially if they're going out of their way to not upfront about the conflict of interest / bias.
- trentnix 10y ago
  You don't trust Monsanto, someone else only trusts Monsanto, and I don't trust anyone. But trust doesn't matter because the system isn't built on trust. It's built on peer review and repeatability. Right?
  - philipkglass 10y ago
    The underlying incentives can influence which studies make it all the way to publication. This has happened with drug trials, for example; if you don't force drug companies to pre-register trials and publish the results after the fact for every trial, they can run multiple for the same drug and only report the ones that show favorable results. I could imagine something similar happening if you wanted to "prove" the safety of a particular herbicide. Run tests for carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, whatever across common test species A, B, C, D, and E. D shows significant adverse effects from exposure to your product. The others don't. Silently drop the D results, write up the "proof of safety" from the others, and optionally launder the origins of the research through unaffiliated scientists. Repeat for a few years and later a completely independent researcher may say "all N of these published papers used sound methodology, and a meta-review of this high-quality subset shows no demonstrated risk at ordinary exposure levels." That last researcher won't know about the deliberately introduced systemic error that influenced which results were published.

alevskaya 10y ago

I won't defend Monsanto's behavior here, but this is all arising as a response from the IARC's determination that glyphosate is a potential carcinogen. As a cell-biologist/biophysicist, this determination seemed primarily politically motivated by anti-GMO crusaders - existing evidence really doesn't seem to support it. Glyphosate isn't at all like known mutagens. Longer-format critique: https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/06/iarcs-disgrace-how-low-can-activist-science-go/ https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/06/iarcs-disgrace-how-low-ca...

cmrdporcupine 10y ago
My problem with glyphosate isn't related to health concerns. It's related to the fact that I grow crops (grapes) which it drifts over and kills, and roundup ready (and even worse, the new 2-4d resistant GMO corn/soy) now means there's nowhere safe in the entire northeast to grow anymore. Every spring I come out to find many plants damaged. Infuriating. Farmers behave entirely irresponsibly with it and if it's damaging my grapes imagine what it's doing to the natural ecosystem, riparian buffers, etc. near their farms. 2,4-d can drift for several miles and both volatilize on hot days.
- alevskaya 10y ago
  Thanks so much for the insight (grew up on a small farm in the northeast)! I'm curious how much worse you've found the "drift-killing" of these newer chemicals than traditional herbicides - are farmers simply being more reckless with application of glyphosate and 2,4-d or are they intrinsically more volatile?
  - cmrdporcupine 10y ago
    RoundupReady GMO corn and soy means they just blast the crap out of it without fear of where it will go. They are supposed to pay attention to wind speed etc. and I suspect most _try_ but every year I get damage from one of the three -- glyphosate, 2-4,d [the worst], or glufosinate (most harmless). And again my concern is primarily ecological. It will kill any herbaceous plant. Natural plant diversity within any wooded area nearby is going to be a problem. The other issue is that while glyphosate itself may be unproblematic from a health POV the formulations it comes in (stickers, spreaders, applicator solutions) are known to be nasty but are not required to go through the same kind of testing or disclosure really. So spraying RoundUp near streams etc. means the detergents that it is bound up with are getting into the water system. Which is trouble for amphibians, fish, and insects at least. Glyphosate is known to be safe for mammals, at least for now. I have been known to use it here or there. I have my sprayers application license, tho I don't really use it.

Zaheer 10y ago

Seems like every other day when special interests were allowed to do something they should not have been due to their large financial backing. Corruption isn't as obvious in the U.S., but never mistake that as lack of prevalence.

godgod 10y ago

They're killing us and lying to us.

7sigma 10y ago

This is the complaint: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU... Its basically a motion to compel an EPA guy to go under oath and sounds like the complainant had some run ins with Rowland. The complainant, Marion, makes some claims about the effects of glyphosate without really citing any scientific evidence. Marion also claims there is a lot of evidence to back it up, but if so why not cite it? "Your trivial MS degree from 1971 Nebraska is far outdated, thus CARC science is 10 years behind the literature in mechanisms." So we have to take her word that Rowland didn't keep up to date with the literature? I find that hard to believe that someone would still be in a position that requires constant learning to keep their job. Not really a smoking gun, if this is all there is

cool_look 10y ago

It is common in many fields for a small group to produce 'agreed text', that other parties then sign off on * PR pieces ( http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html ) * Legislation ( http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1005Newsletter/UK-corporate-update-December-2016/Pages/Prospectus-Regulation%E2%80%93text-agreed.aspx http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1005Newsletter... ) * Standards Body text ( say Oracle for OpenJDK, MS for Mono ) ( https://www.taylorwessing.com/globaldatahub/nisd-draft-text-agreed.html https://www.taylorwessing.com/globaldatahub/nisd-draft-text-... ) The NY Times itself will accept Associated Press articles ( say on an Afghan Election result ) and mostly just clone the words 1-to-1.

rosser 10y ago
Maybe that's okay in PR and legislation. But not in science.

partycoder 10y ago

Monsanto also developed another herbicide, Agent Orange. Areas were it was used are still affected to this date.

trimble 10y ago

roundup is 125 times more toxic than glyphosate

castis 10y ago
Do you have a source for this very specific fact you brought to the table?
- trimble 10y ago
  BioMed Research International Volume 2014, Article ID 179691 'Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/

tdhz77 10y ago

Probably my old University -- University of Missouri which is currently under the tight control of Monsanto.

williamle8300 10y ago

This is beating a dead horse... but look up the ties between Hillary and Monsato. Monsato is one of the most crooked, and corrupt corporations out there.

Gravityloss 10y ago

They use glyphosate profusely around trees in parks here. No need to cut the grass so precisely.