4 ms·

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 ce

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.
Melk 10y ago
"I won't defend Monsanto's behavior, I'll just belittle their critics as anti-GMO crusaders." It's that attitude why I'm against GMO on ethical grounds no matter how much scientific evidence there is to support it. You guys need to clean up your act.
- alevskaya 10y ago
  I'm not trying to belittle anyone. I work on cancer therapeutics -- when people push questionable science in a field I work in, I feel it important to highlight this. There are many better-supported objections to modern anti-herbicidal GMOs, we should focus our limited attention on the issues that are supported by evidence.
ScottBurson 10y ago
So I followed your link, and was immediately blasted with the kind of rhetoric and name-calling that does not give me the feeling that I'm about to read an impartial analysis. I didn't read further.
- alevskaya 10y ago
  Well... scientists get passionate when we see ideological actors that systematically ignore evidence. If you prefer a more serious source, the EU's European Chemical Agency (ECHA) just announced their review finding that “the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction”.
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    So what you're asking me to believe is that this chemical, which does not occur naturally and which is biologically active, indeed quite toxic to some species, and which we are manufacturing and introducing into the environment in massive quantities, has no deleterious effects on animals or humans? Wouldn't that be pretty much a first? I mean, I'm not an expert here, but is there any other molecule of which all that is true? I certainly can't think of any. It's possible that humanity has just gotten very lucky in chancing on a compound that does something useful for us with no side effects (on animals or humans, that is -- as cmrdporcupine points out, there are effects on plants which weren't the intended targets -- but let's leave those aside). I can't rule out this possibility completely. But do you see why some of us think the standard of evidence should be extremely high?

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.

Melk 10y ago

"I won't defend Monsanto's behavior, I'll just belittle their critics as anti-GMO crusaders." It's that attitude why I'm against GMO on ethical grounds no matter how much scientific evidence there is to support it. You guys need to clean up your act.

alevskaya 10y ago
I'm not trying to belittle anyone. I work on cancer therapeutics -- when people push questionable science in a field I work in, I feel it important to highlight this. There are many better-supported objections to modern anti-herbicidal GMOs, we should focus our limited attention on the issues that are supported by evidence.

ScottBurson 10y ago

So I followed your link, and was immediately blasted with the kind of rhetoric and name-calling that does not give me the feeling that I'm about to read an impartial analysis. I didn't read further.

alevskaya 10y ago
Well... scientists get passionate when we see ideological actors that systematically ignore evidence. If you prefer a more serious source, the EU's European Chemical Agency (ECHA) just announced their review finding that “the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction”.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  So what you're asking me to believe is that this chemical, which does not occur naturally and which is biologically active, indeed quite toxic to some species, and which we are manufacturing and introducing into the environment in massive quantities, has no deleterious effects on animals or humans? Wouldn't that be pretty much a first? I mean, I'm not an expert here, but is there any other molecule of which all that is true? I certainly can't think of any. It's possible that humanity has just gotten very lucky in chancing on a compound that does something useful for us with no side effects (on animals or humans, that is -- as cmrdporcupine points out, there are effects on plants which weren't the intended targets -- but let's leave those aside). I can't rule out this possibility completely. But do you see why some of us think the standard of evidence should be extremely high?