14 ms·
California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing
- epmaybe 9y agoSeems to me that the evidence surrounding this isn't strong enough to warrant designating glyphosate as "cancer-causing" for humans, but the evidence surrounding the adverse effects in animals is pretty strong (based on my skimming of the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Humans). Would like to hear thoughts from anyone close to the matter, I'm sure you have a different perspective than I.
- davidivadavid 9y agoAfter this disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair I'm very skeptical about claims of glyphosate being "cancer-causing" (whatever that means when no measure of effect size is mentioned), even in animals.
- erikpukinskis 9y agoWhy? Flawed studies get run all the time. If you see a flawed study about bat flight, does that make you more skeptical about all bat flight studies? Do you get joy from hippies being wrong? That's probably going to cause huge biases in your science reading.
- bazzert 9y agoThe point being it is the only study that seemed to point to a link to cancer. But it was hugely flawed and was retracted. Given the hysteria over roundup you would think there were a bunch of such studies.
- ComputerGuru 9y agoReminds me of aspartame. It's probably the only drug that's been studied more than glyphosate as a result of bad science causing public outrage.
- sp332 9y agoWould this affect produce in a grocery store? I thought the pesticide was supposed to be mostly gone by the time the product is harvested. I mean there are stories of farmers blasting it on crops later in the cycle but those seem to be an exception.
- 2fifty3 9y agoIf anything I feel as if there might be some general warning placed in the front of a store in order to comply with the need to inform shoppers
- jcranmer 9y agoPesticide residue is absolutely not a concern. If you're still terrified of it, just rinse your fruit and vegetables off first, and that will eliminate it. Glyphosate itself really isn't a problem unless you're dealing with 55-gallon drums of it on a regular basis (and even then, the evidence is less than compelling). But such is chemophobia that we can't treat repercussions in an industrial settings with solely OSHA-style rules but must freak out about it even in situations where it's clearly not an issue.
- sp332 9y agoOh, I meant the labeling requirements. How much glyphosate is allowed to be on the produce before they have to label it? Or once the food has been touched, is it tainted forever (legally speaking)?
- jcranmer 9y agoAs far as I can tell from Proposition 65... any amount is sufficient to necessitate a label. The current law states: [the requirements to not expose anyone to such a chemical are waived for] an exposure for which the person responsible can show that the exposure poses no significant risk assuming lifetime exposure at the level in question for substances known to the state to cause cancer, and that the exposure will have no observable effect assuming exposure at one thousand (1000) times the level in question for substances known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity, based on evidence and standards of comparable scientific validity to the evidence and standards which form the scientific basis for the listing of such chemical pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 25249.8. In any action brought to enforce Section 25249.6, the burden of showing that an exposure meets the criteria of this subdivision shall be on the defendant. So basically, the minimum amount you need to label is the minimum amount you'd be unable to convince a jury that exposure to is safe.
- zimbatm 9y agoRoundUp - Kills Humans not the lawn
- bazzert 9y agocan you point to a single case where that is true ? Doubt it.
- DanBC 9y agoagrochemicals are a leading method for suicide worldwide, although not so much in EU or US. glyphosate is much safer than other agrochemicals, but Roundup contains more than just glyphosate. People have died after drinking Roundup.
- tptacek 9y agoHere's the current California Prop 65 list. It's... extensive. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65single01272017.pdf https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65sing... I don't think this means as much as the headline makes it sound like. In the State of California, alcoholic beverages are also carcinogens requiring warnings. California cognitive dissonance: the science suggesting carcinogenicity of acrylamide, which is present --- in significant amounts --- in most cooked food and especially roasted meat and potatoes, is far firmer than the science suggesting that glyphosate is a human carcinogen. It'll be awhile before California Prop 65's a bag of potatoes, though, won't it? but see below, where it turns out I'm wrong about this
- TACIXAT 9y agoI just bought a bag of chips (from Costco in Maryland) that has a known-in-the-state-of-California warning about acrylamide.
- tptacek 9y agoWow. I stand corrected.
- striking 9y ago"The settlement requires the potato chip producers to reduce acrylamide to 275 parts per billion in three years, a low enough level to avoid a Prop. 65 warning label. That amounts to a 20 percent reduction for Frito-Lay and an 87 percent reduction for Kettle Chips, Brown's office said. Little or no reduction will be needed for most Cape Cod chips, but one product, Cape Cod Robust Russets, will require a warning label, the attorney general said." from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lawsuit-over-potato-chip-ingredient-settled-3275149.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lawsuit-over-potato-ch... The acrylamide level of the potato increases as it browns. It appears the acrylamide level of these particular chips is therefore unavoidable.
- tptacek 9y ago
- X86BSD 9y agoYeah I have the most benign products, that carry the Commiefornia warning. I am sure water and oxygen are on their list to label. It's really out of hand.
- jjawssd 9y agoOxygen is extremely toxic to humans and the number one cause of aging. We need a warning on this.
- spraak 9y agoEven when I've been outside of California I've noticed the "known to the State of California to cause..." warnings. I wonder why
- Ajedi32 9y agoIt's because most products in the US are sold in multiple states, including California, and the logistics of ensuring your "known to cause cancer in California" warnings are only printed on the "California version" of those products just isn't worth the effort. Better to just have one version of your product that can be sold in any state.
- spraak 9y agoAha! Thanks for explaining.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- UtahDave 9y agoCalifornia thinks EVERYTHING is cancer causing. I took my kids to Disneyland last year and right after the security screen there was a Prop 65 sign saying (roughly) that "Disneyland contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer". How is that helpful at all?
- strictnein 9y agoIt's as helpful as the cookie notifications on all the European websites.
- kennydude 9y agoEU Cookie law was mostly to deter the use of tracking tools (and actually allows them for login etc) but people ignored it and just slapped banners on.
- ovi256 9y agoStupid real people creating unintended consequences for the well-meaning legislators. How's a legislator to regulate anything around here ?
- balfirevic 9y agoWhatever it was intended for, they succeeded in making the browsing experience worse and annoying millions of people daily.
- HillaryBriss 9y agoi live in California and i endorse your message. prop 65 warnings have become practically meaningless to me. those warnings are almost everywhere. the average Californian could not carry out their daily routine if they refused to enter any buildings that had Prop 65 warning signs.
- wccrawford 9y agoI have a picture of one of those signs near our hotel when we stayed there. My wife and I were very surprised to see it. It's so ridiculous.
- rudedogg 9y agoI switched from using RoundUp to a vinegar/salt/dish soap solution this summer and can't believe how well it works. It seems to be just as effective as RoundUp.
- luckydude 9y agoWhat are you putting it on? Does it kill everything or just the subset that you want? What's the mixture ratios? If it worked on scotch broom I'd be forever grateful. Thanks!
- rudedogg 9y agoIt definitely kills grass. I use it for both grass and weeds outside of the lawn. The recipe is from Pinterest of course but it's: 1 gallon white vinegar (the kind we bought is 5% acidity) 1 cup table salt 1 tbsp Dawn dish soap Mix and pour into a spray bottle. I'm not sure about scotch broom - reading says it's more effective on small weeds, but that it kills whatever it contacts. I think the salt is damaging to the soil, so don't spray it if you plan to grow something else. Here's a paper I found with some info: https://extension.umd.edu//sites/extension.umd.edu/files/_docs/programs/ipmnet/Vinegar-AnAlternativeToGlyphosate-UMD-Smith-Fiola-and-Gill.pdf https://extension.umd.edu//sites/extension.umd.edu/files/_do...
- jerf 9y ago"I think the salt is damaging to the soil, so don't spray it if you plan to grow something else." "Salt the Earth" is an established phrase in the English lexicon for a reason. The cancer-causing-ness of this mixture vs. Roundup may be in dispute, but this is certainly going to have a longer term effect than spraying Roundup, especially if you repeatedly apply it in the same place.
- rudedogg 9y agoThanks for the explanation and pointing that out. I wasn't aware until it was mentioned by you and another commenter.
- sabujp 9y agoI've already switched to vinegar, salt, and a pump sprayer from lowes, it's cheaper and i can buy gallons and pounds of it from costco
- bazzert 9y agobut probably more toxic than glyphosphate. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/toxicity-table4.png https://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/0...
- stinos 9y agoAnd more detrimental to soil life (though maybe that's exactly the point here)
- sabujp 9y agoi only use the soap + vinegar + salt on the driveway, and just the soap + vinegar on the "drought friendly" gravel backyard
- sabujp 9y agoI don't see acetic acid on your list, and as someone mentioned above, i'll take vinegar (salad dressing mainly) and take salt everyday, you can go drink the roundup.
- HillaryBriss 9y agointeresting. that chart describes caffeine as more toxic than glyphosate.
- 7sigma 9y agocaffeine is about thirty times more toxic than glyphosate. According to wikipedia: "The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass (75–100 cups of coffee for a 70 kilogram adult)" For glyphosate: "The acute oral LD50 in the rat is 5,600 mg/kg. Other oral LD50 values for glyphosate are 1,538 to greater than 10,000 mg/kg for mice, rabbits mg/kg, and goats" http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-gly...
- luckydude 9y agoLast time roundup came up here I made the claim that it killed my dad (healthy guy, came from a healthy long lived family, he died about 15-20 years sooner than his relatives from the cancer that is associated with roundup, you can google "non-hodgkin's lymphoma roundup" and you'll see a zillion lawyers wanting to talk to you about it). Yet hackernews people shouted me down saying that it wasn't possible. I'm not an oncologist, I have no idea who is right, it was my Dad who told me he was convinced it was roundup, so what do I know? But it is weird that now the state of California sees it as carcinogen, the lawyers are salivating over it (not that they are oncologists either but they tend not to get excited unless they believe they will win), yet I'm sure people are going to reply that roundup is fine. I don't know what to believe. It sure _seems_ like there is some bad juju in roundup, there shouldn't be this much fuss if it is just a conspiracy theory. But who are the people here that keep defending it? It would be oh-so-nice if someone who was clearly objective and an expert could lay it out. Does it cause cancer? How much do you have to be exposed to to get cancer? Do you have to eat it? Or does just getting it on your skin or breathing the fumes do it?
- stinos 9y agoFrom what I understand: we just don't know for sure. There is just no conclusive evidence saying 'humans exposed to this amount will have a higher risk at developing cancer'. That doesn't mean it's impossible, nor does it mean we will never know. That is probably what HN was trying to tell you (well, I hope it was, no other conclusions seem justified at this point - again, as far as I know from when I last read up on it a couple of months ago).
- luckydude 9y agoMy understanding is that the EU is, or has already, going to label roundup as cancer causing. And California is now doing that. So what are they basing that ban on? If there is no evidence why would they do that? Has the EU or California made a practice of labeling stuff as cancer causing without any evidence? That seems pretty weird if that's true. Thanks for the tone of your answer, BTW.
- JauntTrooper 9y agoI really hate Prop 65. Those warnings appear everywhere without a strong scientific basis backing their claims, so not only does everyone ignore the warnings, it drowns out the real important ones. Those cavalier exaggerations erode public trust.
- HillaryBriss 9y agoyes. it's the boy who cried wolf. one building may have some asbestos fibers in the interior of its walls, used as, say pipe insulation many decades ago. the asbestos is contained and does not enter the air. another building, say, an auto body repair shop, may have organic solvent vapors floating around at a relatively high concentration on a daily basis. both have the prop 65 warning. which one should i prefer to work in? (the real answer is i don't know and i don't care because, like most Californians, i don't pay any attention to those signs. i don't even know what they mean. it's all noise to me. i think i'll have two bags of potato chips on my lunch break today.)
- pmarreck 9y agoLast time I looked, there was no solid evidence against glyphosate. Has the situation changed? Or is California reacting off of hype?
- tptacek 9y agoFrom what I can tell, everything that's been published since the IARC publication has been in the direction of glyphosate not being carcinogenic. As well: the World Health Organization walked IARC's claim back in a subsequent publication.
- athenot 9y agoI switched from glyphosate to a mix of diquat dibromide, fluazifop-p-butyl and dicamba (sold under the brand of Spectracide) but I don't know if that's any better.
- notadoc 9y agoAvoiding the various herbicides and pesticides is the reason everyone I know who eats organic and non-GMO food does so. As always you should do your own research, draw your own conclusions. Be aware there is a shocking amount of astroturfing on this topic.
- bazzert 9y agocould be said about your side as well ... almost all anti gmo/glyphosphate arguments can be traced back to sources with a financial interest in spreading fear about our food supply.
- notadoc 9y agoI am sharing why the people I know who eat organic food do so.
- bazzert 9y agounderstood, I was responding to your "astroturfing" comment. The shill card gets played pretty frequently in these discussions.
- notadoc 9y agoThe astroturfing comment is broad about nearly any controversial information online, it's why people must be skeptical, critical, and discerning. It's just an annoying reality of the internet, I suppose.
- dang 9y agoPeople are much too quick to conclude that they're observing astroturfing when what they're really observing is the simple fact that not everyone agrees with them. Because of this, we have two problems: real astroturfing (when it's actually going on), and imaginary astroturfing (which people project onto their opponents in arguments). Both are destructive, but since the imaginary variant is more common, it's more destructive. It poisons discussion. Therefore we ask HN commenters not to post insinuations about astroturfing unless they have specific evidence, and to remember that somebody merely stating an opposing view does not count as evidence. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20astroturfing%20two%20problems https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- notadoc 9y ago(nevermind)
- tptacek 9y agoDon't comment like that here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20astroturf&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20astroturf&sort=b...
- notadoc 9y agoIt was mostly a joke, but I get your point and it's fair enough. Here is some interesting reading instead: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25801782/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25801782/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=glyphosate+cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=glyphosate+cancer http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/04/us/lawn-herbicide-called-cancer-risk-for-dogs.html http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/04/us/lawn-herbicide-called-c... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222006 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222006 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=2%2C4-D+cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=2%2C4-D+cancer
- tptacek 9y agoIt's not a joke. It's like the 4th comment you've posted on this thread claiming that people who disagree with you must be paid shills. As for your links: the ones actually about glyphosate are all based on IARC's assessment, which the WHO was later forced to walk back (see upthread). The remainder are about herbicides that aren't glyphosate. Nobody is arguing that all herbicides are safe. The discussion is about whether glyphosate is a human carcinogen. The evidence suggests: probably not.
- notadoc 9y ago(nevermind)
- yellowapple 9y agoThe "you may be entitled to compensation" ads are already out in full force.