7 ms·

Last 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

Last 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 ago
From 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 ago
  My 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.
  - stinos 9y ago
    So what are they basing that ban on? I assume things like this: Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.” From http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20..., thanks to https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18329/does-roundup-harm-mammals https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18329/does-roun...
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > My understanding is that the EU is, or has already, going to label roundup as cancer causing. Well, the EU commission has to decide but the ECHA study concluded that it is not carcinogen https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carc...
- kbenson 9y ago
  > That is probably what HN was trying to tell you (well, I hope it was IIRC, the push back was against taking what his dad assumed was the cause as gospel without actual evidence. It's tricky, you want to respect the person that was ill knew something about what was going on, and respect their memory after they are gone, but there's really no reason we should provide them more factual relevance than previously. Human beings are often not rational creatures, and I see no reason to believe that the stress of illness and possible impending death would make them more rational in general (even if it may make certain individuals more or less rational).
  - pc86 9y ago
    > you want to respect the person that was ill knew something about what was going on > and respect their memory after they are gone Dead people can be wrong. That's totally okay - it doesn't tarnish their memory in the slightest. And just because you're the one that's ill doesn't mean you suddenly have greater medical insight or training. Me getting cancer doesn't give me the slightest idea what caused it.
chapium 9y ago
You were probably shouted down because your argument is bad. First, you cite anecdotal evidence of one case. Next you claim to not be an expert in oncology, but you somehow have more knowledge on the subject than them. There may indeed be a link, but you are supporting your case poorly. Condolences for your father.
- luckydude 9y ago
  I'm not trying to make an argument, I was just passing on a single data point. I made it pretty clear that I don't know and it's not my field. I don't know how you get from what I said to "somehow I have more knowledge than oncologists". If I said that then I'm 100% wrong. My dad was a physicist and when he got cancer he started looking around to try and figure out why. He found that the only thing that made sense to him was roundup, I think he just went through all the stuff he had been exposed to in his life and that was the only thing that had any possibility of giving him cancer. Maybe that's a bad argument but he was pretty baffled about it until he found roundup. There was literally no cancer in his family and his relatives tended to live well into their 90's. He was 75 and very fit, I went canoing with him 2 weeks before he died. He had a lot of roundup exposure because he was very active in wetlands preservation and they fought off invasive species with roundup. At the time, there was very little noise about roundup being possibly cancer causing. Again, that's just background, I'm not trying to make an argument that it is or is not cancer causing, I don't know. What I am trying to say is that he thought that was the cause, California seems to think there is something there, the EU seems to think there is something there, and the lawyers seem to think there is something there. That's a lot of people, in my opinion too many people, for it to be a conspiracy. So it's fine if people want to say my dad's case is not evidence or useful or whatever. That's really not the point. The point is there is enough smoke there to think there is a fire and I don't get why people would argue about my smoke being nonsense; that seems to miss the bigger picture.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
cronjobber 9y ago
> But who are the people here that keep defending it? In recent times, people have become afraid of being perceived as anti-science. See it all the time.
- wccrawford 9y ago
  Worse, people believe in the results of anything labeled "science" blindly, without considering whether it's actually true or what the confidence level of the scientists is in their own result. For example, evolution. I know someone who believes in it so strongly that you can't suggest that it's still just a theory, and that it's actually possible that it's incorrect. Unlikely, sure, but possible. He gets irate and claims it as a fact.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > For example, evolution. I know someone who believes in it so strongly that you can't suggest that it's still just a theory, and that it's actually possible that it's incorrect. It is a theory, but theory in the scientific context doesn't mean what you think it means. By the way, evolution is a fact.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Corbet does a great video on the Weaponization of Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yecefLsE44U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yecefLsE44U
pmarreck 9y ago
There is no solid evidence of a connection. Go ahead and Google it yourself. The only "evidence" against it is a bunch of biased sites who love to pooh-pooh "toxins" and "unnaturality"
tptacek 9y ago
There's very little epidemiological evidence to suggest glyphosate is a human carcinogen. Millions of people are exposed to it, some in significant amounts on work sites. If there's any correlation between heavy occupational exposure to glyphosate and human cancer, it's very weak. Similarly: there's not a lot of first-principles logic to carcinogenicity of glyphosate. It's active in a metabolic pathway that animals don't have. Finally, there's a lot of fuzz around glyphosate that would lead us to be skeptical of its danger. In particular: glyphosate is most closely associated with genetic modification and Monsanto (part of the appeal of glyphosate is that you can genetically engineer plants that resist it). But glyphosate itself is not a product of genetic engineering! It's not impossible that glyphosate is a human carcinogen! But it's not impossible that a lot of things are carcinogens. To be intellectually consistent about the precautionary response to glyphosate, you're going to have to get rid of a whole lot of other features of modern life as well. Acrylamide, which is produced in basically all human dry-heat cooking, is a known human carcinogen. The science behind the risks of acrylamide is, relative to that surrounding glyphosate, very solid. But we're never going to "ban" acrylamide, or, realistically, do anything to mitigate our exposure to it. In that light, it seems reasonable to push back on public policy interventions for a useful chemical that has, based on current evidence, much less risk than "almost all cooked food".
- andreasgonewild 9y ago
  The metabolic pathway-propaganda doesn't tell half the truth; there are plenty of living organisms and organs within the human body that are badly affected by Glyphosate; enough to make you wonder if that wasn't part of the plan all along. Nothing good ever came out of Monsanto, it's all harmful crap; it's mind-boggling that these psychos are allowed to continue given their track record.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Cornell has done studies where they've fed dogs and rats huge amounts of glyphosate over long periods of time and were unable to detect any cellular changes. Due respect, but when you're at the point where you can't give rats cancer with long-term high dosing, the bar for establishing carcinogenicity from first-principles reasoning is very, very high.

stinos 9y ago

From 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 ago
My 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.
- stinos 9y ago
  So what are they basing that ban on? I assume things like this: Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.” From http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20..., thanks to https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18329/does-roundup-harm-mammals https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18329/does-roun...
- Oletros 9y ago
  > My understanding is that the EU is, or has already, going to label roundup as cancer causing. Well, the EU commission has to decide but the ECHA study concluded that it is not carcinogen https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carc...
kbenson 9y ago
> That is probably what HN was trying to tell you (well, I hope it was IIRC, the push back was against taking what his dad assumed was the cause as gospel without actual evidence. It's tricky, you want to respect the person that was ill knew something about what was going on, and respect their memory after they are gone, but there's really no reason we should provide them more factual relevance than previously. Human beings are often not rational creatures, and I see no reason to believe that the stress of illness and possible impending death would make them more rational in general (even if it may make certain individuals more or less rational).
- pc86 9y ago
  > you want to respect the person that was ill knew something about what was going on > and respect their memory after they are gone Dead people can be wrong. That's totally okay - it doesn't tarnish their memory in the slightest. And just because you're the one that's ill doesn't mean you suddenly have greater medical insight or training. Me getting cancer doesn't give me the slightest idea what caused it.

chapium 9y ago

You were probably shouted down because your argument is bad. First, you cite anecdotal evidence of one case. Next you claim to not be an expert in oncology, but you somehow have more knowledge on the subject than them. There may indeed be a link, but you are supporting your case poorly. Condolences for your father.

luckydude 9y ago
I'm not trying to make an argument, I was just passing on a single data point. I made it pretty clear that I don't know and it's not my field. I don't know how you get from what I said to "somehow I have more knowledge than oncologists". If I said that then I'm 100% wrong. My dad was a physicist and when he got cancer he started looking around to try and figure out why. He found that the only thing that made sense to him was roundup, I think he just went through all the stuff he had been exposed to in his life and that was the only thing that had any possibility of giving him cancer. Maybe that's a bad argument but he was pretty baffled about it until he found roundup. There was literally no cancer in his family and his relatives tended to live well into their 90's. He was 75 and very fit, I went canoing with him 2 weeks before he died. He had a lot of roundup exposure because he was very active in wetlands preservation and they fought off invasive species with roundup. At the time, there was very little noise about roundup being possibly cancer causing. Again, that's just background, I'm not trying to make an argument that it is or is not cancer causing, I don't know. What I am trying to say is that he thought that was the cause, California seems to think there is something there, the EU seems to think there is something there, and the lawyers seem to think there is something there. That's a lot of people, in my opinion too many people, for it to be a conspiracy. So it's fine if people want to say my dad's case is not evidence or useful or whatever. That's really not the point. The point is there is enough smoke there to think there is a fire and I don't get why people would argue about my smoke being nonsense; that seems to miss the bigger picture.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

cronjobber 9y ago

> But who are the people here that keep defending it? In recent times, people have become afraid of being perceived as anti-science. See it all the time.

wccrawford 9y ago
Worse, people believe in the results of anything labeled "science" blindly, without considering whether it's actually true or what the confidence level of the scientists is in their own result. For example, evolution. I know someone who believes in it so strongly that you can't suggest that it's still just a theory, and that it's actually possible that it's incorrect. Unlikely, sure, but possible. He gets irate and claims it as a fact.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > For example, evolution. I know someone who believes in it so strongly that you can't suggest that it's still just a theory, and that it's actually possible that it's incorrect. It is a theory, but theory in the scientific context doesn't mean what you think it means. By the way, evolution is a fact.
djsumdog 9y ago
Corbet does a great video on the Weaponization of Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yecefLsE44U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yecefLsE44U

pmarreck 9y ago

There is no solid evidence of a connection. Go ahead and Google it yourself. The only "evidence" against it is a bunch of biased sites who love to pooh-pooh "toxins" and "unnaturality"

tptacek 9y ago

There's very little epidemiological evidence to suggest glyphosate is a human carcinogen. Millions of people are exposed to it, some in significant amounts on work sites. If there's any correlation between heavy occupational exposure to glyphosate and human cancer, it's very weak. Similarly: there's not a lot of first-principles logic to carcinogenicity of glyphosate. It's active in a metabolic pathway that animals don't have. Finally, there's a lot of fuzz around glyphosate that would lead us to be skeptical of its danger. In particular: glyphosate is most closely associated with genetic modification and Monsanto (part of the appeal of glyphosate is that you can genetically engineer plants that resist it). But glyphosate itself is not a product of genetic engineering! It's not impossible that glyphosate is a human carcinogen! But it's not impossible that a lot of things are carcinogens. To be intellectually consistent about the precautionary response to glyphosate, you're going to have to get rid of a whole lot of other features of modern life as well. Acrylamide, which is produced in basically all human dry-heat cooking, is a known human carcinogen. The science behind the risks of acrylamide is, relative to that surrounding glyphosate, very solid. But we're never going to "ban" acrylamide, or, realistically, do anything to mitigate our exposure to it. In that light, it seems reasonable to push back on public policy interventions for a useful chemical that has, based on current evidence, much less risk than "almost all cooked food".

andreasgonewild 9y ago
The metabolic pathway-propaganda doesn't tell half the truth; there are plenty of living organisms and organs within the human body that are badly affected by Glyphosate; enough to make you wonder if that wasn't part of the plan all along. Nothing good ever came out of Monsanto, it's all harmful crap; it's mind-boggling that these psychos are allowed to continue given their track record.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Cornell has done studies where they've fed dogs and rats huge amounts of glyphosate over long periods of time and were unable to detect any cellular changes. Due respect, but when you're at the point where you can't give rats cancer with long-term high dosing, the bar for establishing carcinogenicity from first-principles reasoning is very, very high.