3 ms·

I would be interested in reading Cornell's study, because it seem to contradict a World Health Organization study that marks glyphosate as probably carcinogenic

by pera 9y ago

I would be interested in reading Cornell's study, because it seem to contradict a World Health Organization study that marks glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans (meaning that there is "sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals").

tptacek 9y ago
I'm wrong, it was the EPA, and Cornell just cited them (thanks for calling me on this!): https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.p... The WHO ultimately walked back IARC's glyphosate assessment: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y71HR http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUS...
- pera 9y ago
  Thanks for the links. It seems to me that the animal studies made by the EPA returned different results than the one done by the IARC. Citing the article from Reuters: > "IARC reviews published studies to identify potential cancer hazards," the WHO said. "It does not estimate the level of risk to the population associated with exposure to the hazard." I honestly don't know what conclusion, if any, should I have from this.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    You keep referring to animal studies conducted by IARC. What studies are you talking about? The one that got all the press, published in The Lancet, was a meta-study, covering many herbicides, and the conclusion it true about glyphosate's human cancer risk was based on other studies that also covered many herbicides and showed comparatively weak correlations for glyphosate. The lymphoma study the IARC report actually footnotes covers something like 30 different chemicals, and equivocates on glyphosate.
    - pera 9y ago
      I was not aware that the IARC evaluation was a meta-analysis (my fault, as I just read the results from this monograph: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVol...), but yes I was referring to the one published in The Lancet.

by pera 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

I'm wrong, it was the EPA, and Cornell just cited them (thanks for calling me on this!): https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.p... The WHO ultimately walked back IARC's glyphosate assessment: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y71HR http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUS...

pera 9y ago
Thanks for the links. It seems to me that the animal studies made by the EPA returned different results than the one done by the IARC. Citing the article from Reuters: > "IARC reviews published studies to identify potential cancer hazards," the WHO said. "It does not estimate the level of risk to the population associated with exposure to the hazard." I honestly don't know what conclusion, if any, should I have from this.
- tptacek 9y ago
  You keep referring to animal studies conducted by IARC. What studies are you talking about? The one that got all the press, published in The Lancet, was a meta-study, covering many herbicides, and the conclusion it true about glyphosate's human cancer risk was based on other studies that also covered many herbicides and showed comparatively weak correlations for glyphosate. The lymphoma study the IARC report actually footnotes covers something like 30 different chemicals, and equivocates on glyphosate.
  - pera 9y ago
    I was not aware that the IARC evaluation was a meta-analysis (my fault, as I just read the results from this monograph: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVol...), but yes I was referring to the one published in The Lancet.