5 ms·

This is (part of) what the jury heard: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to hum

This is (part of) what the jury heard: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015. After that, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (part of the CDC) announced a review of the herbicide, and the plaintiffs alleged that Monsanto conspired to conceal the risks by influencing or delaying that review. For example, a Monsanto scientist contacted a former EPA toxicologist: “We’re trying to do everything we can to keep from having a domestic IARC occur with this group. May need your help” And Monstanto's liason to the EPA wrote to another Monsanto toxicologist: “[EPA division director Jesudoss “Jess” Rowland] told me no coordination [between the EPA and the ATSDR] is going on and he wanted to establish some saying ‘If I can kill this I should get a medal’. However, don’t get your hopes up, I doubt EPA and Jess can kill this." https://www.courthousenews.com/roundup-cancer-trial-emails-show-monsanto-cozy-with-feds/ https://www.courthousenews.com/roundup-cancer-trial-emails-s...

steve19 8y ago
Radio waves (every frequency) are classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the same organisation. (edit: its possibly not probably thanks to commenter below) This has lead to anti vaxxer types believing smart electricity meters are out to kill them (no idea why low powered smart meters are the devil over other emmiting devices). If you listen to International Agency for Research on Cancer every electronic device in your home, could kill you with cancer.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Well that’s why the defense cross examines the plaintiffs experts and calls their own expert witnesses. It probably sounded a lot worse when the roundup expert is getting crossed and has to admit to the amount they are getting paid to testify for roundup.
- leereeves 8y ago
  No, the IARC classified radio waves as possibly carcinogenic, not probably. Furthermore, they said the evidence was "limited" for glioma caused by cell phone use (and thus the associated frequencies) and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers and other exposures. It was a very measured statement that's been misrepresented. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
  - steve19 8y ago
    And even that is outrageous. "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)" Its based on one small discredited study that asked people WITH cancer to estimate their lifetime usage of mobile phones. According to that study we should have many times more brain cancers than we do have (rates have remained static since phones were introduced). And yet because of that study they make a blanket statement about all RF. So a 1 milliwatt 20 hz transmitter gets the same classification as a 10 terrahert 500w transmitter and the magnetic field around a cable carrying AC. Its insane fear mongering from people paid to fear monger, not do rational science. Edit: all of a sudden my posts suddenly start getting loads of down votes. Really strange. Here is the famous 1 Million women study that was completed after the IARC published their infamous press release: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 "In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers."
    - leereeves 8y ago
      No, it was based on two studies for glioma, including "the largest investigation so far of mobile phone use and brain tumours" with 2500 cases and 2500 controls, and those two studies plus a third for acoustic neuroma. Still, as you say, the evidence was limited, which is exactly what the IARC said. And they did not make a blanket statement for RF. They specifically and very clearly said the possible risk was cell phone use. http://noxtak.com/documents/Carcinogenicity_of_radiofrequency.pdf http://noxtak.com/documents/Carcinogenicity_of_radiofrequenc...
      - steve19 8y ago
        It explicitly, in the first line, states it covers all RF electromagnetic radiation. Regardless of why they decided RF was bad (mobile phone) they decided it was all bad. "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)" The largest study since then has been 1 million woman. "In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200
- megy 8y ago
  And this would make a difference if motorola were trying to hide any reports, and influence investigators.
  - thereisnospork 8y ago
    Can you really fault Motorola for trying to quash bogus science and do PR which says that their product, which doesn't cause cancer, doesn't cause cancer? Opps I mean Monsanto.
pnw_hazor 8y ago
Science? "Reuters found 10 significant changes that were made between the draft chapter on animal studies and the published version of IARC’s glyphosate assessment. In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumours was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one. Reuters was unable to determine who made the changes." https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- probably_wrong 8y ago
  And Monsanto has also been accused of ghostwriting papers supporting its position. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-...
  - klmr 8y ago
    It’s worth noting that these reviews were written in response to the ethically questionable and misleading IARC review. They did not impact the prevailing expert opinion, formed before the IARC review, that Roundup is generally safe and that there’s no systematic evidence suggesting its carcinogenicity.
  - lordlimecat 8y ago
    European Agri agencies as well as UN agencies say glyphosate is safe. Are we to assume a global conspiracy here, with Monsanto playing the part of the Bond villain?
sdinsn 8y ago
> The International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015. Along with red meat and everything that is roasted (like coffee).
- klmr 8y ago
  Not sure why you’re getting downvoted but you did make a mistake: Red meat and coffee are classified as definitely carcinogenic to humans by IARC.
  - vixen99 8y ago
    "Coffee should no longer be classified as a carcinogen to humans, according to World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer." (2016) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(16)30239-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2... I haven't read it but assume someone has quoted the substance of this report correctly.
    - klmr 8y ago
      Indeed, you’re completely right, and I should have known (can’t edit the comment any more). FYI, the IARC publishes a comprehensive list of their classifications: https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications-volumes/ https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications-volumes/ That said, they still classify lots of things we regularly interact with as carcinogenic, or likely carcinogenic. And I’m not even disputing these classifications but they show that such classifications need to be understood in context.
  - sdinsn 8y ago
    To be more clear: Red meat is classified as 2A (probably carcinogenic) and Processed meat is classified as 1 (definitely carcinogenic) Glyphosate is 2A

steve19 8y ago

Radio waves (every frequency) are classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the same organisation. (edit: its possibly not probably thanks to commenter below) This has lead to anti vaxxer types believing smart electricity meters are out to kill them (no idea why low powered smart meters are the devil over other emmiting devices). If you listen to International Agency for Research on Cancer every electronic device in your home, could kill you with cancer.

will_brown 8y ago
Well that’s why the defense cross examines the plaintiffs experts and calls their own expert witnesses. It probably sounded a lot worse when the roundup expert is getting crossed and has to admit to the amount they are getting paid to testify for roundup.
leereeves 8y ago
No, the IARC classified radio waves as possibly carcinogenic, not probably. Furthermore, they said the evidence was "limited" for glioma caused by cell phone use (and thus the associated frequencies) and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers and other exposures. It was a very measured statement that's been misrepresented. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
- steve19 8y ago
  And even that is outrageous. "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)" Its based on one small discredited study that asked people WITH cancer to estimate their lifetime usage of mobile phones. According to that study we should have many times more brain cancers than we do have (rates have remained static since phones were introduced). And yet because of that study they make a blanket statement about all RF. So a 1 milliwatt 20 hz transmitter gets the same classification as a 10 terrahert 500w transmitter and the magnetic field around a cable carrying AC. Its insane fear mongering from people paid to fear monger, not do rational science. Edit: all of a sudden my posts suddenly start getting loads of down votes. Really strange. Here is the famous 1 Million women study that was completed after the IARC published their infamous press release: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 "In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers."
  - leereeves 8y ago
    No, it was based on two studies for glioma, including "the largest investigation so far of mobile phone use and brain tumours" with 2500 cases and 2500 controls, and those two studies plus a third for acoustic neuroma. Still, as you say, the evidence was limited, which is exactly what the IARC said. And they did not make a blanket statement for RF. They specifically and very clearly said the possible risk was cell phone use. http://noxtak.com/documents/Carcinogenicity_of_radiofrequency.pdf http://noxtak.com/documents/Carcinogenicity_of_radiofrequenc...
    - steve19 8y ago
      It explicitly, in the first line, states it covers all RF electromagnetic radiation. Regardless of why they decided RF was bad (mobile phone) they decided it was all bad. "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)" The largest study since then has been 1 million woman. "In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200
megy 8y ago
And this would make a difference if motorola were trying to hide any reports, and influence investigators.
- thereisnospork 8y ago
  Can you really fault Motorola for trying to quash bogus science and do PR which says that their product, which doesn't cause cancer, doesn't cause cancer? Opps I mean Monsanto.

pnw_hazor 8y ago

Science? "Reuters found 10 significant changes that were made between the draft chapter on animal studies and the published version of IARC’s glyphosate assessment. In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumours was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one. Reuters was unable to determine who made the changes." https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
probably_wrong 8y ago
And Monsanto has also been accused of ghostwriting papers supporting its position. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-...
- klmr 8y ago
  It’s worth noting that these reviews were written in response to the ethically questionable and misleading IARC review. They did not impact the prevailing expert opinion, formed before the IARC review, that Roundup is generally safe and that there’s no systematic evidence suggesting its carcinogenicity.
- lordlimecat 8y ago
  European Agri agencies as well as UN agencies say glyphosate is safe. Are we to assume a global conspiracy here, with Monsanto playing the part of the Bond villain?

sdinsn 8y ago

> The International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015. Along with red meat and everything that is roasted (like coffee).

klmr 8y ago
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted but you did make a mistake: Red meat and coffee are classified as definitely carcinogenic to humans by IARC.
- vixen99 8y ago
  "Coffee should no longer be classified as a carcinogen to humans, according to World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer." (2016) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(16)30239-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2... I haven't read it but assume someone has quoted the substance of this report correctly.
  - klmr 8y ago
    Indeed, you’re completely right, and I should have known (can’t edit the comment any more). FYI, the IARC publishes a comprehensive list of their classifications: https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications-volumes/ https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications-volumes/ That said, they still classify lots of things we regularly interact with as carcinogenic, or likely carcinogenic. And I’m not even disputing these classifications but they show that such classifications need to be understood in context.
- sdinsn 8y ago
  To be more clear: Red meat is classified as 2A (probably carcinogenic) and Processed meat is classified as 1 (definitely carcinogenic) Glyphosate is 2A