3 ms·

Well, I'm certainly not an expert on this, but my understanding was that WHO had identified it as probably a carcinogen. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads

by sauwan 7y ago

Well, I'm certainly not an expert on this, but my understanding was that WHO had identified it as probably a carcinogen. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolume112-1.pdf https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolu... Other studies show the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357421... Now, admittedly, I don't have a strong background to stand on here, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise. And I would agree with the overall thrust of Impossible's claims here that this is likely far too low a level to be worried about. But I'm not sure I buy it that there are no connections, particularly for high levels that are breathed in during farming.

tptacek 7y ago
My understanding --- this is from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong --- is that IARC published a report classifying glyphosate as a 2A carcinogen (joining a long list of common substances that occur in food both naturally and as a result of processing), but that the broader WHO did not back this assessment up. Reuters also ran a story based on an earlier draft of the IARC report showing that evidence against the carcinogenicity of glyphosate had been excised from the final report. Importantly, the IARC report was also a survey of previous studies of glyphosate, and the organizations that conducted those studies, like the Agricultural Health Study, disagreed with IARC. My impression --- again, corrections welcome --- is that glyphosate has been intensively studied, both epidemiologically and in lab studies, and that none of those studies has conclusively linked glyphosate to cancer, even in rodent models, and even at unrealistically high doses. To your original question: again, it's also important to remember that glyphosate-based pesticides aren't, like, pure aqueous solutions of glyphosate; there's lots of other stuff in there, as there are in all chemical herbicides, and if there's a lymphoma link to Roundup, who knows what the actual causative agent is? The evidence points away from glyphosate being it.
- sauwan 7y ago
  Ok, that's fair. My original question was legitimately not a rhetorical question (although that appears to be how it's been taken). I assume Monsonto has some of the best legal representation out there, so I assumed if they couldn't defend it, the case must be fairly compelling. I'll put my skeptical hat back on. Appreciate the feedback.
- sridca 7y ago
  No one cares about the truth. XYZ is identified as a potential carcinogen? It is mostly used to attack a dietary group involving XYZ than to actually cure cancer. You see this liberally happening with red meat, despite questionable evidence towards it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519 It is all rather amusing, actually.

by sauwan 7y ago

tptacek 7y ago

My understanding --- this is from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong --- is that IARC published a report classifying glyphosate as a 2A carcinogen (joining a long list of common substances that occur in food both naturally and as a result of processing), but that the broader WHO did not back this assessment up. Reuters also ran a story based on an earlier draft of the IARC report showing that evidence against the carcinogenicity of glyphosate had been excised from the final report. Importantly, the IARC report was also a survey of previous studies of glyphosate, and the organizations that conducted those studies, like the Agricultural Health Study, disagreed with IARC. My impression --- again, corrections welcome --- is that glyphosate has been intensively studied, both epidemiologically and in lab studies, and that none of those studies has conclusively linked glyphosate to cancer, even in rodent models, and even at unrealistically high doses. To your original question: again, it's also important to remember that glyphosate-based pesticides aren't, like, pure aqueous solutions of glyphosate; there's lots of other stuff in there, as there are in all chemical herbicides, and if there's a lymphoma link to Roundup, who knows what the actual causative agent is? The evidence points away from glyphosate being it.

sauwan 7y ago
Ok, that's fair. My original question was legitimately not a rhetorical question (although that appears to be how it's been taken). I assume Monsonto has some of the best legal representation out there, so I assumed if they couldn't defend it, the case must be fairly compelling. I'll put my skeptical hat back on. Appreciate the feedback.
sridca 7y ago
No one cares about the truth. XYZ is identified as a potential carcinogen? It is mostly used to attack a dietary group involving XYZ than to actually cure cancer. You see this liberally happening with red meat, despite questionable evidence towards it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519 It is all rather amusing, actually.