4 ms·

If only it wasn't a likely human carcinogen (https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/ https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre

• dekhn 7y ago
  Speaking as a biologist, the IARC made a huge bungle here deciding policy on incredibly limited data.
  • aldoushuxley001 7y ago
    I'm also a biologist and I believe IARC was right based upon the available evidence.
    • dekhn 7y ago
      based on the sprague-dewaley "cancer rats" experiments? Those aren't sufficient evidence. Why they are called "cancer rats": https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768...
      • aldoushuxley001 7y ago
        There were 269 cited studies, they reviewed literally all the relevant literature on glyphosate in the public domain. So your attempt to dismiss IARC's work seems to be less motivated by the evidence and likely more motivated by ideology.
        • sampo 7y ago
          Here is a list of agriculture, chemicals and food safety agencies that have published reports or statements that they don't consider glyphosate a cancer risk: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), New Zealand EPA, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), Korean Rural Development Administration (RDA), Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSC), World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in a joint statement, Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (BLV/OSAV), French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES). https://thoughtscapism.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/glyphosate_-scientific-consensus-vs-the-french-media-1.png https://thoughtscapism.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/glyphosat... Here is a list of agencies that have published reports that they do consider glyphosate a cancer risk: IARC
        • zirror 7y ago
          If you care for an in-depth back and forth between the IARC and the ESFA, I can recommend this[1] collection of letters between the head of the ESFA and the head of the IARC at the time. If you are interested in the particular scientific criticisms of the IARC Monograph by the ESFA you can read this amazing letter[2], which is also in the collection mentioned above. It's in the annex of that document. It's a very good read. ------ [1]: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/160113 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/160113 [2]: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EFSA_response_Prof_Portier.pdf http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EFSA_response_...
          • aldoushuxley001 7y ago
            Great exchange, thanks for the link. Doesn't necessarily shine the best light on ESFA eh? Any idea if that bilateral meeting between IARC and ESFA ever happened? Doesn't look like they put up the minutes like they suggested they would, which leads me to believe it never happened. Maybe IARC felt like ESFA never did the corrections requested and the meeting fell through. Either way, that exchange is a beautiful illustration of scientists respectfully getting frosty with eachother.
  • billbrown 7y ago
    Which IARC decision? The rough draft or the final version?[1] Or the 2016 one that effectively reversed the 2015 conclusion?[2] [1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc... [2] https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/who-clarifies-glyphosate-risks/1010208.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/who-clarifies-glyphosate...
• gruez 7y ago
  Also in that list: fryer emissions, red meat, coffee, and 65+ °C beverages.
• sampo 7y ago
  Out of the hundreds and hundreds substances IARC has studied, they have placed only one in their group 4: "probably not carcinogenic to humans". Caprolactam. https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/List_of_Classifications.pdf https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/List_o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinoge... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinog... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinog... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_3_carcinogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_3_carcinoge... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprolactam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprolactam
• pkaye 7y ago
  They also classify "coffee, mate, and very hot beverages (drinking)" under the same category.
  • TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Also in the same category: "Hairdresser or barber (occupational exposure as a)", "Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption".
• mpalczewski 7y ago
  https://twitter.com/i/status/1147775558195011585 https://twitter.com/i/status/1147775558195011585