8 ms·

In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

115 points by tsaprailis 7y ago

wizzwizz4 7y ago
Re-analysing the data, it's conceivable that they genuinely found a link, and that the papers' original authors were fudging the stats. But I don't know how to find out whether this is true.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Many of the studies were likely funded by Monsanto, so it's predictable that they would be biased. So doing independent analysis would be wise. But then, it's also possible that some of the WHO staff or consultants were biased. Someone would need to look at the original studies and work done for the WHO report. That'd be a lot of work. And it'd be hard to find anyone that both sides would trust.
  - hhas01 7y ago
    “But then, it's also possible that some of the WHO staff or consultants were biased.” Indeed. Which it is why declaring COIs is so important. e.g. From a followup piece on Forbes (emphasis mine): https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10/23/iarcs-glyphosate-gate-scandal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10/23/iarcs-... “Portier, an American statistician who worked for the federal government for over thirty years, was the special advisor to the IARC panel that issued the report declaring glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic.” The transcripts show that during the same week in March 2015 in which IARC published its glyphosate opinion, Portier signed a lucrative contract to act as a litigation consultant for two law firms that were preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of glyphosate cancer victims. His contract contained a confidentiality clause barring Portier from disclosing his employment to other parties.” It is easy to view these Glyphosate wars as tiny heroic Davids battling a vast malicious Goliath, and huge multinationals certainly can get up to all sorts of dubious stuff—but so can the “little guys”. And we have been here before: just look at Andrew Wakefield, found balls deep in lawyer money and rival patents, and still causing serious harm (e.g. 79 dead in Samoa) a decade after being busted for the mendacious money-grabbing little shit he really was. As for the WHO, while it has done a great amount of very good work over the last 70 years, it is a human institution like any other and thus not immune to errors and corruption. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/who-promotes-unscientific-tcm/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/who-promotes-unscientific-t...
- dmix 7y ago
  It’s not a paper of original research but a meta analysis of various other scientist’s research which they selectively edited out the papers and science that didn’t support the agenda they had pre-determined. This was the description of the report that was originally given: >> A Working Group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on 3-10 March 2015 to review the available published scientific evidence and evaluate the carcinogenicity of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: diazinon, glyphosate, malathion, parathion, and tetrachlorvinphos. https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/ https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly... The article said they added their own statistical analysis that wasn’t supported by the data they originally included: > In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC.
  - wizzwizz4 7y ago
    It wasn't supported by the conclusions they originally included. That doesn't mean the data didn't support it (although that might also be true – I don't know).
  - dzhiurgis 7y ago
    PSA: IARC haven’t found a single thing thats is definitely not carcinogenic and lists shit like radio waves or tumble driers as possibly carcinogenic. IARC are bunch of lunatics.
    - wang_li 7y ago
      It's a different kind of regulatory capture. Same thing has happened to the EPA.
    - sampo 7y ago
      Caprolactam used to be the the only chemical IARC had ever classified in their group 4 "probably not carcinogenic to humans" [1] but in 2019 they moved it to group 3 [2]. [1] https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/2296/6414c0dc65c24db60ba2f2da740e991b9fd320d7.pdf https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/22... [2] https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications/ https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications/
ipsum2 7y ago
This is sort of off-topic, but I've been getting strange ads about glyphosate not causing cancer disguised as news articles from Twitter and Reddit, presumably sponsored by Monsanto. (I don't have a strong stance of glyphosate at all). Searching around, looks like other people have encountered this as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8giwc1/why_are_there_so_many_advertisements_on_reddit/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8giwc1/why_ar...
- coldtea 7y ago
  Well, this Reuters piece doesn't sound like non-sponsored either...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- dzhiurgis 7y ago
  No screenshots or links..? That’s some flaggin’
  - craftinator 7y ago
    Oh come on. Ipsum has been on here for half a decade and has 2000 karma. This isn't a throwaway account... Do some research first.
dmix 7y ago
I’m guessing some internal activists changed it because they predetermined it was going to be a bad anti-round up report and didn’t want to muddy the conclusion with evidence contradicting it. Politics seemingly trumped science at the org, that’s a really bad look for WHO and their response is total insufficient to explain these anomalies considering the massive implications it’s having in court rooms and industry: > IARC did not respond to questions about the alterations. It said the draft was “confidential” and “deliberative in nature.” After Reuters asked about the changes, the agency posted a statement on its website advising the scientists who participate in its working groups “not to feel pressured to discuss their deliberations” outside the confines of IARC. I would like to know which scientists are involved here and putting their name on such work. If glyposphate is actually bad this will only help Monsanto in denials and help them discredit their adversaries. Which means these manipulations is the report will completely backfire for the activists instead of helping the cause. Edit: I see this is from 2017, I wonder what has happened since.
- andybak 7y ago
  I'm not too sure I buy your use of the word "obviously" here. My normal spider-sense of "follow the money" seems to find no obvious path. Internal activists is a fairly novel concept - at least activists with the power to make changes like this. I'd like to know who benefits and why...
  - dmix 7y ago
    I’m sure there are plenty of environmental people who want to get rid of glyphosate and other massively popular chemicals used in industrial farming. But you’re right it could be some competitor or monetary influence - besides maybe the incentives within WHO and IARC themselves getting a whole lot of attention and influence from presenting a very damaging report instead of a mixed one. Maybe it allowed some of them to become “expert witnesses” at major multi million dollar trials and compensated well by the law firms, who knows. Or it could be as insignificant as some people trying to make their job seemingly important and justified sort of thing. An inconclusive report doesn’t get headlines. Either way the organization owes the world a better explanation.
  - 7y ago
h0l0cube 7y ago
(2017)
- Lectem 7y ago
  Yeah... why share something that is 2 years old ?
rmason 7y ago
I've said on here before that Monsanto had bad lawyers and they never should have lost those two cases. I was an agronomist for twenty years and remember when Roundup was first introduced on the market. I worked with the first genetically modified soybeans that could be sprayed with Roundup. One of the biggest selling points was that Roundup was measurably safer than the herbicides it replaced with far better results. I see all these ads now on late night TV recruiting plaintiffs for new Roundup lawsuits. I seriously think these lawyers think this is like asbestos and they will be proven wrong. Just compare the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and the LD50 for Roundup compared to other common herbicides. The fertilizer dealers I know are totally baffled this hasn't been reversed already. They don't understand how Monsanto ever got into this position. Hopefully Monsanto's new owner Bayer will hire better lawyers to protect their investment but it's going to take years before this ever gets rolled back.
- op00to 7y ago
  So disingenuous. Roundup is safe because the LD50 is high? I guess you’re one of those people that are baffled by why we stopped using asbestos or DDT.
  - modmans2nd 7y ago
    Show evidence it’s not safe. DDT was destroying bird populations.
    - CWuestefeld 7y ago
      Also, many insects (including some species of mosquito) had already developed resistance to DDT.
- burpsnard 7y ago
  Part of the controversy is around what constitutes a demonstration of safety. One is "i fed it 50 rabbits and they were all fine the next morning"; another is "LD50 (50% died) within 24hrs of consuming X milligrams per kg of rabbit weight, which well above expected levels present in food"; Another is "more tumours in these 500 rats who were fed glyphosphate - exposed crops, than in these other 500 genetically identical rats fed the same but organic version, after 9 months"
saykou 7y ago
"Scientists should not feel pressured to discuss their deliberations outside this particular forum." Then I'm sorry that's is not science, science is based on discussion and the possibility to falsify ones conclusion.
- boublepop 7y ago
  So you are countering that people should be pressured to discuss deliberations? Science or not, you shouldn’t even feel forced to discuss what you had at lunch yesterday, no matter how many billions are at stake for corporations. As you say, this is science, there is absolutely no reason to attack the people, when you can provide independent scientific evidence to support your own conclusion which might be counter to their. Then it becomes a question of evaluating the evidence, not evaluating the people.
- appleflaxen 7y ago
  Scientists should be able to discuss their deliberations without intimidation or fear in either direction. If a scientist deliberates to reach a conclusion that they choose not to explain it's fine: we just need to ignore it. There is no reason to argue that "scientists should be pressured to discuss their deliberations", which seems like the argument you are making.
ricardobeat 7y ago
Seems to me that they edited out opinions, not findings, which is exactly how it should be done. Ex: "The authors firmly believe" and "the authors concluded"; not exactly scientific facts.
- modmans2nd 7y ago
  Conclusions are why reports are written.
  - omar_a1 7y ago
    Yup, those are common rhetorical devices for presenting scientific fact. It's like dismissing Evolution as "just a theory."
  - lostmyoldone 7y ago
    Not taking a position on this case/article, it seems a complex situation which I can't fully evaluate. However, research reports are written for their results, not their conclusion. The conclusions are often less formal and somewhat prone to bias. The scientific method is to consider results in aggregate to successively form a better understanding of an issue, and as such the individual conclusions in an individual report is really the least important part in a meta study or review report.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  From TFA: "One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of multiple scientists' conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals. In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC." This seems a lot stronger than just editing. Although not perfectly clear, it sounds to me like the report was a composite of multiple distinct studies, and they excised some studies that differed from their desired outcome. That's basically the same thing as dropping experimental evidence that doesn't agree with a study's goals. If you're not fully acknowledging anything that might contradict your conclusion, then you're sciencing wrong.
cies 7y ago
Any food "additive" (including all chemicals used in farming) should be listed, carcinogen or not. The fact that products can be sold as "cucumber" but actually have a long list of chems on their skin is a very dark practice. See how companies abused their power when ingredient lists where not enforced by law. Or how tobacco comps are still abusing their freedom not to list ingredients. This malpractice disgusts me daily.
- emodendroket 7y ago
  I kind of agree. I'm not really swayed by arguments that consumers shouldn't have information because they'd use it to make mistaken decisions. Let them; that's not my business.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    The concern is that disclosures can be used selectively, to make unpopular businesses embarrass themselves while favored ones skate by. If we make people slap “contains glyphosate” on produce, is there any realistic chance that organic produce will say “contains blood meal” or apples will say “contains beeswax”?
    - cies 7y ago
      Perfect. As a conscious buyer and vegan believe I deserve to know! (and not by calling some office during office hours, but right there where I buy).
    - craftinator 7y ago
      Thank you for this, I hadn't thought about it from this point of view. One thought is that growers have to disclose all additives? In the wine industry, it's common during particularly bad grape years to sugar dose the wine as it ferments. In France they require vintners to disclose this, and other major modifications. Could we use something similar with growers? It would be AMAZING for a number of data driven sciences, having access to all additives used to grow different items
delhanty 7y ago
So I read this story and wondered whether there were any undisclosed links between the author (Kate Kelland) and Monsanto. Google led me to sites alleging that this 2017 article and others were written to spec on the instructions of Monsanto. [0][1][2] >Not only did Kelland write a 2017 story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way Monsanto executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it, (without disclosing to readers that Monsanto was the source,) but now we see evidence that a draft of a separate story Kelland did about glyphosate was delivered to Monsanto before it was published, a practice typically frowned on by news outlets. [0] https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/new-monsanto-documents-expose-cozy-connection-to-reuters-reporter/ https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/new-monsanto... [1] https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18746-monsanto-fed-reuters-reporter-kate-kelland-with-info-to-discredit-iarc https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18746-monsanto-fed-r... [2] https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1121417187531677696 https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1121417187531677696
- singularity2001 7y ago
  There should be a mechanism to reward such highly valuable meta-journalism as you provided. Also there should be a judicial mechanism to lock up the board of Monsanto in a dark dungeon.
- 6510 7y ago
  https://uk.linkedin.com/in/kate-kelland-b5995618 https://uk.linkedin.com/in/kate-kelland-b5995618
- ars 7y ago
  This Reuters article is basically just a summary of the difference between two reports. I'm not sure exactly how you can be biased on that, you could go read the reports yourself and do the exact same diff.
- jnordwick 7y ago
  This is about as close to pure ad hominem as you can get.
  - 7y ago
calibas 7y ago
Why is there so much attention on glyphosate and not on polyethoxylated tallow amine? Both chemicals are in the weedkiller, yet the latter has consistently been proven to be more toxic.
Merrill 7y ago
Banning glyphosate would have some interesting effects: - more tillage would be required causing more soil erosion and a higher consumption of fossil fuels resulting in more CO2 emissions from agriculture. - yields would decline due to more weed competition, which, combined with higher costs for fuels would increase food prices. From a social perspective, higher food prices, a healthier farm economy, and less available income for frivolities like vacations and travel that are also CO2 sources might be beneficial overall.
gumby 7y ago
I consider glysophate environmentally pretty dangerous (e.g. destruction of the subsurface rhizome and mycozome structures/ecosystem) but have never understood the alleged carcinogenic mechanism of action. A few jobs ago I had a chemist co-worker who’d actually worked on it (manufacturing development, not original synthesis). He was, not surprisingly, a big fan, but we did have Many long discussions as to its chemistry, mechanism, and (lack of?) human impact. All that being said do note delhanty’s comment which is meta analysis of the posted article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21872497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21872497 Just because I don’t understand a particular point (and have some minimal qualifications for such an opinion) doesn’t make me right.

115 points by tsaprailis 7y ago

Re-analysing the data, it's conceivable that they genuinely found a link, and that the papers' original authors were fudging the stats. But I don't know how to find out whether this is true.

mirimir 7y ago
Many of the studies were likely funded by Monsanto, so it's predictable that they would be biased. So doing independent analysis would be wise. But then, it's also possible that some of the WHO staff or consultants were biased. Someone would need to look at the original studies and work done for the WHO report. That'd be a lot of work. And it'd be hard to find anyone that both sides would trust.
- hhas01 7y ago
  “But then, it's also possible that some of the WHO staff or consultants were biased.” Indeed. Which it is why declaring COIs is so important. e.g. From a followup piece on Forbes (emphasis mine): https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10/23/iarcs-glyphosate-gate-scandal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10/23/iarcs-... “Portier, an American statistician who worked for the federal government for over thirty years, was the special advisor to the IARC panel that issued the report declaring glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic.” The transcripts show that during the same week in March 2015 in which IARC published its glyphosate opinion, Portier signed a lucrative contract to act as a litigation consultant for two law firms that were preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of glyphosate cancer victims. His contract contained a confidentiality clause barring Portier from disclosing his employment to other parties.” It is easy to view these Glyphosate wars as tiny heroic Davids battling a vast malicious Goliath, and huge multinationals certainly can get up to all sorts of dubious stuff—but so can the “little guys”. And we have been here before: just look at Andrew Wakefield, found balls deep in lawyer money and rival patents, and still causing serious harm (e.g. 79 dead in Samoa) a decade after being busted for the mendacious money-grabbing little shit he really was. As for the WHO, while it has done a great amount of very good work over the last 70 years, it is a human institution like any other and thus not immune to errors and corruption. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/who-promotes-unscientific-tcm/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/who-promotes-unscientific-t...
dmix 7y ago
It’s not a paper of original research but a meta analysis of various other scientist’s research which they selectively edited out the papers and science that didn’t support the agenda they had pre-determined. This was the description of the report that was originally given: >> A Working Group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on 3-10 March 2015 to review the available published scientific evidence and evaluate the carcinogenicity of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: diazinon, glyphosate, malathion, parathion, and tetrachlorvinphos. https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/ https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly... The article said they added their own statistical analysis that wasn’t supported by the data they originally included: > In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC.
- wizzwizz4 7y ago
  It wasn't supported by the conclusions they originally included. That doesn't mean the data didn't support it (although that might also be true – I don't know).
- dzhiurgis 7y ago
  PSA: IARC haven’t found a single thing thats is definitely not carcinogenic and lists shit like radio waves or tumble driers as possibly carcinogenic. IARC are bunch of lunatics.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    It's a different kind of regulatory capture. Same thing has happened to the EPA.
  - sampo 7y ago
    Caprolactam used to be the the only chemical IARC had ever classified in their group 4 "probably not carcinogenic to humans" [1] but in 2019 they moved it to group 3 [2]. [1] https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/2296/6414c0dc65c24db60ba2f2da740e991b9fd320d7.pdf https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/22... [2] https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications/ https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications/

ipsum2 7y ago

This is sort of off-topic, but I've been getting strange ads about glyphosate not causing cancer disguised as news articles from Twitter and Reddit, presumably sponsored by Monsanto. (I don't have a strong stance of glyphosate at all). Searching around, looks like other people have encountered this as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8giwc1/why_are_there_so_many_advertisements_on_reddit/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8giwc1/why_ar...

coldtea 7y ago
Well, this Reuters piece doesn't sound like non-sponsored either...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
dzhiurgis 7y ago
No screenshots or links..? That’s some flaggin’
- craftinator 7y ago
  Oh come on. Ipsum has been on here for half a decade and has 2000 karma. This isn't a throwaway account... Do some research first.

dmix 7y ago

I’m guessing some internal activists changed it because they predetermined it was going to be a bad anti-round up report and didn’t want to muddy the conclusion with evidence contradicting it. Politics seemingly trumped science at the org, that’s a really bad look for WHO and their response is total insufficient to explain these anomalies considering the massive implications it’s having in court rooms and industry: > IARC did not respond to questions about the alterations. It said the draft was “confidential” and “deliberative in nature.” After Reuters asked about the changes, the agency posted a statement on its website advising the scientists who participate in its working groups “not to feel pressured to discuss their deliberations” outside the confines of IARC. I would like to know which scientists are involved here and putting their name on such work. If glyposphate is actually bad this will only help Monsanto in denials and help them discredit their adversaries. Which means these manipulations is the report will completely backfire for the activists instead of helping the cause. Edit: I see this is from 2017, I wonder what has happened since.

andybak 7y ago
I'm not too sure I buy your use of the word "obviously" here. My normal spider-sense of "follow the money" seems to find no obvious path. Internal activists is a fairly novel concept - at least activists with the power to make changes like this. I'd like to know who benefits and why...
- dmix 7y ago
  I’m sure there are plenty of environmental people who want to get rid of glyphosate and other massively popular chemicals used in industrial farming. But you’re right it could be some competitor or monetary influence - besides maybe the incentives within WHO and IARC themselves getting a whole lot of attention and influence from presenting a very damaging report instead of a mixed one. Maybe it allowed some of them to become “expert witnesses” at major multi million dollar trials and compensated well by the law firms, who knows. Or it could be as insignificant as some people trying to make their job seemingly important and justified sort of thing. An inconclusive report doesn’t get headlines. Either way the organization owes the world a better explanation.
- 7y ago

h0l0cube 7y ago

(2017)

Lectem 7y ago
Yeah... why share something that is 2 years old ?

rmason 7y ago

I've said on here before that Monsanto had bad lawyers and they never should have lost those two cases. I was an agronomist for twenty years and remember when Roundup was first introduced on the market. I worked with the first genetically modified soybeans that could be sprayed with Roundup. One of the biggest selling points was that Roundup was measurably safer than the herbicides it replaced with far better results. I see all these ads now on late night TV recruiting plaintiffs for new Roundup lawsuits. I seriously think these lawyers think this is like asbestos and they will be proven wrong. Just compare the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and the LD50 for Roundup compared to other common herbicides. The fertilizer dealers I know are totally baffled this hasn't been reversed already. They don't understand how Monsanto ever got into this position. Hopefully Monsanto's new owner Bayer will hire better lawyers to protect their investment but it's going to take years before this ever gets rolled back.

op00to 7y ago
So disingenuous. Roundup is safe because the LD50 is high? I guess you’re one of those people that are baffled by why we stopped using asbestos or DDT.
- modmans2nd 7y ago
  Show evidence it’s not safe. DDT was destroying bird populations.
  - CWuestefeld 7y ago
    Also, many insects (including some species of mosquito) had already developed resistance to DDT.
burpsnard 7y ago
Part of the controversy is around what constitutes a demonstration of safety. One is "i fed it 50 rabbits and they were all fine the next morning"; another is "LD50 (50% died) within 24hrs of consuming X milligrams per kg of rabbit weight, which well above expected levels present in food"; Another is "more tumours in these 500 rats who were fed glyphosphate - exposed crops, than in these other 500 genetically identical rats fed the same but organic version, after 9 months"

saykou 7y ago

"Scientists should not feel pressured to discuss their deliberations outside this particular forum." Then I'm sorry that's is not science, science is based on discussion and the possibility to falsify ones conclusion.

boublepop 7y ago
So you are countering that people should be pressured to discuss deliberations? Science or not, you shouldn’t even feel forced to discuss what you had at lunch yesterday, no matter how many billions are at stake for corporations. As you say, this is science, there is absolutely no reason to attack the people, when you can provide independent scientific evidence to support your own conclusion which might be counter to their. Then it becomes a question of evaluating the evidence, not evaluating the people.
appleflaxen 7y ago
Scientists should be able to discuss their deliberations without intimidation or fear in either direction. If a scientist deliberates to reach a conclusion that they choose not to explain it's fine: we just need to ignore it. There is no reason to argue that "scientists should be pressured to discuss their deliberations", which seems like the argument you are making.

ricardobeat 7y ago

Seems to me that they edited out opinions, not findings, which is exactly how it should be done. Ex: "The authors firmly believe" and "the authors concluded"; not exactly scientific facts.

modmans2nd 7y ago
Conclusions are why reports are written.
- omar_a1 7y ago
  Yup, those are common rhetorical devices for presenting scientific fact. It's like dismissing Evolution as "just a theory."
- lostmyoldone 7y ago
  Not taking a position on this case/article, it seems a complex situation which I can't fully evaluate. However, research reports are written for their results, not their conclusion. The conclusions are often less formal and somewhat prone to bias. The scientific method is to consider results in aggregate to successively form a better understanding of an issue, and as such the individual conclusions in an individual report is really the least important part in a meta study or review report.
CWuestefeld 7y ago
From TFA: "One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of multiple scientists' conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals. In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC." This seems a lot stronger than just editing. Although not perfectly clear, it sounds to me like the report was a composite of multiple distinct studies, and they excised some studies that differed from their desired outcome. That's basically the same thing as dropping experimental evidence that doesn't agree with a study's goals. If you're not fully acknowledging anything that might contradict your conclusion, then you're sciencing wrong.

cies 7y ago

Any food "additive" (including all chemicals used in farming) should be listed, carcinogen or not. The fact that products can be sold as "cucumber" but actually have a long list of chems on their skin is a very dark practice. See how companies abused their power when ingredient lists where not enforced by law. Or how tobacco comps are still abusing their freedom not to list ingredients. This malpractice disgusts me daily.

emodendroket 7y ago
I kind of agree. I'm not really swayed by arguments that consumers shouldn't have information because they'd use it to make mistaken decisions. Let them; that's not my business.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The concern is that disclosures can be used selectively, to make unpopular businesses embarrass themselves while favored ones skate by. If we make people slap “contains glyphosate” on produce, is there any realistic chance that organic produce will say “contains blood meal” or apples will say “contains beeswax”?
  - cies 7y ago
    Perfect. As a conscious buyer and vegan believe I deserve to know! (and not by calling some office during office hours, but right there where I buy).
  - craftinator 7y ago
    Thank you for this, I hadn't thought about it from this point of view. One thought is that growers have to disclose all additives? In the wine industry, it's common during particularly bad grape years to sugar dose the wine as it ferments. In France they require vintners to disclose this, and other major modifications. Could we use something similar with growers? It would be AMAZING for a number of data driven sciences, having access to all additives used to grow different items

delhanty 7y ago

So I read this story and wondered whether there were any undisclosed links between the author (Kate Kelland) and Monsanto. Google led me to sites alleging that this 2017 article and others were written to spec on the instructions of Monsanto. [0][1][2] >Not only did Kelland write a 2017 story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way Monsanto executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it, (without disclosing to readers that Monsanto was the source,) but now we see evidence that a draft of a separate story Kelland did about glyphosate was delivered to Monsanto before it was published, a practice typically frowned on by news outlets. [0] https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/new-monsanto-documents-expose-cozy-connection-to-reuters-reporter/ https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/new-monsanto... [1] https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18746-monsanto-fed-reuters-reporter-kate-kelland-with-info-to-discredit-iarc https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18746-monsanto-fed-r... [2] https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1121417187531677696 https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1121417187531677696

singularity2001 7y ago
There should be a mechanism to reward such highly valuable meta-journalism as you provided. Also there should be a judicial mechanism to lock up the board of Monsanto in a dark dungeon.
6510 7y ago
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/kate-kelland-b5995618 https://uk.linkedin.com/in/kate-kelland-b5995618
ars 7y ago
This Reuters article is basically just a summary of the difference between two reports. I'm not sure exactly how you can be biased on that, you could go read the reports yourself and do the exact same diff.
jnordwick 7y ago
This is about as close to pure ad hominem as you can get.
- 7y ago

calibas 7y ago

Why is there so much attention on glyphosate and not on polyethoxylated tallow amine? Both chemicals are in the weedkiller, yet the latter has consistently been proven to be more toxic.

Merrill 7y ago

Banning glyphosate would have some interesting effects: - more tillage would be required causing more soil erosion and a higher consumption of fossil fuels resulting in more CO2 emissions from agriculture. - yields would decline due to more weed competition, which, combined with higher costs for fuels would increase food prices. From a social perspective, higher food prices, a healthier farm economy, and less available income for frivolities like vacations and travel that are also CO2 sources might be beneficial overall.

gumby 7y ago

I consider glysophate environmentally pretty dangerous (e.g. destruction of the subsurface rhizome and mycozome structures/ecosystem) but have never understood the alleged carcinogenic mechanism of action. A few jobs ago I had a chemist co-worker who’d actually worked on it (manufacturing development, not original synthesis). He was, not surprisingly, a big fan, but we did have Many long discussions as to its chemistry, mechanism, and (lack of?) human impact. All that being said do note delhanty’s comment which is meta analysis of the posted article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21872497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21872497 Just because I don’t understand a particular point (and have some minimal qualifications for such an opinion) doesn’t make me right.