11 ms·

Not knowing anything about glyphosate, I went to the article before reading the comments. I’ll just put this here because it was clear the researchers wanted to

Not knowing anything about glyphosate, I went to the article before reading the comments. I’ll just put this here because it was clear the researchers wanted to be sure people see it. From the first paragraph of the article—> > In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” (IARC, 2015). However, the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (EFSA 2015, FAO/WHO 2015) determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be a carcinogen. The US EPA concluded that “available data and weight-of-evidence clearly do not support the descriptors “carcinogenic to humans,” “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” or “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential” (US EPA 2017a). Controversy and concern that the rising use of glyphosate may have adverse human-health effects exist (Myers et. al., 2016).

hammock 4y ago
> the European Food Safety Authority determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be a carcinogen Yet Europe has banned glyphosate (it is allowed in the US). Curious
- fennecfoxen 4y ago
  The EU was concerned about marine toxicity and the potential for the concentrated forms to cause serious eye damage!
- hnarn 4y ago
  Just to play devil’s advocate for a second: the fact that the EU has banned glyphosate does not mean that it’s a confirmed carcinogen. It only means that it’s considered harmful, which it can be in many other ways apart from causing cancer.
pohl 4y ago
One thing I've noticed with regard to all of the safety claims made about glyphosate is that it only claims that it's safe with respect to humans directly. They never discuss what it might do to your gut biome. That seems like a curious omission, to me, for a substance like this. Shouldn't that be a standard part of the risk analysis?
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Yes that should be part of the full regulatory analysis, but then you're talking about active effect concentrations, which are generally going to be much higher than possible carcinogen concentrations.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Shouldn't that be a standard part of the risk analysis? To be fair all this stuff about "gut biome" causing everything from depression to obesity only got popular around the last few years, not a decade or two ago when the bulk of the studies were being done.
abe_duarte 4y ago
People who have been exposed to the chemical got cancer. Internal Monsanto documents show the link and their concern. A man got a court to rule in his favour for 289 million dollars, after the jury saw this evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-trial-cancer-dewayne-johnson-ruling https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr...
- User23 4y ago
  Virtually everyone who eats food has been exposed to glyphosate at this point. You could use the same logic to conclude water is a carcinogen. Every case of cancer is clearly linked to water exposure.
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    It also works the other way: people who stop consuming water almost never die of cancer.
- gruez 4y ago
  >A man got a court to rule in his favour for 289 million dollars, after the jury saw this evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr... You seem to be presenting this fact as some sort of that bayer is guilty, but it's not really convincing. For one, it's a 8 person jury in san francisco. I'd expect them to rule against bayer on ideological grounds (ie. little guy vs multi bililon dollar multinational corporation) alone. Second, if there's no scientific consensus on the effects of glysophate, I doubt a panel of laypersons would do better.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    If the jurors all just ruled against Bayer "on ideological grounds" then their counsel was asleep at the wheel.
    - noirbot 4y ago
nemo44x 4y ago
This article a carefully crafted piece of propaganda disguising itself as journalism. This is part (banning herbicides and pesticides) of the green movement. Of course, they forget why we use them in the first place.
- krolden 4y ago
  "We" use them in the first place because agribusiness wants to grow as much crops as cheaply as possible and consequences be damned as long as it cuts down on their expenses. Monsanto also pushed the sterile lawn image in american culture. Cover your lawn in our herbicides and fertilizers and you can be a proud american lawn mower. Who cares if that means carcinogenic runoff into your lakes and rivers.
  - diordiderot 4y ago
    Here's the right wing response R: If we didn't people would starve! L: people are starving right now anyways, less would starve if we raised taxes on meat R: I don't care if they starve
dodgerdan 4y ago
Monsanto settled a batch of civil cases regarding Roundup for $10bn. No one settle’s for that sum unless they’re guilty. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settlement-lawsuits.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settleme...
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  Evidently they had internal communications coaching employees on how to communicate about glyphosate, knowing that it’s dangerous and that they can’t claim that it’s safe. That’s just one damning factor, but there are more. For example, in multiple cases juries agreed that Monsanto has manipulated writing and data from studies of their products. Essentially Ghost writing studies to suit their needs.
- Blackthorn 4y ago
  Behind a paywall so I can't see the details, but note that nowadays when you buy Roundup it has a lot more then glyphosate in it, and I trust that "a lot more" far less than if it was just glyphosate.
  - jwilk 4y ago
    Archived copy: https://archive.today/qfCEV https://archive.today/qfCEV
- DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
  That’s not how lawsuits work. At all.
  - zardo 4y ago
    You do have to have a dim outlook on your prospects of winning to agree to pay out 10 billion.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      What if you're sure that there are going to be quite a lot of plaintiffs and expect to win a mere 99% of the time?
grendelt 4y ago
The back and forth with regulatory agencies is so frustrating. Another user here pointed out a while back that the better regulatory model, when it comes to health, is to put the onus on the supplier. We must scientifically prove the thing is safe to use, not have to prove it is unsafe to be removed.
- geoduck14 4y ago
  >We must scientifically prove the thing is safe to use, not have to prove it is unsafe to be removed. Wait... so every restaurant has to show scientific proof that each of their ingredients are safe to use? I'm pretty sure that is an impossible standard to meet.
  - WarChortle 4y ago
    You're overthinking this a little. If Monsanto comes up with a new weedkiller, they have to prove that its safe for humans before its put into use. It has nothing to do with restaurants. Obviously stuff would be grandfathered in as well. But its a fantastic idea going forward.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      That would pretty much mean no new chemicals could be used for anything ever.
      - thatguy0900 4y ago
        Some would consider that a good tradeoff for stopping cancerous forever chemicals from being in 80% of pee. And it will be less, not no.
        JamesBarney 4y ago
        They probably haven't thought through all the good chemicals have done. If we stopped all progress in chemicals 100 years ago our world would like a very different place. A less wealthy place where more people died of starvation.
mushbino 4y ago
This writing looks like the child of a million different high paid corporate attorneys.
vanilla-almond 4y ago
Related: Status of glyphosate in the EU: > "Glyphosate is currently approved in the EU until 15 December 2022." https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-... The ECHA's (European Chemical Agency) assessment: > "...the existing classifications for glyphosate as a substance that causes serious eye damage and is toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects should be retained. > The committee found that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate for specific target organ toxicity, or as a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substance. " https://www.echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-no-change-proposed-to-hazard-classification https://www.echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-no-change-proposed-t...

hammock 4y ago

> the European Food Safety Authority determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be a carcinogen Yet Europe has banned glyphosate (it is allowed in the US). Curious

fennecfoxen 4y ago
The EU was concerned about marine toxicity and the potential for the concentrated forms to cause serious eye damage!
hnarn 4y ago
Just to play devil’s advocate for a second: the fact that the EU has banned glyphosate does not mean that it’s a confirmed carcinogen. It only means that it’s considered harmful, which it can be in many other ways apart from causing cancer.

pohl 4y ago

One thing I've noticed with regard to all of the safety claims made about glyphosate is that it only claims that it's safe with respect to humans directly. They never discuss what it might do to your gut biome. That seems like a curious omission, to me, for a substance like this. Shouldn't that be a standard part of the risk analysis?

Dylan16807 4y ago
Yes that should be part of the full regulatory analysis, but then you're talking about active effect concentrations, which are generally going to be much higher than possible carcinogen concentrations.
gruez 4y ago
>Shouldn't that be a standard part of the risk analysis? To be fair all this stuff about "gut biome" causing everything from depression to obesity only got popular around the last few years, not a decade or two ago when the bulk of the studies were being done.

abe_duarte 4y ago

People who have been exposed to the chemical got cancer. Internal Monsanto documents show the link and their concern. A man got a court to rule in his favour for 289 million dollars, after the jury saw this evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-trial-cancer-dewayne-johnson-ruling https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr...

User23 4y ago
Virtually everyone who eats food has been exposed to glyphosate at this point. You could use the same logic to conclude water is a carcinogen. Every case of cancer is clearly linked to water exposure.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  It also works the other way: people who stop consuming water almost never die of cancer.
gruez 4y ago
>A man got a court to rule in his favour for 289 million dollars, after the jury saw this evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr... You seem to be presenting this fact as some sort of that bayer is guilty, but it's not really convincing. For one, it's a 8 person jury in san francisco. I'd expect them to rule against bayer on ideological grounds (ie. little guy vs multi bililon dollar multinational corporation) alone. Second, if there's no scientific consensus on the effects of glysophate, I doubt a panel of laypersons would do better.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  If the jurors all just ruled against Bayer "on ideological grounds" then their counsel was asleep at the wheel.
  - noirbot 4y ago

nemo44x 4y ago

This article a carefully crafted piece of propaganda disguising itself as journalism. This is part (banning herbicides and pesticides) of the green movement. Of course, they forget why we use them in the first place.

krolden 4y ago
"We" use them in the first place because agribusiness wants to grow as much crops as cheaply as possible and consequences be damned as long as it cuts down on their expenses. Monsanto also pushed the sterile lawn image in american culture. Cover your lawn in our herbicides and fertilizers and you can be a proud american lawn mower. Who cares if that means carcinogenic runoff into your lakes and rivers.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  Here's the right wing response R: If we didn't people would starve! L: people are starving right now anyways, less would starve if we raised taxes on meat R: I don't care if they starve

dodgerdan 4y ago

Monsanto settled a batch of civil cases regarding Roundup for $10bn. No one settle’s for that sum unless they’re guilty. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settlement-lawsuits.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settleme...

steve_adams_86 4y ago
Evidently they had internal communications coaching employees on how to communicate about glyphosate, knowing that it’s dangerous and that they can’t claim that it’s safe. That’s just one damning factor, but there are more. For example, in multiple cases juries agreed that Monsanto has manipulated writing and data from studies of their products. Essentially Ghost writing studies to suit their needs.
Blackthorn 4y ago
Behind a paywall so I can't see the details, but note that nowadays when you buy Roundup it has a lot more then glyphosate in it, and I trust that "a lot more" far less than if it was just glyphosate.
- jwilk 4y ago
  Archived copy: https://archive.today/qfCEV https://archive.today/qfCEV
DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
That’s not how lawsuits work. At all.
- zardo 4y ago
  You do have to have a dim outlook on your prospects of winning to agree to pay out 10 billion.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    What if you're sure that there are going to be quite a lot of plaintiffs and expect to win a mere 99% of the time?

grendelt 4y ago

The back and forth with regulatory agencies is so frustrating. Another user here pointed out a while back that the better regulatory model, when it comes to health, is to put the onus on the supplier. We must scientifically prove the thing is safe to use, not have to prove it is unsafe to be removed.

geoduck14 4y ago
>We must scientifically prove the thing is safe to use, not have to prove it is unsafe to be removed. Wait... so every restaurant has to show scientific proof that each of their ingredients are safe to use? I'm pretty sure that is an impossible standard to meet.
- WarChortle 4y ago
  You're overthinking this a little. If Monsanto comes up with a new weedkiller, they have to prove that its safe for humans before its put into use. It has nothing to do with restaurants. Obviously stuff would be grandfathered in as well. But its a fantastic idea going forward.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    That would pretty much mean no new chemicals could be used for anything ever.
    - thatguy0900 4y ago
      Some would consider that a good tradeoff for stopping cancerous forever chemicals from being in 80% of pee. And it will be less, not no.
      - JamesBarney 4y ago
        They probably haven't thought through all the good chemicals have done. If we stopped all progress in chemicals 100 years ago our world would like a very different place. A less wealthy place where more people died of starvation.

mushbino 4y ago

This writing looks like the child of a million different high paid corporate attorneys.

vanilla-almond 4y ago

Related: Status of glyphosate in the EU: > "Glyphosate is currently approved in the EU until 15 December 2022." https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-... The ECHA's (European Chemical Agency) assessment: > "...the existing classifications for glyphosate as a substance that causes serious eye damage and is toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects should be retained. > The committee found that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate for specific target organ toxicity, or as a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substance. " https://www.echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-no-change-proposed-to-hazard-classification https://www.echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-no-change-proposed-t...