4 ms·
Expanded summary from the description: > For years, Monsanto declared that their product Roundup, the world's most widely used weed killer, was safe. But that
by brightball 4y ago
Expanded summary from the description:
> For years, Monsanto declared that their product Roundup, the world's most widely used weed killer, was safe. But that all changed in 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed data from scientific studies and concluded that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is probably carcinogenic. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disagreed, other regulatory agencies got involved, and scientists clamored to understand the link between glyphosate and cancer.
> Toxic Exposure tells the true story of numerous patients who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a form of cancer, after using Roundup and their ensuing trials against Monsanto (now owned by Bayer, one of the largest agrochemical companies in the world). Written by Chadi Nabhan, MD, MBA, a cancer specialist, this is the only book written by an expert physician witness who testified in the first three trials against Monsanto.
> Dr. Nabhan takes the reader behind the scenes of these pivotal trials, explaining key features of the cases, including how Monsanto downplayed the IARC's scientific conclusions, may have worked to change how the EPA classified glyphosate, and conducted extensive PR campaigns designed to minimize the public's perception of the negative health effects of its product. He also provides details about the other expert witnesses who reviewed the evidence, analyzed the science, and stood up to this agricultural behemoth in the courtroom.
> Dr. Nabhan tells the inside story of corporate influence, courtroom drama, legal discourse, monumental verdicts, and the ensuing media frenzy surrounding this massive uncovering of the truth and the years of scientific and legal work that led up to it.
- adrr 4y agoFor comparison, hot beverages(eg: Coffee), red meat and working the night shift are also probable carcinogens. Known carcinogens include alcohol, fried food, bbq/grilling.
- hammock 4y agodeleted
- adrr 4y agoWhat does this have to do with the discussion? Hackernews is suppose to be about constructive debate.
- hammock 4y agoMaybe I am missing the constructive nature of your comment, can you clarify? Are you proposing coffee is as cancerous as Roundup? Constructively, have you seen this video? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/03/monsanto-lobbyist-drink-roundup.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/03/monsanto-lobbyist-dr...
- adrr 4y agoRoundup hasn't been shown to be carcinogen in any animal model testing and only one observational study has shown an up lift in a cancer. Hence the designation of potential. Hot beverages significantly increases risk of Esophageal cancer in multiple observational studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9035825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9035825/
- ch4s3 4y agoThat seems like a ridiculous gotcha type exchange. I can be both true that glyphosate is safer than alternative herbicides and something you shouldn't drink.
- Retric 4y agoAs always it comes down to scale not labels. Glyphosate in normal use is vastly more dangerous than anything you mentioned.
- tptacek 4y agoIs it?
- hcurtiss 4y agoThat is decidedly untrue.
- pas 4y agoWhat's the current consensus? It's dangerous to the workers who work on the fields, not to the consumers at the end of the chain, or both?
- rstuart4133 4y ago> What's the current consensus? The comments on HN are usually very informative, and this article is no exception. Here we have this comment: > The IARC is the odd one out here and their results are based mainly on discredited experiments on rats that are known to be prone to getting cancer (meaning they aren't a good model for humans in this case). It depends on how you define consensus, I guess. But the data is clear: one organisation out of many, and they drew their conclusions not from humans but from rats prone to cancer. > It's dangerous to the workers who work on the fields, not to the consumers at the end of the chain, or both? I don't know. But one of Glyphosate charms is it breaks down very rapidly. It means it doesn't do damage to surrounding plants that weren't directly exposed (unlike say 75-D). So my wild guess is you would have to be a field worker exposed to it directly. IIRC the people who won law suits against Monsanto were field workers who got regularly drenched in the stuff.
- adrr 4y agoOnly EU considers it a potential carcinogen. Rest world says it safe. No animal model study has shown it to be dangerous.
- coin 4y ago> who testified in the first three trials against Monsanto In other words, he's paid litigation consultant. Of course his book is going to be in alignment with those that pay him.