4 ms·

My local garden place use to tell me roundup was safe to drink. A few years later the that big cancer lawsuit hit the news.

by tmaly 2y ago

hammock 2y ago
Not to take away from your comment, but for those who clicked comments before reading, this article is about neonics not roundup
google234123 2y ago
A lawsuit != scientific evidence... which points the otherway
- memkit 2y ago
  Sure... but Roundup definitely causes cancer in humans. It's well established at this point. "One international scientific organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified glyphosate in Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. In 2017, California environmental regulators listed glyphosate as “known to the state to cause cancer.”" That's not to mention the strong-arming, harassment, and threats towards researchers publishing papers that paint Monsanto and Bayer in a negative light. [1] 1. https://usrtk.org/monsanto/attacks-on-scientists-journalists/ https://usrtk.org/monsanto/attacks-on-scientists-journalists...
  - bpodgursky 2y ago
    It's really not.
    - memkit 2y ago
      I mean what do you make of the threats towards researchers? Surely that has limited the amount of scientific evidence published against the safety of Bayer's products, no? It's also a damning piece of evidence in and of itself, at least stochastically speaking.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >I mean what do you make of the threats towards researchers? source?
        memkit 2y ago
        This is a decent summary of one tiny fraction of their unethical doings: https://usrtk.org/monsanto/attacks-on-scientists-journalists/ https://usrtk.org/monsanto/attacks-on-scientists-journalists...
        gruez 2y ago
        Skimming the first few parts, since the linked article is long and I'd like to avoid engaging in a gish gallop: >when Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, her scientific analysis of the harms of DDT, Monsanto engaged in targeted personal attacks to try to undermine her research They said mean things, but calling it a "threat" seems like a stretch. Moreover after clicking through some of the links I still have no idea what they actually said aside from some well chosen quotes. >In the lead up to IARC’s report, Monsanto rolled out an “an unprecedented and harsh strategy” to discredit experts, wrote Colorado School of Public Health Dean Jonathan Samet. Monsanto’s attacks, he said, amounted to an “attack on expert review” itself. I skimmed the linked article and it doesn't offer specifics about what the "attacks" actually were. >Journalists at France’s largest newspaper Le Monde, in their award-winning series about the Monsanto Papers, described the Monsanto-led attack on IARC as “an effort to destroy the United Nations’ cancer agency by any means possible.” Skimming the linked source, it looks like the "attacks" in question are FOIA requests. >Following that email exchange, GLP went on to publish dozens of articles critical of the cancer agency — many of them personal attacks on the scientists involved in the glyphosate review, and some of them written by former chemical industry lobbyists and climate science skeptics. See first reply in this comment. >Engaging climate science denialists bad/questionable, not exactly "threatening" >Another document reveals that Monsanto consultants drafted at least one letter calling for an investigation of the “flawed” IARC process — and designed to look like it was written by a member of Congress. 1. The process is arguably flawed, as other commenters have mentioned. I think it's fair game to criticize them for that 2. I looked at the linked document and I can't imagine how anyone thinks it "look like it was written by a member of Congress". Nowhere does it claim that it's written by a congressman, and the signature block just says "NAME"? Is this even a real letter that was sent to Dr. Collins, or a draft letter that they wanted an actual congressman to send?
    - andrewmcwatters 2y ago
      I can't help but think of the movie Erin Brockovich: Erin Brockovich: By the way, we had that water brought in specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley. Ms. Sanchez: [Puts down the glass, without drinking] I think this meeting is over. Ed Masry: Damn right it is. Would you personally spray Roundup directly on your skin? Because if you've ever treated a large area of your plot with weed killer with a spray indicator, it's clear as day that stuff is getting all over you with the slightest breeze.
      - bpodgursky 2y ago
        I've used roundup on weeds around my house and not been especially fussed when it gets on my skin.
        justatdotin 2y ago
        sure: hand-held household application is different to indiscriminate spraying from a pumped tank on the back of a truck
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > hand-held household application is different to indiscriminate spraying from a pumped tank on the back of a truck Critically, it appears the surfactants in Roundup are the nasty bit, not glyphosphate. To my knowledge, they don't permeate the skin. But if you're inhaling it, it's in your blood stream. It shouldn't be shocking that a chemical your body isn't used to designed to keep organic compounds apart messes with at least some of your biochemistry.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
        I have a friend that suffered the exact type of lymph cancer that Roundup is supposed to cause. He used Roundup in his properties for years. When I was a bench tech, back in the early eighties, we had gallon jugs of trichlor, all over the building. Each tech had a bottle at their bench. We were explicitly told, by management, that it was completely harmless.
    - KennyBlanken 2y ago
      Then why is Monsanto presenting pre-written papers and "high quality drafts" to scientists and journalists to "edit" and put their names on? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-o... Then why has Monsanto settled one hundred thousand claims and paid ten billion dollars in judgements against them and settlements? Then why was a top official at the EPA emailing Monsanto executives saying he should "get a medal" if he was able to kill the CDC's study? https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/15/520250505/emails-reveal-monsantos-tactics-to-defend-glyphosate-against-cancer-fears https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/15/520250505/em...
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Because glyphosphate is almost certainly toxic. We have evidence for that. (Roundup is more toxic than glyphosphate alone [1].) That doesn't mean it's carcinogenic in a colloquial sense--we don't have evidence for that, again, beyond the carcinogenic capacity of commonly-eaten foods. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity
  - infecto 2y ago
    Is there anything in CA that is not known to cause cancer?
    - erik_seaberg 2y ago
      There's actually a list, but it's really big and includes possible exposure to toast (acrylamide) and beer (ethanol). There's also no compensation or incentive for doing any work to prove that a warning isn't justified, so everyone errs on the side of spamming them everywhere.
      - roywiggins 2y ago
        The evidence for alcohol consumption causing cancer is actually pretty strong: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/alcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > evidence for alcohol consumption causing cancer is actually pretty strong As it is for red meat and hot drinks. These are low-magnitude high-significance effects.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified glyphosate in Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic to humans" Group 2A includes red meat and hot coffee [1]. To the extent glyphosphate is problematic, it's in being toxic [2], not carcinogenic. (Though again, we can speak similarly of barbecue [3].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/ [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993204/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993204/
    - memkit 2y ago
      > To the extent glyphosphate is problematic, it's in being toxi [2], not carcinogenic. This is a fair assessment based on the published scientific literature. But you have to take into account the fact that the owners of glyphosate have 1) surveilled, harassed, defamed, and threatened individual scientists and 2) paid millions of dollars to ethically dubious scientists to publish articles in favor of the safety of glyphosate 3) paid billions of dollars to victims of glyphosate exposure because they were found liable (or thought they would be) of causing them harm Given those facts, I think it's reasonable to assume that glyphosate is pretty f*cking bad for you and it's truly mind boggling that people feel the need to defend it. It feels like everyone you talk to on the topic is a bureaucrat in the Soviet Union engaging in doublespeak. Clearly, the people harassing, threatening, surveilling, defaming, and bribing are the baddies. Clearly, they have something to hide.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > you have to take into account the fact that the owners of glyphosate have... Monsanto was absolutely shady. That doesn't change the biochemistry of glyphosphate. > it's reasonable to assume that glyphosate is pretty f-cking bad for you Almost every industry has someone being shady. Concluding adversely from that is not reasonable. (It's literally ad hominem, concluding an argument by way of the speaker's character and motives.) You said "Roundup definitely causes cancer in humans" and then provided sources. Your sources don't support that assertion beyond a very weak definition of causation, at which point we're back to it being similarly carcinogenic to widely-consumed foodstuffs.
Modified3019 2y ago
I work in agriculture as an agronomist, and did some time putting out small plots sprays. I absolutely fucking hate the drinking roundup meme. Yeah sure, pure Glyphosate has an acute toxicity similar to that of table salt (in rodents). So if you’re a rodent you can drink a solution of it similar to what you could tolerate with a salt water solution. But this says nothing of long term effects and is not a realistic situation and is fucking stupid. Glyphosate on its own is completely ineffective, it requires adjuvants in order to do its work, for the same reason you use dish soap when washing plates. You will never see pure glyphosate used unless you’re working in research where you’re intending to mix it with something. It’s like all that research that equivocates coffee with caffeine, but even worse. Roundup is always glyphosate plus surfactants, in fact the water/surfactant mix will typically be the majority of the bottle. Not only will these surfactants strip the protective mucus from your gut, it’s help the gylphsate cross barriers it would never be able to on its own, where it causes all sorts of havoc. If someone drinks undiluted roundup, they will die in a painful way, though that requires managing to get it down, which typically only happens in suicide attempts. A fully diluted solution intended for spraying is much, much safer, but still likely to make you very sick on ingestion or significant skin exposure like if you get drenched in it. Any study on the short or long term safety of pure glyphosate is worse than worthless, it’s outright misleading because Glyphosate is not Roundup. Bonus: most adjuvants (which often make up the majority of the chemicals we actually spray out) are exempted from the types of registration and safety trials we typically apply to pesticides. Only a few states are starting to make changes to that (California and Oregon or Washington I think, been a while since I’ve looked at it).
- stogot 2y ago
  You buried the lead. Do you think roundup is unsafe or safe?
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    It seems pretty clear to me that they think that Roundup, in the form that is sold to regular consumers, is unsafe to drink. They even provided a detailed and rational explanation for why they hold this opinion.
mardifoufs 2y ago
Salt saturated water is also dangerous and lethal to drink. Does that mean that eating a little bit of salt, or any regular portion you'd usually come across in food, would be unsafe and lethal?
pkaye 2y ago
> In 2022, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) carried out a hazard assessment of glyphosate and concluded that it did not meet the scientific criteria to be classified as a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substance. EFSA used ECHA’s hazard classification for the purposes of the EU risk assessment on glyphosate. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-no-critical-areas-concern-data-gaps-identified https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-no-critical-ar...
- josefx 2y ago
  Assessments by EFSA/ECHA are mainly based on studies and reports collected by the manufacturers. They rely in those being complete and honest. Monsantos internal email correspondence was rather explicit on how they would rather reach out to their contacts and kill any study they did not approve of before it could become problematic.

My local garden place use to tell me roundup was safe to drink. A few years later the that big cancer lawsuit hit the news.

by tmaly 2y ago

My local garden place use to tell me roundup was safe to drink. A few years later the that big cancer lawsuit hit the news.

hammock 2y ago

Not to take away from your comment, but for those who clicked comments before reading, this article is about neonics not roundup

google234123 2y ago

A lawsuit != scientific evidence... which points the otherway

memkit 2y ago
Sure... but Roundup definitely causes cancer in humans. It's well established at this point. "One international scientific organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified glyphosate in Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. In 2017, California environmental regulators listed glyphosate as “known to the state to cause cancer.”" That's not to mention the strong-arming, harassment, and threats towards researchers publishing papers that paint Monsanto and Bayer in a negative light. [1] 1. https://usrtk.org/monsanto/attacks-on-scientists-journalists/ https://usrtk.org/monsanto/attacks-on-scientists-journalists...
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  It's really not.
  - memkit 2y ago
    I mean what do you make of the threats towards researchers? Surely that has limited the amount of scientific evidence published against the safety of Bayer's products, no? It's also a damning piece of evidence in and of itself, at least stochastically speaking.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >I mean what do you make of the threats towards researchers? source?
      - memkit 2y ago
        This is a decent summary of one tiny fraction of their unethical doings: https://usrtk.org/monsanto/attacks-on-scientists-journalists/ https://usrtk.org/monsanto/attacks-on-scientists-journalists...
        gruez 2y ago
        Skimming the first few parts, since the linked article is long and I'd like to avoid engaging in a gish gallop: >when Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, her scientific analysis of the harms of DDT, Monsanto engaged in targeted personal attacks to try to undermine her research They said mean things, but calling it a "threat" seems like a stretch. Moreover after clicking through some of the links I still have no idea what they actually said aside from some well chosen quotes. >In the lead up to IARC’s report, Monsanto rolled out an “an unprecedented and harsh strategy” to discredit experts, wrote Colorado School of Public Health Dean Jonathan Samet. Monsanto’s attacks, he said, amounted to an “attack on expert review” itself. I skimmed the linked article and it doesn't offer specifics about what the "attacks" actually were. >Journalists at France’s largest newspaper Le Monde, in their award-winning series about the Monsanto Papers, described the Monsanto-led attack on IARC as “an effort to destroy the United Nations’ cancer agency by any means possible.” Skimming the linked source, it looks like the "attacks" in question are FOIA requests. >Following that email exchange, GLP went on to publish dozens of articles critical of the cancer agency — many of them personal attacks on the scientists involved in the glyphosate review, and some of them written by former chemical industry lobbyists and climate science skeptics. See first reply in this comment. >Engaging climate science denialists bad/questionable, not exactly "threatening" >Another document reveals that Monsanto consultants drafted at least one letter calling for an investigation of the “flawed” IARC process — and designed to look like it was written by a member of Congress. 1. The process is arguably flawed, as other commenters have mentioned. I think it's fair game to criticize them for that 2. I looked at the linked document and I can't imagine how anyone thinks it "look like it was written by a member of Congress". Nowhere does it claim that it's written by a congressman, and the signature block just says "NAME"? Is this even a real letter that was sent to Dr. Collins, or a draft letter that they wanted an actual congressman to send?
  - andrewmcwatters 2y ago
    I can't help but think of the movie Erin Brockovich: Erin Brockovich: By the way, we had that water brought in specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley. Ms. Sanchez: [Puts down the glass, without drinking] I think this meeting is over. Ed Masry: Damn right it is. Would you personally spray Roundup directly on your skin? Because if you've ever treated a large area of your plot with weed killer with a spray indicator, it's clear as day that stuff is getting all over you with the slightest breeze.
    - bpodgursky 2y ago
      I've used roundup on weeds around my house and not been especially fussed when it gets on my skin.
      - justatdotin 2y ago
        sure: hand-held household application is different to indiscriminate spraying from a pumped tank on the back of a truck
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > hand-held household application is different to indiscriminate spraying from a pumped tank on the back of a truck Critically, it appears the surfactants in Roundup are the nasty bit, not glyphosphate. To my knowledge, they don't permeate the skin. But if you're inhaling it, it's in your blood stream. It shouldn't be shocking that a chemical your body isn't used to designed to keep organic compounds apart messes with at least some of your biochemistry.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
      I have a friend that suffered the exact type of lymph cancer that Roundup is supposed to cause. He used Roundup in his properties for years. When I was a bench tech, back in the early eighties, we had gallon jugs of trichlor, all over the building. Each tech had a bottle at their bench. We were explicitly told, by management, that it was completely harmless.
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    Then why is Monsanto presenting pre-written papers and "high quality drafts" to scientists and journalists to "edit" and put their names on? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-o... Then why has Monsanto settled one hundred thousand claims and paid ten billion dollars in judgements against them and settlements? Then why was a top official at the EPA emailing Monsanto executives saying he should "get a medal" if he was able to kill the CDC's study? https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/15/520250505/emails-reveal-monsantos-tactics-to-defend-glyphosate-against-cancer-fears https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/15/520250505/em...
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Because glyphosphate is almost certainly toxic. We have evidence for that. (Roundup is more toxic than glyphosphate alone [1].) That doesn't mean it's carcinogenic in a colloquial sense--we don't have evidence for that, again, beyond the carcinogenic capacity of commonly-eaten foods. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity
- infecto 2y ago
  Is there anything in CA that is not known to cause cancer?
  - erik_seaberg 2y ago
    There's actually a list, but it's really big and includes possible exposure to toast (acrylamide) and beer (ethanol). There's also no compensation or incentive for doing any work to prove that a warning isn't justified, so everyone errs on the side of spamming them everywhere.
    - roywiggins 2y ago
      The evidence for alcohol consumption causing cancer is actually pretty strong: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/alcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > evidence for alcohol consumption causing cancer is actually pretty strong As it is for red meat and hot drinks. These are low-magnitude high-significance effects.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified glyphosate in Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic to humans" Group 2A includes red meat and hot coffee [1]. To the extent glyphosphate is problematic, it's in being toxic [2], not carcinogenic. (Though again, we can speak similarly of barbecue [3].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/ [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993204/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993204/
  - memkit 2y ago
    > To the extent glyphosphate is problematic, it's in being toxi [2], not carcinogenic. This is a fair assessment based on the published scientific literature. But you have to take into account the fact that the owners of glyphosate have 1) surveilled, harassed, defamed, and threatened individual scientists and 2) paid millions of dollars to ethically dubious scientists to publish articles in favor of the safety of glyphosate 3) paid billions of dollars to victims of glyphosate exposure because they were found liable (or thought they would be) of causing them harm Given those facts, I think it's reasonable to assume that glyphosate is pretty f*cking bad for you and it's truly mind boggling that people feel the need to defend it. It feels like everyone you talk to on the topic is a bureaucrat in the Soviet Union engaging in doublespeak. Clearly, the people harassing, threatening, surveilling, defaming, and bribing are the baddies. Clearly, they have something to hide.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > you have to take into account the fact that the owners of glyphosate have... Monsanto was absolutely shady. That doesn't change the biochemistry of glyphosphate. > it's reasonable to assume that glyphosate is pretty f-cking bad for you Almost every industry has someone being shady. Concluding adversely from that is not reasonable. (It's literally ad hominem, concluding an argument by way of the speaker's character and motives.) You said "Roundup definitely causes cancer in humans" and then provided sources. Your sources don't support that assertion beyond a very weak definition of causation, at which point we're back to it being similarly carcinogenic to widely-consumed foodstuffs.

Modified3019 2y ago

I work in agriculture as an agronomist, and did some time putting out small plots sprays. I absolutely fucking hate the drinking roundup meme. Yeah sure, pure Glyphosate has an acute toxicity similar to that of table salt (in rodents). So if you’re a rodent you can drink a solution of it similar to what you could tolerate with a salt water solution. But this says nothing of long term effects and is not a realistic situation and is fucking stupid. Glyphosate on its own is completely ineffective, it requires adjuvants in order to do its work, for the same reason you use dish soap when washing plates. You will never see pure glyphosate used unless you’re working in research where you’re intending to mix it with something. It’s like all that research that equivocates coffee with caffeine, but even worse. Roundup is always glyphosate plus surfactants, in fact the water/surfactant mix will typically be the majority of the bottle. Not only will these surfactants strip the protective mucus from your gut, it’s help the gylphsate cross barriers it would never be able to on its own, where it causes all sorts of havoc. If someone drinks undiluted roundup, they will die in a painful way, though that requires managing to get it down, which typically only happens in suicide attempts. A fully diluted solution intended for spraying is much, much safer, but still likely to make you very sick on ingestion or significant skin exposure like if you get drenched in it. Any study on the short or long term safety of pure glyphosate is worse than worthless, it’s outright misleading because Glyphosate is not Roundup. Bonus: most adjuvants (which often make up the majority of the chemicals we actually spray out) are exempted from the types of registration and safety trials we typically apply to pesticides. Only a few states are starting to make changes to that (California and Oregon or Washington I think, been a while since I’ve looked at it).

stogot 2y ago
You buried the lead. Do you think roundup is unsafe or safe?
- ssl-3 2y ago
  It seems pretty clear to me that they think that Roundup, in the form that is sold to regular consumers, is unsafe to drink. They even provided a detailed and rational explanation for why they hold this opinion.

mardifoufs 2y ago

Salt saturated water is also dangerous and lethal to drink. Does that mean that eating a little bit of salt, or any regular portion you'd usually come across in food, would be unsafe and lethal?

pkaye 2y ago

> In 2022, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) carried out a hazard assessment of glyphosate and concluded that it did not meet the scientific criteria to be classified as a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substance. EFSA used ECHA’s hazard classification for the purposes of the EU risk assessment on glyphosate. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-no-critical-areas-concern-data-gaps-identified https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-no-critical-ar...

josefx 2y ago
Assessments by EFSA/ECHA are mainly based on studies and reports collected by the manufacturers. They rely in those being complete and honest. Monsantos internal email correspondence was rather explicit on how they would rather reach out to their contacts and kill any study they did not approve of before it could become problematic.