4 ms·

Sure... but Roundup definitely causes cancer in humans. It's well established at this point. "One international scientific organization, the International Agen

by 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.

by memkit 2y ago

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.