3 ms·

You're presumably thinking of the IARC monograph. You can read how the classifications work in their own preamble: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/up

You're presumably thinking of the IARC monograph. You can read how the classifications work in their own preamble: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Preamble-2019.pdf https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/P... Specifically, > A cancer hazard is an agent that is capable of causing cancer, whereas a cancer risk is an estimate of the probability that cancer will occur given some level of exposure to a cancer hazard. The Monographs assess the strength of evidence that an agent is a cancer hazard. The distinction between hazard and risk is fundamental. > The identification of a cancer hazard should trigger some action to protect public health, either directly as a result of the hazard identification or through the conduct of a risk assessment. The key thing to recognize here is they are making preliminary assessments of existing lines of research, looking for studies into whether an agent has been associated with cancer in humans, animals, or mechanistically, and characterizing the strength of such evidence, as to whether or not something can cause cancer. The purpose of doing this is so that other standards bodies can assess the actual dose/response relationship and your probability of getting cancer from levels of exposure. Glyphosate in in group 2A, along with things like being a barber, night shift work, hot beverages, red meat. Lots of things the EPA does not ban. Why? Because as the organization itself says, hazard does not mean risk. The fact that studies show a robust association between one thing and some increase in cancer incidence, at any dose, does not mean the level of exposure any regular person experiences raises their probability of getting cancer by any meaningful amount we should care about or regulate. The problem here is you're almost certainly not actually reading the publications of either IARC or the EPA, which are not in conflict with each other. You're reading science journalism, which almost universally presents this in the most misleading, fear-mongering fashion possible to attract eyeballs.

titanomachy 2y ago
Thanks, this is helpful context. Basically they conclude that the chemical has the potential to increase cancer incidence in some dose. But they are not making any statement about whether glyphosate as used in agriculture increases cancer risk?
- nonameiguess 2y ago
  Pretty much. The purpose of the IARC monograph is to inform other researchers and regulatory bodies to look into carcinogenic substances more closely to determine if they're worth restricting or not based on the level of risk they pose. IARC doesn't make recommendations to consumers or set standards itself. It's not meant to be a public-facing organization. That's honestly a problem with a lot of science journalism is people taking research that is meant for other scientists to propose lines of further research and add evidence to eventually come together into larger metanalyses, but then presenting these as if they are revolutionary game-changing findings on their own, which contributes to this public feeling of whiplash, as in the whole "wait, today eggs and coffee are bad for you, but yesterday they were good?" In reality, no single research project is saying either of those things. They're producing tiny bits of evidence one way or another that is meant for standards and recommendations bodies to aggregate and produce larger findings from. IARC's piece in this puzzle is to aggregate research showing something is a carcinogen, but this includes a lot of things that are harmless or even healthy in low doses. Sunlight, for instance, is obviously a carcinogen, but the amount of exposure you want is not zero. X-rays can cause cancer, but the optimal lifetime exposure to x-rays is not zero. Once IARC classifies these things, the purpose is to recommend to other researchers to now go look into these to find dose/response curves in animal to see what a safe and unsafe level actually is. As far as the EPA has been able to tell, glyphosate at the level any human would ever get exposed to from its use as a pesticide, is safe, even though it's a carcinogen. Think of like being in the same city as smokers exposes you to cigarette smoke in the shared air, but at levels nowhere near enough to meaningfully raise your cancer risk in spite of the fact you're regularly breathing in carcinogens. Living in the same room with a smoker is a lot worse. Actually smoking is even worse than that. Probably don't drink straight glyphosate on a regular basis. Similarly, you don't want to drink bleach, but cleaning your counter with bleach and then eating off of it is not only perfectly safe, but arguably even better than just eating off the counter beforehand, because bleach disinfects it.
  - philg_jr 2y ago
    Alright, now what about as an endocrine disruptor?
hollerith 2y ago
The IARC monograph restricts its inquiry to carcinogenicity whereas I am more worried about glyphosate's potential to impair my gut microbiome, i.e., decrease the total number of microbes or decrease the ratio of beneficial microbes to harmful ones.

titanomachy 2y ago

Thanks, this is helpful context. Basically they conclude that the chemical has the potential to increase cancer incidence in some dose. But they are not making any statement about whether glyphosate as used in agriculture increases cancer risk?

nonameiguess 2y ago
Pretty much. The purpose of the IARC monograph is to inform other researchers and regulatory bodies to look into carcinogenic substances more closely to determine if they're worth restricting or not based on the level of risk they pose. IARC doesn't make recommendations to consumers or set standards itself. It's not meant to be a public-facing organization. That's honestly a problem with a lot of science journalism is people taking research that is meant for other scientists to propose lines of further research and add evidence to eventually come together into larger metanalyses, but then presenting these as if they are revolutionary game-changing findings on their own, which contributes to this public feeling of whiplash, as in the whole "wait, today eggs and coffee are bad for you, but yesterday they were good?" In reality, no single research project is saying either of those things. They're producing tiny bits of evidence one way or another that is meant for standards and recommendations bodies to aggregate and produce larger findings from. IARC's piece in this puzzle is to aggregate research showing something is a carcinogen, but this includes a lot of things that are harmless or even healthy in low doses. Sunlight, for instance, is obviously a carcinogen, but the amount of exposure you want is not zero. X-rays can cause cancer, but the optimal lifetime exposure to x-rays is not zero. Once IARC classifies these things, the purpose is to recommend to other researchers to now go look into these to find dose/response curves in animal to see what a safe and unsafe level actually is. As far as the EPA has been able to tell, glyphosate at the level any human would ever get exposed to from its use as a pesticide, is safe, even though it's a carcinogen. Think of like being in the same city as smokers exposes you to cigarette smoke in the shared air, but at levels nowhere near enough to meaningfully raise your cancer risk in spite of the fact you're regularly breathing in carcinogens. Living in the same room with a smoker is a lot worse. Actually smoking is even worse than that. Probably don't drink straight glyphosate on a regular basis. Similarly, you don't want to drink bleach, but cleaning your counter with bleach and then eating off of it is not only perfectly safe, but arguably even better than just eating off the counter beforehand, because bleach disinfects it.
- philg_jr 2y ago
  Alright, now what about as an endocrine disruptor?

hollerith 2y ago

The IARC monograph restricts its inquiry to carcinogenicity whereas I am more worried about glyphosate's potential to impair my gut microbiome, i.e., decrease the total number of microbes or decrease the ratio of beneficial microbes to harmful ones.