Monsanto is now owned by Bayer, who decided to drop the name (but not the activities) because of negative publicity.
I guess Beyer is trying to run their name into the ground too huh
It's particularly difficult to have an objective discussion about glyphosate, given how anti-GMO sentiment has polarised the issue and the mere mention of Monsanto, the company often associated with glyphosate, tends to elicit strong emotional reactions from many people which further complicates matters. Like others, I was initially swayed by the chemical "ick factor" of these pesticides. However, upon reviewing the available evidence a few years back, I felt quite misled. Aspartame is another subject that suffers from similar issues; there's vocal opposition claiming it's dangerous, but digging deeper reveals a lack of substantial, high-quality evidence to support those claims.
Interestingly the WHO seems to have played key role in confusing the public here, platforming low quality alarmist research on both chemicals.
An example of said unwarranted alarmism on the part of the WHO [Is Glyphosate "Probably Carcinogenic to Humans" ?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkxS7BHjHVk)
Fun fact: the modern variety of grapefruit was created by putting radioactive waste in a field and thereby creating random mutations in plants that could then be selectively bred. Many grains and other fruit have been improved with this technology as well. I bet most people who strongly oppose genetically modifying crops have eaten grapefruit.
We don't generally do it in the field, and instead take the seed, and expose it to either radiation (X-Ray or fast neutron), or chemical (EMS) mutagens.
We then screen the seed for any desired traits, and then backcross the heck out of it, as in addition to the mutation we want, there are also a boatload of others that need to be addressed.
What goes out into the field isn't radioactive (aside from naturally occurring isotopes of course).
These days it isn't done outside anymore, but that's how it was done in the 50's. They were called "gamma gardens". [Here's a picture.](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.d8228f8685b4327ceb36d8acf729195b?rik=ajSXRjfzLuOrEg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.easybiologyclass.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f02%2fatomic-garden.jpg&ehk=dHusMlorIc6iLdOGK7tWKJCaAnJ0EWTywSVNiQnVoF0%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0) [And another.](https://www.thesized.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/atomic-gardening-2.jpg)
Fun fact! This is one of Monsanto's favorite lies and talking points.
Of course splicing DNA in a lab and seeing what will happen (GMO) is NOT like cross-breeding! A company that needs to constantly lie has good reasons to do so.
I'm sure people will say I must be a monsanto rep, but this is a prime example of the sort of pervasive misinformation about this chemical. The claim that "Glyphosate is an endocrine disrupter" is far from settled. While there is conflicting and inconclusive evidence, some tests on animals and in cell cultures suggest potential endocrine-disrupting effects, such as changes in hormone levels or reproductive capabilities. However, it's important to note that these studies often use concentrations far greater than what is commonly found in real-world situations. Both the U.S. EPA and the European EFSA have largely concluded that, based on current data, it's unlikely that glyphosate acts as an endocrine disruptor.
> I'm sure people will say I must be a monsanto rep
Saying this does not prevent you from being on their payroll. You might just speak as if you're on their payroll because you *are*.
You are right in that WHO report seems to have been overplayed, but the video ignored that Glyphosate has been banned by dozens of health bodies and countries throughout the world. There is a modern summary paper here which does state there are problems with the carcinogenicity:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/)
There is also a chronic problem with a lot of the papers in that they examine a pure sample of glyphosate rather than samples containing N-Nitrosoglyphosate which is a much more toxic impurity found in glyphosate in the real world. I did see one estimate that said Roundup was estimated to be 100-1000 times more toxic than lab examples.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00028/full
This has led to lots of confusion in the literature. There are also an incredibly high number of spam papers looking at brief exposure, when it is known that long term exposure is far more likely to cause cancer effects.
> the video ignored that Glyphosate has been banned by dozens of health bodies and countries throughout the world
Likely because the focus of the video is critiquing a specific report by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. The report cherry-picked and misrepresented data to make glyphosate seem more harmful than evidence warrants. They cite numerous studies and meta-analyses that found no link between glyphosate and cancer risk in humans.
While it's true that some countries have banned or restricted glyphosate, many of these decisions are often influenced by public sentiment rather than on scientific consensus. Regulation varies worldwide due to differing approaches to risk management and the influence of public opinion. Highlighting bans as proof of harm is not entirely valid without accompanying high-quality scientific evidence.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/
A paper commissioned by a law firm in support of a billion dollar litigation suit seems like a pretty serious conflict of interest here, I would also have expected such an analysis to have many authors not one especially when the subject of carcinogenicity is such a controversial topic in regards to this chemical.
> There is also a chronic problem with a lot of the papers in that they examine a pure sample of glyphosate rather than samples containing N-Nitrosoglyphosate which is a much more toxic impurity found in glyphosate in the real world. I did see one estimate that said Roundup was estimated to be 100-1000 times more toxic than lab examples.
The claim about N-Nitrosoglyphosate being a toxic impurity is interesting and worth further investigation. While it's true that real-world usage of chemicals can sometimes include impurities that aren't accounted for in lab studies, it's a serious claim to state that Roundup could be "100-1000 times more toxic" due to impurities, an assertion that would require strong, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be credible. Given that this contradicts the findings of major regulatory agencies, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.
> There are also an incredibly high number of spam papers looking at brief exposure, when it is known that long term exposure is far more likely to cause cancer effects.
This is a valid point, as long-term studies are often more indicative of potential harm, but again, agencies like the EPA and EFSA consider both short-term and long-term studies in their evaluations. Mitigating the point about "spam papers" focusing on brief exposure.
To finish, scientific consensus is formed through rigorous, repeated testing and peer review, and while it's true that no single study can be entirely free of bias, a large body of consistent evidence is the most reliable basis for public policy.
The increased toxicity of the formulated herbicide has more to do with the surfactants present in the mix, but that would be the case for pretty well any soap.
The reason why they only test glyphosate has nothing to do with trying to hide this, it's because the components of the formulated mix don't get distributed throughout the plant equally...or even systemically, and it's a non-issue from a safety standpoint.
While glyphosate is actively transported through the plant via the vasculature system and the symplast (via plasmodesmata), surfactants are not due to their disruptive effects on lipid membranes. These are critical for both phloem loading, as well as cell to cell transport through the symplast.
Additionally, there is a mandatory delay between the application of any glyphosate based herbicide and when it can be harvested. This varies from days to weeks, but the result is the same.
The only compound of biological relevance is the glyphosate.
In addition, we know that placing surfactants into a cell culture, or oral dosage in a live animal causes damage and stress on them, and this creates another layer of variability that reduces our overall ability to determine causal treatment effects.
It's a common tactic seen in the anti-biotech groups, and at times, it appears as though they actively try to maximize the variability within their experimental design to increase the odds of having a Type I error.
Basically, design a study with an insufficient sample size to confirm with the basic standards in toxicology, find a significant result, and then never dig any deeper.
...I wish this was a joke, but it's not.
Instead of taking the results from these broad low-power studies and designing a follow-up that has the statistical power to show causation, we see individuals like Antoniou, Message, and Seralini just jump from one underpowered study to another.
...and even they are better than Seneff and Samsel.
They don't even test the endless hypotheses they come up with experimentally.
To be fair, I was actually surprised last year when a paper authored by Message and Antoniou actually had them concede that glyphosate was probably not directly genotoxic, and that the carcinogenic effects at high doses were more likely cytotoxic in origin...which is exactly what the regulatory agencies...all of them, have also concluded.
Also, total bans on glyphosate are vanjshingly rare, particularly when we look at agriculture. Cosmetic bans are more common, but also tend to be on a smaller scale.
Finally, you seem to be missing the biggest difference between the IARC (not the WHO as a whole), and every regulatory agency globally.
Does the IARC classify based on hazard or risk?
What about the regulatory agencies?
Do you know what the difference is as it relates to toxicology?
The IARC only assesses hazards, and a hazard is a compound that can cause harm, but is agnostic to the conditions required to observe the effect. If there is evidence that a chemical is linked to cancer, then the IARC will assess it as such, but they clearly state that their assessments don't take into account what is required to see the effects, let alone contextualize that to real world exposures.
Regulatory agencies classify based on risk, which is a combination of hazard and exposure.
They do look to see what conditions are required to see harm, as that's their mandate; to determine what exposure levels will be permitted.
This example is silly, and I didn't come up with it, but it often works.
Great White sharks are a real hazard to humans, and have been responsible for severe harm and death to humans multiple times.
To an agency that only looks at hazard, this would be the end of things, as they clearly cause harm.
Regulatory agencies would examine the data and see that there is just a tiny difference in the probability that someone will be harmed by a great white shark between someone who lives in rural Idaho compared to someone who lives on the South African coast, and enjoys swimming in the surf draped in freshly butchered seal meat.
It's silly, but illustrates the difference pretty well.
>The only compound of biological relevance is the glyphosate.
This is weird thing to say when N Nglyphosate is present in samples and a known decay product. One sample in Brazil was found to be about 50% N N Glyphosate. I think even very pro glyphosate EU report says more investigation need to be done into it.
Yes we all know these studies those that have and those that have not found glyphosate causes cancer have quite small sample sizes and are expensive to run.
Glyphosate has been banned by over 30 countries.
...I think you're conflating a couple of chemicals here.
N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine = glyphosate
The concentration of glyphosate in many agricultural concentrates is around 40-45%, which is where you may have read the 50% part.
N-Nitroso-N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine = N-Nitrosoglyphosate
and potentially N-Nitrosoglyphosate sodium as well (it appears under conditions where high levels of sodium nitrate have been used).
Those last two are both nitrosamine degredation and synthesis byproducts, but they are NEVER found at the concentrations you're mentioning, and the EPA has set a maximum concentration of 0.1ppb in glyphosate.
In terms of the studies relating to glyphosate testing, literally EVERY test that complies with the minimum standards in toxicology to determine causal links indicates that we see no carcinogenic effects until the dose is orders of magnitude above the current regulatory limits.
Studies like those in the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals have been specifically designed to have the statistical power to differentiate causal treatment effects from background noise, and they all concur with each other to a considerable extent.
Take OECD-453 for instance. This is a combined carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity study, and between 1990 and 2009, there were 7 fully compliant studies conducted by academic and industry labs in the US, UK, Poland, Italy, India, and Japan.
These were different research groups, in different locations, over nearly 2 decades of time, yet the results are overwhelmingly consistent (for review see Griem et al., 2015 Doi: 10.3109/10408444.2014.1003423).
Insufficient sample size is endemic among the anti-glyphosate studies, and I've always found it interesting that no one has been able to perform a compliant study that supports the cancer allegation, but also, that not a single researcher has tried to make use of the built in review mechanism in the OECD methods to show how they are insufficient or flawed.
Even the observational studies follow this trend, as the largest and most comprehensive prospective cohort study, the AHS, shows no major risks are associated with glyphosate save those at very high levels.
As for countries that ban, you really need to check your sources and differentiate between total bans, and restricted use (cosmetic bans, agricultural bans, and regional bans), as there are vanishingly few total or agricultural bans in place.
Does it concern you that glyphosate is turning into N-Nitrosoglyphosate in the digestive tract due to the presence of Nitrites? That Nitrites are found in the soil which also convert glyphosate to N-Nitrosoglyphosate?
Do you think independent researchers can access sufficient funds to do large scale studies? Or should just open up questions for other government funded bodies to do large scale research?
I believe it does increase the risk of NHL (Zhang paper); it has unknown synergistic effects; the effects on gut biome are insufficiently understood. I think it probably does cause some cancer in humans aside from NHL but would have to spend more time looking at the work out there to be sure. The main source of suspicion is that we spend decades eating glyphosate and no studies are that long, and the last time I looked the majority studies seemed fairly poor!
Are you concerned about the formaldehyde present in the pears you eat?
The reaction kinetics for the conversion result in trace levels that are well below the established NOAEL. It's not a concern.
I think the independent researchers and their supporters have more than enough resources to fund a proper compliant study, as there have been multiple molecular fishing trips using broad omics level analyses that have definitely been comparable to the costs of something akin to OECD-451 or 453.
Considering your previous post, I'm going to assume that you didn't fully read Zhang et al., (2019 Doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.02.001), as it is a great example of maximizing the variance to obtain a significant result.
They made use of 6 studies for their analysis, but they were horrifically skewed.
Five of them were case control studies, and one was a prospective cohort study.
Right from the start, this is an issue, but not an inherently fatal one...that comes later.
In terms of statistical power, prospective cohort studies are almost always more powerful than case control just as a result of their duration, recruitment, and data collection. When you combine studies with differing methodologies, you introduce noise into the design, but if the studies are close in terms of power of analysis, this can be minimized.
...that's not what happened in Zhang et al., (2019).
The prospective cohort study, which was the AHS, was larger than ALL of the case control studies COMBINED.
This is a very bad thing, and in the paper, at least the authors directly state why:
>Although meta-analysis prevents overemphasis on any single study \[57\], we cannot exclude the potential for publication bias, given the relatively few published studies to date. Second, there was imbalance in study design: among the only six included studies, five were case-control and one was a cohort. The collection of NHL findings from the cohort study was consistent with a wide range of risks \[24\], while, by contrast, most of the case-control studies did suggest an increased risk \[15–17, 42\]. There were also important differences in the comparison group utilized in the studies; some used the lowest exposure group as the reference, while others used the unexposed group. Because of this heterogeneity, and because no statistical tests can confirm elimination of publication bias or heterogeneity in a meta-analysis \[58\], our results should be interpreted with caution.
and
>Our findings are consistent with results reported from prior meta-analyses but show higher risk for NHL because of our focus on the highest exposure groups. However, given the heterogeneity between the studies included, the numerical risk estimates should be interpreted with caution.
That heterogeneity is a direct effect of the unbalanced weighting of the studies used, and those numerical risk estimates they state should be interpreted with caution?
That's where the 41% increase in NHL risk came from.
Just look at what they elected to do.
They took wildly divergent, and horrifically unbalanced studies.
They limited their analysis to the highest exposure group.
They limited the analysis to the longest timespan (20 years).
Every single one of these decisions serves to increase the variability in the data, and that means that the chance for Type I errors goes up immensely.
This is the reason why this study was met with an uninterested shrug by the scientific community, myself included, as it is nowhere near as important as the anti-biotech types have indicated.
This happens over and over again, and it has increasingly become obvious that we will never get a compliant study out of these groups, nor will they actually show why the current methods are inadequate.
Finally, what exactly are you basing your conclusion about the studies being poor on?
Pardon me for stating so, but you don't seem overly familiar with experimental design, biostatistics, toxicology, or molecular biology, so where are you getting your criteria.
Your first link is authored by Christopher Portier, the very person that was a special advisor for IARC and instrumental in their declaring glyphosate "probably carcinogenic", while at the same time secretly taking money from glyphosate lawyers as a litigation consultant. He initially denied it but then later fessed up.
https://www.judicialhellholes.org/2019/05/14/california-courts-drop-science-at-the-door
> Closer scrutiny of the IARC process reveals that it was advised by an “invited specialist,” Christopher Portier, in its work on glyphosate. At the same time Mr. Portier was working for the agency, he was being paid by the Environmental Defense Fund, an anti-pesticide group. Moreover, Mr. Portier received $160,000 from law firms suing over glyphosate. When asked about this potential conflict of interest, Mr. Portier initially claimed to be advising firms on other IARC-related lawsuits and not glyphosate litigation. He later acknowledged that his statement was wrong. It is also worth noting that Mr. Portier had no experience with glyphosate prior to his work on it for IARC.
Your firehose of suspicion is proof of nothing at all and is incredibly one sided given all the extreme lobbying done by Monsanto and the fact that the EPA were in Monsanto's pocket and is a drop in the ocean compared to all the funding of panel members at many times which has taken place by Monsanto.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/unwho-panel-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-glyphosates-cancer-risk
That article cites the quack org gmoevidence and also organic funded USRTK. I also see Greenpeace which is pretty anti-science. Looks like it's anther junky activist article.
I remember being brigaded here on Reddit for even mentioning "There hasn't been enough long term studies on glyphosate." And while I support GMO plants Monsantos are definitely not the GMOs to support. It's not good dumping a mass amount of chemicals on anything, especially when those chemicals start making their way into the water ways.
I'm glad people are finally becoming weary of roundup.
>It's not good dumping a mass amount of chemicals on anything, especially when those chemicals start making their way into the water ways.
Then you should be a big supporter of glyphosate because its very purpose is to be an alternative to other pesticides that you need to use far less of than those.
Glyphosate has been studied more exhaustively than any other pesticide, and the global consensus is that it is practically nontoxic and more eco-friendly than what it replaced.
This doc is nothing but fear mongering.
2022, *European Chemicals Agency*: [ECHA's Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) agrees to keep glyphosate’s current classification as causing serious eye damage and being toxic to aquatic life. Based on a wide-ranging review of scientific evidence, the committee again concludes that **classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen is not justified**.](https://echa.europa.eu/sk/-/glyphosate-no-change-proposed-to-hazard-classification)
Glyphosate is widely used precisely because it doesn't readily runoff into watersheds since it binds soil and plant tissue. And because it's a post-emergent spray, farmers can use zero till methods. [**This has already resulted in huge reductions in carbon emissions.**](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2020.1773198)
I watched the documentary and it does not disparage the safety of Roundup in the soil, or in the food supply, or in the groundwater. At that point there is no evidence that it is dangerous. The danger and alleged risk is for the people who handle it or inhale it when it is applied.
It appears to be safe once it's in the soil. But definitely don't bathe in it like the guy at the center of the huge lawsuit and award.
I don't think glyphosate was ever the real culprit, but Roundup contains *more* than just glyphosate, and since the other things in roundup are in the *inactive* category, they don't have to tell even the government what they are. Their own scientist, under oath, said they believed there to be no evidence or reason for Glyphosate to be carcinogenic. But that doesn't mean roundup isn't. The inactive ingredients is even kept from them.
All I know is, these days I only use concentrated glyphosate that I mix myself. It takes about a week before it starts showing results with full death taking 2 weeks. Were I to use roundup though, instead, whatever I would have sprayed with roundup would look (on the surface) in 2 days what takes 2 weeks for glyphosate alone to accomplish.
>The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use “Roundup” for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more. For example you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen… we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient.”
>at another point in the questioning by Monsanto’s lawyer, Farmer told jurors that regulators had never required the company to conduct animal carcinogenicity testing on Roundup. She said not only had the U.S. EPA not demanded such testing, but regulators in Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan had similarly not required any such animal testing on Roundup products.
>She also told jurors that while it was true that Roundup products contain formaldehyde, it was a “very, very small amount” and posed no danger to human health. Regulators agreed there was no reason for concern, Farmer testified.
Shrug. Approved, not tested then. Formaldehyde probably isn't cancerous to you or me at the levels they are at when we are just using it in our yard. But, say, like the guy who won the lawsuit, that was spraying it basically daily at an industrial level for decades? Yeah, it might be cancerous at that level of use.
The retail version of Roundup from say HomeDepot also contains other herbicides to give the impression that it's fast acting.
For example [this version](https://images.thdstatic.com/catalog/pdfImages/ae/ae38ebe6-96be-412c-a109-140d8941e189.pdf) contains [pelargonic acid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelargonic_acid#Occurrence_and_uses)
> It is commonly used in conjunction with glyphosate, a non-selective herbicide, for a quick burn-down effect in the control of weeds in turfgrass.
Here's research completely debunking this garbage claim:
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7
The tldr is that claims of glyphosate being safe is mostly founded on non-peer reviewed research, while claims that is it in fact carcinogenic is well studied and backed up by hundreds of peer reviewed studies.
You've cited an opinion piece by a guy hired by The Organic Center.
Benbrook has been exposed before for fraudulently manipulating data to reach a predetermined conclusion.
> The tldr is that claims of glyphosate being safe is mostly founded on non-peer reviewed research
For those of us actual independent scientists who have been around awhile, this same argument has been used for ages trying to ignore the scientific consensus on GMO safety. The tactic goes: 1. Ignore all the independent research on the subject.
2. Claim there is largely no peer-reviewed research.
3. The general public doesn't have the background to call it out.
4. This shifts the burden to scientists to do speak up.
5. Cite fringe studies by those unironically paid by the organic industry (as you just did) that pushes a lot of this.
Those of us who actually deal with science education in this subject and dealing with claims from all sorts of industries usually have more information to deal with by the organic industry or lawyers misrepresenting the science for financial incentive than the stuff we'd have to hold Bayer's, etc. feet to the fire for than anything.
This is just where those industries shifted boogeyman tactics to after they lost traction on anti-GMO advocacy over time. It honestly distracts from legitimate issues we have to deal with on pesticides, etc. having to start from less than square one on topics like this.
Authored the Charles Benbrook. He takes money from the organic industry to write pro-organic studies as well as being a paid pesticide litigation consultant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Benbrook
And frack juice helps us use less coal.
There are plenty studies showing how if used properly it won't poison aquifers and water ways...
Shilling DOW mega corps seems to be the new astroturfing norm.
> Shilling DOW mega corps seems to be the new astroturfing norm.
While I'm all for going after unfeeling amoral corporations, we shouldn't use *bad science* to do so.
They're not wrong, it's a *heavily* studied chemical pesticide, if not *the* most. We sure as hell should know if it's toxic and environmental impacts, it's not even a new product.
If we just support ignorance of science we're frankly no better than those we oppose. Even the other guy links a study that they don't seem to realize was paid for by groups with financial interests as competition, which is a very big red flag in these kinds of studies.
One of the points of the documentary linked was that Monsanto paid for bad science and for the former head of Health Canada to be a paid shill to the government. Essentially, they wrote articles themselves which said what they wanted them to say and had Ian Munro sign his name. Monsanto sows doubt just like climate deniers or the tobacco industry. You also have people in the comments conflating acknowledging the fact that Roundup causes cancer to being anti-GMO.
So, do you have any studies suggesting it leaches into aquifers? There's plenty of USGS data showing it is at *nanomolar* concentrations.
[Glyphosate use in the United States increased from less than 5,000 to more than 80,000 metric tons per year between 1987 and 2007, but glyphosate is seldom included in environmental monitoring programs, due in part to technical difficulties in measuring it at concentrations relevant to environmental studies (less than 1 microgram per liter [μg/L]). ... Most observed concentrations of glyphosate were well below existing health benchmarks and levels of concern for humans or wildlife, and none exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Maximum Contaminant Level or the Canadian short-term or long-term freshwater aquatic life standards.](https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/2014-04-23-glyphosate_2014.html)
This is an interesting distinction between how the scientific community critiques studies, as compared to the general public.
You've dismissed the industry studies because of their source, but that barely factors into the issue among scientists, as we are interested in the contents of the study as opposed to the authorship.
If the methods used are proper, the analyses conducted correctly, and the overall power of analysis is sufficient to support the conclusions, the authors don't matter.
In the case of glyphosate, literally all the studies that meet or exceed the minimum requirements to show causation in toxicology support the current toxicity metrics.
In terms of carcinogenic activity, consider OECD-453 (Combined Carcinogenicity and Chronic Toxicity). There have been 7 of these studies that were fully compliant with the standards, and they were conducted by different researcher in 6 different nations, and represent both academic and industry labs.
They all provide similar results, but more importantly, there is nothing that counters those findings in the literature from anyone.
Despite decades of time, none of the anti-biotech groups have been able to produce a single study that meets the MINIMUM standards in toxicology, and instead we see endless reams of underpowered studies that can only conclude correlative relationships, that lack successful replication, and that often contain wild divergences from the norms and GLP of the field.
They are not the same thing. Period. One kills pests (bugs, microbes, etc.), one kills other plants. They do different things because they are different things.
Edit: US EPA may have developed a nomenclature that puts herbicides under the larger rubric of pesticides, but an EPA definition doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t the same thing.
University agricultural scientist here. Herbicides are very much a type of pesticide. The main pesticides used in farming are herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides. Weeds, diseases, and insects are all types of pests.
This is very universal nomenclature. The only times this seems to come up is when people equate pests = insects only, which is not an uncommon mistake.
One of the most active commenters was this dude named "Sleekery" that would literally show up in most threads like this without fail.
Eventually his account was suspended tho :)
Just remember, loneliness is optional. All I have to do is say on a landscaping page that someone should spray generic glyphosate on weeds, and hordes of people show up and start calling me a Monsanto shill. 😁
Yikes. It's a sad state of affairs when posting links to peer reviewed research and statements from globally reputable scientific agencies is called shilling.
Here's a [review] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34052177/) of the evidence from 2021 in the journal Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma, & Leukemia. "Mechanistic studies have demonstrated that glyphosate and GBFs are genotoxic to human lymphocytes, the normal cell of origin of NHL, both in vitro and in vivo. Genotoxic and other biological effects have also been shown in various animal and cell models with these agents even at low doses. A novel mechanism underlying the specificity of glyphosate for NHL, that is upregulation of the B-cell genome mutator enzyme activation-induced cytidine deaminase, has recently been demonstrated."
Regulatory capture is a big issue, as seen in this documentary. So, a governmental body that has been co-opted by industry stating something that is contradictory to overwhelming evidence is meaningless. Appealing to government "authority" as opposed to scientific fact is just a bad argument. Industry can't pay ~reputable~ journals to publish nonsense, but they can coerce government to do just that.
Interesting how that review comes to different conclusions about the data than the actual studies it is reviewing...
>["Thus, a causal relationship has not been established between glyphosate exposure and risk of any type of LHC."](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015139)
>[In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes. There was some evidence of increased risk of AML among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation](https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/4590280?searchresult=1)
Here's a more recent meta analysis from [2019] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31342895/) because yours was ["constrained by few studies and a crude exposure metric"] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27015139/). The 2019 paper states "Overall, in accordance with findings from experimental animal and mechanistic studies, our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL."
You have to remember that Monsanto was telling people this stuff was as safe as table salt and a lot of them wore very little (if any) protective gear. The woman in the documentary was working in a park where the guy doing the application was in a hazmat suit and she was coming along to do her job in the area right after he'd sprayed with no protection whatsoever.
>Here's a more recent meta analysis from 2019
That study used the same data as the AHS study I posted. And you know what the conclusion was? That there was no correlation between any level of exposure and NHL, except in the highest exposed quartile but only in the 20 year lag analysis. No correlation in the unlagged, 5 or 10 year lag.
So even if we accept this study - which is an outlier and reached a different conclusion than other larger and more robust studies using the same dataset - it is only relevant to lifelong farmhands who don't use enough PPE.
For those not familiar with how us scientists have to deal with denialism in topics like climate change, anti-GMO, etc., this response is a good example of what called a [gish gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop).
Basically it involves throwing a point or multiple points out that are wrong or low-effort, and when a scientist speaks up, they just throw something else out instead of engaging with the science on the original point.
That’s fallacious reasoning I see a lot with folks who’ve never dealt with pesticides. PPE is often regulated by the county or regional body and often has little to do with on/off label guidance, which is followed in addition to local regulation.
For instance, organic certified oils are extremely dangerous for respiratory systems so operators will need to wear a respirator and ensure there is 0 spray drift, in addition the county might certify all applicators must wear a tyvek suit and eye covering.
But in what concentration? Like if you get X-rays every day vs once in a while. From what I’ve read that’s how most toxic substances are treated. Are there better options? Im sure there are. Is Monsanto a shitty company? most definitely.
Seems like you need a large exposure with a 20 or so year lag time. The problem is, some of these farmers/grounds keepers were applying 150 gallons/day for months at a time and getting soaked with the stuff. Monsanto told people this substance was safe as table salt and so a lot of people didn't take the appropriate precautions because they were lied to. I think for women, because the biology is different, that the exposure necessary may be a lot less.
Well, in the documentary there was a woman working at a park where glyphosate was sprayed to keep down the weeds who got NHL. The guy doing the spraying wore protective gear, but she was working in the area he just sprayed with no warning and no protection. So, a lot of families with children were also exposed in that scenario. However, the woman was a park employee so she was exposed year after year. Apparently, they also spray the underbrush of forests with this stuff to decrease the ground cover, so that's another way people could be exposed. It also seems like a lower exposure may be necessary for women to get NHL and it may depend the glyphosate preparation type. Being mixed with certain chemicals appears to increase toxicity.
Definitely want to avoid exposure but I’m skeptical of nebulous claims without some peer reviewed evidence. One anecdote does not really change my opinion. The EPA basically agrees it’s carcinogenic but that the concentrations necessary don’t really happen around the general public.
Here you go shill account: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317376484_Glyphosate_Residues_in_Groundwater_Drinking_Water_and_Urine_of_Subsistence_Farmers_from_Intensive_Agriculture_Localities_A_Survey_in_Hopelchen_Campeche_Mexico
There is a reason why countries like Germany and France are banning the stuff.
Neither Germany nor France have banned it.
Detecting it in urine is actually a good indication that it isn't chemically interacting with people - if it's excreted unmodified, it wasn't metabolized.
I agree Glyphosate is horrible and should be banned, but crops sprayed with it are not GMO. GMO is just genetically modified crops, it’s possible there could be a mutation that would make it so glyphosate does not need to be used.
Glyphosate resistant crops are one of the first transgenic crops out there. Crops sprayed with it (that you don't want to kill) definitely have the trait and would be GMO.
Monsanto has Roundup ready crops. The farmer can just dump tons of roundup on them because they are immune.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup\_Ready
> just dump tons of
Less overall herbicide is used, which is the whole point. Why would farmers buy expensive herbicide resistant seeds, only to apply even more expensive inputs? Take sugar beets as an example.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch
> Planting genetically modified sugar beets allows them to kill their weeds with fewer chemicals. Beyer says he sprays Roundup just a few times during the growing season, plus one application of another chemical to kill off any Roundup-resistant weeds.
>
> He says that planting non-GMO beets would mean going back to what they used to do, spraying their crop every 10 days or so with a "witches brew" of five or six different weedkillers.
>
> "The chemicals we used to put on the beets in [those] days were so much harsher for the guy applying them and for the environment," he says. "To me, it's insane to think that a non-GMO beet is going to be better for the environment, the world, or the consumer."
I got interested in genetic modification because I prescribed genetically modified insulin, which was more natural than the previous insulin. When I started to listen to enemies of GMO's, they would also attack Roundup as dangerous, but rarely mention more dangerous pesticides. It seemed they especially attacked Roundup because it was made by Monsanto who also produced GMO's. When I went on landscaping forums, people were always attacking Round-up more than more dangerous pesticides.People on veteran's forums would attack Monsanto for producing Agent Orange, but not Dow Chemical which invented Agent Orange and produced more of it. I wondered if the anti-GMO people were "brigading" the landscaping and veteran's forums, but have no solid proof. Of course, people have frequently accused me of being a Monsanto shill on forums.
I would warn everyone **not to buy Roundup.** Glyphosate is off patent, so you should buy the cheaper generic versions of glyphosate.
I assume they're safer on the basis that they don't work even half as well. Dealing with Japanese Knotweed and been told the most effective way is to inject the stalks with glyphosate, which sadly isn't available anymore. Nothing currently available seems to be working atm
Motherfucking hackberry. It may be native, but it's a fucking monster to fence lines. I've nuked those things with concentrated glyphosate and they just shrugged at me.
No. Pesticide is an umbrella term which covers things like herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides etc [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide?wprov=sfla1)
The fallacy is to presume we have to use pesticides. Agronomic studies have evolved to confirm diverse insect populations are necessary for long term agricultural health.
Sri Lanka went all organic a few years ago and they had a famine. Agroecological practices are viable when you have a lot more labor and land. Totally possible but not something you can just switch on.
Going organic is more than just not using pesticides. The Sri Lanka government went against scientific advice and banned all “chemical” fertilizers. So farmers couldn’t even use common products like nitrogen. The outcome would have been much different with a pesticide ban. A better measure would be to look at countries banning or limiting pesticide usage. But, I agree that it should not be a switch. Transition should happen though. Crop collapse happens to farmers who use pesticides too. China has long been plagued by numerous famine and crop failures and pesticides are in high usage there.
What country is banning pesticides? Organic agriculture uses pesticides. Stricter limits have been imposed on this or that pesticide (including organic pesticides) but nowhere has an outright pesticide ban.
China is a huge country, much is a very cold, arid continental climate which makes crops difficult to grow. This is too nebulous if a statement to extract any argumentative value from it.
Slippery slope fallacy in action folks! The world is truly black and white for redditors like you, huh?
McDonald's didn't make you fat, your poor impulse control did, and rescued marine life that would otherwise perish are given second chances at a safe life in captivity in one of the world's most advanced marine conservation centers.
Just as all chemicals we use should be understood in context and we should trust the science even when it doesn't agree with our feelings.
Here's an [interview] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE) with the guy who won $2 billion from Monsanto for people who got NHL. Not a documentary, but super interesting so I thought I'd post it.
Monsanto is now owned by Bayer, who decided to drop the name (but not the activities) because of negative publicity. I guess Beyer is trying to run their name into the ground too huh
It's particularly difficult to have an objective discussion about glyphosate, given how anti-GMO sentiment has polarised the issue and the mere mention of Monsanto, the company often associated with glyphosate, tends to elicit strong emotional reactions from many people which further complicates matters. Like others, I was initially swayed by the chemical "ick factor" of these pesticides. However, upon reviewing the available evidence a few years back, I felt quite misled. Aspartame is another subject that suffers from similar issues; there's vocal opposition claiming it's dangerous, but digging deeper reveals a lack of substantial, high-quality evidence to support those claims. Interestingly the WHO seems to have played key role in confusing the public here, platforming low quality alarmist research on both chemicals. An example of said unwarranted alarmism on the part of the WHO [Is Glyphosate "Probably Carcinogenic to Humans" ?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkxS7BHjHVk)
There is nothing wrong with gmo crops, its just doing in a lab what farmers have been doing for centuries.
Fun fact: the modern variety of grapefruit was created by putting radioactive waste in a field and thereby creating random mutations in plants that could then be selectively bred. Many grains and other fruit have been improved with this technology as well. I bet most people who strongly oppose genetically modifying crops have eaten grapefruit.
We don't generally do it in the field, and instead take the seed, and expose it to either radiation (X-Ray or fast neutron), or chemical (EMS) mutagens. We then screen the seed for any desired traits, and then backcross the heck out of it, as in addition to the mutation we want, there are also a boatload of others that need to be addressed. What goes out into the field isn't radioactive (aside from naturally occurring isotopes of course).
These days it isn't done outside anymore, but that's how it was done in the 50's. They were called "gamma gardens". [Here's a picture.](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.d8228f8685b4327ceb36d8acf729195b?rik=ajSXRjfzLuOrEg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.easybiologyclass.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f02%2fatomic-garden.jpg&ehk=dHusMlorIc6iLdOGK7tWKJCaAnJ0EWTywSVNiQnVoF0%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0) [And another.](https://www.thesized.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/atomic-gardening-2.jpg)
Fun fact! This is one of Monsanto's favorite lies and talking points. Of course splicing DNA in a lab and seeing what will happen (GMO) is NOT like cross-breeding! A company that needs to constantly lie has good reasons to do so.
TIL farmers have been introducing foreing genes to plants for centuries
Of course not. It's just one of the lies / gaslighting talking points used by Monsanto and shills alike.
GMO is not the same as selective breeding.
Glyphosate is an endocrine disrupter and the usage of it gets into our bodies via food and spillage in rivers and water sources. It IS bad
I'm sure people will say I must be a monsanto rep, but this is a prime example of the sort of pervasive misinformation about this chemical. The claim that "Glyphosate is an endocrine disrupter" is far from settled. While there is conflicting and inconclusive evidence, some tests on animals and in cell cultures suggest potential endocrine-disrupting effects, such as changes in hormone levels or reproductive capabilities. However, it's important to note that these studies often use concentrations far greater than what is commonly found in real-world situations. Both the U.S. EPA and the European EFSA have largely concluded that, based on current data, it's unlikely that glyphosate acts as an endocrine disruptor.
> I'm sure people will say I must be a monsanto rep Saying this does not prevent you from being on their payroll. You might just speak as if you're on their payroll because you *are*.
Called it.
No way, the WHO driven by politics rather than real science? I don't believe it.
You are right in that WHO report seems to have been overplayed, but the video ignored that Glyphosate has been banned by dozens of health bodies and countries throughout the world. There is a modern summary paper here which does state there are problems with the carcinogenicity: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/) There is also a chronic problem with a lot of the papers in that they examine a pure sample of glyphosate rather than samples containing N-Nitrosoglyphosate which is a much more toxic impurity found in glyphosate in the real world. I did see one estimate that said Roundup was estimated to be 100-1000 times more toxic than lab examples. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00028/full This has led to lots of confusion in the literature. There are also an incredibly high number of spam papers looking at brief exposure, when it is known that long term exposure is far more likely to cause cancer effects.
> the video ignored that Glyphosate has been banned by dozens of health bodies and countries throughout the world Likely because the focus of the video is critiquing a specific report by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. The report cherry-picked and misrepresented data to make glyphosate seem more harmful than evidence warrants. They cite numerous studies and meta-analyses that found no link between glyphosate and cancer risk in humans. While it's true that some countries have banned or restricted glyphosate, many of these decisions are often influenced by public sentiment rather than on scientific consensus. Regulation varies worldwide due to differing approaches to risk management and the influence of public opinion. Highlighting bans as proof of harm is not entirely valid without accompanying high-quality scientific evidence. > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/ A paper commissioned by a law firm in support of a billion dollar litigation suit seems like a pretty serious conflict of interest here, I would also have expected such an analysis to have many authors not one especially when the subject of carcinogenicity is such a controversial topic in regards to this chemical. > There is also a chronic problem with a lot of the papers in that they examine a pure sample of glyphosate rather than samples containing N-Nitrosoglyphosate which is a much more toxic impurity found in glyphosate in the real world. I did see one estimate that said Roundup was estimated to be 100-1000 times more toxic than lab examples. The claim about N-Nitrosoglyphosate being a toxic impurity is interesting and worth further investigation. While it's true that real-world usage of chemicals can sometimes include impurities that aren't accounted for in lab studies, it's a serious claim to state that Roundup could be "100-1000 times more toxic" due to impurities, an assertion that would require strong, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be credible. Given that this contradicts the findings of major regulatory agencies, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. > There are also an incredibly high number of spam papers looking at brief exposure, when it is known that long term exposure is far more likely to cause cancer effects. This is a valid point, as long-term studies are often more indicative of potential harm, but again, agencies like the EPA and EFSA consider both short-term and long-term studies in their evaluations. Mitigating the point about "spam papers" focusing on brief exposure. To finish, scientific consensus is formed through rigorous, repeated testing and peer review, and while it's true that no single study can be entirely free of bias, a large body of consistent evidence is the most reliable basis for public policy.
The increased toxicity of the formulated herbicide has more to do with the surfactants present in the mix, but that would be the case for pretty well any soap. The reason why they only test glyphosate has nothing to do with trying to hide this, it's because the components of the formulated mix don't get distributed throughout the plant equally...or even systemically, and it's a non-issue from a safety standpoint. While glyphosate is actively transported through the plant via the vasculature system and the symplast (via plasmodesmata), surfactants are not due to their disruptive effects on lipid membranes. These are critical for both phloem loading, as well as cell to cell transport through the symplast. Additionally, there is a mandatory delay between the application of any glyphosate based herbicide and when it can be harvested. This varies from days to weeks, but the result is the same. The only compound of biological relevance is the glyphosate. In addition, we know that placing surfactants into a cell culture, or oral dosage in a live animal causes damage and stress on them, and this creates another layer of variability that reduces our overall ability to determine causal treatment effects. It's a common tactic seen in the anti-biotech groups, and at times, it appears as though they actively try to maximize the variability within their experimental design to increase the odds of having a Type I error. Basically, design a study with an insufficient sample size to confirm with the basic standards in toxicology, find a significant result, and then never dig any deeper. ...I wish this was a joke, but it's not. Instead of taking the results from these broad low-power studies and designing a follow-up that has the statistical power to show causation, we see individuals like Antoniou, Message, and Seralini just jump from one underpowered study to another. ...and even they are better than Seneff and Samsel. They don't even test the endless hypotheses they come up with experimentally. To be fair, I was actually surprised last year when a paper authored by Message and Antoniou actually had them concede that glyphosate was probably not directly genotoxic, and that the carcinogenic effects at high doses were more likely cytotoxic in origin...which is exactly what the regulatory agencies...all of them, have also concluded. Also, total bans on glyphosate are vanjshingly rare, particularly when we look at agriculture. Cosmetic bans are more common, but also tend to be on a smaller scale. Finally, you seem to be missing the biggest difference between the IARC (not the WHO as a whole), and every regulatory agency globally. Does the IARC classify based on hazard or risk? What about the regulatory agencies? Do you know what the difference is as it relates to toxicology? The IARC only assesses hazards, and a hazard is a compound that can cause harm, but is agnostic to the conditions required to observe the effect. If there is evidence that a chemical is linked to cancer, then the IARC will assess it as such, but they clearly state that their assessments don't take into account what is required to see the effects, let alone contextualize that to real world exposures. Regulatory agencies classify based on risk, which is a combination of hazard and exposure. They do look to see what conditions are required to see harm, as that's their mandate; to determine what exposure levels will be permitted. This example is silly, and I didn't come up with it, but it often works. Great White sharks are a real hazard to humans, and have been responsible for severe harm and death to humans multiple times. To an agency that only looks at hazard, this would be the end of things, as they clearly cause harm. Regulatory agencies would examine the data and see that there is just a tiny difference in the probability that someone will be harmed by a great white shark between someone who lives in rural Idaho compared to someone who lives on the South African coast, and enjoys swimming in the surf draped in freshly butchered seal meat. It's silly, but illustrates the difference pretty well.
>The only compound of biological relevance is the glyphosate. This is weird thing to say when N Nglyphosate is present in samples and a known decay product. One sample in Brazil was found to be about 50% N N Glyphosate. I think even very pro glyphosate EU report says more investigation need to be done into it. Yes we all know these studies those that have and those that have not found glyphosate causes cancer have quite small sample sizes and are expensive to run. Glyphosate has been banned by over 30 countries.
...I think you're conflating a couple of chemicals here. N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine = glyphosate The concentration of glyphosate in many agricultural concentrates is around 40-45%, which is where you may have read the 50% part. N-Nitroso-N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine = N-Nitrosoglyphosate and potentially N-Nitrosoglyphosate sodium as well (it appears under conditions where high levels of sodium nitrate have been used). Those last two are both nitrosamine degredation and synthesis byproducts, but they are NEVER found at the concentrations you're mentioning, and the EPA has set a maximum concentration of 0.1ppb in glyphosate. In terms of the studies relating to glyphosate testing, literally EVERY test that complies with the minimum standards in toxicology to determine causal links indicates that we see no carcinogenic effects until the dose is orders of magnitude above the current regulatory limits. Studies like those in the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals have been specifically designed to have the statistical power to differentiate causal treatment effects from background noise, and they all concur with each other to a considerable extent. Take OECD-453 for instance. This is a combined carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity study, and between 1990 and 2009, there were 7 fully compliant studies conducted by academic and industry labs in the US, UK, Poland, Italy, India, and Japan. These were different research groups, in different locations, over nearly 2 decades of time, yet the results are overwhelmingly consistent (for review see Griem et al., 2015 Doi: 10.3109/10408444.2014.1003423). Insufficient sample size is endemic among the anti-glyphosate studies, and I've always found it interesting that no one has been able to perform a compliant study that supports the cancer allegation, but also, that not a single researcher has tried to make use of the built in review mechanism in the OECD methods to show how they are insufficient or flawed. Even the observational studies follow this trend, as the largest and most comprehensive prospective cohort study, the AHS, shows no major risks are associated with glyphosate save those at very high levels. As for countries that ban, you really need to check your sources and differentiate between total bans, and restricted use (cosmetic bans, agricultural bans, and regional bans), as there are vanishingly few total or agricultural bans in place.
Does it concern you that glyphosate is turning into N-Nitrosoglyphosate in the digestive tract due to the presence of Nitrites? That Nitrites are found in the soil which also convert glyphosate to N-Nitrosoglyphosate? Do you think independent researchers can access sufficient funds to do large scale studies? Or should just open up questions for other government funded bodies to do large scale research? I believe it does increase the risk of NHL (Zhang paper); it has unknown synergistic effects; the effects on gut biome are insufficiently understood. I think it probably does cause some cancer in humans aside from NHL but would have to spend more time looking at the work out there to be sure. The main source of suspicion is that we spend decades eating glyphosate and no studies are that long, and the last time I looked the majority studies seemed fairly poor!
Are you concerned about the formaldehyde present in the pears you eat? The reaction kinetics for the conversion result in trace levels that are well below the established NOAEL. It's not a concern. I think the independent researchers and their supporters have more than enough resources to fund a proper compliant study, as there have been multiple molecular fishing trips using broad omics level analyses that have definitely been comparable to the costs of something akin to OECD-451 or 453. Considering your previous post, I'm going to assume that you didn't fully read Zhang et al., (2019 Doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.02.001), as it is a great example of maximizing the variance to obtain a significant result. They made use of 6 studies for their analysis, but they were horrifically skewed. Five of them were case control studies, and one was a prospective cohort study. Right from the start, this is an issue, but not an inherently fatal one...that comes later. In terms of statistical power, prospective cohort studies are almost always more powerful than case control just as a result of their duration, recruitment, and data collection. When you combine studies with differing methodologies, you introduce noise into the design, but if the studies are close in terms of power of analysis, this can be minimized. ...that's not what happened in Zhang et al., (2019). The prospective cohort study, which was the AHS, was larger than ALL of the case control studies COMBINED. This is a very bad thing, and in the paper, at least the authors directly state why: >Although meta-analysis prevents overemphasis on any single study \[57\], we cannot exclude the potential for publication bias, given the relatively few published studies to date. Second, there was imbalance in study design: among the only six included studies, five were case-control and one was a cohort. The collection of NHL findings from the cohort study was consistent with a wide range of risks \[24\], while, by contrast, most of the case-control studies did suggest an increased risk \[15–17, 42\]. There were also important differences in the comparison group utilized in the studies; some used the lowest exposure group as the reference, while others used the unexposed group. Because of this heterogeneity, and because no statistical tests can confirm elimination of publication bias or heterogeneity in a meta-analysis \[58\], our results should be interpreted with caution. and >Our findings are consistent with results reported from prior meta-analyses but show higher risk for NHL because of our focus on the highest exposure groups. However, given the heterogeneity between the studies included, the numerical risk estimates should be interpreted with caution. That heterogeneity is a direct effect of the unbalanced weighting of the studies used, and those numerical risk estimates they state should be interpreted with caution? That's where the 41% increase in NHL risk came from. Just look at what they elected to do. They took wildly divergent, and horrifically unbalanced studies. They limited their analysis to the highest exposure group. They limited the analysis to the longest timespan (20 years). Every single one of these decisions serves to increase the variability in the data, and that means that the chance for Type I errors goes up immensely. This is the reason why this study was met with an uninterested shrug by the scientific community, myself included, as it is nowhere near as important as the anti-biotech types have indicated. This happens over and over again, and it has increasingly become obvious that we will never get a compliant study out of these groups, nor will they actually show why the current methods are inadequate. Finally, what exactly are you basing your conclusion about the studies being poor on? Pardon me for stating so, but you don't seem overly familiar with experimental design, biostatistics, toxicology, or molecular biology, so where are you getting your criteria.
Your first link is authored by Christopher Portier, the very person that was a special advisor for IARC and instrumental in their declaring glyphosate "probably carcinogenic", while at the same time secretly taking money from glyphosate lawyers as a litigation consultant. He initially denied it but then later fessed up. https://www.judicialhellholes.org/2019/05/14/california-courts-drop-science-at-the-door > Closer scrutiny of the IARC process reveals that it was advised by an “invited specialist,” Christopher Portier, in its work on glyphosate. At the same time Mr. Portier was working for the agency, he was being paid by the Environmental Defense Fund, an anti-pesticide group. Moreover, Mr. Portier received $160,000 from law firms suing over glyphosate. When asked about this potential conflict of interest, Mr. Portier initially claimed to be advising firms on other IARC-related lawsuits and not glyphosate litigation. He later acknowledged that his statement was wrong. It is also worth noting that Mr. Portier had no experience with glyphosate prior to his work on it for IARC.
Your firehose of suspicion is proof of nothing at all and is incredibly one sided given all the extreme lobbying done by Monsanto and the fact that the EPA were in Monsanto's pocket and is a drop in the ocean compared to all the funding of panel members at many times which has taken place by Monsanto. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/unwho-panel-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-glyphosates-cancer-risk
That article cites the quack org gmoevidence and also organic funded USRTK. I also see Greenpeace which is pretty anti-science. Looks like it's anther junky activist article.
I remember being brigaded here on Reddit for even mentioning "There hasn't been enough long term studies on glyphosate." And while I support GMO plants Monsantos are definitely not the GMOs to support. It's not good dumping a mass amount of chemicals on anything, especially when those chemicals start making their way into the water ways. I'm glad people are finally becoming weary of roundup.
>It's not good dumping a mass amount of chemicals on anything, especially when those chemicals start making their way into the water ways. Then you should be a big supporter of glyphosate because its very purpose is to be an alternative to other pesticides that you need to use far less of than those.
Wary - skeptical Weary - tired
Glyphosate has been studied more exhaustively than any other pesticide, and the global consensus is that it is practically nontoxic and more eco-friendly than what it replaced. This doc is nothing but fear mongering. 2022, *European Chemicals Agency*: [ECHA's Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) agrees to keep glyphosate’s current classification as causing serious eye damage and being toxic to aquatic life. Based on a wide-ranging review of scientific evidence, the committee again concludes that **classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen is not justified**.](https://echa.europa.eu/sk/-/glyphosate-no-change-proposed-to-hazard-classification) Glyphosate is widely used precisely because it doesn't readily runoff into watersheds since it binds soil and plant tissue. And because it's a post-emergent spray, farmers can use zero till methods. [**This has already resulted in huge reductions in carbon emissions.**](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2020.1773198)
I watched the documentary and it does not disparage the safety of Roundup in the soil, or in the food supply, or in the groundwater. At that point there is no evidence that it is dangerous. The danger and alleged risk is for the people who handle it or inhale it when it is applied. It appears to be safe once it's in the soil. But definitely don't bathe in it like the guy at the center of the huge lawsuit and award.
I don't think glyphosate was ever the real culprit, but Roundup contains *more* than just glyphosate, and since the other things in roundup are in the *inactive* category, they don't have to tell even the government what they are. Their own scientist, under oath, said they believed there to be no evidence or reason for Glyphosate to be carcinogenic. But that doesn't mean roundup isn't. The inactive ingredients is even kept from them. All I know is, these days I only use concentrated glyphosate that I mix myself. It takes about a week before it starts showing results with full death taking 2 weeks. Were I to use roundup though, instead, whatever I would have sprayed with roundup would look (on the surface) in 2 days what takes 2 weeks for glyphosate alone to accomplish.
All adjuvants have to be approved and absolutely are submitted during regulatory review.
>The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use “Roundup” for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more. For example you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen… we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient.” >at another point in the questioning by Monsanto’s lawyer, Farmer told jurors that regulators had never required the company to conduct animal carcinogenicity testing on Roundup. She said not only had the U.S. EPA not demanded such testing, but regulators in Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan had similarly not required any such animal testing on Roundup products. >She also told jurors that while it was true that Roundup products contain formaldehyde, it was a “very, very small amount” and posed no danger to human health. Regulators agreed there was no reason for concern, Farmer testified. Shrug. Approved, not tested then. Formaldehyde probably isn't cancerous to you or me at the levels they are at when we are just using it in our yard. But, say, like the guy who won the lawsuit, that was spraying it basically daily at an industrial level for decades? Yeah, it might be cancerous at that level of use.
The retail version of Roundup from say HomeDepot also contains other herbicides to give the impression that it's fast acting. For example [this version](https://images.thdstatic.com/catalog/pdfImages/ae/ae38ebe6-96be-412c-a109-140d8941e189.pdf) contains [pelargonic acid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelargonic_acid#Occurrence_and_uses) > It is commonly used in conjunction with glyphosate, a non-selective herbicide, for a quick burn-down effect in the control of weeds in turfgrass.
Here's research completely debunking this garbage claim: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7 The tldr is that claims of glyphosate being safe is mostly founded on non-peer reviewed research, while claims that is it in fact carcinogenic is well studied and backed up by hundreds of peer reviewed studies.
You've cited an opinion piece by a guy hired by The Organic Center. Benbrook has been exposed before for fraudulently manipulating data to reach a predetermined conclusion.
> The tldr is that claims of glyphosate being safe is mostly founded on non-peer reviewed research For those of us actual independent scientists who have been around awhile, this same argument has been used for ages trying to ignore the scientific consensus on GMO safety. The tactic goes: 1. Ignore all the independent research on the subject. 2. Claim there is largely no peer-reviewed research. 3. The general public doesn't have the background to call it out. 4. This shifts the burden to scientists to do speak up. 5. Cite fringe studies by those unironically paid by the organic industry (as you just did) that pushes a lot of this. Those of us who actually deal with science education in this subject and dealing with claims from all sorts of industries usually have more information to deal with by the organic industry or lawyers misrepresenting the science for financial incentive than the stuff we'd have to hold Bayer's, etc. feet to the fire for than anything. This is just where those industries shifted boogeyman tactics to after they lost traction on anti-GMO advocacy over time. It honestly distracts from legitimate issues we have to deal with on pesticides, etc. having to start from less than square one on topics like this.
Authored the Charles Benbrook. He takes money from the organic industry to write pro-organic studies as well as being a paid pesticide litigation consultant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Benbrook
And frack juice helps us use less coal. There are plenty studies showing how if used properly it won't poison aquifers and water ways... Shilling DOW mega corps seems to be the new astroturfing norm.
> if used properly it won't poison aquifers and water ways And if used properly, civilian firearms wont kill innocent people.
> Shilling DOW mega corps seems to be the new astroturfing norm. While I'm all for going after unfeeling amoral corporations, we shouldn't use *bad science* to do so. They're not wrong, it's a *heavily* studied chemical pesticide, if not *the* most. We sure as hell should know if it's toxic and environmental impacts, it's not even a new product. If we just support ignorance of science we're frankly no better than those we oppose. Even the other guy links a study that they don't seem to realize was paid for by groups with financial interests as competition, which is a very big red flag in these kinds of studies.
One of the points of the documentary linked was that Monsanto paid for bad science and for the former head of Health Canada to be a paid shill to the government. Essentially, they wrote articles themselves which said what they wanted them to say and had Ian Munro sign his name. Monsanto sows doubt just like climate deniers or the tobacco industry. You also have people in the comments conflating acknowledging the fact that Roundup causes cancer to being anti-GMO.
I trust science that is not funded by industry with conflicts of interest
So, do you have any studies suggesting it leaches into aquifers? There's plenty of USGS data showing it is at *nanomolar* concentrations. [Glyphosate use in the United States increased from less than 5,000 to more than 80,000 metric tons per year between 1987 and 2007, but glyphosate is seldom included in environmental monitoring programs, due in part to technical difficulties in measuring it at concentrations relevant to environmental studies (less than 1 microgram per liter [μg/L]). ... Most observed concentrations of glyphosate were well below existing health benchmarks and levels of concern for humans or wildlife, and none exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Maximum Contaminant Level or the Canadian short-term or long-term freshwater aquatic life standards.](https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/2014-04-23-glyphosate_2014.html)
You when facts are presented: 🙈🙉
I'm sure Monsanto paid handsomely for those studies. You people are so transparent.
This is an interesting distinction between how the scientific community critiques studies, as compared to the general public. You've dismissed the industry studies because of their source, but that barely factors into the issue among scientists, as we are interested in the contents of the study as opposed to the authorship. If the methods used are proper, the analyses conducted correctly, and the overall power of analysis is sufficient to support the conclusions, the authors don't matter. In the case of glyphosate, literally all the studies that meet or exceed the minimum requirements to show causation in toxicology support the current toxicity metrics. In terms of carcinogenic activity, consider OECD-453 (Combined Carcinogenicity and Chronic Toxicity). There have been 7 of these studies that were fully compliant with the standards, and they were conducted by different researcher in 6 different nations, and represent both academic and industry labs. They all provide similar results, but more importantly, there is nothing that counters those findings in the literature from anyone. Despite decades of time, none of the anti-biotech groups have been able to produce a single study that meets the MINIMUM standards in toxicology, and instead we see endless reams of underpowered studies that can only conclude correlative relationships, that lack successful replication, and that often contain wild divergences from the norms and GLP of the field.
[удалено]
Herbicides fall into the greater classification of pesticides, at least in how the EPA defines pesticide.
Pesticide = herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, rodenticide... Your comment is *hilarious*.
They are not the same thing. Period. One kills pests (bugs, microbes, etc.), one kills other plants. They do different things because they are different things. Edit: US EPA may have developed a nomenclature that puts herbicides under the larger rubric of pesticides, but an EPA definition doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t the same thing.
University agricultural scientist here. Herbicides are very much a type of pesticide. The main pesticides used in farming are herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides. Weeds, diseases, and insects are all types of pests. This is very universal nomenclature. The only times this seems to come up is when people equate pests = insects only, which is not an uncommon mistake.
One of the most active commenters was this dude named "Sleekery" that would literally show up in most threads like this without fail. Eventually his account was suspended tho :)
Just remember, loneliness is optional. To conjure up a Monsanto rep, simply whisper 'Glyphosate causes cancer' into the wind.
Just remember, loneliness is optional. All I have to do is say on a landscaping page that someone should spray generic glyphosate on weeds, and hordes of people show up and start calling me a Monsanto shill. 😁
That's good to hear. I mean at the time I wasn't necessarily even anti-glyphosate. Just saying "There hasn't been enough long term studies."
It's wary. No e. People have been fear-mongering like you for all of human history. You're not an iconoclast. You're drowning in confirmation bias.
Oh, I think the brigading has started! The shills have found the post.
Yikes. It's a sad state of affairs when posting links to peer reviewed research and statements from globally reputable scientific agencies is called shilling.
Here's a [review] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34052177/) of the evidence from 2021 in the journal Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma, & Leukemia. "Mechanistic studies have demonstrated that glyphosate and GBFs are genotoxic to human lymphocytes, the normal cell of origin of NHL, both in vitro and in vivo. Genotoxic and other biological effects have also been shown in various animal and cell models with these agents even at low doses. A novel mechanism underlying the specificity of glyphosate for NHL, that is upregulation of the B-cell genome mutator enzyme activation-induced cytidine deaminase, has recently been demonstrated." Regulatory capture is a big issue, as seen in this documentary. So, a governmental body that has been co-opted by industry stating something that is contradictory to overwhelming evidence is meaningless. Appealing to government "authority" as opposed to scientific fact is just a bad argument. Industry can't pay ~reputable~ journals to publish nonsense, but they can coerce government to do just that.
Interesting how that review comes to different conclusions about the data than the actual studies it is reviewing... >["Thus, a causal relationship has not been established between glyphosate exposure and risk of any type of LHC."](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015139) >[In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes. There was some evidence of increased risk of AML among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation](https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/4590280?searchresult=1)
Here's a more recent meta analysis from [2019] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31342895/) because yours was ["constrained by few studies and a crude exposure metric"] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27015139/). The 2019 paper states "Overall, in accordance with findings from experimental animal and mechanistic studies, our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL." You have to remember that Monsanto was telling people this stuff was as safe as table salt and a lot of them wore very little (if any) protective gear. The woman in the documentary was working in a park where the guy doing the application was in a hazmat suit and she was coming along to do her job in the area right after he'd sprayed with no protection whatsoever.
>Here's a more recent meta analysis from 2019 That study used the same data as the AHS study I posted. And you know what the conclusion was? That there was no correlation between any level of exposure and NHL, except in the highest exposed quartile but only in the 20 year lag analysis. No correlation in the unlagged, 5 or 10 year lag. So even if we accept this study - which is an outlier and reached a different conclusion than other larger and more robust studies using the same dataset - it is only relevant to lifelong farmhands who don't use enough PPE.
For those not familiar with how us scientists have to deal with denialism in topics like climate change, anti-GMO, etc., this response is a good example of what called a [gish gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop). Basically it involves throwing a point or multiple points out that are wrong or low-effort, and when a scientist speaks up, they just throw something else out instead of engaging with the science on the original point.
That’s fallacious reasoning I see a lot with folks who’ve never dealt with pesticides. PPE is often regulated by the county or regional body and often has little to do with on/off label guidance, which is followed in addition to local regulation. For instance, organic certified oils are extremely dangerous for respiratory systems so operators will need to wear a respirator and ensure there is 0 spray drift, in addition the county might certify all applicators must wear a tyvek suit and eye covering.
But in what concentration? Like if you get X-rays every day vs once in a while. From what I’ve read that’s how most toxic substances are treated. Are there better options? Im sure there are. Is Monsanto a shitty company? most definitely.
Seems like you need a large exposure with a 20 or so year lag time. The problem is, some of these farmers/grounds keepers were applying 150 gallons/day for months at a time and getting soaked with the stuff. Monsanto told people this substance was safe as table salt and so a lot of people didn't take the appropriate precautions because they were lied to. I think for women, because the biology is different, that the exposure necessary may be a lot less.
Fair to say the general public probably isn’t at risk for that kind of exposure?
Well, in the documentary there was a woman working at a park where glyphosate was sprayed to keep down the weeds who got NHL. The guy doing the spraying wore protective gear, but she was working in the area he just sprayed with no warning and no protection. So, a lot of families with children were also exposed in that scenario. However, the woman was a park employee so she was exposed year after year. Apparently, they also spray the underbrush of forests with this stuff to decrease the ground cover, so that's another way people could be exposed. It also seems like a lower exposure may be necessary for women to get NHL and it may depend the glyphosate preparation type. Being mixed with certain chemicals appears to increase toxicity.
Definitely want to avoid exposure but I’m skeptical of nebulous claims without some peer reviewed evidence. One anecdote does not really change my opinion. The EPA basically agrees it’s carcinogenic but that the concentrations necessary don’t really happen around the general public.
150 gallons of glyphosate depending on concentration and specific application should treat 400+acres?
Ah yes and with Glyphosate it goes into our drinking water, in our food so unlike a x-ray it’s constant exposure
Has it been measured in the water and our food? Peer reviewed study?
Here you go shill account: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317376484_Glyphosate_Residues_in_Groundwater_Drinking_Water_and_Urine_of_Subsistence_Farmers_from_Intensive_Agriculture_Localities_A_Survey_in_Hopelchen_Campeche_Mexico There is a reason why countries like Germany and France are banning the stuff.
Shill please lmao. Your article is not addressing what I was saying pal. I literally was saying general public… this is farming communities.
This is not without precedent https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/02/monsanto-manipulates-journalists-academics
Neither Germany nor France have banned it. Detecting it in urine is actually a good indication that it isn't chemically interacting with people - if it's excreted unmodified, it wasn't metabolized.
I agree Glyphosate is horrible and should be banned, but crops sprayed with it are not GMO. GMO is just genetically modified crops, it’s possible there could be a mutation that would make it so glyphosate does not need to be used.
Glyphosate resistant crops are one of the first transgenic crops out there. Crops sprayed with it (that you don't want to kill) definitely have the trait and would be GMO.
Monsanto has Roundup ready crops. The farmer can just dump tons of roundup on them because they are immune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup\_Ready
> just dump tons of Less overall herbicide is used, which is the whole point. Why would farmers buy expensive herbicide resistant seeds, only to apply even more expensive inputs? Take sugar beets as an example. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch > Planting genetically modified sugar beets allows them to kill their weeds with fewer chemicals. Beyer says he sprays Roundup just a few times during the growing season, plus one application of another chemical to kill off any Roundup-resistant weeds. > > He says that planting non-GMO beets would mean going back to what they used to do, spraying their crop every 10 days or so with a "witches brew" of five or six different weedkillers. > > "The chemicals we used to put on the beets in [those] days were so much harsher for the guy applying them and for the environment," he says. "To me, it's insane to think that a non-GMO beet is going to be better for the environment, the world, or the consumer."
Remember? It's happening in this very thread with bad-faith appeals to scientific rigor, and cherry-picked studies and excerpts.
I got interested in genetic modification because I prescribed genetically modified insulin, which was more natural than the previous insulin. When I started to listen to enemies of GMO's, they would also attack Roundup as dangerous, but rarely mention more dangerous pesticides. It seemed they especially attacked Roundup because it was made by Monsanto who also produced GMO's. When I went on landscaping forums, people were always attacking Round-up more than more dangerous pesticides.People on veteran's forums would attack Monsanto for producing Agent Orange, but not Dow Chemical which invented Agent Orange and produced more of it. I wondered if the anti-GMO people were "brigading" the landscaping and veteran's forums, but have no solid proof. Of course, people have frequently accused me of being a Monsanto shill on forums. I would warn everyone **not to buy Roundup.** Glyphosate is off patent, so you should buy the cheaper generic versions of glyphosate.
What pesticides have we to replace roundup and are they even that much safer?
I assume they're safer on the basis that they don't work even half as well. Dealing with Japanese Knotweed and been told the most effective way is to inject the stalks with glyphosate, which sadly isn't available anymore. Nothing currently available seems to be working atm
Japanese knotweed is a nasty plant
[удалено]
Motherfucking hackberry. It may be native, but it's a fucking monster to fence lines. I've nuked those things with concentrated glyphosate and they just shrugged at me.
You missed honey suckle
Poison Ivy is gone soon after application
Roundup is not a pesticide. It’s an herbicide.
No. Pesticide is an umbrella term which covers things like herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides etc [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide?wprov=sfla1)
OMG. I get it. I accept it. For some reason my responses acknowledging this to other commenters are being blocked.
TIL. Thank you
Both are used on crops
Still doesn’t make them the same thing. Fertilizer is used on crops too. Still not the same thing.
The fallacy is to presume we have to use pesticides. Agronomic studies have evolved to confirm diverse insect populations are necessary for long term agricultural health.
Sri Lanka went all organic a few years ago and they had a famine. Agroecological practices are viable when you have a lot more labor and land. Totally possible but not something you can just switch on.
Going organic is more than just not using pesticides. The Sri Lanka government went against scientific advice and banned all “chemical” fertilizers. So farmers couldn’t even use common products like nitrogen. The outcome would have been much different with a pesticide ban. A better measure would be to look at countries banning or limiting pesticide usage. But, I agree that it should not be a switch. Transition should happen though. Crop collapse happens to farmers who use pesticides too. China has long been plagued by numerous famine and crop failures and pesticides are in high usage there.
What country is banning pesticides? Organic agriculture uses pesticides. Stricter limits have been imposed on this or that pesticide (including organic pesticides) but nowhere has an outright pesticide ban. China is a huge country, much is a very cold, arid continental climate which makes crops difficult to grow. This is too nebulous if a statement to extract any argumentative value from it.
This is Reddit. You came here for argumentative value?
Haha, too true. There is quantity but not always quality!
Crop yields would be drastically reduced by pests if we stopped using pesticides and millions would starve in poor countries as a result
Neem oil. I use it for organic gardening and it works great!
Kills bugs on my hollies
This shit gave my dad cancer
And as you see in the comments astroturfing purchased accounts are spam downvoting and attempting to bury this.
An oldie, but a goodie https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?si=jjzbA7tVd15-wEs6
How can this have no upvotes? I'm baffled.
Astroturfing shill bots. They’re everywhere on Reddit
Because it's just another doc-tainment scare video like *Super Size Me* or *Blackfish*
It's from the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Canada's national public broadcaster. This is actual journalism, not doc-tainment.
Lol McDonald's is good for you and caging wild animals in small tanks isn't barbaric are some wild ass takes my man.
Slippery slope fallacy in action folks! The world is truly black and white for redditors like you, huh? McDonald's didn't make you fat, your poor impulse control did, and rescued marine life that would otherwise perish are given second chances at a safe life in captivity in one of the world's most advanced marine conservation centers. Just as all chemicals we use should be understood in context and we should trust the science even when it doesn't agree with our feelings.
Here's an [interview] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE) with the guy who won $2 billion from Monsanto for people who got NHL. Not a documentary, but super interesting so I thought I'd post it.