Slashdot Mirror
Common Weed Killer Glyphosate Increases Risk of Cancer By 41 Percent, Study Says (theguardian.com)
A broad new scientific analysis of the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate herbicides, the most widely used weedkilling products in the world, has found that people with high exposures to the popular pesticides have a 41% increased risk of developing a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The Guardian reports: The evidence "supports a compelling link" between exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides and increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the authors concluded, though they said the specific numerical risk estimates should be interpreted with caution. Monsanto maintains there is no legitimate scientific research showing a definitive association between glyphosate and NHL or any type of cancer. Company officials say the EPA's finding that glyphosate is "not likely" to cause cancer is backed by hundreds of studies finding no such connection.
But the new analysis could potentially complicate Monsanto's defense of its top-selling herbicide. Three of the study authors were tapped by the EPA as board members for a 2016 scientific advisory panel on glyphosate. The new paper was published by the journal Mutation Research /Reviews in Mutation Research, whose editor in chief is EPA scientist David DeMarini. [...] The study authors said their new meta-analysis evaluated all published human studies, including a 2018 updated government-funded study known as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Monsanto has cited the updated AHS study as proving that there is no tie between glyphosate and NHL. In conducting the new meta-analysis, the researchers said they focused on the highest exposed group in each study because those individuals would be most likely to have an elevated risk if in fact glyphosate herbicides cause NHL.
But the new analysis could potentially complicate Monsanto's defense of its top-selling herbicide. Three of the study authors were tapped by the EPA as board members for a 2016 scientific advisory panel on glyphosate. The new paper was published by the journal Mutation Research /Reviews in Mutation Research, whose editor in chief is EPA scientist David DeMarini. [...] The study authors said their new meta-analysis evaluated all published human studies, including a 2018 updated government-funded study known as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Monsanto has cited the updated AHS study as proving that there is no tie between glyphosate and NHL. In conducting the new meta-analysis, the researchers said they focused on the highest exposed group in each study because those individuals would be most likely to have an elevated risk if in fact glyphosate herbicides cause NHL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
That's 41% relative increase. This means that if you take two people who have an equal chance of getting this cancer, and one is given a "high exposure," they are now 41% more likely to get this cancer than the other, unexposed person.
So if *everyone* got a "high exposure" the rate of this particular form of cancer would increase from 19.4 per 100,000 to 27.4 per 100,000.
That's still an eye-raising increase, but try to keep it in perspective. This does NOT mean 41% of people exposed get cancer.
=Smidge=
Today it's a story about how bad it is. Tomorrow it will be a story about how inoffensive it is.
Can I vape it instead?
... until after the patents have expired.
Monsanto had 26 years of selling Roundup with no 'generic' glyphosate competition. In that time, not a word was published about carcinogenic properties.
But for the past 15 years or so, these stories have been dribbling out, and now they're becoming a flood. It's almost as if someone wanted to discredit the now-generic product in favor of a newer, still-patented alternative.
Key phrase: "people with high exposures to the popular pesticides"
On a related note, inhaled dihydrogen monoxide can be fatal and cause death within minutes without prompt medical assistance.
So many other studies debunked this. It is the vaccine story of yesterday.
It's good stuff. I add it to my drinks every day. Yummy! In lead chalices. Man o man that's good drink. Artificial intelligence sweetners as the kicker. Life is good. Short? So what, it's good!
glysphate. Glysophate is one of my favorites.
Cause C... no doubt this does as well... and many other things like this.
[($)]
aiui this is using population data?
So whats to stop someone who is occupationally exposed to large amounts of pesticide x also being exposed to pesticide b ?
Dear Monsanto,
You are totally and completely fucked. There won't be enough money in existence for millions of years to cover the lawsuits you're going to lose.
Bye bye. Good ridenence and nothing of value was lost. But once you are gone the planet can start to heal from the 10000s of years worth of damage you've done in a short amount of time.
If you're so sure, then eat up a spoonful of RoundUp, and 'show us' liberals. Triple Dog Dare.
1) what did they consider "high exposure" 2) Did they correct for other high risk correlates in the selected group 3) After picking what they considered "high" how large was the change in sample size compared to the overall sample size of the original studies. I'm actually most Curtis about the third, reduce your N until you're almost guaranteed some significant correlation.
I will just keep spraying it on the surface of the water then :)
Amazing to see how many people here are gungho for glyphosate. I’m guessing the same bunch who think huffing coal smoke makes you stronger. Just a quick google search can explain how it works and just a little imagination and you can see why it might be a problem for human health.
Where did you get your stats? The actual incidence of this kind of cancer is closer to 2.4% for men and 1.9% for women. (https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-hodgkin-lymphoma/about/key-statistics.html). That means that exposure to glycophosphate increases it to 3.38% and 2.68%, respectively. That's about an extra 1/100 people. 41% in this case seems to be pretty damn significant.
I don't respond to AC's.
It's an indirect connection by affecting some of the organisms that our body relies on.
Go well
41% increase for ONE type of cancer. Not cancer in general.
It's not 'exposure to glycophosphate', it's 'high exposure.' Without access to the study, we have no clue what constitutes 'high.' So it's not a general 41% increase, it's a 41% increase for people with high exposure to glycophosphate.
Even in the article, the researchers admit that their meta-analysis (study of previous studies) focuses specifically on people with high exposure so the results are already hideously biased. You might as well do research about lung cancer, look only at people who smoke at least 5 packs a day, then conclude that cigarettes significantly increase the risk of lung cancer while ignoring that your subjects are smoking like chimneys.
If you want to reasonably evaluate the research, you have to ask:
How much exposure is 'high exposure?'
How much is your average person's exposure to these chemicals?
How much is the cancer rate increase for 'average exposure?'
Does this chemical build up in the ecosystem or does it dissipate over time?
In the end, I would prefer a more realistic analysis of the cancer-causing properties of these chemicals. I would rather not have another 'Caffeine causes cancer in rats (if they are injected with 50 cups/day worth of caffeine every day)' study.
If you squirt it out on weeds on your lawn?
Get a little on your hands and wash it off?
Or like the guy who was basically BATHING in it with no protective equipment?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/m...
There's a HUGE range of possibilities in there.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I am not a statistician, so this question is asked in ignorance.
How does a meta-study, a study that assimilates existing data from existing *inconclusive* studies, produce a conclusive result? Am I missing something obvious?
that is the sadest!
I have read the popular press on this new story and it is unclear if they have just established a correlation or if there is causation. There other facts that might be correlated with high glyphosate use, and so correlation with the higher rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Presumably, the people who get this cancer tend to be field or farm hands that handle other herbicides and pesticides. I question if all these other cross interferences have been explored. And if there are other synergies what the level is. The work suggests it is high glyphosate exposure that is the issue. Monsanto/Bayer keeps messing with the ingredients in Roundup to keep patents and copywrites current and the money rolling in. The complete story hasn't been told yet.
Dude, did you look at the rest of the comments here? It's 99% "this doesn't matter."
Shill much, slashdot?.
... to discredit the now-generic product in favor of a newer, still-patented alternative.
There is no newer still-patented alternative.
Evolution? I guess you’re also skeptical of scientists digging up dinosaurs as well
May Monsanto have been that last, poisoned pill you swallowed. May all of your dirty lobbyists end up jobless, in misery. May your stakeholders regret every penny they put in your trust.
I will take your word that you can't personally prove evolution.
Do you want to maybe get cancer, or do you definitely want to starve?
What's a bit suspect is that glyphosate has been studied since the 1970's and several independent organizations maintain the consensus that labeled uses do not demonstrate any evidence of human carcinogenicity. We do understand the chemistry that leads to glyphosate causing cancer in some animal species (particularly rodents and rabbits).
Glyphosate itself is relatively harmless. The actual harmful stuff in RoundUp and its imitators are the surfactants and other additives that help bind it to plant matter so that the plant can absorb it. (Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide - the plant transports it throughout it's above and underground parts)
That's why there are different versions of RoundUp for use in different situations. E.g. there is one for spraying in riparian zones (near water) that has different additives that biodegrade faster.
There are far more dangerous herbicides out there like Paraquat & 2,4,5-T (a part of Agent Orange). Shit that's so toxic it's scary to work with even when fully suited up.
Basically, for people who are acting responsibly and take standard precautions when working with it like wearing protective clothing and not splashing it around when decanting from the container into the spray tank, it's harmless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It seems that a spoonful of RoundUp wouldn't be so bad but a few of them (>85mL) could be fatal. The surfactant POEA makes it more toxic than just glyphosate.
So yeah, you could take the dare, that would be stupid but not enough to earn you a Darwin award.
i see monsanto has been reading the old tobacco industries playbook and how they handled the cancer claims (until they no longer could).
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
That would be incredibly stupid as the potential damages from lawsuits against Monsanto for the cancer caused by RoundUp sales to date would dwarf any potential increased profits they'd get from "RoundUp 2 - Now With Less Cancer!(tm)"
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It's the same with medication that is effective and safe. Once available as a generic studies came out of the woodwork against it. That a newly patented alternative is available is not even necessary.
The post-normal society seems hell-bent on finding "something" to throw a wrench in the works. We *must* jump through more and more hoops to get things done.
Doesn't sound too great
It's a meta-analysis. Since people don't publish positive and negative results at the same rate, you can't use such a study to estimate risks.
Furthermore, even if true, all it would show is a correlation between glyphosate exposure and NHL, which could be caused by any number of factors other than glyphosate.
...loves stories about glyphosate & cancer. It's great PR that distracts most people from the fact that the corporation controls a large percentage of the world's food supply & uses its position to gain yet more control, while driving farmers to suicide & severely reducing crop species diversity. A lack of crop species diversity will multiply the effects of climate change on our food supply. Mass starvation is a real threat.
Due to the practice of crop dessication it seems that the exposure (by which I mean ingestion) to glyphosate in the general population has risen a lot in recent years. Obviously this would differ between regions as the practice is more controlled in some regions than in others, differences in diet, and obviously the level of exposure probably is lower than what the article terms "high exposure". Still...
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Saying it has a 41% increased risk is a meaningless statement unless some context is provided regarding how likely it was to get it in the first place. If the odds are 1-in-a-trillion and we increase that by 41% that is just statistical noise, representative of nothing. Any headline that spouts a percentage risk increase without a context is nothing but clickbait.
So to put some facts to this, your lifetime risk of contracting Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is around 1/42 if you are a man and 1/54 if you are a woman. It accounts for about 4% of all cancer in the US and about 70,000 people in the US are expected to be diagnosed this year. So a 41% increase risk turns out to be a substantial risk factor if the study results can be confirmed/replicated.
Why does it cause an increase in cancer? Is it increased intimation? what effects if any happen in lower doses. Mansoto literally has food products engineered to be immune to this stuff, so that the food can be sprayed with it in large quantities repeatedly. You don't suppose that might cause an uptick in wheat related allergies do you?
Dear Monsanto,
You are totally and completely fucked. There won't be enough money in existence for millions of years to cover the lawsuits you're going to lose.
You write that as if this were a desirable outcome. If what you describe happens, the corporation will go bankrupt and be dissolved. Most or all of its creditors will lose the money they are owed, and the perpetrators will go off happily with all the money they got through their vile dishonest deeds - and work for other companies.
The Chinese have a better way of dealing with criminals who cynically endanger, harm or kill other people to line their pockets.
They put them against a wall and shoot them.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I know a person who had a strange diet. They ate almost nothing but potatoes for years; a huge load of them every day. Got NHL.
They were lucky and are currently in remission.
I don't want to jump on a hype train, but I'd consider that person's diet before getting the NHL unusual enough that it may merit "high risk". I'd hate to think the food they were eating might have been giving them cancer.
This is an anecdote, yes, and the article combined with this anecdote created a big emotional response in me, yes. But if this study passes muster (and can hopefully be corroborated by other legit studies) the higher risk of cancer in the case I put forward is still a possibility.
There are no statistics to support their conclusion. They reviewed old studies and come up with 41% out of thin air.
It's almost as if someone wanted to discredit the now-generic product in favor of a newer, still-patented alternative.
Monsanto is still the world's largest producer of glyphosphate. You think they'd be spending money to tell the world it's carcinogenic?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Iâ(TM)m getting very tired of âoenewsâ and âoestudiesâ that say our common poisons that we use specifically to kill living things, are killing us. These shouldnâ(TM)t be surprising anyone.
Who thought that spraying poison in or around your house was a good idea?
If you want to kill things, thatâ(TM)s fine by me. But if you want to keep danger around you, itâ(TM)s a good bet that itâ(TM)s dangerous to you too.
Storing your gun in your childâ(TM)s bedroom, spraying poisons on your vegetable gardens, spraying ant poison all around your kitchen counters, tire spikes in your own driveway, booby traps in your own treasure room.
Enjoy.
Keep in mind it's the other chemicals added to the glyphosate-based herbicides that people think are causing the issues, not the glyphosate itself. So when you see any studies saying glyphosate is safe or doesn't cause cancer, those are misinformation designed to confuse the real issues.
It doesn't help that the news always uses the term glyphosate or roundup no matter if the study was directly about that chemical or not. Despite this article's title, this study was about the entire herbicides, not just its glyphosate component.
...booby traps in your own treasure room.
Ah, I see you too are a Dungeon Keeper player.
It's something of concern, and (assuming it's true) it means people with high rates of exposure should have to limit that exposure.
But really, 41% at a high exposure rate isn't awful. Compare that to something like smoking, which has a 2500% increase in lung cancer with "high exposure" (i.e. you smoke a pack or two a day). https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer/art-20044092
Also, this is a relative risk. What's the odds of actually getting this form of cancer in the first place? It matters.
This amount of subtlety will be lost on the general public, and we'll have calls to ban Roundup because "it causes cancer!". Sure, it might, but only in high exposures, which sounds entirely preventable by requiring the right protective clothing to be worn.
I like them odds!
Ordinary garden-variety vinegar, the same foodstuff in your ketchup & relish, the stuff you buy for $2/gallon at Walmart, mixed with a long squirt of dishwashing soap. (I use the Walmart-brand knockoff of Dawn).
Seriously. Spray it on. 4 hours later, everything green is brown. No cancer danger. Costs a lot less too.
Given the reputation of M. company and gangster methods they used in many places worldwide, it would be not surprise if the scientists behind the report had some strange incidents in the next few months.