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.

Comments

Relative risk

[Smidge204]

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=

Re: Relative risk

[alvinrod]

Well it does affect certain groups more than others. Only the highly exposed are at risk.

I'm sure if I click through enough links I'll eventually be able to find out whether highly exposed means you had to bathe in the shit or something like that, but is high exposure in the context of these results a practical concern for anyone who isn't working directly with the product?

Re:Difference in amount becomes difference in kind

[JBMcB]

The other question I didn't see an answer to, is what do you have to do to get the highest exposure? If your throwing around a figure like 41%, you should say well people with this exposure typically got it by ...

Inhaling it in aerosol form on a regular basis. The first study that showed a correlation between glyphosate exposure and cancer looked at Spanish farm-workers who sprayed the stuff on their crops regularly and didn't wear a respirator.

So, if there is really a correlation, you have to be exposed to quite a bit of the stuff to make a statistical difference. Spraying it around your yard every once in a while probably won't make a difference.

Amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Amazing...

[Derekloffin]

I suspect many are defensive on this as this topic is littered with misinformation from activists. This isn't the first study to come out against it, but I hesitate to call those studies as they were basically propaganda that didn't hold up on closer inspection. I've already seen enough here on this study to highly question it and I have no horses in this race.

Your stats are from where...?

[DogDude]

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.