Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Common Weed Killer Glyphosate Increases Risk of Cancer By 41 Percent, Study Says (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the connecting-the-dots dept.

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.

11 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. I'll just leave this here. by Jack9 · · Score: 4, Funny

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
    1. Re:I'll just leave this here. by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Poop is a common fertilizer in "organic" farming, yet it is not safe to consume. I don't see why being able to drink something used in agriculture is any sort of standard for safety.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  2. Relative risk by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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=

    1. Re: Relative risk by TimMD909 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're not doing outrage and sensationalism right... Try using more hyperbole and mention how it affects certain groups more than others. Thanks. - Mass Media

    2. Re: Relative risk by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

    3. Re: Relative risk by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, lawncare companies often apply it on commercial and residential lawns (not to the grass itself, of course). If you just work at the company, probably no worries. If you are a kid that plays in the yard, you might get more exposure than the people who apply the stuff.

    4. Re: Relative risk by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it ok if Monsanto is only poisoning farmers?

      If the overall risk is lower than using alternative herbicides, then yes.

      Glyphosate is a very effective herbicide that increases crop yields, is safer to handle than the broad spectrum herbicides it replaced, and enables no-till farming methods that reduce soil erosion and increase soil carbon retention.

      We need to develop better equipment and techniques to handle it properly, and educate farmers on those techniques. But glyphosate is unlikely to be discontinued.

  3. Difference in amount becomes difference in kind by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Difference in amount becomes difference in kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Additionally, you have to be very careful when you select subsets. For instance, what if the people that get the highest exposure are just being generally unsafe with pesticides, smoking, etc and they also get a high exposure of a bunch of other stuff. By selecting a subset of a data, you may inadvertently be selecting for something else, such as risky behavior in general.

      Personally I wouldn't stop using it, but I'd take reasonable precautions, like gloves, washing, and if in doubt immediately shower afterward. Then again, if your handling a chemical that makes something else not grow or die, common sense says be careful with it.

      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 ...

  4. Your stats are from where...? by DogDude · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  5. Re:Amazing... by Derekloffin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.