Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#11

Post by rmason »

I've said on here before that Monsanto had bad lawyers and they never should have lost those two cases. I was an agronomist for twenty years and remember when Roundup was first introduced on the market.

I worked with the first genetically modified soybeans that could be sprayed with Roundup. One of the biggest selling points was that Roundup was measurably safer than the herbicides it replaced with far better results.

I see all these ads now on late night TV recruiting plaintiffs for new Roundup lawsuits. I seriously think these lawyers think this is like asbestos and they will be proven wrong. Just compare the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and the LD50 for Roundup compared to other common herbicides.

The fertilizer dealers I know are totally baffled this hasn't been reversed already. They don't understand how Monsanto ever got into this position. Hopefully Monsanto's new owner Bayer will hire better lawyers to protect their investment but it's going to take years before this ever gets rolled back.

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#12

Post by coldtea »

ipsum2 wrote: post #3

This is sort of off-topic, but I've been getting strange ads about glyphosate not causing cancer disguised as news articles from Twitter and Reddit, presumably sponsored by Monsanto. (I don't have a strong stance of glyphosate at all). Searching around, looks like other people have encountered this as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8giwc1/why_ar...

Well, this Reuters piece doesn't sound like non-sponsored either...

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#13

Post by wizzwizz4 »

dmix wrote: post #9
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #2

Re-analysing the data, it's conceivable that they genuinely found a link, and that the papers' original authors were fudging the stats. But I don't know how to find out whether this is true.

It’s not a paper of original research but a meta analysis of various other scientist’s research which they selectively edited out the papers and science that didn’t support the agenda they had pre-determined. This was the description of the report that was originally given: >> A Working Group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on 3-10 March 2015 to review the…

It wasn't supported by the conclusions they originally included. That doesn't mean the data didn't support it (although that might also be true – I don't know).

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#15

Post by zo1 »

andybak wrote: post #5
dmix wrote: post #4

I’m guessing some internal activists changed it because they predetermined it was going to be a bad anti-round up report and didn’t want to muddy the conclusion with evidence contradicting it. Politics seemingly trumped science at the org, that’s a really bad look for WHO and their response is total insufficient to explain these anomalies considering the massive implications it’s having in court rooms and industry: >…

I'm not too sure I buy your use of the word "obviously" here. My normal spider-sense of "follow the money" seems to find no obvious path. Internal activists is a fairly novel concept - at least activists with the power to make changes like this. I'd like to know who benefits and why...

Most non-profit organizations are in some way biased toward maintaining their own existence alongside their actual goal. I would reckon that would be a good place to start looking for "follow the money".

I'm sure I could come up with one, though without thinking too deeply, it'd probably end up being a little too contrived, far-fetched or conspiratorial. Not as a way to boast, but more to illustrate that if we accept that money is a huge factor in the things that revolve around us, then we can start seeing patterns previously hidden because we had a bit of a "rosy" world-view.

E.g.:

WHO helps Glyphosate to be banned -> Less food production due to ineffective pesticide alternatives -> More people in the 3rd world countries starving -> More funding for "world Health" due to "poor starving people" -> WHO gets more funding and ensures its survival.

In contrast with:

WHO drives an amazing worldwide initiative to get 50 billion USD in funding -> WHO funds and deploys employees and equipment in starving areas to generate free food -> Solves 3rd world hunger -> Existing WHO mandate no longer exists -> The (Happy) End.

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#16

Post by op00to »

rmason wrote: post #11

I've said on here before that Monsanto had bad lawyers and they never should have lost those two cases. I was an agronomist for twenty years and remember when Roundup was first introduced on the market. I worked with the first genetically modified soybeans that could be sprayed with Roundup. One of the biggest selling points was that Roundup was measurably safer than the herbicides it replaced with far better results…

So disingenuous. Roundup is safe because the LD50 is high? I guess you’re one of those people that are baffled by why we stopped using asbestos or DDT.

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#18

Post by _8ljf »

mirimir wrote: post #8
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #2

Re-analysing the data, it's conceivable that they genuinely found a link, and that the papers' original authors were fudging the stats. But I don't know how to find out whether this is true.

Many of the studies were likely funded by Monsanto, so it's predictable that they would be biased. So doing independent analysis would be wise. But then, it's also possible that some of the WHO staff or consultants were biased. Someone would need to look at the original studies and work done for the WHO report. That'd be a lot of work. And it'd be hard to find anyone that both sides would trust.

“But then, it's also possible that some of the WHO staff or consultants were biased.”

Indeed. Which it is why declaring COIs is so important. e.g. From a followup piece on Forbes (emphasis mine):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10/23/iarcs-...

“Portier, an American statistician who worked for the federal government for over thirty years, was the special advisor to the IARC panel that issued the report declaring glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic.” The transcripts show that during the same week in March 2015 in which IARC published its glyphosate opinion, Portier signed a lucrative contract to act as a litigation consultant for two law firms that were preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of glyphosate cancer victims. His contract contained a confidentiality clause barring Portier from disclosing his employment to other parties.”

It is easy to view these Glyphosate wars as tiny heroic Davids battling a vast malicious Goliath, and huge multinationals certainly can get up to all sorts of dubious stuff—but so can the “little guys”. And we have been here before: just look at Andrew Wakefield, found balls deep in lawyer money and rival patents, and still causing serious harm (e.g. 79 dead in Samoa) a decade after being busted for the mendacious money-grabbing little shit he really was.

As for the WHO, while it has done a great amount of very good work over the last 70 years, it is a human institution like any other and thus not immune to errors and corruption.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/who-promotes-unscientific-t...

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#20

Post by dzhiurgis »

ipsum2 wrote: post #3

This is sort of off-topic, but I've been getting strange ads about glyphosate not causing cancer disguised as news articles from Twitter and Reddit, presumably sponsored by Monsanto. (I don't have a strong stance of glyphosate at all). Searching around, looks like other people have encountered this as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8giwc1/why_ar...

No screenshots or links..?

That’s some flaggin’

Post reply on HN