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

21–30 of 73 posts

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

#21

Post by glofish »

zo1 wrote: post #15
andybak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Some might call this a jaded and a cynical view but is one that I have also observed and concluded that is more realistic than we care to admit.

It is not a conspiracy, it is not a predetermined plan, it just happens that certain kinds of people get promoted to leadership positions in these organizations. It is a survival phenomenon, an evolutionary principle at work. The organization does its best to ensure the future of the organization.

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

#22

Post by dzhiurgis »

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…

PSA: IARC haven’t found a single thing thats is definitely not carcinogenic and lists shit like radio waves or tumble driers as possibly carcinogenic.

IARC are bunch of lunatics.

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

#23

Post by boublepop »

saykou wrote: post #17

"Scientists should not feel pressured to discuss their deliberations outside this particular forum." Then I'm sorry that's is not science, science is based on discussion and the possibility to falsify ones conclusion.

So you are countering that people should be pressured to discuss deliberations?

Science or not, you shouldn’t even feel forced to discuss what you had at lunch yesterday, no matter how many billions are at stake for corporations.

As you say, this is science, there is absolutely no reason to attack the people, when you can provide independent scientific evidence to support your own conclusion which might be counter to their. Then it becomes a question of evaluating the evidence, not evaluating the people.

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

#24

Post by burpsnard »

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…

Part of the controversy is around what constitutes a demonstration of safety.

One is "i fed it 50 rabbits and they were all fine the next morning";

another is "LD50 (50% died) within 24hrs of consuming X milligrams per kg of rabbit weight, which well above expected levels present in food";

Another is "more tumours in these 500 rats who were fed glyphosphate - exposed crops, than in these other 500 genetically identical rats fed the same but organic version, after 9 months"

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

#25

Post by stinos »

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…

Fair point actually. There's also lot of yelling going on going as far that some think it's actually a proven fact that it causes cancer just because some judge somewhere made Monsanto pay. But there's another aspect as well: if I'm not mistaken (been a while I looked into this thoroughly) the links with the insect decline seem to be much stronger than the link with cancer? And that's also not exactly a good thing.

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

#26

Post by cies »

Any food "additive" (including all chemicals used in farming) should be listed, carcinogen or not.

The fact that products can be sold as "cucumber" but actually have a long list of chems on their skin is a very dark practice. See how companies abused their power when ingredient lists where not enforced by law. Or how tobacco comps are still abusing their freedom not to list ingredients. This malpractice disgusts me daily.

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

#27

Post by appleflaxen »

saykou wrote: post #17

"Scientists should not feel pressured to discuss their deliberations outside this particular forum." Then I'm sorry that's is not science, science is based on discussion and the possibility to falsify ones conclusion.

Scientists should be able to discuss their deliberations without intimidation or fear in either direction.

If a scientist deliberates to reach a conclusion that they choose not to explain it's fine: we just need to ignore it.

There is no reason to argue that "scientists should be pressured to discuss their deliberations", which seems like the argument you are making.

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

#28

Post by saalweachter »

burpsnard wrote: post #24
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…

Part of the controversy is around what constitutes a demonstration of safety. One is "i fed it 50 rabbits and they were all fine the next morning"; another is "LD50 (50% died) within 24hrs of consuming X milligrams per kg of rabbit weight, which well above expected levels present in food"; Another is "more tumours in these 500 rats who were fed glyphosphate - exposed crops, than in these other 500 genetically identic…

I actually haven't seen this brought up for glyphosate but with respect to GMO crops, we've basically run an experiment where we've "autopsied" a billion livestock a year, and there was no observed increase in eg tumor rates when we transitioned from feeding them organic crops to GMO crops.

The same data probably applies to glyphosate, since the two go hand in hand (which is also why many activists get upset about glyphosate specifically, versus everything else that gets sprayed on crops, because it is associated with GMO glyphosate-resistant crops).

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

#29

Post by modmans2nd »

ricardobeat wrote: post #19

Seems to me that they edited out opinions , not findings, which is exactly how it should be done. Ex: "The authors firmly believe" and "the authors concluded"; not exactly scientific facts.

Conclusions are why reports are written.

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

#30

Post by modmans2nd »

stinos wrote: post #25
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…

Fair point actually. There's also lot of yelling going on going as far that some think it's actually a proven fact that it causes cancer just because some judge somewhere made Monsanto pay. But there's another aspect as well: if I'm not mistaken (been a while I looked into this thoroughly) the links with the insect decline seem to be much stronger than the link with cancer? And that's also not exactly a good thing.

I thought the insect decline was from theirs of neonicotinoids for pest control not herbicides like glyphosate.
Post reply on HN