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

31–40 of 73 posts

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

#31

Post by modmans2nd »

op00to wrote: post #16
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.

Show evidence it’s not safe.

DDT was destroying bird populations.

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

#32

Post by modmans2nd »

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…

Sounds like the most garbage meta analysis in the history of science.

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

#33

Post by jcranmer »

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...

People at large generally have a set of blinders on where the monetary incentives of large companies are clear and undeniable, but the monetary incentives of concerned organizations are passed over. An anti-vaccine group is going to pay good money to a researcher who can find links between vaccine and $EVIL, and indeed, this is already known to have happened (see Wakefield, Andrew).

In the case of being against agrichemicals, there is a readily identifiable commercial industry: organic agriculture. (And, again, don't discount the size of an industry just because it's the "little guy" working against "the man"--the health supplement industry is an example where the "little guy" is actually guilty of everything they accuse of "the man" of, and much worse). In addition, there is a pretty staunch anti-GMO activism running around in Europe as a whole which provides ready funding fuel here.

The entire glyphosate controversy, to me at least, has long been a case of "[the people against it] know it's somehow evil, because big agriculture, we're just trying to figure out something that will actually show it."

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

#34

Post by emodendroket »

cies wrote: post #26

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 d…

I kind of agree. I'm not really swayed by arguments that consumers shouldn't have information because they'd use it to make mistaken decisions. Let them; that's not my business.

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

#35

Post by Valgrim »

saalweachter wrote: post #28
burpsnard wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gl…

Except the GMO data definitely can't be applied to glyphosate. There is no reason GMOs should have the same metabolic effects as glyphosate.

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

#36

Post by nordsieck »

Valgrim wrote: post #35
saalweachter wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gl…

Except the GMO data definitely can't be applied to glyphosate. There is no reason GMOs should have the same metabolic effects as glyphosate.

> Except the GMO data definitely can't be applied to glyphosate. There is no reason GMOs should have the same metabolic effects as glyphosate.

One of the most prevalent genetic modifications to crops is glyphosate resistance[1].

I suppose it's possible that many farmers are buying glyphosate resistant crops but not using glyphosate as a weed control measure. However, that seems... unlikely.

___

1. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2018/december/trends-in...

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

#37

Post by stinos »

modmans2nd wrote: post #30
stinos wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apart from the indirect effect (killing flowering plants means less food for insects) there seem to be direct effects as well e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063858/

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

#38

Post by omar_a1 »

modmans2nd wrote: post #29
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.

Yup, those are common rhetorical devices for presenting scientific fact. It's like dismissing Evolution as "just a theory."

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

#39

Post by CWuestefeld »

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.

From TFA:

"One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of multiple scientists' conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals. In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC."

This seems a lot stronger than just editing. Although not perfectly clear, it sounds to me like the report was a composite of multiple distinct studies, and they excised some studies that differed from their desired outcome. That's basically the same thing as dropping experimental evidence that doesn't agree with a study's goals.

If you're not fully acknowledging anything that might contradict your conclusion, then you're sciencing wrong.

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

#40

Post by lostmyoldone »

modmans2nd wrote: post #29
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.

Not taking a position on this case/article, it seems a complex situation which I can't fully evaluate.

However, research reports are written for their results, not their conclusion. The conclusions are often less formal and somewhat prone to bias. The scientific method is to consider results in aggregate to successively form a better understanding of an issue, and as such the individual conclusions in an individual report is really the least important part in a meta study or review report.

Post reply on HN