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

51–60 of 73 posts

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

#51

Post by saalweachter »

nordsieck wrote: post #36
Valgrim wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.usd…

You do have the practice in the far north (Saskatchewan, UK and some parts of the Dakotas) of using glyphosate as a desiccant on some grain crops to compensate for the short growing season, which probably affects the human food supply disproportionately (wheat is occasionally used for animal feed, but its use is trivial compared to corn and soy).

But given that the allowable limits for glyphosate in animal feeds is an order of magnitude or two higher than for people foods, I really would be surprised if livestock hasn't been eating a lot of it for the last twenty or thirty years.

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

#52

Post by cies »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #49
emodendroket wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The concern is that disclosures can be used selectively, to make unpopular businesses embarrass themselves while favored ones skate by. If we make people slap “contains glyphosate” on produce, is there any realistic chance that organic produce will say “contains blood meal” or apples will say “contains beeswax”?

Perfect. As a conscious buyer and vegan believe I deserve to know! (and not by calling some office during office hours, but right there where I buy).

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

#53

Post by refurb »

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…

Lawyers winning hundreds of millions of dollars in contingency fees is a very strong incentive.

They smelled blood in the water.

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

#54

Post by ars »

delhanty wrote: post #43

So I read this story and wondered whether there were any undisclosed links between the author (Kate Kelland) and Monsanto. Google led me to sites alleging that this 2017 article and others were written to spec on the instructions of Monsanto. [0][1][2] >Not only did Kelland write a 2017 story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way Monsanto executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it, (without disclosing…

This Reuters article is basically just a summary of the difference between two reports.

I'm not sure exactly how you can be biased on that, you could go read the reports yourself and do the exact same diff.

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

#55

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

But how old are those livestock? A year? Two? "Didn't cause tumors in the first two years" is a bit lower bar than I want for something that humans will eat long term.

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

#56

Post by Merrill »

Banning glyphosate would have some interesting effects:

- more tillage would be required causing more soil erosion and a higher consumption of fossil fuels resulting in more CO2 emissions from agriculture.

- yields would decline due to more weed competition, which, combined with higher costs for fuels would increase food prices.

From a social perspective, higher food prices, a healthier farm economy, and less available income for frivolities like vacations and travel that are also CO2 sources might be beneficial overall.

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

#57

Post by jnordwick »

delhanty wrote: post #43

So I read this story and wondered whether there were any undisclosed links between the author (Kate Kelland) and Monsanto. Google led me to sites alleging that this 2017 article and others were written to spec on the instructions of Monsanto. [0][1][2] >Not only did Kelland write a 2017 story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way Monsanto executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it, (without disclosing…

This is about as close to pure ad hominem as you can get.

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

#58

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #12
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...

[deleted]

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

#59

Post by craftinator »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #20
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’

Oh come on. Ipsum has been on here for half a decade and has 2000 karma. This isn't a throwaway account... Do some research first.

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

#60

Post by deogeo »

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…

Yet another is "bees exposed to X were more vulnerable to parasite Y, but this only revealed itself in regions where parasite Y is present, and the effect could not be detected otherwise". I believe that's how they were able to produce so many studies saying neonicotinoids are safe for bees.
Post reply on HN