Mother Jones(!): Roundup doesn't cause cancer

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
Mother Jones(!): Roundup doesn't cause cancer

So, someone on AMG (Anonymous Coward, I think, but not absolutely sure) was talking about how Roundup, the herbicide in common use, caused cancer and that the manufacturer hid the damning information. As it turns out, it seems that the main source of this claim, one Aaron Blair of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, apparently ignored a major study that he himself was a senior researcher for that stated that Roundup doesn't cause cancer:

"About that evidence: According to a new Reuters investigation, Aaron Blair, the scientist who led the IARC’s review panel on glyphosate, had access to data from a large study that strongly suggested that Roundup did not cause cancer after all—but he withheld that data from the RoundUp review panel. Weirder still: Blair himself was a senior researcher on that study."

If anyone wonders why people distrust pronouncements from scientists about things like alleged "man-caused global climate change" and many other fads that are hobby-horses, this would be Exhibit A, I think.

Tom C
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
I think it was AC. AC is

I think it was AC. AC is further to the looney left than Mother Jones?

Always thought so.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
I say this is a sample of the

I say this is a sample of the model that lets Junk Science, ie bad information, lead 'we the people' into believing that which is not true. Roundup does not cause cancer; CO2 does not cause global warming.....(which is not occurring), and gun control is not about guns, its about control.
Leading the charge on accepting junk science....Pelosi, Brown and Feinstein...makes one curious about those folks in California.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/monsanto-roundup-glyphosa...

UN’s World Health Organization, declared RoundUp a probable carcinogen in 2015, there was an international outcry. Shortly after, 184 plaintiffs in California filed a legal case against Monsanto, saying that the company failed to warn them about the risks of its product. Since then, in a separate suit, hundreds more plaintiffs have claimed that RoundUp caused their cancers, citing the IARC’s findings as evidence.

About that evidence: According to a new Reuters investigation, Aaron Blair, the scientist who led the IARC’s review panel on glyphosate, had access to data from a large study that strongly suggested that Roundup did not cause cancer after all—but he withheld that data from the RoundUp review panel. Weirder still: Blair himself was a senior researcher on that study.

From the Reuters report:
Previously unreported court documents reviewed by Reuters from an ongoing US legal case against Monsanto show that Blair knew the unpublished research found no evidence of a link between glyphosate and cancer. In a sworn deposition given in March this year in connection with the case, Blair also said the data would have altered IARC’s analysis.

So why on Earth would a scientist fail to mention his own work—and blithely let a powerful agency come to a conclusion that his own data suggested was wrong? IARC told Reuters it’s because Blair’s data wasn’t published yet, and the agency has a policy against taking unpublished data into consideration. For his part, Blair told Reuters that the data wasn’t published in advance of the IARC’s decision because there was too much of it to fit in one paper. (Reuters asked two outside experts to weigh in, and neither could understand the decision not to publish the data.)

But the cat is out of the bag. During an EPA budget hearing Thursday, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) asked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to look into the withheld evidence on RoundUp. Eisen, meanwhile, worries that IARC’s handling of this case will damage public perception of the group. “This is going to end up undermining people’s confidence in this agency’s ability to do this well,” he said. “They don’t seem interested in getting to the bottom of these things. These decisions seem based in politics.”

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
If you'll recall, I was

If you'll recall, I was merely asking for Roundup to go through the same EPA evaluation process every pesticide has to go through, without special favors granted because of lobbyists or because the EPA regulator is an industry insider.

That's it. Just asking for the law to be applied equally, as it is written, without corruption or prejudice.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
Interesting….looks like

Interesting….looks like Roundup (aka Glyphosate) data …was determined by the EPA in the mid 80’s to be not statistically significant as a cancer causing agent.

Glyphosate Issue Paper:
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential
EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs
September 12, 2016

1.2 Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential
Since its registration, the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate has been evaluated by EPA several times. In 1985, the initial peer review of glyphosate was conducted in accordance with the Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. The agency classified glyphosate as a Group C chemical (Possible Human Carcinogen), based on the presence of kidney tumors in male mice. In 1986, the agency requested that the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) evaluate the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. The panel determined that the data on renal tumors in male mice were equivocal (only an increase in adenomas was observed and the increase did not reach statistical significance). As a result, the panel recommended a Group D chemical classification (Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity) for glyphosate and advised the agency to issue a data call-in notice for further studies in rats and/or mice to clarify the unresolved questions (FIFRA SAP Report, 1986)3

(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)).

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214677

Abstract
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a monograph in 2015 concluding that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals. It was also concluded that there was strong evidence of genotoxicity and oxidative stress. Four Expert Panels have been convened for the purpose of conducting a detailed critique of the evidence in light of IARC’s assessment and to review all relevant information pertaining to glyphosate exposure, animal carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and epidemiologic studies. Two of the Panels (animal bioassay and genetic toxicology) also provided a critique of the IARC position with respect to conclusions made in these areas. The incidences of neoplasms in the animal bioassays were found not to be associated with glyphosate exposure on the basis that they lacked statistical strength, were inconsistent across studies, lacked dose-response relationships, were not associated with preneoplasia, and/or were not plausible from a mechanistic perspective. The overall weight of evidence from the genetic toxicology data supports a conclusion that glyphosate (including GBFs and AMPA) does not pose a genotoxic hazard and therefore, should not be considered support for the classification of glyphosate as a genotoxic carcinogen. The assessment of the epidemiological data found that the data do not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma while the data were judged to be too sparse to assess a potential relationship between glyphosate exposure and multiple myeloma. As a result, following the review of the totality of the evidence, the Panels concluded that the data do not support IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” and, consistent with previous regulatory assessments, further concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
http://www.reuters.com

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-glyphosate-california-idUSKBN19H2K1

Glyphosate, an herbicide and the active ingredient in Monsanto Co's (MON.N) popular Roundup weed killer, will be added to California's list of chemicals known to cause cancer effective July 7, the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) said on Monday.
The listing is the latest legal setback for the seeds and chemicals company, which has faced increasing litigation over glyphosate since the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer said that it is "probably carcinogenic" in a controversial ruling in 2015.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/monsanto-roundup-glyphosa...

About that evidence: According to a new Reuters investigation, Aaron Blair, the scientist who led the IARC’s review panel on glyphosate, had access to data from a large study that strongly suggested that Roundup did not cause cancer after all—but he withheld that data from the RoundUp review panel. Weirder still: Blair himself was a senior researcher on that study.

So why on Earth would a scientist fail to mention his own work—and blithely let a powerful agency come to a conclusion that his own data suggested was wrong? IARC told Reuters it’s because Blair’s data wasn’t published yet, and the agency has a policy against taking unpublished data into consideration. For his part, Blair told Reuters that the data wasn’t published in advance of the IARC’s decision because there was too much of it to fit in one paper. (Reuters asked two outside experts to weigh in, and neither could understand the decision not to publish the data.)

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 57 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
One might want to check on

One might want to check on Monsanto stock purchases and sales around that time with regards to the good Doctor's broker.

Log in to post comments