"Skeptical Enquirer" looks at the "Roundup" and GMO hysteria...

[Archae]

Are the science attackers here going to attack this article?

https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/a-skeptical-guide-to-glyphosate-toolkit-for-ten-common-claims/

Conclusions

Modern agriculture seeks to fill gaps in food security, reinforcing and improving human health. A new eye on sustainability welcomes new (and occasionally old) technology to make land use more efficient and lessen environmental impact. With intrinsic concerns of health, safety, environmental stewardship, and farmers’ economic sustainability, glyphosate has met these goals for five decades. While there is insufficient evidence of health impacts at current exposures, use has been and will continue to be monitored closely. Ongoing research should continue to be alert for any actual risk, perhaps in certain population segments. As of the writing of this article, glyphosate remains useful for farmers to ensure productivity, affordability, and stability of food crops. Although it remains a political target, our job as a scientific and skeptical community is to continue to evaluate claims for veracity and clearly communicate actual risk and benefits to the public.

[womanofthehills]

1. So many glyphosate causes cancer cases won

“Jury reaches $332 million verdict in trial claiming Roundup caused Carlsbad man's cancer”

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-county-jury-reaches-332m-verdict-in-trial-claiming-roundup-caused-carlsbad-mans-cancer/3343895/

“Bayer ordered to pay $1.56 billion in latest US trial loss over Roundup weedkiller”

https://www.reuters.com/legal/bayer-ordered-pay-156-billion-latest-us-trial-loss-over-roundup-weedkiller-2023-11-19/

Etc Etc Etc - I could fill this page with cases won

[RidinWithHarris]

26. Court cases are a terrible measure of scientific accuracy

Juries see people with real problems, which may or may not have anything to do with a chemical or drug or product they want to blame for those problems.

They see big companies, easily to vilify, with deep pockets.

If there's the slightest not-even-reasonable chance that the chemical or drug or product being blamed has something to do with these dire problems, hey, why not make the people with the deep pockets pay up?

[Zoomie1986]

38. Science isn't done in courtrooms

Try again.

[msongs]

2. one suggests the authors of this should drink a glass of roundup every morning nt

[Mosby]

3. Why do retailers like HD, Lowe's, Ace, Walmart etc. sell roundup

If it causes cancer?

Sure lawyers are great at manipulating evidence for juror consumption, but that's not real science, just legal games. Not even the EPA has been able to find a causal link between roundup and cancer.

[msongs]

5. great then those retailers can drink a glass every day too nt

[Eko]

8. I'll believe scientific consensus over laywers any day.

[Celerity]

23. poor analogy, many retailers sell cigarettes, booze, and assault rifles

[womanofthehills]

28. Not our EPA because of possible pressure

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer declared glyphosate as probably carcinogenic. This is why the cases are being won. Do you really think Bayer doesn’t have the best lawyers available??

“ In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A)

https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/

It’s an organophosphate like malathion, : diazinon, parathion, and tetrachlorvinphos.

[Kaleva]

46. Probably carcinogenic?

[Eko]

6. Would you drink a glass of dish soap?

Laundry soap? Windex?

[Think. Again.]

4. Glyphosate, the "active ingredient" in the consumer and agricultural product "Roundup"...

...is indeed severely less toxic than than the Roundup products in their entirety and as sold off the shelf, but is certainly not safe.

The regulatory agencies that test consumer products for safety ONLY TEST THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT and do not consider the toxicity of the final product that consists of the chemical reactions between the tested "active ingredient" and the numerous other chemical ingredients in the final product.

"Roundup is the most widely used herbicide in agriculture. It contains glyphosate as the ‘active ingredient’, together with formulants. There are various versions of Roundup, with somewhat different effects depending on the formulants. Most genetically-modified crops are designed to tolerate Roundup, thus allowing spraying against weeds during the growing season of the crop without destroying it. Having been so heavily used, this herbicide is now found in the soil, water, air, and even in humans worldwide. Roundup may also remain as a residue on edible crops. Many studies have found harm to the environment and to health, making it imperative to regulate the use of Roundup and to ensure that its various formulations pose no danger when used in the long-term. Unfortunately, regulators may only assess the ‘active ingredient’, glyphosate, and ignore the toxicity of the formulants, which can be far more toxic than the active ingredient. This omission is in violation of a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union. There are close ties between the regulators and the industry they are supposed to regulate. Objectionable practices include ‘revolving doors’ between the regulators and the industry, heavy reliance on unpublished papers produced by the industry while dismissing papers published by independent scientists, and strong covert influence on the regulatory process by industry. Although this paper focuses on the European Union (EU), the situation is much the same in the United States."

-snip-

Failure to Distinguish between Glyphosate and Roundup

The EU-wide regulatory approval process only tests the designated active ingredientin a pesticide formulation, not the formulation that is actually in use. This is an important distinction because the formulants in Roundup herbicide are far more toxic than theactive ingredient, glyphosate, by factors of about 1000 (Séralini et al. [17]).

Moreover, the formulants are also endocrine disrupters and nervous system disruptors.Defarge et al. [18] found that formulants, not glyphosate, were the main causes of thetoxic and endocrine-disruptive effects of the 14 glyphosate-based pesticides they studied.

The toxicity of nine pesticide formulations including one based on glyphosate wasstudied by Mesnage et al. [19]. Roundup proved to be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate.This result should be of concern to regulators, as it casts doubt on the relevance of theconcept of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for Roundup. The ADI is based on tests thatfeed animals various foods containing the active principal of a herbicide, but not the wholeformulation. The study concludes that the present ADI, which is 0.3 ppm, should perhapsbe 3 ppb.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361317996_Glyphosate_Roundup_and_the_Failures_of_Regulatory_Assessment

SOME IMPORTANT FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural workers in California.

Glyphosate is the most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape maintenance workers in California.

The surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself and the combination of the two is yet more toxic.

Glyphosate is suspected of causing genetic damage.

Glyphosate is acutely toxic to fish and birds and can kill beneficial insects and soil organisms that maintain ecological balance.

Laboratory studies have identified adverse effects of glyphosate-containing products in all standard categories of toxicological testing.

Glyphosate residues in soil can persist over a year.

Glyphosate residues has been found in strawberries, wild blueberries and raspberries, lettuce, carrots and barley.

Glyphosate has been measured 1,300 – 2,600 feet away from its application site.

This year Monsanto, manufacturer of Roundup, agreed with the New York Attorney General’s office to discontinue their use of the terms "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly" in ads promoting glyphosate-based products, including Roundup.

Source: https://ecologycenter.org/factsheets/so-whats-the-problem-with-roundup/

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Ill Push Back On That

EVERY chemical manufactured or used in the United States has, by law, a vetted Safety Data Sheet, available to anybody who wants to read it.
The other ingredients (adjuvants & inerts) in these formulations have, due to their longevity on the market, have detailed SDS issued.
I'm neither defending nor condemning these products here, but those articles are flawed.
The surfactants used in roundup are NOT more toxic than the active ingredient. That's not an error in the snip you provided. It's a lie.
I have worked with agribusiness on phase stability of consumer lawn & garden care formulas & I know EXACTLY what the surfactant systems are. There are NO surfactant systems in any formula for any application more toxic than an active herbicide.
If these people want to oppose glyphosate & gluphosinates, more power to them. But, the arguments being made in your cites are specious.

[Think. Again.]

44. You would need to supply verification...

...that your assertions are more correct than a paper published by the National Institutes of Health before I could consider your argument.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9229215/

[Eko]

7. But it has chemicals in it!

Scientific consensus and fifty years of regulatory scrutiny continue to conclude that glyphosate is a relatively benign chemical, safe for use as directed, and poses next-to-no risk to humans

[Archae]

9. It's like I said in the OP.

Hysteria.

There are my "big three" of the anti-GMO/anti-Roundup people too.

And some of those can be mixtures of the three, or even all three at once!

1. The crazy ones.
"The voices in my head tell me only to eat raw grass!"

2. The zealots.
Nothing matters but "The cause."
To hell with science, common sense, logic, or research.

3. The ones cashing in.
"Buy my book/movie about how EVIL Roundup is!"

[womanofthehills]

32. Not true - WHO says it's a possible carcinogen

Glyphosate was originally registered as an antibiotic - which is why it might be messing with digestion. It’s an organophosphate pesticide like malathion. Yrs ago when my city mistakenly sprayed malathion out of trucks in my neighborhood - my whole neighborhood got sick. I got MCS, excessive salavation and reactive airway disease. Breathing in organophosphate pesticides can kill the cells in your airways.

[Eko]

36. Well that destroys my argument and all that scientific consensus.

It's a possible carcinogen.
Here is what the WHO said. That conclusion was based on its experts’ view that there was “sufficient evidence" glyphosate causes cancer in animals and "limited evidence" it can do so in humans.
There was also some edits from that draft that left things out like.
The edits identified by Reuters occurred in the chapter of IARC’s review focusing on animal studies. This chapter was important in IARC’s assessment of glyphosate, since it was in animal studies that IARC decided there was “sufficient” evidence of carcinogenicity.
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.

In another, a sentence in the draft referenced a pathology report ordered by experts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It noted the report “firmly” and “unanimously” agreed that the “compound” – glyphosate – had not caused abnormal growths in the mice being studied. In the final published IARC monograph, this sentence had been deleted.

To further the EPA's findings,
In February 2020, after receiving and considering public comments on the glyphosate proposed interim decision, EPA published the interim decision registration review decision (ID) for glyphosate. As part of this action, EPA found that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label. EPA also found that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.

[Zoomie1986]

39. I always love telling the morons screeching about 'chemicals'

That everything is made up of chemicals. Including them.

[Jazz Jon]

48. Layman's Terms

They are speaking in layman's terms. They probably never had a chemistry course and so when the say "chemicals" they mean "dangerous synthetic compounds created in a laboratory". You have to allow for that, but you probably know that. I hear the same thing in my green cleaning business. These people are basically right to be suspicious. They simply lack the informed vocabulary.

[Archae]

11. That web site is right-wing AF.

Their pages about covid do nothing but blame the Chinese using right-wing propaganda.

[gab13by13]

13. Now you are deflecting from the topic.

Do you use Roundup?

[Archae]

14. I have used Roundup.

According to the directions on the bottle.
Which meant sparingly and properly.

No, I'm not going to "drink a glass of it" like one person here suggested.
Like another person said, "Would you drink a glass of dish soap?"

[womanofthehills]

33. The question is not just do you use roundup

If you don’t eat organically, you are probably getting a dose or many doses of glyphosate daily in your food.

“A potentially cancer-causing chemical is sprayed on much of America’s farmland. Here is where it is used the most.
Weedkillers containing glyphosate are sprayed on nearly half of all corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. Use is highest in parts of Iowa, Illinois and Indiana.”p

Much of the debate about glyphosate’s health implications revolves around a potential link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A 2019 analysis conducted by former EPA science review board members indicated a “compelling link” to the disease. Several peer-reviewed studies have also suggested that herbicides containing glyphosate may disrupt hormones and alter the gut microbiome.

The 2015 IARC report, which stated that “a positive association has been observed for non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” kicked off a wave of lawsuits that cost Bayer more than $10 billion in settlements, though the company won five consecutive personal-injury trials through September 1.

https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/toxic-herbicides-map-showing-high-use-state-rcna50052

[LudwigPastorius]

18. The site has reached no conclusions about the origin of COVID.

To date, there is not sufficient evidence to definitively reject either zoonotic origin or lab-origin hypotheses.

https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/why-we-research-origins-of-sars-cov-2-gain-of-function-research/

[Eko]

16. Full disclosure that website you linked to has such great articles as

Fauci’s institute hid mpox gain-of-function plans from Congress and the media

[LudwigPastorius]

20. OK, I'll delete the post, but that doesn't change the fact that the OP article's author took money...

from the maker of Roundup.

[Archae]

21. So?

This is nothing but the old "The scientist must have been bribed" horse manure.

[Eko]

22. The author did not take that money.

A group he is in did. Maybe all of that went to him, maybe none of it did.

[gab13by13]

12. I don't go near Roundup, and I eat organic food

because it tastes better.

Wonder who pulled the wool over the eyes of the countries that banned Roundup?

I don't give a darn if people spray that shit every day it's none of my business, but telling people it is harmless is dangerous.

[RidinWithHarris]

27. "Study: 'Organic' Labels Make Food Taste Healthier"

Please note, that it's the label, not actually being organic or not, that makes the difference.

(Emphasis mine)

METHODOLOGY: In the middle of a shopping mall food court, Cornell researchers recruited 115 passersby to participate in a taste test. The participants sampled what were labeled as the organic and non-organic versions of cookies, potato chips, and yogurt. In reality, the two types of each food were identical (and, incidentally, organic). They then rated the foods on taste (Was it appetizing? Flavorful? Did it taste artificial?) and perceived nutritional content, were asked to estimate how many calories each contained, and indicated how much they'd be willing to pay for snack-sized portions of each.

RESULTS: The participants guessed that the "organic" cookies, chips, and yogurt were 20 to 24 percent lower in calories than "regular" versions. They thought the organic foods "tasted lower in fat and calories" and higher in fiber as well, and perceived the cookies and chips, though not the yogurt, as tasting more nutritious. They were willing to pay up around 16 to 23 percent more for all three.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/study-organic-labels-make-food-taste-healthier/274683/

(Sorry that the full article is pay-walled.)

Unless you can pass a double-blind test, this better taste you perceive is probably all power of suggestion.

[Mosby]

45. Gift link.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/study-organic-labels-make-food-taste-healthier/274683/?gift=jcG3tmvWxz4sWOuHjwSa67zqbjlBL-6MSx17rpO5L5E&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

[Quixote1818]

15. It always amazes me how those of us on the left love science when it comes to things like vaccines but when it comes

to science developing a GMO that tests to be safe, so many of the same people will think it's harmful just because it's not "natural". Everything is a chemical. Some chemicals are very safe, many are very safe up to a certain amount and many aren't safe for some or most people just as some natural things can kill you with one drop. I ONLY care about the results of the human randomized, control trials, period!!!!!

[gab13by13]

17. It isn't the GMO

it's the Roundup that is sprayed on the GMO plants that's the problem.

[Archae]

19. Except if used properly, it isn't a problem.

It's only a "problem" from anti-science hysterics.

[Jazz Jon]

30. GMOs Not so much

Its the purpose of the GMOs, like to resist Roundup, so the crops can be doused with roundup. Roundup has been detected all over the planet. Including in rain, and in all humans tested for it. This article smacks of Bayer and Cargil Propaganda.

[womanofthehills]

35. Pesticides are never safe to eat or breathe

GMO’s & pesticides are usually always together.

Unfortunately - in our world - many use pesticides to commit suicide.
My friend died an agonizing death by drinking malathion (an organophosphate like glyphosate) - no one was allowed in his hospital room as the pesticide was oozing out of his body & could make others sick.

[Zoomie1986]

40. Oh FFS

Consuming water can kill you, if you drink too much of it.

Used properly, no, these products don't kill. Try to learn some actual science before blathering such patent nonsense.

[NNadir]

24. To answer your first question...

...Of course they are.

[Archae]

25. So I've noticed.

[gay texan]

29. Roundup is very similar to Agent Orange.

Weve made a lot of mistakes in the past with chemicals. Lead in gasoline and DDT come to mind.

[NNadir]

42. I would suggest opening a science book to support this absurd claim. One might begin by looking at the structures.

Generally however, claims like this are made by people unfamiliar with, say, structural organic chemistry, for one example.

[Bobstandard]

31. What bullshit.

I don’t know the SkepticalEnquirer or the authors, but I do know they ignore a tremendous body of research that contradicts nearly every claim of this article. The article essentially takes the stance that any objection to the use of glysophate is hysterical. Right.

If Roundup were so benign why would Monsanto already have agreed to more than $11 millions in settlements for folks harmed by the substance? Is because their lawyers just don’t want to be in the room with a bunch of people with glysophate related hysteria? Or is it because glysophate isn’t benign, is in fact dangerously toxic and is in fact, indefensible?

This article reads like it was written by one of the same PR firms that represented big tobacco.

[Cha]

37. Mahalo for your post, Bob.

Screw Roundup... nobody better ever try pushing that crap on me.

Trying to sell it by the ol.. but "science"... Yeah Science can be Beneficial But Not every GD time.

Maybe those pushing Roundup should try Another Tactic than "Hysterica". It's Not working.

If Roundup were so benign why would Monsanto already have agreed to more than $11 millions in settlements for folks harmed by the substance? Is because their lawyers just don’t want to be in the room with a bunch of people with glysophate related hysteria? Or is it because glysophate isn’t benign, is in fact dangerously toxic and is in fact, indefensible?

I think it's the latter.

Monsanto's Weedkiller Payout Slashed to $400 Million From $2.25 Billion

A court has reduced the amount Bayer-owned Monsanto must pay in a recent case linked to Roundup by about 82%, or nearly $1.9 billion, easing the latest cost in the company's drawn-out legal battle related to the weedkiller.

Monsanto will now be required to pay $350 million in punitive damages and just over $50 million in compensatory damages, according to court documents released on Tuesday. The company was originally ordered earlier this year to pay $2.25 billion in damages by a Philadelphia court.

Monsanto said on Tuesday it would seek an appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and that it disagreed with the court's ruling on the liability verdict.

*Snip*

Bayer has been plagued by a number of lawsuits related to Roundup since its $63 billion deal to acquire Monsanto in 2018. The company lost two cases late last year with damages totalling over $2 billion.

https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/202406049157/monsantos-weedkiller-payout-slashed-to-400-million-from-225-billion

Yes!!

[NNadir]

47. It is a very, very, very questionable practice to confuse science...

...with court cases.

It is even worse to confuse journalism with science. The standard "joke" I often make here, which is only half a joke and is otherwise half serious, is that one cannot get a degree in journalism if one has passed a college level science course with a grade of C or better.

[soandso]

41. This thread brought to you by conflicts of interest

https://imgur.com/q5PmhTO

[edhopper]

34. Yes

they are, to answer your question.