Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

scipan

(2,368 posts)
12. from a link in the Guardian article
Tue Oct 23, 2018, 06:40 PM
Oct 2018

Very interesting read of the history and how Monsanto went to great lengths to discount evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic.

Of Mice, Monsanto And A Mysterious Tumor
...
And yet—rewind to July 1983 and a study titled “A Chronic Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice.” Following the document trail that surrounds the study offers an illuminating look into how science is not always clear-cut, and the lengths Monsanto has had to go to in order to convince regulators to accept scientific interpretations that support the company’s products.

The two-year study ran from 1980-1982 and involved 400 mice divided into groups of 50 males and 50 females that were administered three different doses of the weed killer or received no glyphosate at all for observation as a control group. The study was conducted for Monsanto to submit to regulators. But unfortunately for Monsanto, some mice exposed to glyphosate developed tumors at statistically significant rates, with no tumors at all in non-dosed mice.

A February 1984 memo from Environmental Protection Agency toxicologist William Dykstra stated the findings definitively: “Review of the mouse oncogenicity study indicates that glyphosate is oncogenic, producing renal tubule adenomas, a rare tumor, in a dose-related manner.” Researchers found these increased incidences of the kidney tumors in mice exposed to glyphosate worrisome because while adenomas are generally benign, they have the potential to become malignant, and even in noncancerous stages they have the potential to be harmful to other organs. Monsanto discounted the findings, arguing that the tumors were “unrelated to treatment” and showing false positives, and the company provided additional data to try to convince the EPA to discount the tumors.

But EPA toxicology experts were unconvinced. EPA statistician and toxicology branch member Herbert Lacayo authored a February 1985 memo outlining disagreement with Monsanto’s position. A “prudent person would reject the Monsanto assumption that Glyphosate dosing has no effect on kidney tumor production,” Lacayo wrote. ”Glyphosate is suspect. Monsanto’s argument is unacceptable.”


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/of-mice-monsanto-and-a-mysterious-tumor_us_5939717fe4b014ae8c69de40
This will be appealed Steven Maurer Oct 2018 #1
This WAS an appeal. Part of the evidence the jury considered was testimony that the company was pnwmom Oct 2018 #2
Thanks for the added info PatSeg Oct 2018 #4
Yeah, I'm sorry, but junk science is still junk science Steven Maurer Oct 2018 #10
Monsanto lost because of their own emails from their own employees. pnwmom Oct 2018 #11
They lost because of scientific illiteracy Steven Maurer Oct 2018 #14
If that happened, that was wrong. But it was also wrong for Monsanto to suppress data pnwmom Oct 2018 #15
I agree with you about Bayer (not Monsanto BTW)... Steven Maurer Oct 2018 #17
Many thought the judge would totally reverse the decision, so I see this as still a win. 7962 Oct 2018 #3
The application of glyphosate makes it possible to forego the use of a number of highly toxic Nitram Oct 2018 #5
There are other options that work as well. Glyphosate is more problematic 7962 Oct 2018 #6
I can't say I've done an exhaustive review of the aviailable literature, but what I've seen is Nitram Oct 2018 #7
And more importantly, the bees. A growing problem. 7962 Oct 2018 #8
True, that. Nitram Oct 2018 #9
NO! Of concern also to first world countries where applicators just dont give a rip - Im currently Kashkakat v.2.0 Oct 2018 #16
from a link in the Guardian article scipan Oct 2018 #12
Thanks for digging deeper! n/t pnwmom Oct 2018 #13
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge upholds verdict tha...»Reply #12