I’ll start a thread so the links don’t get lost in Chat again.

British Medical Journal, seems a reasonable summary of the things I found the other night. “Limited” or “very limited” associations, no good studies.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741

buffy said:

I’ll start a thread so the links don’t get lost in Chat again.

British Medical Journal, seems a reasonable summary of the things I found the other night. “Limited” or “very limited” associations, no good studies.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741

So the evidence that it causes cancer is weak.

How good is the evidence that it doesn’t cause cancer?

I’d better chop some kindling and do my best to smash a few large woods into smaller woods with the inadequate hatchet.

Then do the washing up and a bit of hoovering.

Tonight’s dinner will be more of yesterday’s lamb roast, perhaps in the form of a lamb pie.

Bubblecar said:

I’d better chop some kindling and do my best to smash a few large woods into smaller woods with the inadequate hatchet.

Then do the washing up and a bit of hoovering.

Tonight’s dinner will be more of yesterday’s lamb roast, perhaps in the form of a lamb pie.

For chat, sorry

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I’ll start a thread so the links don’t get lost in Chat again.

British Medical Journal, seems a reasonable summary of the things I found the other night. “Limited” or “very limited” associations, no good studies.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741

So the evidence that it causes cancer is weak.

How good is the evidence that it doesn’t cause cancer?

Given that “most powerful study showed no effect”, you’d have to say “fuckin’ excellent”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I’ll start a thread so the links don’t get lost in Chat again.

British Medical Journal, seems a reasonable summary of the things I found the other night. “Limited” or “very limited” associations, no good studies.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741

So the evidence that it causes cancer is weak.

How good is the evidence that it doesn’t cause cancer?

You can’t prove a negative.

OTOH, the link posted by buffy concludes:

The most appropriate and scientifically based evaluation of the cancers reported in humans and laboratory animals as well as supportive mechanistic data is that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. On the basis of this conclusion and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that glyphosate formulations should also be considered likely human carcinogens.

And Snopes has a nice, easy to understand rundown.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/17/cancer-juries-scientific-certainty-monsanto-roundup-ruling-explained/

Bubblecar said:

OTOH, the link posted by buffy concludes:

The most appropriate and scientifically based evaluation of the cancers reported in humans and laboratory animals as well as supportive mechanistic data is that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. On the basis of this conclusion and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that glyphosate formulations should also be considered likely human carcinogens.

That was one group’s conclusion. The other main group thought it minimally likely.

OK, it appears as if dv won’t be on the jury.

OK, it appears as if dv won’t be on the jury.

Being a poison one should be careful minimising exposure when it’s sprayed.

buffy said:

Bubblecar said:

OTOH, the link posted by buffy concludes:

The most appropriate and scientifically based evaluation of the cancers reported in humans and laboratory animals as well as supportive mechanistic data is that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. On the basis of this conclusion and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that glyphosate formulations should also be considered likely human carcinogens.

That was one group’s conclusion. The other main group thought it minimally likely.

The report you linked seems highly critical of the alternative view:

Serious flaws in the scientific evaluation in the RAR incorrectly characterise the potential for a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to glyphosate. Since the RAR is the basis for the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) conclusion,4 it is critical that these shortcomings are corrected.

sibeen said:

OK, it appears as if dv won’t be on the jury.

Hang em

Cymek said:

Being a poison one should be careful minimising exposure when it’s sprayed.

well, I guess dogs would say that about chocolate…

And Science Based Medicine – Steve Novella

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I’ll start a thread so the links don’t get lost in Chat again.

British Medical Journal, seems a reasonable summary of the things I found the other night. “Limited” or “very limited” associations, no good studies.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741

So the evidence that it causes cancer is weak.

How good is the evidence that it doesn’t cause cancer?

You can’t prove a negative.

That doesn’t answer the question.

You can certainly have differing degrees of probability for a negative.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I’ll start a thread so the links don’t get lost in Chat again.

British Medical Journal, seems a reasonable summary of the things I found the other night. “Limited” or “very limited” associations, no good studies.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741

So the evidence that it causes cancer is weak.

How good is the evidence that it doesn’t cause cancer?

Given that “most powerful study showed no effect”, you’d have to say “fuckin’ excellent”.

Surely that would depend on the details of that study, and what they mean by “showing no effect”.

buffy said:

Bubblecar said:

OTOH, the link posted by buffy concludes:

The most appropriate and scientifically based evaluation of the cancers reported in humans and laboratory animals as well as supportive mechanistic data is that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. On the basis of this conclusion and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that glyphosate formulations should also be considered likely human carcinogens.

That was one group’s conclusion. The other main group thought it minimally likely.

So the proper engineering approach would be to treat the more conservative conclusion as correct, until there is good evidence to the contrary.

OK, evidence that it doesn’t cause cancer, as you requested.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29136183

buffy said:

OK, evidence that it doesn’t cause cancer, as you requested.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29136183

Thanks.

I shall await the legal review of the evidence with interest.

The other thing you can say for sure is that if it does have some carcinogenic correlation, it must be very slight, and you’d still have to weigh up the benefits versus the risks.

For comparison, the correlation between red meat consumption and bowel cancer, being a flight attendant or pilot and basal carcinomas, and being in the sun and various skin cancers, are (unlike the risks of glyphosate) all well-established, but we didn’t ban red meat, air travel or going outdoors. Fuck, we haven’t even banned tobacco.

And, in slightly related news:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-04/california-says-coffee-does-not-have-to-be-labelled-carcinogenic/11176846

I’m just putting the finishing touches to PWM’s Special Report on Glyphosate.
All the graphs and data, references and bibliography has to be sorted yet.
But the basic thrust is that since the introduction of Glyphosate world poverty has reduced, life expectancy has increased and child mortality has decreased.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m just putting the finishing touches to PWM’s Special Report on Glyphosate.
All the graphs and data, references and bibliography has to be sorted yet.
But the basic thrust is that since the introduction of Glyphosate world poverty has reduced, life expectancy has increased and child mortality has decreased.

Difficult to argue against that.

Does all of this research base itself on the conception that people use the product exactly according to the instructions?

roughbarked said:

Does all of this research base itself on the conception that people use the product exactly according to the instructions?

No.

My Mexican gardener Hosei doesn’t use any protective equipment I won’t let him (costs money you see) and he’s fine

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I’ll start a thread so the links don’t get lost in Chat again.

British Medical Journal, seems a reasonable summary of the things I found the other night. “Limited” or “very limited” associations, no good studies.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741

So the evidence that it causes cancer is weak.

How good is the evidence that it doesn’t cause cancer?

You can’t prove a negative.

In science, proving anything is an impossibility.

“After re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans, in 1991.”

A bit more detail here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025008/

/* Juries sometimes render verdicts on scientific questions, but that doesn’t mean their verdict is always accepted by the scientific community at large. */

/* Scientific truths, however, are not determined by juries, but through rigorously demonstrated consensus. The scientific consensus on glyphosate is far from a settled issue, and many scientists have taken significant issue with the verdict. */

/* Monsanto has been accused of interfering in the peer review process behind some research papers concerning glyphosate. */

LOL

buffy said:

And Science Based Medicine – Steve Novella

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/update-on-glyphosate/

ChrispenEvan said:

buffy said:

And Science Based Medicine – Steve Novella

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/update-on-glyphosate/

Thanks. And there is always contributory negligence…not reading the label on the stuff.

buffy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

buffy said:

And Science Based Medicine – Steve Novella

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/update-on-glyphosate/

Thanks. And there is always contributory negligence…not reading the label on the stuff.

One bloke I know who died of NHL, stirred his glyphosate spray vats with his bare arm.