
California to list glyphosate as cancer-causing - euroclydon
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-glyphosate-california-idUSKBN19H2K1
======
tptacek
Here's the current California Prop 65 list. It's... extensive.

[https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65sing...](https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65single01272017.pdf)

I don't think this means as much as the headline makes it sound like. In the
State of California, alcoholic beverages are also carcinogens requiring
warnings.

California cognitive dissonance: the science suggesting carcinogenicity of
acrylamide, which is present --- in significant amounts --- in most cooked
food and especially roasted meat and potatoes, is far firmer than the science
suggesting that glyphosate is a human carcinogen. It'll be awhile before
California Prop 65's a bag of potatoes, though, won't it? _but see below,
where it turns out I 'm wrong about this_

~~~
cjensen
Yep. Just a clarification: supermarkets, restaurants, bars, and coffee houses
already have a single sign warning about cancer-causing agents per Prop 65.
The "bag of potatoes" in your example would not have to be individually
labeled. The Prop 65 warnings are basically invisible to Californians because
they are literally posted everywhere food is sold.

~~~
striking
If everything has a warning on it, what's the point?

~~~
jcranmer
The proposition was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed. The idea
is to get companies to stop using potentially dangerous chemicals, so the
proposition required that companies give a warning if they use any of a set of
chemicals on a certain list. Which might be okay, except it has several
problems:

* Private citizens are able to initiate civil enforcement and collect penalties; it's not limited to regulatory agencies. Which virtually guarantees that enforcement is going to be about milking money rather than trying to actually reduce harm.

* There's no consideration for dosing, anywhere. So a potential trace contamination is considered as equal a violation as dumping vats of the stuff in the public water system.

* The requirement for listing a chemical is .001% of causing cancer of 70 years. That is a ridiculously low bar, which means many low-risk chemicals are going to be swept up.

* There's no danger for excessive labelling, and the labels remove the liability for violations.

Taken together, it's a recipe for companies to just slap the warning on
everything.

~~~
stcredzero
_was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed._

This describes some rather large fraction of laws, period.

~~~
Camillo
It also describes California's entire proposition system!

------
luckydude
Last time roundup came up here I made the claim that it killed my dad (healthy
guy, came from a healthy long lived family, he died about 15-20 years sooner
than his relatives from the cancer that is associated with roundup, you can
google "non-hodgkin's lymphoma roundup" and you'll see a zillion lawyers
wanting to talk to you about it).

Yet hackernews people shouted me down saying that it wasn't possible. I'm not
an oncologist, I have no idea who is right, it was my Dad who told me he was
convinced it was roundup, so what do I know? But it is weird that now the
state of California sees it as carcinogen, the lawyers are salivating over it
(not that they are oncologists either but they tend not to get excited unless
they believe they will win), yet I'm sure people are going to reply that
roundup is fine.

I don't know what to believe. It sure _seems_ like there is some bad juju in
roundup, there shouldn't be this much fuss if it is just a conspiracy theory.
But who are the people here that keep defending it? It would be oh-so-nice if
someone who was clearly objective and an expert could lay it out. Does it
cause cancer? How much do you have to be exposed to to get cancer? Do you have
to eat it? Or does just getting it on your skin or breathing the fumes do it?

~~~
tptacek
There's very little epidemiological evidence to suggest glyphosate is a human
carcinogen. Millions of people are exposed to it, some in significant amounts
on work sites. If there's any correlation between heavy occupational exposure
to glyphosate and human cancer, it's very weak.

Similarly: there's not a lot of first-principles logic to carcinogenicity of
glyphosate. It's active in a metabolic pathway that animals don't have.

Finally, there's a lot of fuzz around glyphosate that would lead us to be
skeptical of its danger. In particular: glyphosate is most closely associated
with genetic modification and Monsanto (part of the appeal of glyphosate is
that you can genetically engineer plants that resist it). But glyphosate
itself is not a product of genetic engineering!

It's not impossible that glyphosate is a human carcinogen! But it's not
impossible that a lot of things are carcinogens. To be intellectually
consistent about the precautionary response to glyphosate, you're going to
have to get rid of a whole lot of other features of modern life as well.

Acrylamide, which is produced in basically all human dry-heat cooking, is a
_known_ human carcinogen. The science behind the risks of acrylamide is,
relative to that surrounding glyphosate, very solid. But we're never going to
"ban" acrylamide, or, realistically, do anything to mitigate our exposure to
it.

In that light, it seems reasonable to push back on public policy interventions
for a useful chemical that has, based on current evidence, much less risk than
"almost all cooked food".

~~~
jly
First, research is showing it has sub-lethal effects on many species of
animals, particularly pollinators like bees where field-realistic doses can
significantly reduce colony performance. Second, glyphosate persists and
drifts easily from 'controlled' plants to nearby wild habitat, destroying and
eroding critical forage.

Glyphosate is hugely responsible for the conversion of massive amounts of land
into corn and soy cropland, where reduced pollinator habitat actually reduces
crop yields (or requires more agricultural abuses like migratory honeybees).

To say this is a useful chemical is misleading. It's designed to kill things
and like all such chemicals, there are significant tradeoffs, regardless of
whether it is directly carcinogenic to humans.

~~~
hcurtiss
Uhm, glyphosate doesn't affect pollinators.[1] It's an herbicide. And drift
that reduces "critical forage"? That's not even part of the glyphosate
controversy. Glyphosate either works on a plant or it doesn't. Where you're
killing your neighbor's plants by drift, you're going to get a citation or
sued or both.

[1] [https://goo.gl/lGpC1k](https://goo.gl/lGpC1k)

~~~
jly
> Uhm, glyphosate doesn't affect pollinators.

It does affect pollinators, show in some examples of recent research [1][2],
and effects on other non-insect animal species like frogs [3] and fish [4][5].
We may not know why it does yet, but there is plenty of evidence. This is just
a tiny sampling.

> And drift that reduces "critical forage"? That's not even part of the
> glyphosate controversy.

This is very much part of the controversy. As one example, glyphosate has been
linked to decline of milkweed habitat, significantly impacting monarch
butterflies. The NRDC petitioned the EPA in 2015 to restrict the use because
of this [6]. Just because of the widespread application in agricultural and
urban areas, drift and runoff contaminate large areas of habitat, impacting
countless non-target species of both plant and animal.

One could also draw the conclusion that glyphosate-tolerant corn and soy have
been particularly responsible for the conversion of over 150 million acres of
land (almost the size of Texas) into food or biofuel development in the last
~25 years. This land is no longer animal/pollinator friendly and is leading to
a rapid decline in plant/pollinator relationships.

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063858](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063858)
[2]
[http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/17/2799.full.pd...](http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/17/2799.full.pdf)
[3]
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/11-0189.1/abstrac...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/11-0189.1/abstract)
[4]
[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es404258h](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es404258h)
[5]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933590](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933590)
[6]
[https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150624](https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150624)

~~~
hcurtiss
The milkweed concern isn't over drift. It's over monocultures, which is a
different argument entirely. As for studies 1 and 2 below, I'll look into them
more, but as cited above, there's also plenty of science indicating the
opposite.

------
JauntTrooper
I really hate Prop 65. Those warnings appear everywhere without a strong
scientific basis backing their claims, so not only does everyone ignore the
warnings, it drowns out the real important ones. Those cavalier exaggerations
erode public trust.

~~~
HillaryBriss
yes. it's the boy who cried wolf.

one building may have some asbestos fibers in the interior of its walls, used
as, say pipe insulation many decades ago. the asbestos is contained and does
not enter the air.

another building, say, an auto body repair shop, may have organic solvent
vapors floating around at a relatively high concentration on a daily basis.

both have the prop 65 warning. which one should i prefer to work in?

(the real answer is i don't know and i don't care because, like most
Californians, i don't pay any attention to those signs. i don't even know what
they mean. it's all noise to me. i think i'll have two bags of potato chips on
my lunch break today.)

------
epmaybe
Seems to me that the evidence surrounding this isn't strong enough to warrant
designating glyphosate as "cancer-causing" for humans, but the evidence
surrounding the adverse effects in animals is pretty strong (based on my
skimming of the wikipedia article:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Humans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Humans)).

Would like to hear thoughts from anyone close to the matter, I'm sure you have
a different perspective than I.

~~~
davidivadavid
After this disaster:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair)
I'm _very_ skeptical about claims of glyphosate being "cancer-causing"
(whatever that means when no measure of effect size is mentioned), even in
animals.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Why? Flawed studies get run all the time. If you see a flawed study about bat
flight, does that make you more skeptical about all bat flight studies?

Do you get joy from hippies being wrong? That's probably going to cause huge
biases in your science reading.

~~~
bazzert
The point being it is the only study that seemed to point to a link to cancer.
But it was hugely flawed and was retracted. Given the hysteria over roundup
you would think there were a bunch of such studies.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Reminds me of aspartame. It's probably the only drug that's been studied more
than glyphosate as a result of bad science causing public outrage.

------
UtahDave
California thinks EVERYTHING is cancer causing. I took my kids to Disneyland
last year and right after the security screen there was a Prop 65 sign saying
(roughly) that "Disneyland contains chemicals known to the State of California
to cause cancer". How is that helpful at all?

~~~
strictnein
It's as helpful as the cookie notifications on all the European websites.

~~~
kennydude
EU Cookie law was mostly to deter the use of tracking tools (and actually
allows them for login etc) but people ignored it and just slapped banners on.

~~~
ovi256
Stupid real people creating unintended consequences for the well-meaning
legislators. How's a legislator to regulate anything around here ?

------
rudedogg
I switched from using RoundUp to a vinegar/salt/dish soap solution this summer
and can't believe how well it works.

It seems to be just as effective as RoundUp.

~~~
adrr
Depending on the vinegar/soap it may contain alcohol which is known carcinogen
where glyphosates are a suspected carcinogen. On toxicity, acetic acid in
vinegar is pretty high and associated with things like osteoporosis which has
been seen in people who consume apple cider vinegar on a daily basis. Along
the same lines LD50 of glyphosates is 10,000mg/kg where acetic acid in vinegar
is fatal at 3000mg/kg.

~~~
omginternets
LD50 and carcinogenesis have very little to do with each other.

~~~
adrr
Both are related to mortality.

~~~
omginternets
Yes, and the topic of discussion is most assuredly _not_ : which will make you
drop dead while using it.

Rather, it's "which will give you cancer through long-term exposure".

------
sabujp
I've already switched to vinegar, salt, and a pump sprayer from lowes, it's
cheaper and i can buy gallons and pounds of it from costco

~~~
bazzert
but probably more toxic than glyphosphate.
[https://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/0...](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/toxicity-table4.png)

~~~
stinos
And more detrimental to soil life (though maybe that's exactly the point here)

~~~
sabujp
i only use the soap + vinegar + salt on the driveway, and just the soap +
vinegar on the "drought friendly" gravel backyard

------
notadoc
Avoiding the various herbicides and pesticides is the reason everyone I know
who eats organic and non-GMO food does so.

As always you should do your own research, draw your own conclusions. Be aware
there is a shocking amount of astroturfing on this topic.

~~~
tptacek
Ironically, by avoiding "GMO foods", your friends are probably increasing
their exposure to herbicides that have a much clearer connection to human
health risks.

~~~
notadoc
That would be ironic and sounds interesting, do you have a source that
demonstrates organic food increases herbicide exposure?

~~~
tptacek
Please respond to what my comment actually said, not what you wish it said.

~~~
notadoc
> Ironically, by avoiding "GMO foods", your friends are probably increasing
> their exposure to herbicides that have a much clearer connection to human
> health risks.

I am responding to that comment from you. I'd love to read about how avoiding
"GMO foods" increases exposure to herbicides, do you have any information on
that?

~~~
Oletros
> I'd love to read about how avoiding "GMO foods" increases exposure to
> herbicides,

The OP comment doesn't say that.

It says that probably is increasing their exposure more toxic herbicides, not
that is increasing the exposure to herbicides

~~~
notadoc
> It says that probably is increasing their exposure more toxic herbicides

OK, that sounds very interesting, can you show me the supporting data?

~~~
Oletros
I don't have any data and I'm not the one making the claim, I just was
correcting a misunderstanding about the claim

------
spraak
Even when I've been outside of California I've noticed the "known to the State
of California to cause..." warnings. I wonder why

~~~
Ajedi32
It's because most products in the US are sold in multiple states, including
California, and the logistics of ensuring your "known to cause cancer in
California" warnings are only printed on the "California version" of those
products just isn't worth the effort. Better to just have one version of your
product that can be sold in any state.

~~~
spraak
Aha! Thanks for explaining.

------
sp332
Would this affect produce in a grocery store? I thought the pesticide was
supposed to be mostly gone by the time the product is harvested. I mean there
are stories of farmers blasting it on crops later in the cycle but those seem
to be an exception.

~~~
jcranmer
Pesticide residue is absolutely not a concern. If you're still terrified of
it, just rinse your fruit and vegetables off first, and that will eliminate
it.

Glyphosate itself really isn't a problem unless you're dealing with 55-gallon
drums of it on a regular basis (and even then, the evidence is less than
compelling). But such is chemophobia that we can't treat repercussions in an
industrial settings with solely OSHA-style rules but must freak out about it
even in situations where it's clearly not an issue.

~~~
sp332
Oh, I meant the labeling requirements. How much glyphosate is allowed to be on
the produce before they have to label it? Or once the food has been touched,
is it tainted forever (legally speaking)?

~~~
jcranmer
As far as I can tell from Proposition 65... any amount is sufficient to
necessitate a label.

The current law states: [the requirements to not expose anyone to such a
chemical are waived for] an exposure for which the person responsible can show
that the exposure poses no significant risk assuming lifetime exposure at the
level in question for substances known to the state to cause cancer, and that
the exposure will have no observable effect assuming exposure at one thousand
(1000) times the level in question for substances known to the state to cause
reproductive toxicity, based on evidence and standards of comparable
scientific validity to the evidence and standards which form the scientific
basis for the listing of such chemical pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section
25249.8. In any action brought to enforce Section 25249.6, the burden of
showing that an exposure meets the criteria of this subdivision shall be on
the defendant.

So basically, the minimum amount you need to label is the minimum amount you'd
be unable to convince a jury that exposure to is safe.

------
athenot
I switched from glyphosate to a mix of diquat dibromide, fluazifop-p-butyl and
dicamba (sold under the brand of Spectracide) but I don't know if that's any
better.

------
pmarreck
Last time I looked, there was no solid evidence against glyphosate. Has the
situation changed? Or is California reacting off of hype?

~~~
tptacek
From what I can tell, everything that's been published since the IARC
publication has been in the direction of glyphosate not being carcinogenic. As
well: the World Health Organization walked IARC's claim back in a subsequent
publication.

------
yellowapple
The "you may be entitled to compensation" ads are already out in full force.

------
notadoc
(nevermind)

~~~
tptacek
Don't comment like that here:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20astroturf&sort=b...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20astroturf&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

~~~
notadoc
It was mostly a joke, but I get your point and it's fair enough.

Here is some interesting reading instead:

[http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20...](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25801782/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25801782/)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=glyphosate+cancer](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=glyphosate+cancer)

[http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/04/us/lawn-herbicide-
called-c...](http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/04/us/lawn-herbicide-called-
cancer-risk-for-dogs.html)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222006](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222006)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=2%2C4-D+cancer](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=2%2C4-D+cancer)

~~~
tptacek
It's not a joke. It's like the 4th comment you've posted on this thread
claiming that people who disagree with you must be paid shills.

As for your links: the ones actually about glyphosate are all based on IARC's
assessment, which the WHO was later forced to walk back (see upthread). The
remainder are about herbicides that aren't glyphosate. Nobody is arguing that
all herbicides are safe. The discussion is about whether glyphosate is a human
carcinogen. The evidence suggests: probably not.

~~~
notadoc
(nevermind)

~~~
hcurtiss
Commonly? 2,4-D is a selective herbicide, and glyphosate is not. In most
circumstances, adding 2,4-D to glyphosate would be burning money. And if
you're going to target broadleafs, you would not, of course, add glyphosate.
They're rarely used together. And even if they were commonly mixed, is your
argument really that the carcinogenicity of one should be attributed to the
other?

~~~
notadoc
I'm always amazed at the level of specific knowledge people have on random
topics on hackernews, it's why this is one of the best discussion communities
online.

(nevermind)

(nevermind)

(nevermind)

~~~
hcurtiss
While Enlist blends the two, 2,4-D resistant GMOs are brand new and still
rarely used. I'm not as familiar with the toxicity/carcinogenicity of 2,4-D,
but I think it's fair to confine this conversation to the carcinogenicity of
glyphosate as that's the focus of the CA proposal.

