
Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents - geoka9
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html?_r=0
======
abandonliberty
I've been researching this.

1\. Glyphosate (roundup) use is two orders of magnitude higher than originally
approved.

2\. Due to the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, the dosage has been
increased substantially.

3\. It is now also usually combined with other compounds to increase
effectiveness, which affects how it breaks down and affects both the food and
environment.

4\. It is now also used for 'green burndown'. To help dessicate the crop. AKA
they use it to kills crops to speed harvest, resulting in significantly
elevated levels in your food.

Start with the wikipedia page:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate)

Go on to a letter of concern published in the journal of Environmental Health
signed by 14 experts in the field.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26883814](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26883814)

Realize that little to gain from raising these concerns, while there are many
wealthy parties with vested interests in not finding these results. There's
little funding behind this. Governing bodies (e.g. in Germany) are still
relying on findings from labs with clear conflicts of interest.

~~~
alevskaya
There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an
industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the
organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry:
[https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-
ben...](https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-benbrook-
former-washington-state-adjunct-consultant-organic-industry/)

As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has
since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and the European
Food Safety Authority.

It doesn't do us any good calling everything in the world a carcinogen. We
have to rank-order risks in order to make reasonable choices in life, and
glyphosate sits very low on that list compared to other industrial chemicals
when you look at the evidence for mutagenicity or secondary carcinogenic
mechanisms.

~~~
sametmax
Ockham's razor reasoning is that a gigantic profit driven structure with a
huge lobbying activity, and high financial stakes should probably not be
trusted with making the right choice between their business and our health.

History tells it didn't work very well for us when the big guys said tobacco,
asbestos, the Chernobyl cloud and PCBs were all safe and good.

Given Monsanto's pretty poor moral track record (improper accounting for
incentive rebates, Agent Orange, terminator seeds, patent trolling...), it's
only fair to be suspicious by default with them.

~~~
alevskaya
I'm not asking you to believe anything from Monsanto. There is a vast field of
researchers that care deeply about what causes cancer and what can be done to
prevent and treat it. Most of us aren't for sale.

There are sensitive, objective and simple tests for determining whether or not
a compound causes genetic mutations in cells (Ames test). There are tests for
whether or not a compound induces chromosome abnormalities in mammalian cells.
There are lifetime feeding tests for determining whether or not any cancers
can be induced with wildly unrealistic dosing regimes. Lastly, there are
epidemiological studies that monitor whether workers using glyphosate
demonstrate increased occurrences of particular cancers.

For glyphosate, there is no evidence of mutagenicity or genotoxicity, there is
no evidence of teratogenic potential in mammals. There are no statistically
significant epidemiological correlations with exposure. Glyphosate is poorly
absorbed by human guts, poorly absorbed by human skin, and does not accumulate
in tissues.

This is the scientific consensus: there is no good evidence that
N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine is a carcinogen, there is a mountain of evidence
that it is not.

But at the end of the day, whether I'm arguing with GMO-skeptics or climate-
change-skeptics, I can't prove that this scientific consensus is worthy of
your respect. You can always retreat into a more hardline epistemological
skepticism, you can always cast aspersions at the entire enterprise.

~~~
adsfqwop
You fail to account for the possibility of unknown unknowns, and again you're
displaying biased cognitive dissonance.

You can't determine generational toxicity from LD50 profiles. You are
simplifying everything way too much.

Glyphosate is an analog to glycine. You know, the building blocks for
proteins. DuPont did a study in 2007 that shows glyphosate is integrating in
protein structures. Does that not worry you?

Glyphosate is also a chelating agent. Glyphosate impacts the shikimate
pathway, and is said to be non-toxic because humans do not possess the
shikimate pathway. Yet the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, archaea,
and eukarya, and all of them are harmed by Glyphosate. Do we have bacteria in
our guts utilizing the shikimate pathway? Yes we do.

You are running with the base assumption that Monsanto is benevolent and
honest. This is where your cognitive dissonance stems from.

~~~
jpttsn
If only people remembered to check for unknown unknowns.

~~~
NikolaeVarius
And that doesn't apply to the "Organic" Industry because...?

~~~
sametmax
Nobody said it doesn't. But the whole purpose of organic is to do it in a way
that has been tested by darwin natural selection for a long time in a very
complex system.

Of course that doesn't mean the organic industry is doing things properly nor
does it mean that this type of culture doesn't some other negative side
effects.

But globally, I'll bet on the farmer cooperative that want to avoid pesticide
to be less evil than a mega corporation that produce the Agent Orange. Does
that sound silly ?

I really don't get how much you are willing to reverse this attack from
Monsanto to organic sellers.

Sure nobody is perfect. And yes, the whole debate is tainted by pseudo science
and bad faith. But come on, it's not even on the same scale.

------
djsumdog
It's difficult to judge long term toxicity in humans. You don't immediately
keel over and die when you smoke a cigarette, and the correlation between lung
cancer and cigarettes needs a fully understandable cause. That's how the
industry slipped by for years.

Likewise, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and the
correlation doesn't seem to show any significant difference in dental health.
The anti-fluoride people state these numbers, and then go and use the same bad
logical to attribute fluoride to a host of ailments that are loosely
correlated without any causation links.

Can fluoride in water lead to osteoporosis in older adults? Well we don't
know, and these types of studies are very difficult to conduct because there
are tons of variables. Many people drink from a combination of fluoridated and
non-fluoridated water supplies and beverages throughout their lives. People
move in and out of municipalities with different water treatment techniques.
People have different intakes for calcium, iron, fibre, carbs throughout their
entire lives. People have different genetics. When it comes to long term
toxicity, it's really difficult to narrow down factors because you can't
control for everything (ethically) and humans can live a long time.

It would make sense for at least some percentage of the population to have
adverse reaction to Glyphosate. We all have slight genetic differences and
reactions. Can it lead to specific cancers in humans consistently? Do we
understand the mechanism by which it does this chemically? Can we replicate
this in other animals where we control for other factors.

Just like the tobacco industry, I wouldn't put it past Monsanto to both bury
and make up studies to suit their interests.

~~~
yodsanklai
> Likewise, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and the
> correlation doesn't seem to show any significant difference in dental health

I've never researched this so it may be confirmation bias, but my experience
living in Europe and the US is that Americans have better looking teeth.

~~~
tdeschamps
better looking does not mean healthier, especially thanks to bleach, whitening
and surgery.

------
gumby
One important reasons for robotics is to reduce/eliminate the use of
pesticides. After all we use weed killed because it's cheaper than weeding by
hand.

Regardless of whether Glyphosate is toxic to humans or not, it kills the
rhizome (fungi and other ecology around the roots), drying the soil and making
it less productive. Robots will not only avoid this problem but support the
planting of complementary crops.

~~~
cies
While I'm not against robots per se, I do wonder why "working the fields"
cannot be made a good job for humans?

Without this job I foresee several potential problems: large unemployment,
people leaving the countryside, many low paying jobs that feel meaningless to
the workers.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I do wonder why "working the fields" cannot be made a good job for humans_

It would make food expensive again. As of 2010, 1.6% of American and 14% of
the world's workers worked in agriculture [1]. As recently as 1870, that
figure for the United States was almost 50% [2]. Most of us prefer today's
standard of living.

[1]
[http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS)

[2]
[https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/11/art2full.pdf](https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/11/art2full.pdf)
_page 12_

~~~
cies
> It would make food expensive again.

Yes. Expensive compared to other things.

> Most of us prefer today's standard of living.

Yet we've never been more depressed as a population...

------
macandcheese
It's not legal for sale in New York, mostly because of false advertising the
company previously did touting it's biodegradability, even going so far as to
say that it's "practically non-toxic".

In fact, they continue to be the subject of a class action lawsuit in NY:
[https://www.law360.com/articles/849367/monsanto-trims-but-
ca...](https://www.law360.com/articles/849367/monsanto-trims-but-can-t-escape-
ny-roundup-cancer-suit)

Unfortunately all that may come of that lawsuit is a small label change...

It pains me to see so many people here supporting the company, especially from
a group usually so ready to expose the faults of big corporations. You know,
being a "hacker" and caring about the environment and the health of our planet
and it's inhabitants are not mutually exclusive.

~~~
sametmax
It's a recent trend in many niche (but maybe somehow influential ?) social
networks like HN or some subreddits. Controversial big players are having more
and more supportive comments, despite previously being famous for dubious
proven activities.

It wasn't like that at the beginning. I tend to put my tinfoil hat on when I
think about what could have caused it.

~~~
kamih
No tinfoil required, there are now companies you can pay that will "manage"
social network comment sections in your favor.

~~~
jpttsn
There are also private detectives for hire. Even so, you individually are
probably not being stalked.

I'd hold on to the tinfoil just in case.

~~~
sametmax
Well, tinfoil new spring collection aside, you can't really compare:

\- the value of one average joe data;

\- against the value of a well orchestrated PR campaign on a site that
experts, investors and intellectuals use as an information hub.

If you are skilled enough to maintain a good reputation of a client on HN,
this is quite a good thing to manage IMO.

And here I am, posting comments for upvotes while maybe I could pay for it. I
should step up my game.

------
finid
_“We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would
just edit & sign their names so to speak,” Mr. Heydens wrote, citing a
previous instance in which he said the company had done this._

Science for sale.

Shouldn't that Mr. Rowland guy be in jail?

~~~
cholantesh
When approached by a company to provide time and expertise dealing with a
business problem, do you provide it for free?

~~~
finid
This is like a judge (or a jury member) accepting a bribe from a prosecutor or
a defense attorney. That's illegal.

------
bootload
As a youngster I used to work PT while I was at Uni back in the 80's, taking
care of a semi-rural parkland spread over 200 square miles. Every Spring, our
workload would increase, slashing, clearing of weeds and blackberries. So
Round-up was used. I told the boss no and refused to use it. The pesticide
would be measured then added to the spray packs and the blokes would hand
spray what ever needed to be knocked down. When they would slightly bend over,
the air-relief valve would spit the spray out over their bare necks. After
work was done they'd complain of dizziness.

Whenever I read about Monsanto now, I also think about Michael White and his
fight to sell seed, [0] after a neighbour accidentally contaminating it with
^round-up ready^ seed. [1],[2]

So, F. Monsanto.

Reference

[0] _" Why does Monsanto sue farmers who save seeds?"_
[http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-
su...](http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-
who-save-seeds.aspx)

[1] Seeding Fear:
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=YZGueeao0tE](https://youtube.com/watch?v=YZGueeao0tE)

[2] [http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/see-neil-youngs-
monsa...](http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/see-neil-youngs-monsanto-
themed-mini-documentary-seeding-fear-20150723)

~~~
cies
I honestly do not understand that a company with such a track record is widely
considered to be an legit business. They're a public enemy!

~~~
joatmon-snoo
Maybe because most of their track record is just really bad PR and most people
just fall for the big evil corporation line without ever fact checking claims?

~~~
agroot12
You mean we should fact check the unsealed emails?

Let me quote one of the more explicit parts of the article:

> _Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a
> deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand.
> That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding
> well in advance of its publication. Monsanto executives, in their internal
> email traffic, also said Mr. Rowland had promised to beat back an effort by
> the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review._

> _Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto executive, said in an email in 2015 that Mr.
> Rowland, referring to the other agency’s potential review, had told him, “If
> I can kill this, I should get a medal.” The review never took place. In
> another email, Mr. Jenkins noted to a colleague that Mr. Rowland was
> planning to retire and said he “could be useful as we move forward with
> ongoing glyphosate defense.”_

For me, this qualifies as 'big evil corporation' behavior. [edited:
formatting]

~~~
Karunamon
That doesn't make them automatically guilty of every evil thing people tend to
pin on them.

By all means, let's hold them accountable for the evil they've provably done,
but the oft-repeated "they sued a guy who had seeds wind up on his field" is
throughly debunked.

~~~
ionised
> That doesn't make them automatically guilty of every evil thing people tend
> to pin on them.

No, but it does give people the justification for intense suspicion and
cynicism when it comes to the company in question.

------
gcheong
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-
glyphosate...](http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate-
cause-cancer/)

~~~
emmelaich
Great website! Thanks.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
You might also be interested in Science-Based Medicine [1], another blog where
Steven Novella posts.

[1] [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/)

(in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based
medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient
rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on
finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-debunked
treatments and theories)

~~~
slazaro
> (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based
> medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient
> rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on
> finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-
> debunked treatments and theories)

Sorry if this is a common objection, but my first reaction to this is, there's
lots of people that reject the word "science" (today's anti-intellectualism),
but they're okay with the word "evidence". So even if "science-based" is
better, on the surface a lot of people will instantly have a negative reaction
to the name.

~~~
Elrac
Related topic: In the eternal and tiresome dispute between religious
Creationists and modern science, a favorite talking point is that "it's only a
theory!" As a result, some science-minded people are proposing that scientists
adopt a different word to substitute for the "tainted" word "theory," whose
colloquial meaning differs from that in a professional scientific context.

Me, I think this is a terrible idea. I fiercely resist having my (or anyone's)
use of vocabulary directed to accommodate ignorant people. I can see only
losing battles in that direction.

------
jnordwick
I think the proper comparison is Roundup verses other herbicides. It that
comparative analysis, it definitely wins.

~~~
mohaine
Especially vs other broad spectrum herbicides.

We used this one year as a no till knock down:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat)

The skull and cross bones on the label was bad enough but seeing what even the
smallest of drops did to plants was an eye opener. A droplet small enough to
blow 30 feet in the air was enough to make a yellow spot on any plant it
landed on.

It is also linked to Parkinson's disease.

~~~
arthurfm
> The skull and cross bones on the label was bad enough but seeing what even
> the smallest of drops did to plants was an eye opener.

VX (and VG) nerve agents were originally intended for use as pesticides so
this isn't surprising.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)#Discovery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_\(nerve_agent\)#Discovery)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VG_(nerve_agent)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VG_\(nerve_agent\))

------
acd
Pesticide is killing gut bacteria in Bees which has led to Bee death.
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070182#authcontrib)

Pesticide also increases the risk of getting Diabetics. Here is a meta study
"After reviewing 21 previous studies, researchers found exposure to any type
of pesticide was associated with a 61 percent increased risk for any type of
diabetes. The increased risk for type 2 diabetes -- the most common type --
was 64 percent, the investigators found."
[http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150916/pesticide-
exposu...](http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150916/pesticide-exposure-
tied-to-diabetes-risk)

~~~
tynpeddler
The article you linked isn't very descriptive. Can you find the actual
publication?

The article also seems a little contradictory. It opens with the line, "After
reviewing 21 previous studies, researchers found exposure to any type of
pesticide was associated with a 61 percent increased risk for any type of
diabetes", then later states, "The following chemicals were linked to an
increased risk of diabetes, according to the researchers: chlordane,
oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, DDT, DDE, dieldrin, heptachlor and HCB." There
are lots of pesticides not in that list, including glyphosate. In addition,
HCB and DDT are already banned in most places, and the others are considered
toxic. The original research might shed some light on this.

------
burntrelish1273
"Monsanto Advocate Says Roundup Is Safe Enough To Drink, Then Refuses To Drink
It"

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/monsanto-roundup-
pa...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/monsanto-roundup-patrick-
moore_n_6956034.html)

~~~
gcheong
But this guy did:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k)

~~~
samangan
And this guy drinks cyanide:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bWNpO5vvhpk](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bWNpO5vvhpk)

My point is that being able to drink one glass of the stuff doesn't really
tell me much.

~~~
darken
That's an acutely toxic simple anion (CN-), in random things like e.g. apple
or peach seeds (#evolution) and commonly byproduct of breaking down more
complex atoms.

Versus C3H8NO5P (with additives to multiply the effectiveness), which sounds
less inherently safe...

------
najajomo
"Weeds Your Way" – Organic Farmers Share Secrets of Herbicide-Free Farming

[http://www.ofrf.org/news/weeds-your-way-%E2%80%93-organic-
fa...](http://www.ofrf.org/news/weeds-your-way-%E2%80%93-organic-farmers-
share-secrets-herbicide-free-farming)

~~~
spraak
A great book as well is One Straw Revolution

------
baldfat
The funny thing is we have less herbicides because of Roundup. The option is
we starve the world, because we will not be able to product enough wheat etc.
or we use stronger herbicides.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-
farming-y...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-
yields-and-feeding-the-world-under-climate-change/)

~~~
mikekchar
There _is_ actually another option -- especially with respect to herbicides:
manual labour. Herbicides don't increase yield. They decrease cost.

Wheat is currently $4.35 a bushel. A bushel of wheat is about 60 lbs. So,
we're paying just over 7 cents a pound for wheat.

Fix the distribution side, not the production side. There's a _lot_ more fat
there. And in the mean time, research ways of reducing labour on physical
methods of weed control.

~~~
baldfat
Have you ever been on a wheat farm? I actually have been and even got to help
around the farm for fun.

My friend had 4.5 squares. That is a square equals 1 square mile. How would we
increase labor for weed control?

I also lived in Imperial Valley, California. The back breaking work that the
migrant workers did was amazing difficult. It would take double or triple the
workers to pick through and weed a farm then pick fruits and vegetables. I
don't think Kansas nor Manitoba have the population to do that seasonal work.

~~~
yxhuvud
There are mechanical ways to fight weeds. You'd have to use the tractor and
appropriate tools on the field a lot more, and you may end up to have to stop
growing just one crop all years but instead cycle between different crops.

~~~
randomdata
That's how it used to be done way back in the day, but what about the growing
pressure to get away from disturbing the soil entirely? I even recall a Minute
Earth[1] video, of all places, pressuring us to move towards no-till
practices, which relies on herbicides. It seems we're getting some mixed
messages.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOefA-
bSduM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOefA-bSduM)

------
luckydude
My dad died because of roundup. He was a physics prof, smart guy, fought hard
for wetland issues. Was on the board of Wisconsin Wetlands.

He didn't drink, didn't smoke, he was very active, very fit, and yet he got
cancer. I can feel the down votes coming, but he was a guy that just should
not have gotten cancer.

Roundup gave him cancer. I could tell you stories about him dieing that would
be not so fun.

Fuck cancer and fuck roundup hard.

Edit: he and my mom fought invasive species and they used roundup. So maybe
that's on them. That's why he got cancer.

~~~
alevskaya
I'm very sorry for your loss. But as a cancer researcher, I can fairly
confidently say that glyphosate had nothing to do with your father's death.
There just isn't any evidence showing that it has direct mutagenic activity or
even other indirect biological influences on the probability of developing
cancer. I've also lost several fit, active nonsmoking friends and family to
cancer. Our cells copy themselves imperfectly, and sometimes our inborn
regulatory mechanisms go awry. There's not always a "cause", beyond the fact
that our bodies aren't built to a perfect spec. There's a massive amount of
work going on these days to develop entirely new classes of treatments, so I
hope the clinical situation in a few decades will be brighter by far. Again,
sorry for your loss.

~~~
alphonsegaston
It was my understanding that while the IARC classification of glyphosate as a
carcinogen has been disputed, exposure has been shown to increase the risk of
melanoma, especially in occupational contexts:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27058477/?i=15&from=gl...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27058477/?i=15&from=glyphosate%20cancer)

~~~
alevskaya
That's a terrible paper. This is a small epidemiological study where they're
looking both at 1. exposure to sun and 2. occupational exposure to -any-
herbicides/pesticides/fungacides/insecticides (not just glyphosate) and trying
to pull out odds ratios of melanoma risk. Outdoor work definitely increases
melanoma risk, but I wouldn't try to pull out much more than that from this
paper!

~~~
alphonsegaston
Thanks for clarifying!

~~~
snowpanda
He didn't really clarify anything though, just gave his opinion on evidence
that he said didn't exist just a comment before.

You could have given any of the other studies that warn against roundup and
people will always find something wrong with the study. When people make up
their minds about this stuff they stop looking at it objectively.

------
ryanalam
In the US, the alternative to this would be to consume organic produce.
However, most people don't realize that organic produce still uses plenty of,
if not more pesticides than traditional production methods; they just use
organic pesticides.

I wonder which is worse: highly mechanized, high efficiency, and low volume
synthetic pesticides in traditional production methods - or low efficiency,
high volume natural pesticides in organic production methods.

~~~
Blahah
Organic makes a totally unscientific distinction between synthetic and
naturally-occurring substances. It's also a huge, and hugely profitable
industry that lobbies effectively to prevent research funding into the safety
of the substances it allows, and essentially exploits food privilege and
scientific illiteracy.

Organic-permitted pesticides tend to be massively over-applied, and can be
unbelievably toxic to a degree that would never be allowed for modern
synthetic pesticides. Rotenone for example is horrenously toxic to aquatic
life, but permitted in organic agriculture with litte regard for the
ecological outcomes. Simple copper and sulphur compounds that are broadly
toxic are permitted as fungicides in organic agriculture, but can also persist
for a long time in the environment and cause serious ecological damage.

I'd take roundup over anything organic any day.

------
cholantesh
Notably, it doesn't seem like anyone in this thread has bothered looking up
the court documents or the emails in question. Here they are, along with lots
of background reading: [http://skeptiforum.org/t/monsanto-and-the-case-of-
unsealed-d...](http://skeptiforum.org/t/monsanto-and-the-case-of-unsealed-
documents-on-glyphosate/51)

The 'ghostwriting' refers to a position paper that Monsanto had a choice to
either outsource to a number of outside experts at significant cost, or to
write themselves, acknowledging the contributions of academics who wrote
source material and/or would edit and review the document. And they only
intended to do this for sections of the paper that were considered
uncontroversial in the scientific community, with direct authorship in
sections dealing with matters of contention.

It generally seems to be the case that most all stories of this nature are
overreaching considerably by taking juicy sounding quotes out of context. It's
remarkably analogous to the Climategate 'scandal' on close examination.

------
djyaz1200
Having held my mothers hand as she received chemo for her Non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma I can tell you this... if there is a even a tiny chance using Roundup
increases the risk of the disease it isn't worth it.

~~~
hcurtiss
This is a difficult position to maintain when we promote many activities that
kill many people every day (e.g., driving). Sometimes the profound benefits of
certain activities are worth the the "tiny chance" of downside risk. Whether
this is one of those is up for debate, but it doesn't seem you're attributing
any value to using glyphosate, which there doubtless is some.

------
pfarnsworth
I just doused my yard with Roundup to get rid of the vast amounts of weeds and
vegetation. I have to say, it did a fantastic job. What does this mean about
the soil though, is it totally fucked now?

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
Glyphosate breaks down pretty quickly. One of the debates about it is how
quickly this actually happens, namely in the context of over-application, but
in any case it's pretty quick. The low environmental persistence is one of the
major selling points.

After a couple months, chances are even a very sensitive assay wouldn't be
able to detect it in your lawn. As a one-off use, I don't think there's even a
marginally compelling argument that it's dangerous.

~~~
pfarnsworth
Thank you.

------
tgb29
More advancements in computational biology and genetics will allow us to more
precisely determine the effects of glyphosate on public health. Until we have
better tools, there isn't enough evidence to make a judgment against Monsanto.
However, the moment we are able to make the connection between poor
agricultural practices and damages to health, a multi-billion dollar industry
will be created for lawyers, and they will hold these companies acccountable.

------
nthcolumn
Roundup usage has been so ubiquitous for decades now so this is very worrying.
I am much more concerned with Monsanto's GM food patents/diminishing
biodiversity/pollution threat than this. I have no issue with GM science btw.
NONE. (re:'GMO safety /mutant food nonsense') I wonder if this is a sly segway
from Monsanto. Given a choice between Monsanto Roundup everywhere and Monsanto
GM everywhere I'll take the former.

------
enibundo
If you really are concerned about this : buy organic.

If organic food gets more interest, more and more people will start growing
it, and more and more people will have access to good healthy food.

These poisons wouldn't be abused if they wouldn't be profitable...

~~~
davexunit
Also, try growing a vegetable or two for yourself and don't use synthetic
fertilizer or weed killers when doing so. Nothing can beat something you grew
yourself! Growing herbs on a window sill is an easy way to start.

~~~
enibundo
Yes:)

------
MrFantastic
I see little chance or Glyphosate being banned while Trump and Pruit are
gangbanging the EPA.

We are such a short sighted species.

------
faragon
"New doubts", "people who claim"? That's FUD. Also, glyphosate patents are
expired, and can be manufactured without Monsanto permission, e.g. [1].

[1] [http://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-
produ...](http://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-
products/Glyphosate.html)

------
Dowwie
Roundup has to be treated as if it were radioactive. I carefully sprayed only
one dandelion in my lawn with roundup. Over a few weeks, the roundup spread
and destroyed about a 5 foot radius of lawn.

------
GrumpyNl
The bees, they are killing the bees.

------
Vadoff
I wonder if non-GMO foods have a higher likelihood to cause cancer because of
Roundup.

------
crumchunks
This is why people eat organic food.

~~~
kirrent
Wilful misunderstanding of the research in the field? Or is it a gut reaction
that spurs them into alternatives, based on a pretty meaningless label, which
have no real proven health benefit? Perhaps it's the easy narrative of
painting an entirely normal company as evil because they're messing with
forces best left alone.

~~~
snowpanda
All the arguments you used can be applied on both sides of the argument
actually.

------
crumchunks
This is why people eat organic food.

Now if you want some other curious links to pesticides and weedkillers, look
at Stephanie Seneffs research.

~~~
a_bonobo
It's a common misconception that organic food doesn't use pesticides -

the USDA's list of allowed pesticides has quite a few pesticides that are
dangerous to humans, such as various coppers, elemental sulfur, boric acid,
the list is here: [https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1...](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1601)

~~~
crumchunks
Did you even read your own link?

~~~
DannyBee
Did you?

Things like copper sulfate, etc are not exactly on the "great for humans"
list.

------
5706906c06c
This is beginning to look like Michael Clayton.

