
In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017) - tsaprailis
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/
======
delhanty
So I read this story and wondered whether there were any undisclosed links
between the author (Kate Kelland) and Monsanto.

Google led me to sites alleging that this 2017 article and others were written
to spec on the instructions of Monsanto. [0][1][2]

>Not only did Kelland write a 2017 story that Monsanto asked her to write in
exactly the way Monsanto executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it, (without
disclosing to readers that Monsanto was the source,) but now we see evidence
that a draft of a separate story Kelland did about glyphosate was delivered to
Monsanto before it was published, a practice typically frowned on by news
outlets.

[0] [https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/new-
monsanto...](https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/new-monsanto-
documents-expose-cozy-connection-to-reuters-reporter/)

[1] [https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18746-monsanto-
fed-r...](https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18746-monsanto-fed-reuters-
reporter-kate-kelland-with-info-to-discredit-iarc)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1121417187531677696](https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1121417187531677696)

~~~
jnordwick
This is about as close to pure ad hominem as you can get.

~~~
tomstoms
Try bias and conflict of interest.

------
rmason
I've said on here before that Monsanto had bad lawyers and they never should
have lost those two cases. I was an agronomist for twenty years and remember
when Roundup was first introduced on the market.

I worked with the first genetically modified soybeans that could be sprayed
with Roundup. One of the biggest selling points was that Roundup was
measurably safer than the herbicides it replaced with far better results.

I see all these ads now on late night TV recruiting plaintiffs for new Roundup
lawsuits. I seriously think these lawyers think this is like asbestos and they
will be proven wrong. Just compare the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and
the LD50 for Roundup compared to other common herbicides.

The fertilizer dealers I know are totally baffled this hasn't been reversed
already. They don't understand how Monsanto ever got into this position.
Hopefully Monsanto's new owner Bayer will hire better lawyers to protect their
investment but it's going to take years before this ever gets rolled back.

~~~
burpsnard
Part of the controversy is around what constitutes a demonstration of safety.

One is "i fed it 50 rabbits and they were all fine the next morning";

another is "LD50 (50% died) within 24hrs of consuming X milligrams per kg of
rabbit weight, which well above expected levels present in food";

Another is "more tumours in these 500 rats who were fed glyphosphate - exposed
crops, than in these other 500 genetically identical rats fed the same but
organic version, after 9 months"

~~~
saalweachter
I actually haven't seen this brought up for glyphosate but with respect to GMO
crops, we've basically run an experiment where we've "autopsied" a billion
livestock a year, and there was no observed increase in eg tumor rates when we
transitioned from feeding them organic crops to GMO crops.

The same data probably applies to glyphosate, since the two go hand in hand
(which is also why many activists get upset about glyphosate specifically,
versus everything else that gets sprayed on crops, because it is associated
with GMO glyphosate-resistant crops).

~~~
AnimalMuppet
But how old are those livestock? A year? Two? "Didn't cause tumors in the
first two years" is a bit lower bar than I want for something that humans will
eat long term.

~~~
saalweachter
Yeah, the sample set will be highly biased towards young animals. There will
old animals as well -- the ultimate fate of the breeding stock is the same --
but I'm not familiar enough with the study I'm referencing to know if any
problems in that subsample would be obvious.

It's not obvious to me that you would expect there to be problems that only
show up after years but not in young animals with exposure from birth -- young
animals are fast-growing, and fast-growing things are _very_ susceptible to
poisons of all flavors. (It's the basis of chemotherapy: you give the patient
a poison, and the fast-growing cancer dies faster than the rest of the
person.) Which is to say, a study of animals fed a substance for only the
first tenth of their life is way, way more useful than a study that only looks
at the second tenth, because of the rapid development during that time.
Whether that makes the full lifespan data "useful incremental data", "vitally
important data" or "uselessly redundant" I don't know enough to have an
intuition on.

------
ricardobeat
Seems to me that they edited out _opinions_ , not findings, which is exactly
how it should be done.

Ex: "The authors firmly believe" and "the authors concluded"; not exactly
scientific facts.

~~~
modmans2nd
Conclusions are why reports are written.

~~~
lostmyoldone
Not taking a position on this case/article, it seems a complex situation which
I can't fully evaluate.

However, research reports are written for their results, not their conclusion.
The conclusions are often less formal and somewhat prone to bias. The
scientific method is to consider results in aggregate to successively form a
better understanding of an issue, and as such the individual conclusions in an
individual report is really the least important part in a meta study or review
report.

------
cies
Any food "additive" (including all chemicals used in farming) should be
listed, carcinogen or not.

The fact that products can be sold as "cucumber" but actually have a long list
of chems on their skin is a very dark practice. See how companies abused their
power when ingredient lists where not enforced by law. Or how tobacco comps
are still abusing their freedom not to list ingredients. This malpractice
disgusts me daily.

~~~
emodendroket
I kind of agree. I'm not really swayed by arguments that consumers shouldn't
have information because they'd use it to make mistaken decisions. Let them;
that's not my business.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
The concern is that disclosures can be used selectively, to make unpopular
businesses embarrass themselves while favored ones skate by. If we make people
slap “contains glyphosate” on produce, is there any realistic chance that
organic produce will say “contains blood meal” or apples will say “contains
beeswax”?

~~~
craftinator
Thank you for this, I hadn't thought about it from this point of view. One
thought is that growers have to disclose all additives? In the wine industry,
it's common during particularly bad grape years to sugar dose the wine as it
ferments. In France they require vintners to disclose this, and other major
modifications. Could we use something similar with growers? It would be
AMAZING for a number of data driven sciences, having access to all additives
used to grow different items

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I think that'd be a reasonable rule, but Roundup isn't an additive. It's an
herbicide that's sprayed on the plants as they're growing, and isn't supposed
to be present in the final product in more than trace amounts.

If growers had to disclose everything that makes its way into the product
they're selling, insect parts and rat dung would be much higher up the list
than Roundup.

------
calibas
Why is there so much attention on glyphosate and not on polyethoxylated tallow
amine? Both chemicals are in the weedkiller, yet the latter has consistently
been proven to be more toxic.

------
wizzwizz4
Re-analysing the data, it's conceivable that they genuinely found a link, and
that the papers' original authors were fudging the stats. But I don't know how
to find out whether this is true.

~~~
dmix
It’s not a paper of original research but a meta analysis of various other
scientist’s research which they selectively edited out the papers and science
that didn’t support the agenda they had pre-determined. This was the
description of the report that was originally given:

>> A Working Group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on 3-10 March 2015 to review the
available published scientific evidence and evaluate the carcinogenicity of
five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: diazinon, glyphosate,
malathion, parathion, and tetrachlorvinphos.

[https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-
gly...](https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/)

The article said they added their own statistical analysis that wasn’t
supported by the data they originally included:

> In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively
> reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC.

~~~
dzhiurgis
PSA: IARC haven’t found a single thing thats is definitely not carcinogenic
and lists shit like radio waves or tumble driers as possibly carcinogenic.

IARC are bunch of lunatics.

~~~
sampo
Caprolactam used to be the the only chemical IARC had ever classified in their
group 4 "probably not carcinogenic to humans" [1] but in 2019 they moved it to
group 3 [2].

[1]
[https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/22...](https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/2296/6414c0dc65c24db60ba2f2da740e991b9fd320d7.pdf)

[2] [https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-
classifications/](https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications/)

------
gumby
I consider glysophate environmentally pretty dangerous (e.g. destruction of
the subsurface rhizome and mycozome structures/ecosystem) but have never
understood the alleged carcinogenic mechanism of action.

A few jobs ago I had a chemist co-worker who’d actually worked on it
(manufacturing development, not original synthesis). He was, not surprisingly,
a big fan, but we did have Many long discussions as to its chemistry,
mechanism, and (lack of?) human impact.

All that being said do note delhanty’s comment which is meta analysis of the
posted article:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21872497](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21872497)
Just because I don’t understand a particular point (and have some minimal
qualifications for such an opinion) doesn’t make me right.

------
h0l0cube
(2017)

~~~
Lectem
Yeah... why share something that is 2 years old ?

------
Merrill
Banning glyphosate would have some interesting effects:

\- more tillage would be required causing more soil erosion and a higher
consumption of fossil fuels resulting in more CO2 emissions from agriculture.

\- yields would decline due to more weed competition, which, combined with
higher costs for fuels would increase food prices.

From a social perspective, higher food prices, a healthier farm economy, and
less available income for frivolities like vacations and travel that are also
CO2 sources might be beneficial overall.

------
dmix
I’m guessing some internal activists changed it because they predetermined it
was going to be a bad anti-round up report and didn’t want to muddy the
conclusion with evidence contradicting it. Politics seemingly trumped science
at the org, that’s a really bad look for WHO and their response is total
insufficient to explain these anomalies considering the massive implications
it’s having in court rooms and industry:

> IARC did not respond to questions about the alterations. It said the draft
> was “confidential” and “deliberative in nature.” After Reuters asked about
> the changes, the agency posted a statement on its website advising the
> scientists who participate in its working groups “not to feel pressured to
> discuss their deliberations” outside the confines of IARC.

I would like to know which scientists are involved here and putting their name
on such work.

If glyposphate is actually bad this will only help Monsanto in denials and
help them discredit their adversaries. Which means these manipulations is the
report will completely backfire for the activists instead of helping the
cause.

Edit: I see this is from 2017, I wonder what has happened since.

~~~
andybak
I'm not too sure I buy your use of the word "obviously" here.

My normal spider-sense of "follow the money" seems to find no obvious path.
Internal activists is a fairly novel concept - at least activists with the
power to make changes like this. I'd like to know who benefits and why...

~~~
zo1
Most non-profit organizations are in some way biased toward maintaining their
own existence alongside their actual goal. I would reckon that would be a good
place to start looking for "follow the money".

I'm sure I could come up with one, though without thinking too deeply, it'd
probably end up being a little too contrived, far-fetched or conspiratorial.
Not as a way to boast, but more to illustrate that if we accept that money is
a huge factor in the things that revolve around us, then we can start seeing
patterns previously hidden because we had a bit of a "rosy" world-view.

E.g.:

WHO helps Glyphosate to be banned -> Less food production due to ineffective
pesticide alternatives -> More people in the 3rd world countries starving ->
More funding for "world Health" due to "poor starving people" -> WHO gets more
funding and ensures its survival.

In contrast with:

WHO drives an amazing worldwide initiative to get 50 billion USD in funding ->
WHO funds and deploys employees and equipment in starving areas to generate
free food -> Solves 3rd world hunger -> Existing WHO mandate no longer exists
-> The (Happy) End.

~~~
glofish
Some might call this a jaded and a cynical view but is one that I have also
observed and concluded that is more realistic than we care to admit.

It is not a conspiracy, it is not a predetermined plan, it just happens that
certain kinds of people get promoted to leadership positions in these
organizations. It is a survival phenomenon, an evolutionary principle at work.
The organization does its best to ensure the future of the organization.

~~~
perl4ever
I don't disagree in principle, but this sort of "realist" commentary tends to
be advanced whenever people get too out of sorts about a for-profit company
_to whom the same logic applies_.

There's a reason big companies defend hundreds of lawsuits at any given time,
and it's simply because they do a lot of bad stuff and society doesn't shut
them down for it. I've worked in litigation support, and you know what? Non-
profits were not the ones paying us $$$. It may be that the sort of companies
(banks, drug companies, chemical companies) people love to hate are still a
net benefit to society. But they don't have the all the slings and arrows
aimed at them because of a conspiracy of plaintiffs' lawyers and whatnot, but
because they do harm on a daily basis.

------
ipsum2
This is sort of off-topic, but I've been getting strange ads about glyphosate
not causing cancer disguised as news articles from Twitter and Reddit,
presumably sponsored by Monsanto. (I don't have a strong stance of glyphosate
at all).

Searching around, looks like other people have encountered this as well:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8giwc1/why_ar...](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8giwc1/why_are_there_so_many_advertisements_on_reddit/)

~~~
coldtea
Well, this Reuters piece doesn't sound like non-sponsored either...

------
saykou
"Scientists should not feel pressured to discuss their deliberations outside
this particular forum."

Then I'm sorry that's is not science, science is based on discussion and the
possibility to falsify ones conclusion.

~~~
boublepop
So you are countering that people should be pressured to discuss
deliberations?

Science or not, you shouldn’t even feel forced to discuss what you had at
lunch yesterday, no matter how many billions are at stake for corporations.

As you say, this is science, there is absolutely no reason to attack the
people, when you can provide independent scientific evidence to support your
own conclusion which might be counter to their. Then it becomes a question of
evaluating the evidence, not evaluating the people.

