
New Evidence About the Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup - uptown
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/
======
clarkevans
Why is the burden of proof on the public to show a pesticide is unsafe, rather
than on the manufacturer to ensure (and publicly document, explain) that they
have reasonable expectation of safety? Why is it hard/impossible for
independent investigators to get samples? We're talking about our water (run-
off) and food supplies here.

~~~
jayfuerstenberg
It's good to see Europe taking the opposite approach of America with regards
to Glyphosate. Forget the studies and just let time show us who is right and
who is wrong.

All I do know is that humanity made it this far (15000+ years of agriculture)
without such chemicals and we'll probably make it much further without them.

If you like Glyphosate, fair enough, enjoy! The rest of us might sit on the
sidelines and watch this experiment unfold.

~~~
ch4s3
Crop failures used to kill millions of people, and now that doesn't happen.
Industrial agriculture is part of that story.

~~~
mattnewton
I think this is a false dichotomy where, if we don't use Monsanto, we will be
forced back to the stone age. If herbicides are dangerous we should start
putting resources towards further developing alternatives (like the weed-
punching bot Bosch is working on)

~~~
wdr1
I don't think it was presented as a dichotomy. Just that you can't cherry pick
the parts of the past that you like to support your theory.

------
underbluewaters
For many tasks involving herbicide, there's a choice between these chemicals
or labor intensive and exhausting use of heavy machinery and hand tools. There
_may_ some day be a proven link between Roundup and cancer. But there is a
known high risk using more labor intensive methods. Agricultural work is one
of the most dangerous occupations and it's due to tractor rollovers, falls,
and lacerations. Suspending the use of herbicide would mean hundreds
(thousands?) more gruesome deaths per year.

I've got a small coffee farm with some wild areas that I'm clearing and I
started out wanting to do everything "organic". After 1 year it was clear that
prepping land the old fashioned way would be significantly more hazardous.

~~~
iheartmemcache
Not a medical oncologist but 2A chems are basically considered "yeah, we can't
directly link this to cancer but even healthy adults will want to stay away
from this stuff; don't even think about bringing children/elderly/people with
compromised immune systems around it". Other chemicals that fall into 2A are
tetra-{flouro|chloro}-ethylene[1] and dimethyl sulfate[2].

You can certainly do things 'organically' without having to use Roundup[3].
Some of my hippie friends decided to buy distressed properties in Maine and
'do it all by hand' co-op style. You won't be supplying Walmart and making
money hand over fist, you won't be able to use all your land all the time, but
at the same time you won't be practicing short-term maximization (a mentality
that directly contributed to the first Dust Bowl).

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinogens)

2: Wikipedia
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfate))
_Dimethyl sulfate is carcinogenic[7] and mutagenic, highly poisonous,
corrosive, environmentally hazardous and volatile (presenting an inhalation
hazard). It is considered a potential chemical weapon.[13]_

3: Note that RoundUp is a Monsanto trade-name with a chemical composition that
changes nearly, if not every, year due the rapid immunity weeds tend to
develop against it. While wildly lucrative, its ecological impact is not
unlike the overprescription of antibiotics (antibiotics indiscriminately kill
good & bad bacteria :: RoundUp will kill other plants [i.e. not just weeds]
that grew in tandem with those other plants to enforce "checks and balances"
with a secondary-effect of allowing the rampant proliferation of more harmful
weeds)

edit: RoundUp _ORIGINAL_ (tm)[4] (emphasis added) is primarily glyphosate.
That's what _you_ get at Home Depot at 5% to keep your lawn nice, green, and
dandelion-free. Industrial RoundUp is a) _~40%_ b) has the warning _Wear
appropriate protective clothing to prevent skin contact. Applicators and other
handlers must wear long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes plus socks and
protective eyewear "_. (Again, that's the 'original' formulation. Farmers (at
least in South America, I have no knowledge outside of that region, but I'd be
willing to bet practices are similar worldwide) use special formulations,
often designed for a specific region.) Regardless, glyphosate is still 2A[5]
and just because you use it once a season on your lawn at 5% doesn't mean it
doesn't cause cancer. If you smoke a cigarette once a year after getting
sloshed on New Years eve, your odds of cigarette-related lung cancer
increasing are quite slim; if you've been smoking two and a half packs of Reds
for 40 years, on the other hand...

[4]
[http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/pest/pmsds/Roundup.PDF](http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/pest/pmsds/Roundup.PDF)
[5] [https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-
centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVo...](https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-
centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf)

~~~
maxerickson
The herbicide in Roundup has been glyphosate ever since they introduced the
product.

Re your edit: The stuff you are calling industrial Roundup is intended for
mixing with water before application. It's sold as concentrate to simplify
shipping and storage.

They do seem to vary the additives they use in order to change the treatment
properties of the Roundup (better absorption or faster drying time or
whatever).

------
wslh
This is an "old" news from Argentina
[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27373134](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27373134)
where Monsanto pesticides were used and cancer affected many people in a
specific population.

~~~
DrScump
"We diluted the formulation 5,000 times, and some of the embryos died and some
of them became malformed. I decided to inject pure glyphosate into embryos and
we got the same result."

If you try both baseline concentration and 5000X baseline and get the _same_
results, that would seem to indicate that glyphoshate was _not_ causative in
that experiment.

~~~
wslh
I invite you to come to Argentina and see the result with your own eyes.

------
ArtDev
As my chemisty professor explained to me many years ago, its not the
glyphosate that makes Roundup dangerous, its the byproducts and accidental
ingredients.

Roundup is made from recycled chemicals. Every batch is different and some of
it has lots of heavy metals.

~~~
microcolonel
You stated "I was a biology major" in another part of the thread as
justification for your claims, but you indicate that you got this information
from your chemistry professor, not a biology professor. I'd say that's a bit
deceptive in itself. On top of this, you can't seem to cite anything, and you
are the only one here claiming this.

I challenge you to buy some Roundup and test it for heavy metals, then make
the results available. Otherwise please do cite equivalent research.

~~~
epalmer
I agree that her/she needs to cite evidence. But biology majors can take
chemistry, right?

~~~
ArtDev
It is required. You can't graduate with a biology degree without at least a
year of chemistry.

------
maxerickson
This 1998 MSDS does list polyethoxylated tallow amine as an inert ingredient,
with an immediately adjacent note that it is a _Hazardous chemical under the
criteria of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200)._

[http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/pest/pmsds/Roundup.PDF](http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/pest/pmsds/Roundup.PDF)

I've used Roundup a little bit (not anywhere close to what would happen
occupationally) and have always been more concerned with exposure to the
solvent during application than any later exposure.

I'm not sure what the OSHA thing entails, I'm sure it means that employers
would have to make information available to employees, but it isn't clear that
it would require them to do anything more.

~~~
ArtDev
Interesting that is contains Ethoxylated Tallowamine.

I would like to know what other "inert" ingredients are commonly found in it.
Also, is it true that it contains heavy metals?

~~~
ArtDev
I think that MSDS sheets have their limits. Its basically just for acute
exposure.

~~~
maxerickson
They are required to characterize the material in question. They don't say a
bit of glyphosate and some other stuff we had around, they list the
ingredients and give the proportion of each ingredient.

~~~
ArtDev
from the article:

"But because manufacturers of weed killers are required to disclose only the
chemical structures of their “active” ingredients — and can hide the identity
of the rest as confidential business information — for many years no one knew
exactly what other chemicals were in these products, let alone how they
affected health."

~~~
maxerickson
The company is still required to list the health effects of the withheld
ingredients.

[http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/tradesecret.html](http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/tradesecret.html)

Also, note that in the MSDS dated 1998 that I linked above, the surfactant is
identified by name.

------
ArtDev
From the article:

" But because manufacturers of weed killers are required to disclose only the
chemical structures of their “active” ingredients — and can hide the identity
of the rest as confidential business information — for many years no one knew
exactly what other chemicals were in these products, let alone how they
affected health. "

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Do we have a better source on this claim?

~~~
maxerickson
This page discusses the MSDS disclosure rules for trade secrets:

[http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/tradesecret.html](http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/tradesecret.html)

In the US, it has to be a legitimate trade secret, not just something they
don't feel like disclosing.

------
sschueller
Interesting since the EU will be voting to permit the use for another 7 years
this week or next.

------
searine
Bunk.

> But mounting evidence, including one study published in February

The article boldly cites a paper by Gilles-Eric Séralini for "evidence" of
roundup causing cancer. Seralini is a known fraud who has had multiple papers
retracted.

The only reason this paper they cited was published at all is because it is
published in a predatory journal that will accept anything as long as you pay
the fee.

>World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen

Their definition of "probable human carcinogen" is laughably broad.

>Meanwhile, in November the European Food Safety Authority issued a report
concluding that the active ingredient in Roundup was “unlikely to pose a
carcinogenic hazard to humans.”

The EFSA is order of magnitude more reliable than a fraud like Seralini, so I
am puzzled why it took so long for the article to mention this?

This position is mirrored by the EPA, Royal Society, and National Academy of
Sciences.

The article then goes in depth to ride Seralini's dick and give attention to
this quack. This is a shameful piece of "science" reporting, I expected better
from The Intercept instead of this ignorant garbage.

Edit by request :

EFSA :
[http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302](http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302)

EPA [PDF] :
[https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/rere...](https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/fs_PC-417300_1-Sep-93.pdf)

NAS : [http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/national-academy-
of-s...](http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/national-academy-of-sciences-
finds-no-evidence-of-gmo-
health/article_a7ffbe9a-5848-5826-aa28-6b75b3c947d2.html)

Safety of POEA :
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083)

~~~
colordrops
Really odd how articles criticizing a weed killer rile up such emotion.

Your response is a good part ad hominem and emotional attacks. Do you have any
facts to back up your claims? Seralini is a fraud according to who? He is well
respected and has won awards from the German Federation of Scientists. He has
actually won court cases against special interests that have attempted to
libel him. Seems that you were influenced by this libel.

And why should I trust your judgement over WHO on carcinogenicity?

Talking about "riding dicks" doesn't help your cause either. You come off as
immature and it hurts your credibility. I'm surprised you've been voted to the
top.

~~~
searine
>Do you have any facts to back up your claims?

Because it is the widely publicized scientific consensus. But if you insist.

EFSA :
[http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302](http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302)

EPA: [https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-
products/glyp...](https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-
products/glyphosate)

NAS : [http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/national-academy-
of-s...](http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/national-academy-of-sciences-
finds-no-evidence-of-gmo-
health/article_a7ffbe9a-5848-5826-aa28-6b75b3c947d2.html)

> Seralini is a fraud according to who?

Every scientist I've ever talked to.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair)

>And why should I trust your judgement over WHO on carcinogenicity?

Because they don't have proof glyphosate is a carcinogen, just general harm
classifications. Glyphosate is in a class of carcinogens similar to dietary
meat, and other everyday minor exposures.

>You come off as immature and it hurts your credibility

Sometimes you have to be crass to put a spotlight on bullshit.

~~~
esaym
Read the article, it is not pointing the finger at Roundup's main ingredient
"glyphosate". But they are putting toxic chemicals in their products without
listing it anywhere on the label:

"POEA — officially an “inert” ingredient — was between 1,200 and 2,000 times
more toxic to cells than glyphosate, officially the “active” ingredient."

~~~
searine
See the following review :

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083)
"There is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations
containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternative surfactants"

Surfactants, in general, are toxic. There is nothing special about POEA. Used
properly, surfactants can be of good use and result in safe improvement of
agriculture.

~~~
esaym
oh, well then. Good I guess since I use weed killers around my house...

------
luketych
All people are immature. Maybe we should stop trying to hide that, acting all
proper. I talk that way as well, it's better than censwhoring your thoughts
24/7.

All people are also racist and those who say they arent usually are the most
racist. That's a different discussion, but similarly applies.

It does no good to be afraid of being human. We are simian. We are an
immature, racist, justifying species. So what? Embrace the grease. It's going
to get worse before it gets better. Or maybe your precious AI will save you?

Good luck my rational human friends.

~~~
dang
> _I talk that way as well, it 's better than censwhoring your thoughts 24/7._

That works in personal conversation far more than it does on a large,
optionally anonymous internet forum. The HN guidelines are the way they are
for good reason, and we all need to follow them when commenting here.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715730](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715730)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
luketych
So what you are saying is that we should censor who we are when we are on the
web?

For some reason that sounds wrong. The web should adapt to us, not the other
way around. That is one of the big things wrong with the web and the world
today.

It comes down to Paul Graham not being creative enough to implement a system
that can organize human ideas without resorting to police-state tactics.

I get it, it's a seemingly intractable problem. Not insulting the keymaster,
Paul Graham, just challenging the idea that we should all conform to some
webmaster's view of how the web should work.

I am not going to let supreme douchebags like Zuckerberg and Larry the Page
dictate how we should think or behave, thank you very much.

I will never follow an out-of-touch techie ruling from inside the silicon
valley bubble. Would rather go to war.

------
andrewclunn
Environmental puritan wackos hate genetic engineering. Fight for science.
Fight for food security. Fight against this rising tide of ignorance and scare
tactics posing as science.

[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-
rat...](http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat-study/)

~~~
ArtDev
Real science is actually hard to find on the internet. Yes, mostly wackos
dominate Google results on certain searches.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Real science is actually hard to find on the internet_

I start on Wikipedia and then move to referenced sources. Next I move to
Google Scholar, sorting by citations.

~~~
sndean
And PubMed is pretty good for health related things:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed)

Cochrane reviews are about as good as it gets, but it looks like they don't
have anything on glyphosate:
[http://www.cochrane.org/](http://www.cochrane.org/)

