Source for later
Get this stuff
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3uwt8w/whats_your_take_on_gmos/cxprp5o Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I attached two links that examine the research and conclusions of the IARC regarding glyphosate. Frankly, it is alarming how bad it is, and amazing how these professionals let this slip.
Should we elaborate on the IARC monograph in more detail and examine when and where it falls apart, as my two sources did? And if so, should a separate article be made for that, or just fit it all on this article? Feredir28 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Depends how much detail you want. If you're going for a side-by-side or something similar, make a new article; if you just want to summarize and then cite rebuttals, here fits. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think a side-by-side piece is necessary, unless anyone here insists on that option. The monograph is not long, but a brief general summary of each key points along with rebuttals should be enough IMO. I guess we can start there, and if this grows over time, then we can decide later what to do. Feredir28 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Dropping this here
Roundup giving non-Hodgkin's lymphoma lawsuits
Has this even been studied? People are suing Monsanto because they believe Roundup gives lymphoma lawsuits. Glyphosate can't be the culprit. In the article itself, according to WHO, there's only limited evidence between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
"But Litzenburg said glyphosate isn't the big problem -- Roundup is. He said the interaction between glyphosate and other ingredients in Roundup cause a "synergistic effect" that makes the product more carcinogenic."
I'm not sure what does this even mean. Litzenberg is an attorney, not a scientist, but he acts like this is like tobacco and lung cancer, and I... I don't think it's quite that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
In the midst of me yelling at an anti-Monsanto guy during the lawsuit discussion, someone brought up how the IARC's 2A classification of glyphosate is dubious to begin with. The source is a Forbes article by Geoffrey Kabat, so make of what you will. This includes fabricated findings (bad studies with improper statistical analysis, removing negative conclusion and replacing them with positive or neutral ones) as well as a potential conflict of interest. This is adding on to the above links
What Tarone found is that the IARC panel highlighted certain positive results from the rodent studies they relied upon in the deliberations, and, glaringly, ignored contradictory negative results from the same studies. He also found that an inappropriate statistical test was used, making the data look more impressive than they actually were. Tarone concluded, “When all relevant data from the rodent carcinogenicity studies of glyphosate relied on by the Working Group are evaluated together, it is clear that the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence that glyphosate is an animal carcinogen is not supported empirically. Even a conclusion that there is limited evidence of animal carcinogenicity would be difficult to support…”
In reviewing the human (i.e., epidemiologic) studies, Tarone found that IARC’s case for glyphosate’s association with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma also resulted from favoring certain study results, rather than considering the totality of the evidence.
A blogger, who uses the pen-name Risk-Monger, examined the transcripts of a deposition related to cases against Monsanto involving the scientist Christopher Portier. Portier, an American statistician who worked for the federal government for over thirty years, was the special advisor to the IARC panel that issued the report declaring glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic.” The transcripts show that during the same week in March 2015 in which IARC published its glyphosate opinion, Portier signed a lucrative contract to act as a litigation consultant for two law firms that were preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of glyphosate cancer victims. His contract contained a confidentiality clause barring Portier from disclosing his employment to other parties. Portier’s financial conflict-of-interest has been confirmed by the UK newspaper The Times.
It turns out that it was Portier himself, who as chair of an IARC committee in 2014 had proposed that the agency undertake a review of glyphosate in the first place. He then went on to play a key role in the deliberations resulting in the IARC conclusion that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. In view of the new revelations, it appears that, rather than being the objective scientist he has portrayed himself to be, he may have had a preconceived plan to use the IARC ruling, which he played a major role in shaping, to cash in on the ensuing litigation campaign. In the years following the IARC glyphosate decision, Portier has frequently claimed that he had no conflicts-of-interest and that he has never taken a cent for his glyphosate work. At the same time, he and IARC generally have portrayed any scientist who questioned the evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity as being motivated by pro-industry bias. This has proved an effective tactic for suppressing substantive arguments based on the scientific evidence.
BTW it appears that the IARC rejects the claims (pdf) from the Reuters article, which the Forbes article cites. Fair enough, so we should drop it or just add that part in fairness. It doesn't seem to want to take responsibility about how their classifications are so easily prone to misuse by the media though and just how confusing the classifications are, and it also says that it's under attack from the agrotech industry, but I don't buy that, aside from some ghost-writer from Monsanto being exposed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Update (quite late, but still relevant): Timothy Litzenburg, was arrested for the attempted extortion of $200 million from a company involved in the production of Monsanto's Roundup. This same attorney collaborates with Carey Gillam and her anti-GMO organization U.S. Right to Know. This really reveals quite some shady behaviour to say the least, as if exploiting cancer patients [telling them that they can make big money if they blame some company without any basis] wasn't shady enough. Nesslig20 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)