Large U.S. farm study finds no cancer link to Monsanto weedkiller

it doesn't mean that roundup is a good thing

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/large-u-farm-study-finds-no-cancer-monsanto-142700059--finance.html

Large U.S. farm study finds no cancer link to Monsanto weedkiller

Seems like a fair enough study for what it is [ https://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jnci/djx233/4590280 ], but there are many unanswered questions.  One main one would be how far out in time data has been collected on those with the worst exposure levels.  Additionally, it would have been interesting to see how the study would have turned out if they had chosen applicators in other countries that may not have the same environmental regulations in place as well as the same applicator training requirements as in the US (the two farm populations in the study were in North Carolina and Iowa).  The elevated (though non-significant) level of a leukemia associated with exposure in the study is nevertheless intriguing.

There is this tendency in green-leaning groups to overstate their case in the hopes of sounding even more convincing than is necessary.  If the half-life of Roundup is a year, people will overstate it and say that it's 10 years.  Not necessary.  Roundup is bad and smart people don't use it.

By overstating the evil, we undermine our credibility.  Roundup does not have to be cancer causing for people to understand that it's bad for the environment and bad for their health to be exposed to it.

There is also this same tendency to overstate the positive traits of things far beyond their actual benefits.  Thus people will completely overstate the glories of biochar, hugelkulture, dynamic accumulators, and biodynamic preparations.  I suppose that I'm guilty of doing the same with my rah-rah ravings about wood chips.  

Anyhow, it's good to hear that Roundup doesn't cause cancer.  I've been exposed to it quite a bit in my life, as have millions of others.

This is interesting, but I'll reserve judgment until I see who financed it.  Many industries support "studies" that are biased in some way, or if it's unflattering, it gets squelched.  Case in point--CDC study showing link between vaccines and autism in african-american males.  Almost didn't come out.

I think this smells like more pseudo-science being published. Ugh, ulcer factory for sure.

Marco Banks wrote:
Anyhow, it's good to hear that Roundup doesn't cause cancer.

James Freyr wrote:I think this smells like more pseudo-science being published.

My own view here is that neither can be determined from the study until one digs into the methods and the time factor that it normally takes for various cancers to develop.  I'm pretty sure that there have been other studies to show some kind of link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animal studies and, not having fully read the paper that I linked above, can't say if these were included in the discussion.  If they weren't and if those papers had been published in generally acceptable scientific journals, then certainly they would have been remiss in not mentioning them.  However, given that the authors note a first-time trend observation of a leukemia being associated with glyphosate, even if at a non-significant level of incidence, I would think that referencing such studies would have supported their case.

But a good example study in which to ask the questions "How was the study done?....What sample population was being examined?....How far out from exposure was the study taken?..." etc.

Ah folks, not so fast, glyphosate and roundup ( the actual field application of the glyphosate) are not equal. The glyphosate is mixed with surfactants and god knows what else, and the real science is in.

The long and short of it glyphosate has not yet demonstrated harm, but roundup most definitely has.

As I understand it, the action of glyphosate is to stimulate the non gmo plants to outgrow their support structures and they fall over and die,  this just sounds way too much like the uncontrolled growth of cancer tissue.

As per usual, short term studies may look good for their pr campaign but the verdict isn't in till 150 years from now when everyone has two heads and twelve toes  ( or everyone is just plain dead).

This may or may not be an overstated case--is it better than immediate starvation--maybe, are there other better ways to get the same increases in production--of course.