In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

So I read this story and wondered whether there were any undisclosed links between the author (Kate Kelland) and Monsanto.<p>Google led me to sites alleging that this 2017 article and others were written to spec on the instructions of Monsanto. [0][1][2]<p>&gt;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.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;usrtk.org&#x2F;monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker&#x2F;new-monsanto-documents-expose-cozy-connection-to-reuters-reporter&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;usrtk.org&#x2F;monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker&#x2F;new-monsanto...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gmwatch.org&#x2F;en&#x2F;news&#x2F;latest-news&#x2F;18746-monsanto-fed-reuters-reporter-kate-kelland-with-info-to-discredit-iarc" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gmwatch.org&#x2F;en&#x2F;news&#x2F;latest-news&#x2F;18746-monsanto-fed-r...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;careygillam&#x2F;status&#x2F;1121417187531677696" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;careygillam&#x2F;status&#x2F;1121417187531677696</a>

I&#x27;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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>The fertilizer dealers I know are totally baffled this hasn&#x27;t been reversed already. They don&#x27;t understand how Monsanto ever got into this position. Hopefully Monsanto&#x27;s new owner Bayer will hire better lawyers to protect their investment but it&#x27;s going to take years before this ever gets rolled back.

Seems to me that they edited out <i>opinions</i>, not findings, which is exactly how it should be done.<p>Ex: &quot;The authors firmly believe&quot; and &quot;the authors concluded&quot;; not exactly scientific facts.

Any food &quot;additive&quot; (including all chemicals used in farming) should be listed, carcinogen or not.<p>The fact that products can be sold as &quot;cucumber&quot; 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.

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.

Re-analysing the data, it&#x27;s conceivable that they genuinely found a link, and that the papers&#x27; original authors were fudging the stats. But I don&#x27;t know how to find out whether this is true.

I consider glysophate environmentally pretty dangerous (e.g. destruction of the subsurface rhizome and mycozome structures&#x2F;ecosystem) but have never understood the alleged carcinogenic mechanism of action.<p>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.<p>All that being said do note delhanty’s comment which is meta analysis of the posted article: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21872497" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21872497</a> Just because I don’t understand a particular point (and have some minimal qualifications for such an opinion) doesn’t make me right.

(2017)

Banning glyphosate would have some interesting effects:<p>- more tillage would be required causing more soil erosion and a higher consumption of fossil fuels resulting in more CO2 emissions from agriculture.<p>- yields would decline due to more weed competition, which, combined with higher costs for fuels would increase food prices.<p>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.

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:<p>&gt; 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.<p>I would like to know which scientists are involved here and putting their name on such work.<p>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.<p>Edit: I see this is from 2017, I wonder what has happened since.

This is sort of off-topic, but I&#x27;ve been getting strange ads about glyphosate not causing cancer disguised as news articles from Twitter and Reddit, presumably sponsored by Monsanto. (I don&#x27;t have a strong stance of glyphosate at all).<p>Searching around, looks like other people have encountered this as well: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;OutOfTheLoop&#x2F;comments&#x2F;8giwc1&#x2F;why_are_there_so_many_advertisements_on_reddit&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;OutOfTheLoop&#x2F;comments&#x2F;8giwc1&#x2F;why_ar...</a>

&quot;Scientists should not feel pressured to discuss their deliberations outside this particular forum.&quot;<p>Then I&#x27;m sorry that&#x27;s is not science, science is based on discussion and the possibility to falsify ones conclusion.