Hacker News Reader

Comment by andreasgonewild | Hacker News Reader

The metabolic pathway-propaganda doesn't tell half the truth; there are plenty of living organisms and organs within the human body that are badly affected by Glyphosate; enough to make you wonder if that wasn't part of the plan all along. Nothing good ever came out of Monsanto, it's all harmful crap; it's mind-boggling that these psychos are allowed to continue given their track record.

View on HN

Cornell has done studies where they've fed dogs and rats huge amounts of glyphosate over long periods of time and were unable to detect any cellular changes. Due respect, but when you're at the point where you can't give rats cancer with long-term high dosing, the bar for establishing carcinogenicity from first-principles reasoning is very, very high.

I would be interested in reading Cornell's study, because it seem to contradict a World Health Organization study that marks glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans (meaning that there is "sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals").

I'm wrong, it was the EPA, and Cornell just cited them (thanks for calling me on this!):

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.p...

The WHO ultimately walked back IARC's glyphosate assessment:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUS...

Thanks for the links. It seems to me that the animal studies made by the EPA returned different results than the one done by the IARC. Citing the article from Reuters:

> "IARC reviews published studies to identify potential cancer hazards," the WHO said. "It does not estimate the level of risk to the population associated with exposure to the hazard."

I honestly don't know what conclusion, if any, should I have from this.

You keep referring to animal studies conducted by IARC. What studies are you talking about? The one that got all the press, published in The Lancet, was a meta-study, covering many herbicides, and the conclusion it true about glyphosate's human cancer risk was based on other studies that also covered many herbicides and showed comparatively weak correlations for glyphosate.

The lymphoma study the IARC report actually footnotes covers something like 30 different chemicals, and equivocates on glyphosate.

I was not aware that the IARC evaluation was a meta-analysis (my fault, as I just read the results from this monograph: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVol...), but yes I was referring to the one published in The Lancet.

> Nothing good ever came out of Monsanto, it's all harmful crap; it's mind-boggling that these psychos are allowed to continue given their track record. <

Can you back that up with even one verified instance ?

PCBs (1935-1977), Agent Orange (1965-1969), Aspartame (1985-2000); how many examples do you want? They have public, verifiable roots that go all the way back to the Nazis and Zyklon-B. Not to mention trying to take over and ruin the global food supply for profit with their artificial bullshit seeds and chemicals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com