Helpful links for anyone discussing the glyphosate/Round Up as carcinogen story.

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/535068239965764/

The second one goes to a discussion at a science-based Facebook group, and leads to much more information.

Back in a week or so!

[HuckleB]

1. More.

GLYPHOSATE AS A CARCINOGEN, EXPLAINED
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/03/glyphosate-as-a-carcinogen-explained.html

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230012000943

Expert reaction to carcinogenicity classification of five pesticides by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/

Glyphosate – The New Bogeyman
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

[HuckleB]

2. An assessment by a friend.

I am shocked at the poor scholarship in the IARC's carcinogen classification of glyphosate that was announced yesterday. The decision, which was published in Lancet Oncology under the auspices of the WHO, flat out lies about the contents of key cited works. Someone needs to be fired.

Here's the link. http://www.thelancet.com/.../PIIS1470-2045%2815.../fulltext

This text is the decision's entire address of the evidence for human carcinogenicity: "Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA,14 Canada,6 and Sweden7 reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma."

OK, so three case-control studies show association while a cohort study doesn't. Weak evidence, probable carcinogen, right? Wrong! None of those three studies showed association.
The USA study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12937207?dopt=Abstract

Table 3, effect estimates for use of specific pesticides and nhl incidence adjusting for use of other pesticides. Glyphosate, 95% CI odds ratio interval .9 to 2.8, not statistically significant. Results before adjustment not reported.

The Canada study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11700263?dopt=Abstract

Table 2, herbicides: frequency of exposure to herbicides. Glyphosate, 95% CI odds ratio .87-1.80, not statistically significant.
After adjustment, .83-1.74, not statistically significant.

The Sweden study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18623080?dopt=Abstract

Table 7, multivariate analyses including agents according to specified criteria, see text. Glyphosate, multivariate, 95% CI OR .77-2.94, not statistically significant. They do report barely-significant results before adjustment, but that wasn't the claim.

So, they say that these three case-control studies all showed greater exposure among cases than controls, and yet all three of them show no such thing. This is being published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal under the auspices of an important international body, and being used to inform regulatory decision making and the public. What on earth is going on?"

[HuckleB]

3. Of course, this brings up a classic anti-GMO problem.

The same folks touting the headlines on this WHO declaration refuse to believe the WHO when it says GMOs appear to be safe.

I'd laugh at that reality, if it weren't so sad.

[trotsky]

4. Because, as we know, it's not about facts.

It's about feelings. Like the appeal of FAUX News, because they tell right-wingers what they WANT to be true.