California judge rules for Monsanto in "Roundup causes cancer" case...

[Archae]

Good.

A U.S. judge has temporarily blocked California’s plans to require cancer warnings on products containing the popular weed killer glyphosate, in a win for manufacturer Monsanto Co.

Federal District Judge William Shubb said the warnings would be misleading because glyphosate is not known to cause cancer, according to court documents filed on Monday in California.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/judge-halts-california-plan-require-glyphosate-cancer-warnings/

[mn9driver]

1. The data was available to IARC. They chose not to use it

Because it wasn’t “published”. It wasn’t published because there was too much data.

That is nuts. Good science doesn’t happen by ignoring that much data, especially conclusive data. I don’t care for Monsanto but I care even less for organizations and people who refuse to consider data that disagrees with what they feel “should” be true.

[handmade34]

2. too bad...

?? we should always rule on the safe side...

IARC statement after evaluation... (Monsanto and others are disputing it)

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

The herbicide glyphosate and the insecticides malathion and diazinon were classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)

For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals. On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985. After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble. The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Glyphosate also caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, although it gave negative results in tests using bacteria. One study in community residents reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby.

[NickB79]

3. Since I don't drink, nor live in CA, I have a question

Is there a warning label on booze sold in California about how alcohol is a known carcinogen?

Because alcohol consumed in beverages is a Group 1 carcinogen: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/well/live/cancer-doctors-cite-risks-of-drinking-alcohol.html

[progressoid]

4. Yeah, that doesn't count because...

oh, I don't know why.

There was a post a couple years ago that got a bunch of DUer's undies in a wad about a miniscule amount of glyphosate found in some wine - like 1ppb or something. Apparently the much more concentrated and lethal poison called ethanol was not a concern.