Monsanto could be in deep shit for cancer cover-up over its Roundup herbicideSubmitted by chaos in CapitalismInDecay (edited )
Comments
theblackcat wrote
Since there's now proof that they repeatedly buried their own studies showing that their product was dangerous - the cancer victims that filed the lawsuits might be able to pummel them into bankruptcy.
Naokotani wrote
Great, now we can get bulldozed over by a new corporations.
sudo wrote
Everyone needs to read this (non-onion link). When the IARC classifies something as carcinogenic, they do not take dosage into account, or mode of action. Basically, if chugging glyphosate all day, every day, could give you cancer, then the IARC will label it as a carcinogen, even if it's totally fine at normal dosages one would experience. In response to the IARC's classification, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural Administration did a study on glyphosate that did take dosage into account, and found that it's unlikely to be carcinogenic. So, discussion about whether Monsanto tried to "cover up" the IARC classification is moot, because glyphosate doesn't cause cancer in humans (unless you chug it all day, every day).
sudo wrote (edited )
[citation needed]
Citation was given; thank you F7inseat.
__deleted_____ wrote
spiegel.de
sudo wrote
Uh, yes, that's the name of the website. Care to go on?
__deleted_____ wrote
Monsanto's internal emails
sudo wrote
That's where they claim to have gotten the information, but no link was provided to the emails. So, we cannot verify that is what the emails say.
__deleted_____ wrote
So you think the biggest media outlet in Europe is fabricating evidence againt the manufactuer of Agent Orange?
sudo wrote
I'm saying they did not fulfill their burden of proof, so there is no reason for me to believe them. I never claimed that they fabricated any evidence - that would require me to fulfill my burden of proof (and I have no proof of that). All I'm saying is, they need to link to the emails, so we can review the evidence.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
sudo wrote (edited )
Thanks. I'll have a look at these.
Edit: Alright, I'm still looking through these documents, but this is what I've found so far:
-
Monsanto submitted arguments for the retraction of the Seralini study on the link between Roundup and cancer. This doesn't really matter, because the Seralini study was actually junk science. He didn't have a large enough sample size of rats, and the species of rat he used is known for spontaneously developing tumors! So, Monsanto wasn't a neutral party, but that doesn't matter, because their arguments against the study were correct.
-
Someone was going to say Roundup was definitely not carcinogenic, but one of the toxicologists working at Monsanto said they hadn't done the necessary tests to prove that. Note that she says the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is not believed to be carcinogenic. Basically, she said that while glyphosate isn't carcinogenic, Roundup contains more than just glyphosate, so they would have to test whether Roundup itself is carcinogenic or not. Kind of like how there's no such thing as a gluten allergy - people who think they are allergic to gluten are either allergic to something else that is usually in foods that contain gluten, or they're experiencing a placebo. Also, note that her saying "We can't say Roundup isn't a carcinogen" doesn't mean that it is a carcinogen. She's just saying that they haven't proven that it isn't. (As for whether it is or isn't,
the studies conflict, so it's inconclusive at the moment.it isn't - the IARC study didn't take dosage into account. Studies that did said that it is not carcinogenic, unless a human massively overdoses on it.)
ziq wrote
Looks like they'll have to rename themselves again.