News

33412 readers

979 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

169

Influential study on glyphosate safety retracted 25 years after publication (www.lemonde.fr)

submitted 1 day ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archive link

A quarter-century after its publication, one of the most influential research articles on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate has been retracted for "several critical issues that are considered to undermine the academic integrity of this article and its conclusions." In a retraction notice dated Friday, November 28, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology announced that the study, published in April 2000 and concluding the herbicide was safe, has been removed from its archives. The disavowal comes 25 years after publication and eight years after thousands of internal Monsanto documents were made public during US court proceedings (the "Monsanto Papers"), revealing that the actual authors of the article were not the listed scientists – Gary M. Williams (New York Medical College), Robert Kroes (Ritox, Utrecht University, Netherlands), and Ian C. Munro (Intertek Cantox, Canada) – but rather Monsanto employees.

In cautious terms, Martin van den Berg, co-editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, noted that "employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors. This lack of transparency raises serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors of this article and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented." Other failings are cited, notably the failure to disclose the authors' compensation by Monsanto. "The potential financial compensation raises significant ethical concerns and calls into question the apparent academic objectivity of the authors in this publication," van den Berg added.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe read the whole article then, because it would have told you it is still classified as a probably carcinogenic for humans.

You just decided to ignore the part you didn't like.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

Are you referring to this paragraph?

The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR),[109] the European Commission , the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency , the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority [110] and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment [111] have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."[112][113] One international scientific organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate in Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015.[15][13]

Because I count that as 6 saying "no evidence of a cancer link" and 1 saying "probably carcinogenic."

At the very least, that suggests to me that if it is carcinogenic, it's at such a low level that the effect is hard to measure, and so not worth worrying about.