> 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.

Why wasn’t the paper retracted 8 years ago?

▲ CGMthrowaway 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Trust the science. The World Health Organization on glyphosate in 2016:

  "The only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level"
  "Glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures"
  "Glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet"
  "The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acute toxicity"

https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pe...

Tptacek in 2018:

  "There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals. Meanwhile, many of the herbicides that glyphosate displace, plenty of which remain in use, are known human carcinogens. The most widely reported declaration of glyphosate's carcinogenicity, by IARC, was disavowed by the WHO, IARC's parent organization...The evidence seems to suggest that glyphosate is basically inert in humans"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17043887

When Dr. Oz in 2015 spoke out against glyphosate, ten prominent physicians wrote a letter to Columbia University in demanding his removal from the faculty for an "egregious lack of integrity" and for his "disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine." He replied "I bring the public information that will help them on their path to be their best selves" and provides "multiple points of view, including mine, which is offered without conflict of interest."

https://www.agrimarketing.com/ss.php?id=95305

Here is Reuters with a 3000-word Special Inverstigative Report filed under "Glyphosate Battle" carrying water for Monsanto, after IARC declared the chemical 2A (probably carcinogenic):

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc...

▲

hshdhdhj4444 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

How many retractions has Dr Oz published?

Has he retracted his claim that “raspberry ketones” are a miracle for burning fat in a jar?

Idiots look at people who never admit they were wrong and think those are the people to follow.

People with the slightest bit of intelligence look at the people (or process in this matter) who are constantly checking themselves and willing to admit they were wrong (or in this case misled by frauds) when they find the truth.

Meanwhile, the real issue here is not the science. The real issue here is the American GRAS system, because Europe didn’t allow glyphosates because their political system requires stuff going into your food to be proven safe, whereas the American system simply requires it to not be proven harmful.

▲

baq an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The evidence seems to suggest that glyphosate is basically inert in humans

It actually might be the case and it still can be damaging to people by affecting the gut microbiome:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

▲

DustinEchoes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level

Was that the retracted study or a different one?

▲

potato3732842 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Tptacek in 2018:

Makes me want to punch everyone else on the high score board into a search engine and see how they did.

Kinda funny how the "it kills stuff, it can't be good for ya" luddite crowd turned out to be right all along.

▲

pstuart 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Speaking of luddites, I've recently stumbled on posts that point out that the framing of "luddites" was intentionally misleading and that it was never being against technology but how it was wielded.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/we-should-all-be-luddites...

▲

u8vov8 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He is remarkably smug and not to be trusted. There must be some affiliation with the federal agencies given how he was covering for them here back in the Snowden days.

	▲	14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

GeoAtreides 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[ On second thoughts, retracted ]

	▲	potato3732842 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		While it's not great I vastly prefer that sort of not great behavior to achieving the same results by being one of those people who has crappy opinions and then just cherry picks links to back them up when called out on it. Probably a good call on the retraction TBH.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

xenophonf 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

CGMthrowaway writes:

> Trust the science.

Science is a process, not a result. Retractions like this promote the integrity of scientific research and evidence-based medicine.

> When Dr. Oz in 2015 spoke out against glyphosate...

Oz also promoted MLM dietary supplements, antimalarial drugs as COVID treatments, gay conversion "therapy", colloidal silver, and vaccine skepticism. He has zero credibility and cannot be trusted.

	▲	KK7NIL an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> > Trust the science. > > Science is a process, not a result. Retractions like this promote the integrity of scientific research and evidence-based medicine. He was obviously poking fun at people who say "trust the science" when what they really mean is "trust these scientits" or, even better, "trust this one study". Undoubtedly "trust the science" is little more than an appeal to authority when used in a casual debate, not some appeal to skepticism, peer review and testability.

▲

hombre_fatal 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Big Dr Oz fan eh? Got any quotes from Oprah or other HNers to balance the epistemic master class?

▲

superxpro12 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

even a broken clock can be right every now and then

▲

CGMthrowaway 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No the opposite. I trust Monsanto, they know this chemical better than anyone.

▲

davidw 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I wouldn't really trust either one. Plenty of big companies have known how horrible their own products are, like cigarette companies, or fossil fuels. We'll probably learn about social media companies in a few years.

That said, just because a product comes from a big company doesn't mean it's bad either. I want to see independent research.

	▲	isolli 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We already know about social media companies (allegedly, at least): > Meta buried 'causal' evidence of social media harm, US court filings allege [0] > In a 2020 research project code-named “Project Mercury,” Meta scientists worked with survey firm Nielsen to gauge the effect of “deactivating” Facebook, according to Meta documents obtained via discovery. To the company’s disappointment, “people who stopped using Facebook for a week reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness and social comparison,” internal documents said. > Rather than publishing those findings or pursuing additional research, the filing states, Meta called off further work and internally declared that the negative study findings were tainted by the “existing media narrative” around the company. > Privately, however, a staffer insisted that the conclusions of the research were valid, according to the filing. “The Nielsen study does show causal impact on social comparison,” (unhappy face emoji), an unnamed staff researcher allegedly wrote. Another staffer worried that keeping quiet about negative findings would be akin to the tobacco industry “doing research and knowing cigs were bad and then keeping that info to themselves.” [0] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... Edit: it was discussed here a few days ago [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46019817

▲

cbolton 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is this sarcasm or are you seriously saying you trust Monsanto on a thread about them committing scientific fraud to influence our perception of their product?

	▲	tsimionescu 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sarcasm, given the previous comments.

▲

0cf8612b2e1e 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Got any hot tips from Marlboro I should read as well?

	▲	mistrial9 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thank You for Smoking !

▲ readthenotes1 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's hard to admit we're wrong