Bayer to Pull Glyphosate Products, from U.S. Home and Garden Market

Where is this case nowadays?

What I wonder is if n-nitrosoglyphosate is more/less carcinogenic than any of the other things nitrites could react with to create n-nitroso-x compounds.

Nitrites are heavily applied as a preservative. Not sure if that’s where the ones in saliva come from or if naturally occurring (in large amounts anyway).

If glyphosate does in fact turn out to be dangerous, then some sort of carcinogenic secondary product seems like the most probable source of carcinogenicity for glyphosate. However, there seems to be a lot of confusion from glyphosate critics about which products to test and as a result, I'm not aware of any definitive research that shows a) there are secondary products which are relevant for glyphosate used as directed that b) also definitely cause cancer.

From your first link, Dr. Perry's belief that glyphosate might be clastogenic is certainly interesting, but also a little weird. The proposed mechanism is that glyphosate causes oxidative damage to to DNA which causes strand breakage. This is not a subtle mechanism and I would expect evidence for it to be readily available from simple tests like the Ames test. If you have the research he's using to support this claim, I'd definitely be interested in seeing it.

At the end of the day, we're left with the same haunting question however, if glyphosate so definitely causes cancer, then why has it been so hard to figure out? Monsanto is much smaller than the tobacco companies were so it's hard for me to believe that Monsanto masterminded some global conspiracy when they were only about the size of Expedia when Monsanto were bought out. Many of the most important papers critical of glyphosate have a number of issues. The IARC monograph seemed to deliberately exclude contradictory data, including a study that one of the monograph's writers was directly involved in. Even then, the monograph wasn't particularly definitive. The oft cited metastudy that came out in 2019 seemed like a big deal, but on closer inspection, they had decided that out of nearly 40 years of research, they would only examine 7 papers. Not to mention they also relied on data from exposure levels far in excess of directions provided by Monsanto.

The strongest conclusions we have about glyphosate seem to be that for exposure levels 10-100 times recommended by major health organizations and Monsanto there may be an increased chance of some cancers, though the effect doesn't seem to be large. This conclusion can get funky because some data (the IARC panel was criticized heavily for this) suggest that past a certain point, higher levels of glyphosate correlate with lower cancer rates.

Sounds like no, you wouldn't. Perhaps you grok that the dangers of glyphosate are real.

Does glyphosate poison insects at all? It targets a pathway specific to plants, and generally is non-toxic to everything else.

Farmers (and gardeners and homeowners) use a whole lot of other pesticides to kill insects, which will affect non-targeted species. Slug baits sometimes are mixed with other broad-spectrum insectisides, and Raid is persistent (part of it's design is to kill the wasps that return to the nest later!)

>Ugh, you seriously sound like a lawyer from Bayer’s legal department.

>Search pubmed for glyphosate for a small taste. Then realize that most of those studies were done ONLY on glyphosate, the solvents and surfactants that glyphosate is mixed with to make Roundup are excluded. Post some studies if you find any juicy ones!

But you haven't provided any sources to support your dissent. You are right in that there have been many studies on glyphosate and products which include it but nothing so far to conclusively characterize it as a carcinogen or otherwise harmful to human life outside of exposure in large quantities.

Does that mean it's not harmful? No. Might we find it harmful in the future? Maybe. But we've nothing conclusive yet.

I have searched and been given links to numerous studies in the past, none of which seem to contradict anything I've said- but that's all I will say in reply- your first sentence is enough for me to know this will not be a fruitful exchange worth continuing.

I was once emotionally involved in glyphosate discussion and I understand people will have a visceral response to someone questioning the anti-glyphosate hype - I used to be part of that hype. (Monsanto was involved in Agent Orange production for f's sake, so this is anything but a defense of the company or its practices in general, or a defense of Bayer or its acquisition.)

So I've tried to approach the topic purely without an emotional run to a particular viewpoint without considering the current state of evidence, I'm just hoping more can do the same.

That, and I am taking into consideration other posts here which are going more into detail about other things to think about concerning glyphosate exposure that may not have occurred to me- I appreciate that level of conversation, not your unnecessary condescension.

ad hominem

I can only assume you've never dealt with a quackgrass infestation... pulling that stuff out of an established lawn or garden by hand is the definition of a Sisyphean task.

There are some plants like mint that can spread like crazy if you don't maintain it. I had mint spread from my neighbors fence one spring and it just started blanketing my backyard. I had no choice but to use herbicides. Also with age I find it hard to bend down to pull weeds. I mostly resort to string trimmers, some root puller tools and once in the spring some roundup to get me a head start for the year. Longterm I need to add more mulch but I need to fix the yard drainage first since I can't raise the elevation much.

They really not needed in commercial agriculture either. Farmers know their craft and would do well without it, and wouldn’t have the additional finance burden.

Also Roundup doesn’t particularly work that well anymore. Ask anyone who uses Roundup in a commercial setting about it.

I don’t see that claim anywhere in that article, despite how hard it’s reaching to be a hit piece.

Do you have a source?

I can confirm from personal experience dumping glyco on my yard, this isn't the same as DDT / PFAS.

Hey maybe the next one won’t give cancer to whoever’s exposed to it. I’m just psyched the soil will able to be grown in eventually.

>What is the damage that has been done?

For one thing, huge impacts on native insects, which has domino effects across ecosystems which rely on them for pollination and food.

Impact to fish waterlife, the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order, the impact to the insect food life cycle which affect the entire chain.

Its a killer. There is no arguing that - and seriously ALL of it ends up in the water. The most important resource on the planet.

I am surprised I have to even say this.

---

>>>>the direct affect of creating cancer in humans in short order

>>>>Where does this come from? There have been no recorded cases to support this claim.

Jeasus christ, before you try to shut something down, know your facts:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-i...

Its one of the reasons Monsanto merged with Bayer - to "cleanse" the name of the fact that glyphosate is liquid cancer in a bottle.

> What is the damage that has been done?

Runoff from crops getting into aquifers, rivers, reservoirs which turns into drinking water for humans. Later it will rain contaminated water all over our properties, gardens, bodies