> This is so ridiculous, the science points to the fact that the claim that it causes cancer is not true.
I just Kagi'd it and UW says non-hodgkins up by 40% with roundup exposure. I guess the question would be "whose science".
I just Kagi'd it and UW says non-hodgkins up by 40% with roundup exposure. I guess the question would be "whose science".
And if you want to dispute the studies, fine. But Monsanto settled for $10B on the round up lawsuits. That should tell you something.
If it’s cheaper to just settle than fight it out, you settle.
And broad correlative analysis of the link between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and glyphosate is difficult to tease out because the leading cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is HIV. The HIV numbers muddy up the wideband statistics a lot (for many reasons, including patients not being willing to disclose they have an STD), so depending on how the question was asked different research projects get different answers.
Actual probability you will get NHL from roundup if the figures are accurate (again, limited study results, no causation found), in the worst case, goes from 2% chance to 2.8% chance.
Amazingly, none of this considers the additives to roundup that aren't glyphosate, which everyone agrees are much more likely to hurt you. The case seems to hinge on the least harmful part of Roundup.
This whole case is a great example of a lack of scientific literacy and a whole lot of fear, combined with a dislike for large corporations, resulting in a whole lot of disinformation. Roundup might be bad for you, but we still don't actually know, because we have no causative proof.