Is Roundup the Cause of 'Gluten Intolerance'? | Hacker News Reader

Is Roundup the Cause of 'Gluten Intolerance'?

motherearthnews.com

24 pointsyiedyie22 comments

Ummm. Those authors look familiar: http://www.examiner.com/article/bogus-paper-on-roundup-satur...

One is a long-time 'independent scientist' and the other is s a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory with a degree in Biophysics from the 1960s.

The nature of the peer review isn't really clear, I'm not familiar with the Journal, but this paper makes my thumbs prick.

Good catch. I hadn't looked up the authors, but their associations had raise some red flags for me.

Good science should be good science independent of the authors interests, no? (Not saying this paper is good science, but I dislike the attitude of dismissing based on who the authors are).

Sadly, oftentimes it is industrial affiliation that can be the biggest predictor of whether a published work supports one side or another in particular issue.

Usually this is due to companies funding their own biased research.

Yes, but...

I wouldn't 100% judge the work based on authorship, but it definitely makes me think twice when Toxicology research is published by a computer scientist. It makes me wonder even more when that work is published by Americans in a Slovakian Toxicology journal. And when it's published by two people who have published work of questionable quality in the past... I think those are decent heuristics to flag this work as having a higher probability of being flawed.

Sure, it's not 100% objective, and all scientific literature should probably be looked at through the same critical lens. I'm not a toxicology researcher, and I don't have time to thoroughly investigate the claims of the work. This is enough of a heuristic for me to say "hmmmm, not going to make any life changing decisions based on this work until there's more data from other people"

Wow, I'm generally sympathetic to the need for ads on content sites, but that site simultaneously threw up a "play this video to see the story" AND a page-wide Captain Morgan animated add that had to be closed before being able to play the video.

To save everyone the trouble, the story linked to by the parent comment is dated April 2013 and links to the Huffington Post, ostensibly to criticize it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/roundup-herbicide-h...

And the original source is this paper: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

The PP-link's main point seems to be this: "While the paper is dense with biological nomenclature and unfamiliar terms, as well as 286 references, the important thing to realize is that the authors didn’t conduct any research at all. It is a review of recent literature with long convoluted arguments leading up to their points. And this is easy to spot, because almost every other paragraph is full of scientific “weasel words” and naïve references to discredited research."

And the blog's concluding line is: "This paper is not just baloney, it is a whole delicatessen!"

There's some specific criticisms and innuendo, not sure if it's worth the ads to read, because if the paper was really "bogus", there should be a better update and criticism of it by now.

Another case where Betteridge's Law strikes again.

I find the arguments for Hygiene Theory being the cause of the increase in autoimmune diseases and allergies much more credible, and it seems to have more science behind it.

There was a good discussion of "An Epidemic of Absence", a recent book on the topic, on EconTalk this week. The basic premise is that these disorders may be caused by a lack of microbes and parasites in the modern Western world. The lack of those microbes and parasites causes our immune systems to be overly aggressive towards harmless outside substances (peanut allergies, celiac disease) or mistakenly aggressive towards our own bodies (Crohn's disease, type I diabetes, etc.)

Sounds very plausible to me, but it lacks a villain, which I think makes it an unsatisfactory explanation for some.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/03/velasquez-manof.htm...

Almost every time based graph goes up and to the right. Big whoop. Maybe the internet causes gluten intolerance? Or maybe Roundup caused the rise of social networking?

This is fascinating for me for a few reasons. I have family members who suffer from gluten intolerance (not full blown Celiacs where a a few µg of gluten causes problems, but pretty bad).

It's a long journal article, and I haven't read the whole thing in detail (and probably won't). A good portion of it is outlining correlations between the use of glyphosate and the prevalence of Celiac's and intestinal infection rates. There's a lot there, and while it's enough to raise suspicion, it's not damning evidence as far as I'm concerned. Definitely worth looking into further.

The other thing that jumps out at me as interesting are the authors: Anthony Samsel is listed as Independent Scientist and Consultant, and Stephanie Seneff is associated with CSAIL at MIT; not a typical group to be writing toxicology journal articles!

My take away: I hope that this research encourages more discussion and research, but I don't think I want people making policy decisions based on it.

What am I missing here? Aren't all the graphs in that paper just a correlation/causation joke waiting to be made? I could probably fit "number of mobile phones sold" to the same curve and have "proof" that mobile phones are causing gluten intolerance.

The rest of the paper is way above my head, but certainly seems speculative and doesn't appear to have any actual evidence or study behind it. Given the motivated reasoning that happens often regarding topics such as these... I'm suspicious.

The GMO hate still goes on.

I use to have friends in Manitoba that ran a wheat farm. Guess what I saw all the time? Round up. This was in the early 1990s. I have a funny suspicion that Round Up has not been sold more that matches the graph. Also we all know how valuable "Peer Reviewed" science is. Just open the data and let others pound at the same "evidence."

Is US electricity consumption the cause of "gluten intolerance"?

http://www.rmi.org/Content/Images/KnowledgeCenter/RFGraph/US...

The answer may surprise you.

Excellent point though it is worth nothing that glyphosate does indeed chelate metals whereas it's difficult to see US electricity consumption having quite that effect in vivo or even in vitro.

I don't have a view one way or another on the scientific accuracy of the report. Anecdotally though I live in Europe and gluten intolerance seems just a fraction of the issue it is in the USA. Just look at the gluten-free section in any supermarket, or ask in any restaurant for a gluten-free dish.

This topic surely deserves an extensive scientific investigation to 1) identify any statistically significant difference in gluten-free intolerance, 2) what root causes can explain the difference.

It may be an influence, but what about those of us who've had organic grains for most our lives? I don't think it's more than correlation at this point.

Are you saying that you, or someone you know has developed celiac disease after eating exclusively chemicals-free wheat their whole life?

The coeliac disease existed before Monstanto started selling glyphosate.

It may increase the risk, though.

If we could correlate regional epidemiologic data with the introduction of glyphosate in various places of the world, we may get a better insight.

I was under the impression that typically, "organic" does not necessarily mean "pesticide-free." I often see foods that are billed as "organic and pesticide-free," but I always thought "organic" just meant non-GMO.

Feel free to correct me, as I am just going purely off my own experiences here, but that was my impression.

In the US, certified organic means without the use of synthetic pesticides including Round Up.

That said, the USDA has only had these rules since 2000 so unless you lived in California which had an older organic program or access to a farm, you probably haven't been eating organic all your life.

"Organic" can mean different things in different jurisdictions and different certification regimes. When I worked at a Whole Foods predecessor years ago I understood it to mean that produce was raised without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers. This entailed being free from genetic modification (beyond breeding and cross-breeding), too. I would guess that the "and pesticide-free" bit is for marketing purposes, or the term "organic" was being inappropriately used.

And as applied to non-produce foods the term can mean something else entirely.

Organic, in the US, is regulated by the USDA and includes no genetically modified seeds and no use of chemical pesticides. If something has the green label it was tested and certified. Sometimes food manufacturers call out things like pesticide-free because there is confusion among consumers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com