Topic: Monsanto update

[BoRed]

I know there were good reasons to lock the old thread (https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=340782.msg16201763#msg16201763), but I thought this might be of interest to a few on here, especially those who use glyphosate on a regular basis:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/weed-killing-products-increase-cancer-risk-of-cancer

Exposure to weed killing products increases risk of cancer by 41% – study

Evidence ‘supports link’ between exposures to glyphosate herbicides and increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Carey Gillam

Thu 14 Feb 2019 06.00 GMT

A broad new scientific analysis of the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate herbicides, the most widely used weed killing products in the world, has found that people with high exposures to the popular pesticides have a 41% increased risk of developing a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The evidence “supports a compelling link” between exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides and increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the authors concluded, though they said the specific numerical risk estimates should be interpreted with caution.

The findings by five US scientists contradict the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) assurances of safety over the weed killer and come as regulators in several countries consider limiting the use of glyphosate-based products in farming.

Monsanto and its German owner Bayer AG face more than 9,000 lawsuits in the US brought by people suffering from NHL who blame Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides for their diseases. The first plaintiff to go to trial won a unanimous jury verdict against Monsanto in August, a verdict the company is appealing. The next trial, involving a separate plaintiff, is set to begin on 25 February , and several more trials are set for this year and into 2020.

Monsanto maintains there is no legitimate scientific research showing a definitive association between glyphosate and NHL or any type of cancer. Company officials say the EPA’s finding that glyphosate is “not likely” to cause cancer is backed by hundreds of studies finding no such connection.

The company claims the scientists with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) who classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015 engaged in improper conduct and failed to give adequate weight to several important studies.

But the new analysis could potentially complicate Monsanto’s defense of its top-selling herbicide. Three of the study authors were tapped by the EPA as board members for a 2016 scientific advisory panel on glyphosate. The new paper was published by the journal Mutation Research /Reviews in Mutation Research, whose editor in chief is EPA scientist David DeMarini.

The study’s authors say their meta-analysis is distinctive from previous assessments. “This paper makes a stronger case than previous meta-analyses that there is evidence of an increased risk of NHL due to glyphosate exposure,” said co-author Lianne Sheppard, a professor in the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences department at the University of Washington. “From a population health point of view there are some real concerns.”

Sheppard was one of the scientific advisers to the EPA on glyphosate and was among a group of those advisers who told the EPA that it failed to follow proper scientific protocols in determining that glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer. “It was wrong,” Sheppard said of the EPA glyphosate assessment. “It was pretty obvious they didn’t follow their own rules. “Is there evidence that it is carcinogenic? The answer is yes.”

An EPA spokesperson said: “We are reviewing the study.” Bayer, which bought Monsanto in the summer of 2018, did not respond to a request for comment about the study.

A Bayer statement on glyphosate cites the EPA assessment and says that glyphosate herbicides have been “extensively evaluated” and are proven to be a “safe and efficient weed control tool”.

The study authors said their new meta-analysis evaluated all published human studies, including a 2018 updated government-funded study known as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Monsanto has cited the updated AHS study as proving that there is no tie between glyphosate and NHL. In conducting the new meta-analysis, the researchers said they focused on the highest exposed group in each study because those individuals would be most likely to have an elevated risk if in fact glyphosate herbicides cause NHL.

Looking only at individuals with real-world high exposures to the pesticide makes it is less likely that confounding factors may skew results, the authors said. In essence – if there is no true connection between the chemical and cancer then even highly exposed individuals should not develop cancer at significant rates.

In addition to looking at the human studies, the researchers also looked at other types of glyphosate studies, including many conducted on animals.

“Together, all of the meta-analyses conducted to date, including our own, consistently report the same key finding: exposure to GBHs are associated with an increased risk of NHL,” the scientists concluded.

David Savitz, professor of epidemiology in the Brown University School of Public Health, said the work was “well conducted” but lacking “fundamentally new information”.

“I would suggest it sustains the concern and need for assessment but doesn’t put the question to rest in any definitive sense,” Savitz said.

The full study is available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887

[BoRed]

And now it turns out glyphosate may not only put the immediate user at risk, but may also have consequences for the user's grandchildren.

Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology

Deepika Kubsad, Eric E. Nilsson, Stephanie E. King, Ingrid Sadler-Riggleman, Daniel Beck & Michael K. Skinner

Abstract

Ancestral environmental exposures to a variety of factors and toxicants have been shown to promote the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult onset disease. One of the most widely used agricultural pesticides worldwide is the herbicide glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine), commonly known as Roundup. There are an increasing number of conflicting reports regarding the direct exposure toxicity (risk) of glyphosate, but no rigorous investigations on the generational actions. The current study using a transient exposure of gestating F0 generation female rats found negligible impacts of glyphosate on the directly exposed F0 generation, or F1 generation offspring pathology. In contrast, dramatic increases in pathologies in the F2 generation grand-offspring, and F3 transgenerational great-grand-offspring were observed. The transgenerational pathologies observed include prostate disease, obesity, kidney disease, ovarian disease, and parturition (birth) abnormalities. Epigenetic analysis of the F1, F2 and F3 generation sperm identified differential DNA methylation regions (DMRs). A number of DMR associated genes were identified and previously shown to be involved in pathologies. Therefore, we propose glyphosate can induce the transgenerational inheritance of disease and germline (e.g. sperm) epimutations. Observations suggest the generational toxicology of glyphosate needs to be considered in the disease etiology of future generations.

...

Conclusions

In summary, glyphosate was found to promote the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease and pathology through germline (i.e. sperm) epimutations. Negligible pathology was observed in the F0 and F1 generations, while a significant increase in pathology and disease was observed in the F2 generation grand-offspring and F3 generation great-grand-offspring. Therefore, glyphosate appears to have a low or negligible toxic risk for direct exposure, but promotes generational toxicology in future generations. Observations suggest generational toxicology needs to be incorporated into the risk assessment of glyphosate and all other potential toxicants, as previously described45. The ability of glyphosate and other environmental toxicants to impact our future generations needs to be considered, and is potentially as important as the direct exposure toxicology done today for risk assessment.

Full study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42860-0

[The Gulleysucker]

And now it turns out glyphosate may not only put the immediate user at risk, but may also have consequences for the user's grandchildren.

Full study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42860-0

I'm in no way qualified to assess the validity of the study findings, though I expect it may be sensible to wait for peer reviews on the matter.

But it's interesting stuff,  the suggested ability of a trans-generational increase in pathology to bypass F2's and appear in F3's is intriguing, even if the mechanism for it doing so appears to be mysterious (at least to myself)

I've had a quick read of this on EWA that I believe underpins the study and can vaguely understand it, but it seems we are just scraping the surface in what we know and can deduce from these things.

Thanks for posting it up.

[Red-Soldier]

I'm in no way qualified to assess the validity of the study findings, though I expect it may be sensible to wait for peer reviews on the matter.

But it's interesting stuff,  the suggested ability of a trans-generational increase in pathology to bypass F2's and appear in F3's is intriguing, even if the mechanism for it doing so appears to be mysterious (at least to myself)

I've had a quick read of this on EWA that I believe underpins the study and can vaguely understand it, but it seems we are just scraping the surface in what we know and can deduce from these things.

Thanks for posting it up.

Just to clarify that every piece of work is (should be) peer reviewed before it is published.  Once published, there will be other accademics recreating the study (or similar versions of it) aimed at supporting or disproving it.

[The Gulleysucker]

Yes, sorry, that's what I meant.

[Libertine]

Just to clarify that every piece of work is (should be) peer reviewed before it is published.

Quite an imperfect process though as I'm sure you know.

Also, I'm sure my favourite new twitter account will be all over this soon.... 

https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice

[Devon Red]

Also, I'm sure my favourite new twitter account will be all over this soon.... 

https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice

Ha! You beat me to it! I was going to be a smart arse and just post "...in mice".

To be fair though, the evidence against glysophate is piling up and we are surely past the point of invoking the precautionary principle and just banning until we know more.

[TepidT2O]

Quite an imperfect process though as I'm sure you know.

Also, I'm sure my favourite new twitter account will be all over this soon.... 

https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice

Oh my... quite wonderful...