Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12717/toxic-exposure

by mbustamanter • 3 years ago

101 103 3 years ago

press.jhu.edu

brightball• 3 years ago

Expanded summary from the description:

For years, Monsanto declared that their product Roundup, the world's most widely used weed killer, was safe. But that all changed in 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed data from scientific studies and concluded that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is probably carcinogenic. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disagreed, other regulatory agencies got involved, and scientists clamored to understand the link between glyphosate and cancer.
Toxic Exposure tells the true story of numerous patients who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a form of cancer, after using Roundup and their ensuing trials against Monsanto (now owned by Bayer, one of the largest agrochemical companies in the world). Written by Chadi Nabhan, MD, MBA, a cancer specialist, this is the only book written by an expert physician witness who testified in the first three trials against Monsanto.
Dr. Nabhan takes the reader behind the scenes of these pivotal trials, explaining key features of the cases, including how Monsanto downplayed the IARC's scientific conclusions, may have worked to change how the EPA classified glyphosate, and conducted extensive PR campaigns designed to minimize the public's perception of the negative health effects of its product. He also provides details about the other expert witnesses who reviewed the evidence, analyzed the science, and stood up to this agricultural behemoth in the courtroom.
Dr. Nabhan tells the inside story of corporate influence, courtroom drama, legal discourse, monumental verdicts, and the ensuing media frenzy surrounding this massive uncovering of the truth and the years of scientific and legal work that led up to it.

adrr4• 3 years ago

For comparison, hot beverages(eg: Coffee), red meat and working the night shift are also probable carcinogens. Known carcinogens include alcohol, fried food, bbq/grilling.

hammock4• 3 years ago

deleted

Retric3• 3 years ago

As always it comes down to scale not labels.

Glyphosate in normal use is vastly more dangerous than anything you mentioned.

coin2• 3 years ago

who testified in the first three trials against Monsanto

In other words, he's paid litigation consultant. Of course his book is going to be in alignment with those that pay him.

dreen5• 3 years ago

The damage is still being done. I am a non-producing farmer in EEU. I know for a fact many local farmers still use Roundup on crops, even though its illegal. There are no checks done when they sell the grain. All the bees in the area have already died.

pkphilip• 3 years ago

Why is this comment being downvoted?

rstuart41332• 3 years ago

Because it is almost certainly confusing Glyphosate, a herbicide, whose only demonstrated effect in animals is to cause cancer in cancer prone rats when administered in large doses, to Neonicotinoids which are a pesticide targeting insects that has had a devastating effect on bees. Most countries ban Neonicotinoids nowadays.

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/nicotinebased-pesticides...

saiya-jin• 3 years ago

Why don't you report this anonymously to authorities AND media, since we know this leads to horrible deaths? Its low-energy effort, heck few envelopes to medias around the Europe and I guarantee you they would be on it like wasps on sweet food. You shouldn't be protecting people killing (also) children due to their greed or ignorance.

You can save many lives and actually trigger the (necessary) change in legislation!

moffkalast• 3 years ago

authorities AND media

OP mentioned being in the EEU, which would mean the media and authorities of one of the following: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia.

Yeah I doubt it'd make any difference whatsoever. Best case scenario they ignore the story and he doesn't end up falling from a third story window.

hammock4• 3 years ago

That is really sad. I go out of my way to buy grain imported from Europe on the assumption that it is glyphosate free.

scarby22• 3 years ago

The only EEU country in Europe proper is Belarus.

dekhn4• 3 years ago

All the bees? Then anything that needs to be pollinated with bees has also died. Is that the case? Answer truthfully.

dreen5• 3 years ago

I am not a career farmer, nor a bee inspector. Are they all dead? Probably not. But I know some beekeepers in the area and all of theirs died, and I'm not seeing hives around while they used to be common. Also, you should know bees are not the only pollinators.

29athrowaway2• 3 years ago

Glyphosate weakens plant roots in the long term.

hd95489• 3 years ago

There is no long term farming is seasonal

peteradio• 3 years ago

Pity the buffer zones surrounding the fields.

29athrowaway2• 3 years ago

https://youtu.be/XDyI10Z8aH0

jxramos2• 3 years ago

interesting, do those treated crops get knocked over in strong winds compared to untreated crops or something like that?

hosh2• 3 years ago

Root systems are not necessarily just about being able to hold soil or not getting knocked over.

I don’t know what the parent comment meant by that, but I do know the root zone is vital for plants. Plants do not directly mine minerals. Instead, they produce complex sugars which they exchange with bacteria and fungi, who in turn, trade minerals that the plant needs. Some plants with also trade nutrients with each other (usually within the same species).

It’s in this way that soil itself is alive, whereas dirt is dead. Glysophates messes with soil in such a way that farmers attempt to compensate with fertilizer as an input. It becomes a degenerate process. Our current commercial agricultural has been slowly killing our soil.

overreg• 3 years ago

"Organizations such as the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues and the European Commission, Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment[30] have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. The final assessment of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority in 2017 was that "glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans".[31] The EPA has evaluated the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate multiple times since 1986. In 1986, glyphosate was initially classified as Group C: "Possible Human Carcinogen", but later recommended as Group D: "Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity" due to lack of statistical significance in previously examined rat tumor studies. In 1991, it was classified as Group E: "Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans", and in 2015 and 2017, "Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans".[32][33]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)

mbustamanter• 3 years ago

Absence of evidence != Evidence of absence. This mistake is especially pernicious when facing the choice of repeated trials, and something inherent to this topic since constantly eating food that at some point was subject to this chemical is by definition a repeated trial.

jxramos2• 3 years ago

interesting, I wonder what the modes of operation are for shuffling across classifications and what specific evidence is required.

kazinator3• 3 years ago

Yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, under the right evidence-gathering circumstances.

Would you say that perhaps there are pigs which can fly, because absence of the evidence of the existence of flying pigs isn't evidence of their absence?

pella4• 3 years ago

check: glyphosate gut-brain axis

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=glyphosate+gut-brain+ax...

ch4s35• 3 years ago

The important caveat here is in laboratory mice, which isn't to dismiss ongoing work but to temper strong claims a bit.

pella4• 3 years ago

"Gut microbiota and neurological effects of glyphosate" ( 2019, NeuroToxicology )

"Abstract There are currently various concerns regarding certain environmental toxins and the possible impact they can have on developmental diseases. Glyphosate (Gly) is the most utilised herbicide in agriculture, although its widespread use is generating controversy in the scientific world because of its probable carcinogenic effect on human cells. Gly performs as an inhibitor of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phospate synthase (EPSP synthase), not only in plants, but also in bacteria. An inhibiting effect on EPSP synthase from intestinal microbiota has been reported, affecting mainly beneficial bacteria. To the contrary, Clostridium spp. and Salmonella strains are shown to be resistant to Gly. Consequently, researchers have suggested that Gly can cause dysbiosis, a phenomenon which is characterised by an imbalance between beneficial and pathogenic microorganisms. The overgrowth of bacteria such as clostridia generates high levels of noxious metabolites in the brain, which can contribute to the development of neurological deviations. This work reviews the impact of Gly-induced intestinal dysbiosis on the central nervous system, focusing on emotional, neurological and neurodegenerative disorders. A wide variety of factors were investigated in relation to brain-related changes, including highlighting genetic abnormalities, pregnancy-associated problems, diet, infections, vaccines and heavy metals. However, more studies are required to determine the implication of the most internationally used herbicide, Gly, in behavioural disorders."

dekhn4• 3 years ago

That's right- the IARC is the odd one out here and their results are based mainly on discredited experiments on rats that are known to be prone to getting cancer (meaning they aren't a good model for humans in this case).

dr_faustus• 3 years ago

Next up: "The will say anything for money: The true story of how expert witnesses made up all kinds of bullshit over the years and got paid handsomely for it."

Expert witnesses caused all sorts of suffering by giving misleading or plainly false testimony and forced the first lyme disease vaccine of the market (https://time.com/6073576/lyme-disease-vaccine/). Just one example.

giantg22• 3 years ago

The article is paywalled.

The lyme vaccine went off the market due to a lack of adoption as well as factors related to it's utility (80% effectiveness seems high, but can provide false confidence and doesn't negate any of the normal prophylactic steps. But it can lead to difficulty in diagnostics given they test for antibody levels).

Sure, the law suit didn't help anything, but it wasn't the main reason. Expert witnesses on many cases can provide opposing opinions and interpretations of the case. It's up to the court and jury to decide. There are a number of errors even in the more rigorous criminal courts where an incorrect judgement has been rendered. This speaks more about the flaws in the system around determining truth or believability than can be attributed to any one party.

Jolliness75012• 3 years ago

Dear HN admins, please close this firehose of bullshit. Thank you!

smolder• 3 years ago

Dear reader, you should elaborate on what you view as a firehose of bullshit.

Jolliness75012• 3 years ago

Sure:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman...

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...

elhudy• 3 years ago

AFAIK there hasn't really been a clear link between roundup and certain rare blood cancers. Just a correlation between them in certain geographical areas. Some studies have found the correlation and others haven't. I believe even the doctors who treat these diseases know this to be true.

Though, it would be really easy to write a book citing only the evidence in support of the link. At this point I'm not sure what to believe, but I have no need for roundup so I avoid its use.

cashsterling• 3 years ago

Just FYI... Monsanto is now owned by Bayer. So the Monsanto arm of the company now has even larger international regulatory influence via the Bayer parent.

singularity2001• 3 years ago

Bayer : pesticides since 1942

Forgive me if that humor is too dark, so is the topic of roundup and corporate manipulation of scientific studies

jessaustin2• 3 years ago

The "Monsanto" trademark was too toxic to keep using after the merger, so they've continued using this other trademark, which is somehow apparently less toxic.

LargoLasskhyfv• 3 years ago

Monsanto is where it belongs. One direct successor of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben

(Hrr Hrr Hrr)

algoatecorn2• 3 years ago

Sure is lovely when a bunch of non-experts decide to chime in on a nuanced subject. Imagine a bunch of plant biologists congregated on a discussion board to make sweeping claims about SaaS or whatever your area of expertise is. Hilarious.

Even appealing to literature is limited by your knowledge background. Spend a few years in the field and you will realize that some studies are good and some are bad. Some indicate negative effects under incomparable conditions. Some are good. Some are just plain kooky.

yakshaving_jgt• 3 years ago

Spend a few years in the field and you will realize that some studies are good and some are bad.

On this topic, I highly recommend Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. It's a brilliant read.

Demonsult• 3 years ago

When experts do chime in, they're blasted as shills. Have fun finding someone who is truly an expert yet has no connection to the industry that uses the technology.

algoatecorn2• 3 years ago

It's tricky because you can be well informed without being biased. In the case of glyphosate, it just so happens that being well informed comes off as shilling because the genpop conjecture is void of nuance

lispisok• 3 years ago

You just described so many HN threads.

jvans3• 3 years ago

This story is a broken record that just repeats over and over again in different forms and industries. It follows the general form of:

1. Develop some profitable product

2. years later people report horrible effects

3. Big co denies and stalls for years/decades

4. Hundreds of thousands /millions of people are negatively effected

5. Science eventually overwhelms any counter argument and product in taken off market

6. Go back to step 1 with different product

Some other examples:

1. Big tobacco

2. Teflon(PFOAs) [1]

3. Generic drugs [2]

4. Regular drugs [3]

5. Leaded gasoline [4]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Exposure-Poisoned-Corporate-Lawyers-T...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Bottle-Lies-Inside-Story-Generic/dp/0...

[3]https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8963867/Green.ht...

[4] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...

SQueeeeeL2• 3 years ago

One of the fascinating aspects that allows this to continue is that legal liability for a destructive product is essentially voided when a company is sold (look at the arguments Dow chemical made in Bhopal).

This has created a system where nations effectively allow corporate actors to transfer the harm they cause onto the government and also let's companies skimp on doing effective due diligence when seeking a merger. It's an extremely fascinating case of regulatory capture, and I hope future alien historians laugh at how wildly incompetent our governments were at dealing with corporate entities.

jvans3• 3 years ago

I hope future alien historians laugh at how wildly incompetent our governments were at dealing with corporate entities

Yup, it is astounding how much harm a handful of greedy people can do without ever being held financially or criminally accountable. As long as the harm is sufficiently spread out and stochastic they are in the clear

random314• 3 years ago

I hope future alien historians laugh at how wildly incompetent our governments were at dealing with corporate entities.

The untold secret is Governments were built for supporting corporations, not citizens. So this is by design.

dragonwriter• 3 years ago

I hope future alien historians laugh at how wildly incompetent our governments were at dealing with corporate entities.

Future historians will understand, I suspect, as do many modern ones (and political scientists, etc.) that governments are creations of the ruling classes to potect their interests, and corporations (in turn, a creation of governments) serve to advance that purpose, and it is by choice and design (both immediate and structural), not incompetence, that governments do not constrain them in their pursuit of that goal, even when they try to convince the non-ruling classes that they are attempting to do so.

leoh• 3 years ago

What do you think are the best ways for a government to deal with corporations?

dennis_jeeves12• 3 years ago

Excellent summary. Like they say history repeats. And teaching history does not help.

giantg22• 3 years ago

"And teaching history does not help."

It does to some extent, but only those who truly learn it. In the current conversation, there are people who have seen this patern of recurring failure and are increasingly skeptical of new stuff. You'd be surprised how many doctors choose the older tried and true treatments for themselves rather than the newest stuff. They have personal experience that says "new" is more synonymous with "untested" than it is to "better".

outworlder• 3 years ago

Add to that:

  6. Sugar (all forms, but especially high fructose corn syrup)

  7. Processed Meat (nitrites)

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...

https://ceh.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

[7] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX1KUPZC3Ck (0:00 / 52:26 The Meat Lobby: How the Meat Industry Hides the Truth)

jvans3• 3 years ago

thanks, definitely. It would be an interesting project to compile a list of this stuff. Opioides probably deserve a special mention outside of regular drugs and J&J baby powder would also make the list.

mananaysiempre• 3 years ago

Science eventually overwhelms any counterargument

That’s how science is supposed to work, unfortunately: the answer being right takes priority over it being prompt or cheap, in order to allow for unexpected possibilities or unforeseen sources of confusion to be exposed. That’s not a bad thing, but suggests science even in its ideal form may be the wrong tool here. (What’s the right one? I don’t know.)

wonderwonder• 3 years ago

I don't know anything about this but this topic (environmental law) is something my wife really enjoys. I was going to order the ebook for her but pricing it the same as the hard cover makes no sense. $30 for an ebook is prohibitively expensive.

anenefan• 3 years ago

As the end user, I know the formulation of roundup has changed over the years, in particular the wetter and other additional ingredients used along with the active ingredient.

"Probably" is a weasel word and does not belong when claiming to have made decisions based on hard science, especially since at least one type of wetter used and mixed in with the final roundup product is (sources I've read) carcinogenic ... sadly the same stuff is used in ... some beauty products ... so no surprise that isn't being waved around.

On the list of herbicides used in my parts, looking at break down products and the LD50 rates, life time in soil, Glyphosate is nowhere near the top of concerning herbicides used. If coincidences is considered acceptable, I've noted the sharp decline in bandicoot population where part of their diet is earthworms and one of the more popular weed killers finding wide use the last few years, has a secondary breakdown product which in high enough concentrations lethal to earthworms.

Disclaimer: I've worked on farms spraying various herbicides on and off for near 30 years. I've always been suspicious of what's been recommended as safe ever since witnessing first hand the genetic damage old 245T formulations (used in our parts N.Q. Aust for ring barking trees) could inflict. This means I usually like to know just how bad something is if I'm using it, use sparingly if there are flags, and personally I won't use half the herbicides used that are considered safe, but roundup I consider moderately safe for the environment since the target weed doesn't need to be saturated to the point of run off for it to work and the work on testing it in the 1950s and 60s prior to Monsanto didn't raise any flags.

Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

Related Stories