Talk:Glyphosate

The content of this article is dangerous

I work in the agricultural sector in Southern France. I was at a meeting with some farmers discussing safety when a guy adressed the crowd and literally quoted this article stating that glyphosate does not cause cancer and is less dangerous that table salt.

The claim that there is a scientific concensus that glyphosate does not cause cancer is blatantly false.

There is a scientific consensus that it has a very low risk for cancer in consumers, but there definitely does not exist such a consensus for agricultural and food processing workers.

Again, I'm not stating that glyphosate is known to be dangerous only that the texts claim of a scientific concensus regarding all humans is false.

That being said, this article is another example of why I quit editing wikis over 10 years ago. The page itself and the talk page are rife with the kind of formulations and slightly off content that comes from well funded malicious actors abusing the good faith editing policies.

I have no hope for this article but I will for my own peace of mind post this talk.

This article is used by active farmers as an excuse not not bother with safety equipment and appropriate practices. Do with that what you want.

37.169.146.59 (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The claim that there is a scientific concensus that glyphosate does not cause cancer ← Wait what? This article says that? Bon courage (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The page basically implies that, saying that all studies except one pointed to it not being able to be linked with cancer, and then taking time to pick apart that specific study.

This article seems to lean heavily on funded research and then attack any research contrary to that. Meta-research shows a very different picture: "The overall evidence from human, animal, and mechanistic studies presented here supports a compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL." 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:600D:E649:51A2:8791 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This is well-covered by the article

Although some small studies have suggested an association between glyphosate and non-hodgkin lymphoma, subsequent work confirmed the likelihood this work suffered from bias, and the association could not be demonstrated in more robust studies.

You've got the time machine out to go back to old views. Science has moved on. Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn't settled science. Just because your review article linked is slightly newer doesn't mean it automatically overrides every other study. Cherry picking sources to say, almost definitively, that no correctly preformed study actually shows a correlation between GBHs and NHL seems incredibly biased.

Science has not moved on. This is not a settled issue and presenting one side more favorably is the definition of bias. 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:600D:E649:51A2:8791 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS directs us not to use sources over 5 years old when newer are available. We're not going to rewind into comparative ignorance, especially if it looks like agenda-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an exceptionally pedantic reading of that page. First, the review I linked was not even 5 years old, but the article to support your quote is 4 years old and is just an update of a (slightly) >5 year old article.

Agenda-pushing would be ignoring research that doesn't agree with your opinion and going out of your way to exclude it from the article- to the point where you are searching for any rule which would be able to possibly justify leaving it out. Presenting this as settled science and any disagreement as being "ignorance" is a disgrace to science itself. Science is built on skepticism and it personally makes me question why you are against presenting both sides as having validity.

International health organizations don't even agree on this issue, what makes you so sure that certain studies are "small," flawed, and "biased?" 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:600D:E649:51A2:8791 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Follow the sources; we're not going to undercut current knowledge with old out-dated stuff. That's the end of the matter. Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

None of this work is "old." Even based on WP:MEDRS, "The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies."

Maybe there will be a new meta analysis which releases showing that it is linked to NHL. Would you be for completely scrubbing this article of anything that said that it wasn't correlated? After all, the sources would be "old" and the "science will have moved on."

Frankly this is all very strange. From leaving out the pretty clear correlation of NHL in animals (which was never really shown to be false anywhere) to claiming that studies involving a total of 65,000 participants as being "small." I do not understand the aversion to presenting both sides. 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:600D:E649:51A2:8791 (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

EFSA 2023:

The available epidemiological studies currently do not provide sufficient indication that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer-related health effect.

I suggest you take uo your complaint with them. Wikipedia cannot alter the sourced reality. Bon courage (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

One source does not override every previous source. If a source came out today claiming the opposite should we just rewrite the whole section? Again- this is NOT settled science. 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:600D:E649:51A2:8791 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

If it was sufficiently strong, yes. This is standard practice when reflecting "accepted knowledge". Bon courage (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

These are all reviews of the same literature. I would argue that someone reading through the existing sources and coming to a different conclusion doesn't necessarily mean that "accepted knowledge" changed. Again, this is not settled science. 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:600D:E649:51A2:8791 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong. Which is why you'd need to resurrect old sources to undercut current science. Bon courage (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653523018398 (2023)

> Our findings strengthen the mechanistic evidence that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen and provide biological plausibility for previously reported cancer associations in humans

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122012609 (2022)

> The weight of the evidence indicates that in addition to cancer and reproductive effects, glyphosate and GBHs have significant adverse effects on the brain and behavior and increase the risk of at least some serious neurological diseases.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297140 (2024)

> In the present study, an association was found between exposure to pesticides and the development of NHL

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-95139-y (2025)

> Higher urinary GLY seems to be associated with more all-cause death... urine GLY may have a higher effect on cancer mortality in people without hypertension

These are all newer than the meta-research you posted. I would suggest, again, that the science is not as settled as you make it out to be. Even in your quote from EFSA (a regulatory agency), it does not suggest that glyphosate does not cause cancer, rather, that their research of the studies doesn't prove it.

I would be equally opposed to this section saying that it's proven that it causes cancer. But I think it's not right that it leaves out the evidence of it causing cancer in rats and does a character assassination on the studies which show it to cause cancer without doing the same critical analysis on the studies that show that it does. 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:600D:E649:51A2:8791 (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Nice cherry-picking:

1) Compare that to PMID 37418114, they found an inverted relationship.

2) Nothing to do with NHL. In addition, EFSA and others didn't find anything for neurlogical diseases.

3) Primary research, also glyphosate is only mentioned, but with a paper (Leon et al. PMID 30880337) which says: "lack of association of ever/never use of glyphosate with NHL overall in our analysis is consistent with a recently published analysis from AHS". Your cited paper wrongly states "Leon et al. found an association between NHL and occupational exposure. This is the opposite what Leon et al. is saying, wtf?

4) Scientific Reports trash from China, primary research.

Taken together: I see that your are trying to push POV with your agenda.--Julius Senegal (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think you’re assuming good faith here. I don’t have a point of view or vested interest. This is what I found poking around. This article presents the state of research far differently than the studies, and I think that’s a shame.

I understand that some of these are primary sources and that for others you found different studies that show different things. On this page however only one side is really being represented and it does not present that the overall conclusions are unclear and research is still being done. It paints the picture that every study/review that goes against the “consensus” is flawed and analyzes those sources with a different lens than the ones which agree with the “consensus.”

The “consensus” of course isn’t one in the scientific community, it’s simply regulatory agencies which have said they don’t have enough evidence to ban it.

At this point we have quite a bit of evidence that cell towers don’t cause cancer, but the Wikipedia page for cell towers and cancer (Wireless device radiation and health) still addresses it as a possibility and speaks of the ongoing research (“so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of wireless devices needs to be conducted.”). Also it doesn’t make the mistake of basically saying it’s not any more dangerous than table salt as a settled matter- “ "it is a sensible precautionary approach ... to keep the situation under ongoing review ...".”

I suggest this page should present evidence for the link of NHL at least that favorability- rather than dismissing them as conspiracy theories the same way you’ve dismissed me as pushing a view. 2601:1C2:C100:13D0:18DE:7D4F:57DB:A365 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The “consensus” of course isn’t one in the scientific community ← I think the "of course" here is a fringe novel take, and not an "of course" at all. Wikipedia is reflecting the WP:BESTSOURCES and avoiding queering the pitch with weaker (or junk) sources such as have been proposed. That is the end of the matter until/unless newer high-quality sources emerge which demand incorporation. I agree this all looks like POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought you disengaged because I was tinfoil hatting by suggesting that there was agenda pushing from the other side. I guess it’s only a conspiracy theory when I suggest this is the case, and when you use the exact same language it’s fine?

Regardless, the Wikipedia article quite literally states “ The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies.” Hence my point about the “consensus,” that there is undue weight on what regulatory agencies have said. It’s not a fringe view that the “consensus” is those agencies, the article says this very directly. But, it doesn’t even really do that right- it says there is “no evidence” when even the quote you were spamming earlier had the qualifiers of “sufficient indicator” and “not yet.” Curious why the article leaves that out.

It seems the end of the matter for you is to omit basically any uncertainty, despite similar pages (ie the other one I linked) having far more balanced presentations of ongoing work and uncertainty. It seems you think the science is settled, but it really isn’t, and presenting it like this is no more dangerous than table salt is, as the original commenter on this thread pointed out, dangerous (at least potentially). 2601:1C2:C100:13D0:E5B0:C733:FFD2:1658 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Difficult to keep track of with these shifting IP addresses. The article doesn't say it's settled science, but it accurately reflects the science as it is. Job done. Absent new sources, any further discussion on this is futile here. Bon courage (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The study you linked was published in the September 2019 issue. That was indeed more than 5 years ago. MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The exact text on that page is " more than five or so years ago" and references " [determining] whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." It seems that there is general disagreement between researchers and world health institutions. This editor seems to be attempting to present the view as settled science where expert opinion has gone from mixed to being firmly against correlation, but it seems there are numerous studies that point either way and so the justification is that they are all 'bad' in some way- be it small (despite having in some cases thousands of subjects), poorly conducted, biased, etc, without giving the same due process to studies which say that there isn't correlation. 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:600D:E649:51A2:8791 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

One again - EFSA 2023:

The available epidemiological studies currently do not provide sufficient indication that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer-related health effect.

I suggest you take uo your complaint with them. Wikipedia cannot alter the sourced reality. Bon courage (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

EFSA is a regulatory agency and there are other regulatory agencies who have come to different conclusions, such as the WHO which believes that there is limited evidence it causes cancer in humans and sufficient evidence it causes cancer in animals. I'm curious why the page makes no mention of it's fairly strong correlation of cancer in animals and I am starting to suspect it's to push an agenda. 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:600D:E649:51A2:8791 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

And with that flash of tinfoil, it's time to disengage. Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

You are free to disengage whenever you'd like, however, I will say that these are your words. You claimed awhile ago that including some sources would be "agenda-pushing." 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:600D:E649:51A2:8791 (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

IARC report

Didn't think this would be contentious when added for context, but just because it was reverted: I assumed this was already listed in the attached sources since I believe it's pretty uncontroversial, but the IARC voted unanimously for their finding. This is just relevant because of how both sides of the Roundup controversy have clearly dug their heels in.

In terms of being unverifiable(?), most sources don't indicate the vote share, but the ones that do reflect that it was unanimous. I did only a cursory search, but found it referenced by the NRDC [1] (generally respected org), as well as a whole host of other completely random sources. [2]. I didn't do a detailed check on reliability for most of them (I'm sure some of them are undoubtedly bad), but again this seems like a pretty undisputed basic fact so I didn't think it necessary. This detail also seems to have been referenced by various experts when giving testimony, like Dr. Christopher Portier at the NIH. [3]. All in all, it's such specific wording here that it's usually not directly mentioned by sources, but everything that does mention it seems to support it, while I've seen nothing that contradicts it. I'll add it to the body too with a source if it needs to be included. Just10A (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The lede summarises the body, and Wikipedia should reflect the way that high-quality sources (such as are cited) address a topic. What does "the IARC voted unanimously" even mean? This seems like odd POV-pushing. In general, for a WP:CTOP edits should be made with extra care, so adding material to the lede that hasn't even been checked is already taking us into sanctions territory. Bon courage (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

What does "the IARC voted unanimously" even mean?

They had a panel of experts. The word "unanimously" means they all agreed without any dissenters.

" that hasn't even been checked is already taking us into sanctions territory.

It was checked. I had read the sources I listed, namely the court case (which is a reliable source, although primary). The factoid was just so basic that I assumed it was in the Lancet report already cited that outlined the findings. If you think that's "sanctions territory" (lmfao) I invite you to take that to the noticeboards. I'm sure you'd enjoy getting laughed out of the room. Otherwise, WP:FOC and stop making empty threats. Just10A (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The cited sources do not say this, and I note the goalposts have shifted from "the IARC" to "a panel". Bon courage (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The panel is how the IARC makes its reports. They are the ones who prepared the report. Anytime the article references the IARC and its report, they are referring to the panel. Just10A (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a few cautions here. "both sides" gets into a WP:GEVAL problem. NRDC is not a particularly reliable source in these subjects (e.g., fringe stuff related to GMOs and topics like this). Generally it gets treated more as an advocacy/lobby organization with all the caveats there compared to a reputable scientific organization.

At the end of the day though, it doesn't seem WP:DUE to include the language, even setting aside sources like NRDC or Portier (heavily involved in the controversy) that would be prone to use terms that can drift into WP:PEACOCK. If there's in-depth discussion of the proceedings deep in the body, that is one area where it may be relevant, but not necessarily at a high summary level like in the lead. It really would depend on sources though, and if most don't mention it, it seems like we'd follow suit as currently done. KoA (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I would agree, but WP:GEVAL isn't really an issue here because we're already including about the IARC report. This is just adding context on how the report was made. It then is expanded on more in the body as the exact context of the production of the IARC report later came under scrutiny (primarily with the Reuters article). Either way, it's pretty minor. This really doesn't seem disputed to me, but if there's no consensus for inclusion then that's fine. Others feel free to chime in. Just10A (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly useful to the reader to specify whether it was unanimous or not. I prefer leaving it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

ECHA lead

Based on the above discussion about the IARC report, I wonder why only ECHA is cited (and not EFSA doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8164 or others like USEPA or Health Canada), and if we mention H318 & H411 why not mentioning that there is no "organ toxicity" and glyphosate it not "a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substance."

So what should the lead reflect? The issue and controversial debate over being carcinogenic, started and only supported by IARC and not other governmental organizations? Or all possible side effects and not proven side effects? --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Good question, and I agree that it may be time to update the lead. Speaking generally, I think the lead should go in the direction of emphasizing main points, and not go into all the details of unproven side effects, and it would likely be more NPOV to frame the carcinogenicity issue in terms of the majority regulatory opinion, and treat minority views more in passing. The caveat I would add to that is regarding non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, where I think there is enough sourcing to treat it seriously, although much of that comes from legal decisions, rather than from scientific studies – but I think that's still lead-worthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I imagine it's mainly a WP:DUE/relevance thing. All of those are worthy of mention, especially in the body, but the distinguishing factor between the IARC and the ones you listed is that the IARC is global, while most of the other governing bodies are region-specific. Just10A (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)