← Back to context

Comment by jl6

4 hours ago

> The disavowal comes 25 years after publication and eight years after thousands of internal Monsanto documents were made public during US court proceedings (the "Monsanto Papers"), revealing that the actual authors of the article were not the listed scientists – Gary M. Williams (New York Medical College), Robert Kroes (Ritox, Utrecht University, Netherlands), and Ian C. Munro (Intertek Cantox, Canada) – but rather Monsanto employees.

Why wasn’t the paper retracted 8 years ago?

30 comments

jl6

Reply
CGMthrowaway  3 hours ago

Trust the science. The World Health Organization on glyphosate in 2016:

  "The only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level"
  "Glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures"
  "Glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet"
  "The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acute toxicity"

https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pe...

Tptacek in 2018:

  "There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals. Meanwhile, many of the herbicides that glyphosate displace, plenty of which remain in use, are known human carcinogens. The most widely reported declaration of glyphosate's carcinogenicity, by IARC, was disavowed by the WHO, IARC's parent organization...The evidence seems to suggest that glyphosate is basically inert in humans"

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc...

  • hshdhdhj4444  1 hour ago

    How many retractions has Dr Oz published?

    Has he retracted his claim that “raspberry ketones” are a miracle for burning fat in a jar?

    Idiots look at people who never admit they were wrong and think those are the people to follow.

    People with the slightest bit of intelligence look at the people (or process in this matter) who are constantly checking themselves and willing to admit they were wrong (or in this case misled by frauds) when they find the truth.

    Meanwhile, the real issue here is not the science. The real issue here is the American GRAS system, because Europe didn’t allow glyphosates because their political system requires stuff going into your food to be proven safe, whereas the American system simply requires it to not be proven harmful.

  • potato3732842  1 hour ago

    >Tptacek in 2018:

    Makes me want to punch everyone else on the high score board into a search engine and see how they did.

    Kinda funny how the "it kills stuff, it can't be good for ya" luddite crowd turned out to be right all along.

  • DustinEchoes  3 hours ago

    > The only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level

    Was that the retracted study or a different one?

  • xenophonf  3 hours ago

    CGMthrowaway writes:

    > Trust the science.

    Science is a process, not a result. Retractions like this promote the integrity of scientific research and evidence-based medicine.

    > When Dr. Oz in 2015 spoke out against glyphosate...

    Oz also promoted MLM dietary supplements, antimalarial drugs as COVID treatments, gay conversion "therapy", colloidal silver, and vaccine skepticism. He has zero credibility and cannot be trusted.

    • KK7NIL  1 hour ago

      > > Trust the science.

      >> Science is a process, not a result. Retractions like this promote the integrity of scientific research and evidence-based medicine.

      He was obviously poking fun at people who say "trust the science" when what they really mean is "trust these scientits" or, even better, "trust this one study".

      Undoubtedly "trust the science" is little more than an appeal to authority when used in a casual debate, not some appeal to skepticism, peer review and testability.

      2 replies →