In depth source on the "Glyphosate case": is it true that regulatory agencies all agree?[edit]

Zaller, J.G., 2020. Daily Poison. Pesticides—An Underestimated Danger; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, p.315. (published by Springer and accessible via the Wikipedia Library WP:WIKILIB) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-50530-1

The author is Associate Professor at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna with an h index of 43 https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=o08CivAAAAAJ&hl=en

It covers extensively the "Glyphosate case" examining the reasons why (quotes are from the source): A dispute has arisen over glyphosate in recent years especially after experts from the International Agency for Cancer Research (IACR) a division of the World Health Organization of the United Nations classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans (classification 2A). However, the EU authority EFSA and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), the agency particularly responsible for glyphosate registration in Europe, and several other national agencies did not confirm this IACR classification.

And:

the US EPA considers glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” EPA asserts that there is no convincing evidence that “glyphosate induces mutations in vivo via the oral route.” IARC concludes there is “strong evidence” that exposure to glyphosate is genotoxic through at least two 1 What Is the Problem? Pesticides in Our Everyday Life 71 mechanisms known to be associated with human carcinogens (DNA damage, oxidative stress). How can it be that national agencies and IARC reach such different conclusions?

I think we should include a similar overview in the article. Multiple important sources are cited highlighting three main issues for why EPA/EFSA and IARC reached diametrically opposed conclusions on glyphosate genotoxicity:

We have different important bodies (EPA/EFSA/IARC) reaching different conclusions. We should probably report the conclusions of all while describing accurately the ongoing debate.

For example in the lede we state: The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity but this is false and contradicted by the next sentence that follows: In March 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.. This is unclear and confuses reader. Obviously not all agencies agree here. We need to describe the "Glyphosate case" in more detail. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 12:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose.
First of all Johann Zaller is more an activist not a simple key opinion leader in that field, the BOKU he is working at is in touch with much mumbo jumbo junk science and was repeatably criticized for that. The h index does not grant him credibility (argument from authority). Zaller tried to bring his POV in German speaking Wikipedia and failed fortunately. He is so awkward (books like "Daily Poison: Pesticides") that no one would ever consider him reputable.
So his article does not say anything useful and cannot be used.
Even worse is your misunderstanding what IARC stands for and what the other national regulatory agencies / scientific orgas are doing. They are not the "same". There is therefore no contradiction, IARC's purpose is just a complete different one from that of the others. In addition, IARC's decision itself is highly controversial btw.
So no, please get familiar with our rules and the topics we are discussing about. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A citation is needed for all of your claims. Do you have them? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 10:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice try. First you have to prove that a single particular author with a scorcher is reliable acc. to our rules (e. g. WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, WP:MEDRS). Do you have it? --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Nice try" of what? As I have stated above the author is highly reputable professor from what I can see and the publisher is highly reputable. That book has 34 citations according to Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3614147560922018039&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en On the contrary, your challenge is totally unsubstantiated at the moment. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 13:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, you have confirmed me - unintentionally that is.
If you looked on those citations you would have noticed that vast majority of citations are from Zaller papers (party Zaller is not the first author, but still). So Zaller likes citing himself - made my day. And the few other non-Zaller citations only using this book as a side note for non-glyphosate statements (and only once ofc).
Taken together, this book is only interesting for Zaller himself. --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is pretty common for authors to cite their previous work. So your other statements are your own opinions? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 22:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is not pretty common for reputable scientists to cite their own book that nearly no one is interested in.
But thank you again to strengthen my point. --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again: you have not proven that Johann Zaller is not reputable. All the evidence posted here prove otherwise (college associate professor, published author, high h-index etc.). I will retract the source if sources confirming your claim exist. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 12:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again: you have not proven that Zaller, especially this "book" is reputable. The "evidence" you have provided shows clearly that his book is not an established source in the scientific field. If Zaller himself desperatly needs this book to cite himself and to boost his h-index - tough luck. If you cannot show this, this discussion is not worth my time (since you fail to understand what the difference between IARC and the national agencies is).--Julius Senegal (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is sourcing independent? And dietary carcinogenity vs. overall Carcinogenicity

We currently source the sentence: The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity. with [1]. The corresponding author is Jose V. Tarazona of the European Food Safety Authority. So that would not be an independent source in assessing why IARC and the EFSA have reached different conclusions.

From the abstract of that paper (emphasis mine): ...the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is probably carcinogenic. The IARC conclusion was not confirmed by the EU assessment or the recent joint WHO/FAO evaluation, both using additional evidence. Glyphosate is not the first topic of disagreement between IARC and regulatory evaluations, but has received greater attention. The review concludes that the differences were due to: Use of different data sets, particularly on long-term toxicity/carcinogenicity in rodents, could partially explain the divergent views; but methodological differences in the evaluation of the available evidence have been identified. that would be completely in line with what is claimed by the source I have presented above and also does not support the statement we include in the lead. They also cite WHO/FAO that concluded: the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.[2]. WHO/FAO confirmed dietary exposure is not a problem but was not assessing the overall carcinogenicity of Glyphosate.

Another source compares the EPA and IARC conclusions [3] saying: EPA and IARC reached diametrically opposed conclusions on glyphosate genotoxicity for three primary reasons: (1) in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, the EPA relied mostly on registrant-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, 99% of which were negative, while IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies of which 70% were positive (83 of 118); (2) EPA’s evaluation was largely based on data from studies on technical glyphosate, whereas IARC’s review placed heavy weight on the results of formulated GBH and AMPA assays; (3) EPA’s evaluation was focused on typical, general population dietary exposure assuming legal, food-crop uses, and did not take into account, nor address generally higher occupational exposures and risks. IARC’s assessment encompassed data from typical dietary, occupational, and elevated exposure scenarios. More research is needed on real-world exposures to the chemicals within formulated GBHs and the biological fate and consequences of such exposures.

Basically our blanket statement "labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity" is misleading. There is broad agreement that Glyphosate is not genotoxic through the dietary/oral route that would interest most consumers and the public. But carcinogenic risks have been identified and potentially affect other exposure routes (e.g. occupational exposure etc.).

Also, several studies have claimed that US and European regulatory agencies have relied excessively on industry sponsored studies ([4] In the industry documents, we found that members of the EFSA and the EPA panel were in contact with Monsanto representatives, and included Monsanto-funded studies in their analysis, while IARC did not include industry-funded studies and deterred assessment committee members from private communication with chemical industry representatives..

We should be more careful/more precise here and improve our sourcing to ensure independence of our sources while presenting the complete views of the highest level assessments (WHO, FAO, IARC, EPA, EFSA, ECHA, others?). Thoughts? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 13:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claiming now that EFSA or other agencies are biased is becoming getting ridiculous.
Ofc you are lacking to provide strong evidence for this strong claim.
This is some sort of a sole repeatment of this this discussion thread, please read WP:POVPUSH and follow it (not only on this page). --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources I provided claim it. Not me. Please focus on the content instead of constantly attacking me per WP:FOC ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 17:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stick to our guidelines as several times indicated.
"The sources" are just single papers from unknown authors, so this is a clear violation of WP:BALANCE.
I will not discuss this unfounded claim any further acc. to WP:FRINGE. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you refer to the Hendlin source published on Environmental Epidemiology: Dr. Yogi Hale Hendlin is an environmental philosopher and public health scientist. Hendlin is assistant professor at the Erasmus School of Philosophy, and core faculy of the Dynamics of Inclusive Prosperity Initiative at Erasmus University Rotterdam, as well as research associate in the Environmental Health Initiative at the University of California, San Francisco[5]. So definitely not unknown. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources on link with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Strengthening my fears I have just removed this source [6] by Geoffrey Kabat ("mainly known for the discredited BMJ study funded by the tobacco industry"...Yikes) that we were using to cast doubt on a 2019 meta-analysis on high cumulative exposures (e.g. occupational exposure) we have in the article that found Overall, in accordance with findings from experimental animal and mechanistic studies, our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL.. This article needs a thorough and level headed review. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And @Bon courage just reverted the removal (seriously!?) [7]. Can you justify how that content does not egregiously violate WP:MEDRS and WP:DUE? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Err what? How does MEDRS disqualify this source, which is a meta-analysis in a high-quality journal. Per WP:BLP you need to be pretty careful throwing words like "disgraced" around on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I meant "discredited" as a direct quote from the lede of our entry on Geoffrey Kabat (I've amended my comment above). Are you sure you have reviewed my edit correctly? You may be conflating the source I removed (a "meta-analysis" by Geoffrey Kabat [8] that no longer holds any affiliation as far as I can tell) with the high level meta-analysis he was trying to discredit [9]? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The paper was discredited, not the person. That somebody wrote one bad paper 20 years ago does not discredit every other piece of work they have ever produced. MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are (very rare) cases on Wikipedia where the very name of an author calls into question the probity of a publication, but it would need some super-strength sourcing, particularly given the strength of this source. Doubling down on the BLP issue is not good. Bon courage (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will stick to the direct quote. Thank you for pointing out the issues @MrOllie and @Bon courage. My mistake out of haste. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are definitely huge WP:MEDRS issues with this source. From our entry on Kabat: "He is mainly known for the discredited BMJ study funded by the tobacco industry, that failed to find an association between secondhand smoke and health problems."[1][2][3][4][5] ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which bit of MEDRS? The relevant text is "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review". The article you removed was peer-reviewed in a high-quality journal, but you are saying you - a random editor on Wikipedia - knows better because of something you read on Wikipedia about one of its authors. Sorry, that's not the way it works. If there is sourcing that casts this work in doubt, you need to produce it. Bon courage (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must admit I didn't even read the source after I saw: the author had no affiliations, was involved in the tobacco lobbying scandal and currently supports unscientific views such as claiming second hand smoking doesn't cause cancer. I (maybe hastily) assumed WP:MEDBIAS would be quite clear and uncontentious here. I guess I was wrong. MEDBIAS suggests Obvious or overt bias in a source is a difficult problem for Wikipedia...It may be simpler to find a "better" source – either a higher quality study type or a more specific source instead (see WP:MEDASSESS). If no high-quality source exists for a controversial statement it is best to leave it out; this is not bias. Can we verify we are accurately reflect[ing] current knowledge on this subject? Do we have other "similar level" sources on the link with NHL? Might be better to use those. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 17:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So apart from much text you are producing here you don't have any proof that this meta analysis is fringe or biased? Guilt by association is clearly not enough.
We have also the EFSA review not indicating any concerns regarding non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We have also other reliable sources, indeed echoing the authors, e. g. PMID 32096774.--Julius Senegal (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should probably consider rewriting this entire section on human carcinogenicity. We give the impression that debate on a possible link between Glyphosate and NHL is under investigation while it seems most recent sources concur that the evidence is inconclusive? We seem to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a study that found a link with NHL. And we counterbalance that statement with a questionable source while better sources exist (such as the EFSA or other meta-reviews/analysis). ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 19:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, not inconclusive. Reliable sources do not see any association (at least if used as indicated). Otherwise this would have been issued, i.e. in the recent EFSA review and especially by IARC. --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think are the best sources for this statement and what do they say exactly? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 13:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found this 2022 Meta-Analyses (Note:after publishing I see ClinMed International Library appears on https://beallslist.net/ so I guess this source is out) that includes the disputed Kabat paper as well as the 2019 review by Zhang et al to conclude: Confidence in potential a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and NHL was considered low.. It might be better than what we have unless we can use EFSA 2023 directly. We probably need to clean up this section and rely on newer and high level sources per WP:MEDASSESS.

Also we should maybe provide some "history" on the process that led to this assessment on Glyphosate's carcinogenicity so that readers can understand how it came to be. Something like (I'll attempt an extreme summary here with what I've seen so far):

  1. Some initial evidence appeared to indicate a potential link with cancers (e.g. with high exposure, animal experiments) (Main sources?)
  2. Scientific debate, conflicting assessments by agencies and the IARC 2015 case (Main sources?)
  3. Current consensus that there isn't a link (Main source: EFSA 2023?)

((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 10:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, a predatory journal and so completely useless for us. If editors want to avoid the Kabat paper, PMID:34142676 is a (slightly) more recent meta-analysis, in a reputable journal. I have not read it yet. (Add: I have now read it and in fact added it to the article to replace the Kabat paper. See what you think.) Bon courage (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC); amended 11:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a very recent meta review and of course a report of the EFSA, which is reputable.
However, I have removed this weak maybe association (doi:10.23749/mdl.v112i3.11123}) as "annot be ruled out" is - sorry to say that - a useless phrase (see also FRIN).--Julius Senegal (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we are going in the right direction. I prefer @Bon courage's edit as it closely follows the conclusions of the study. However one point isn't very clear.
Boffetta et al 2021 was an update on a previous work (Donato et al 2020) after they received some strong criticism here Rana et al. 2020
In Rana et al. they discuss (after finding several issues in the Donato 2020 paper) (emphasis mine): One interesting question posed by this endeavor is whether or not GBH contributes to risk of all NHL, or a particular subtype. DLBCL is the major subtype (~25%) of NHL ... GBH may be more strongly associated with DLBCL than other NHL subtypes; 2) if true, analyzing NHL as a whole would attenuate potential associations, which is exactly what was reported [3]; and, 3) as a result, our meta-RR of NHL would be further underestimated. They conclude that: our calculated meta-RR of 41% increase in NHL among GBH-exposed workers is very likely underestimated, with recent studies indicating that subtype (DLBCL) specific associations may be stronger than the heterogeneous class of disease (NHL) as a whole..
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of NHL (but this isn't clear in Bon courage's edit and it reads as if it is a different kind of cancer). For this subtype Boffetta 2021 found: The meta-RR for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) was 1.29 (95% CI 1.02-1.63; 4 studies) suggesting a modest, potentially significant increased risk but noted that the result for DLBCL deserves attention, despite the fact that it would not reach the canonical level of statistical significance once the p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. I think Bon Courage was right in including the last sentence on DLBCL as the study concludes:
  • lack of an association between exposure to glyphosate and risk of NHL overall = no association if you look at overall NHL rates
  • although an association with DLBCL cannot be ruled out. = but there might be a potential association if just the DLBCL sub-type of NHL is considered.
We may need to express this point more precisely to correctly explain to readers what was found. How about adding something like: However, a modest association between glyphosate and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (a common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma) cannot be ruled out. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 21:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope.
You also cannot rule out that there is somewhere cheese on the moon. If there was an association regarding DLBCL (!) then the authors of that particular paper would have stated it. But they didn't, so there is no association.
Besides of that the EFSA (also in newer publications) clearly state:
The available epidemiological studies currently do not provide sufficient indication that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer related health effect. ANY cancer related health effect, i.e. also DLBCL. The EFSA review is the highest level of publication we can use currently. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Julius Senegal's logic, but there might be an argument to say that we could just mirror what the source says, daft as it is. Overall, I don't feel strongly either way. Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, as pointed out: EFSA is newer and of higher quality (see also Peer Review Report on Glyphosate (AIR V) - Part 3 of 6 from July 2023). Unconstructive FRINs (cannot be ruled out) do not help and this single statement of a single paper contradicts WP:WEIGHT. --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with @Bon courage we should stick to what the sources say as closely as possible. And I agree with @Julius Senegal that EFSA is of higher level per WP:MEDASSESS. I would add the sentence I proposed as well as a the sentence that Julius is quoting just after it with a direct citation to the EFSA. They are compatible statements: we currently don't have "sufficient indication that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer related health effect" but we also cannot exclude an association with DLBCL at the moment as there is some evidence that there might be a modest association with high exposure. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 11:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something like: However, a modest association between glyphosate and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (a common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma) cannot be ruled out. According to the 2023 EFSA review of glyphosate, the available epidemiological studies currently do not provide sufficient indication that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer related health effect ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no association, why do you stick to that and especially claim sth about now "modest" (!) association?
You even agree on that EFSA is the best meta-meta-review ("highler level" than other meta reviews). So there is no need for using wiggling phrases like "cannot be ruled out". If the best source state there is no association, then adding such statesments is a clear violation of WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:WEIGHT. Since DLBCL is a from of NHL this is even contradictive. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn’t as simple as “no association” as we have been discussing. I’m trying to stick as closely as possible to the sources as also suggested by Bon Courage. “Modest” (as in “small”) is an addition by me for context but I agree we could get rid of it. The conclusions of those high quality reviews are not contradictory. What does @Bon courage think? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 19:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My view hasn't changed. Bon courage (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Addition by me" vs. "as closely as possible" - funny. What high quality reviews? You haven't shown why this one particular review with the weasel statement is of high-quality, or even of higher quality. In doubt EFSA >>> all other revies. --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Julius Senegal we have discussed the sources at length in this discussion. They are linked above (Boffetta 2021, Donato 2020, Rana 2020 etc.). I see you have edited Bon courage's edit [10] to remove the source discussed here (Boffetta 2021) and have instead included a new source [11] in addition to the EFSA. Is this new review better than what we had and if so why? I see it is more recent but I don't know the quality of the journal and if it should be given more weight. The current text also appears to me to be suffering from WP:SYNTH issues as it is mixing two sources together. Also by removing the source used by Bon courage the text does not follow the source closely at all anymore.
Also worth mentioning that the EFSA source (https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-01/glyphosate-peer-review-minutes-nov-dec-2022.pdf) states: The available epidemiological studies currently do not provide sufficient indication that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer- related health effect. Open point: RMS to consider in a revised RAR the study by De Roos et al. 2022 identified after the public consultation period (see experts’ consultation 2.37): Herbicide use in farming and other jobs in relation to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) risk. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 79(12), 795-806.
The 2022 study by De Roos et al https://oem.bmj.com/content/79/12/795# concludes that Most of the herbicides examined were not associated with NHL risk. However, associations of phenoxy herbicides and glyphosate with particular NHL subtypes underscore the importance of estimating subtype-specific risks.. So both the EFSA and this additional study seem to mention the fact that certain NHL subtypes have shown an association although the evidence is insufficient.
I would go back to something closer to Bon Courage's edit [12] plus the EFSA:
Although some small studies have suggested an association between occupational exposure to glyphosate and non-hodgkin lymphoma, the association has not been demonstrated in more robust studies.[13] According to the 2023 EFSA review of glyphosate, available epidemiological studies currently do not provide sufficient indication that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer-related health effect.[14]
I think this is clear while not saying anything more than what the cited sources say. Also by separating and attributing clearly the statements it removes the WP:SYNTH issues. I have also made it clear that we are talking here about "occupational exposure" only and not risks to the general population. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 01:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The available epidemiological studies currently do not provide sufficient indication that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer- related health effect"
That is the take home here. Not your continuing attempt to make something out of nothing. Nangaf (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nangaf if you read more carefully what I wrote, you would see that it is exactly the text I am proposing to add to the article. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 10:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went ahead and added the full EFSA quote to the paragraph: [15] ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 11:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gtoffoletto: Three people have said they disagree with adding this, so why did you go ahead and add it? SmartSE (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smartse sorry for the lack of clarity (my fault I guess, but the fact that the text keeps changing doesn't help). All editors involved in this discussion agree on the quote from the EFSA I added (so I assumed simply adding it would not be a problem.) I'll try to clarify further my edit:
This is the text we currently have in 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. Sourced to this EFSA link https://open.efsa.europa.eu/study-inventory/EFSA-Q-2020-00140
Problems:
  • That text was written by Bon courage based on this study [16] (it is almost a direct quote) but that source was removed and changed
  • The EFSA never said anything about bias etc. at all so it is now completely unsupported/misattributed
  • The current link is a generic link to a file repository (almost 1GB in files) so it cannot be verified by readers
Proposed fix (changes highlighted)
Although some small studies have suggested an association between occupational exposure to 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.[17] According to the 2023 EFSA review of glyphosate, available epidemiological studies currently do not provide sufficient indication that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer-related health effect.[18]
  • It fixes the "mismatched source to text" problem
  • It specifies that the only link that was found was for occupational exposure (=very high exposure) and not the general population (this was an addition by me)
  • It uses a direct link to the source of the EFSA statement as provided by Julius Senegal in the previous edits
((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 19:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the most appropriate 2023 EFSA source link to use to source the quote is the following (from the final published report on the EFS journal): https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8164 ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 20:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the supporting material from EFSA - it is only 61 MB, not 1 GB, as it refers to the "Peer Review Report" (Part 3 of 6). But ofc we can go back to the 2022 EFSA report as direct link until EFSA makes it easier. --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can confirm that I clicked on the link and it takes you to a directory with almost 1GB in files. Unclear what you are referring to exactly. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 15:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the first zip file ("Peer Review Report", published date 25/08/2023, 61.5 MB), and therein part 3 of 6 (page 59-78). --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not very clear. It isn't easy to WP:VERIFY at all. Why not use the direct link I provided above that contains the quote in question directly and is the published final work? Also I would include the quote in the article directly instead of using the source to support unrelated text (see my proposal above). ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 20:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current version of the ref template should also redundantly spell that out for anyone, since it points out the main document titles, where to find it within the document, pages, and the quote now.
VERIFY specifically has a section on WP:SOURCEACCESS. It's similar to citing a book as a ref. You're not always going to have a link to a book's exact page, but there's enough information there for anyone to go and verify it. Though honestly in this case, it's less effort than having to go to a library and check out a physical book. KoA (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The citation currently reads: "Peer Review Report on Glyphosate (AIR V): Report of Pesticide Peer Review TC 80". EFSA. July 1, 2023. pp. 59–78. Retrieved November 16, 2023. The available epidemiological studies currently do not provide sufficient indication that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer-related health effect.
And links to https://open.efsa.europa.eu/study-inventory/EFSA-Q-2020-00140
What file am I supposed to be looking at? Am I supposed to download everything and look for it? This is not clear and the citation fails verification in my view.
This direct link to the final EFSA paper published on 26 July 2023 and contains the quote "The currently available human epidemiological studies do not provide conclusive evidence that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer-related health effect." ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In multiple previous discussions, there were issues with the last link you are giving (a summary of the summary) being taken out of context. Discussion was focused on using the full report instead to avoid that. context was mixed up with previous discussion as I see Nangaf ran into too The currently cited full report instead gives full context that addresses the editor concerns from previous discussions and isn't being cited only for the quote. As mentioned before, WP:VERIFY is clear about sources and not rejecting them when they are a slight inconvenience to access (again this one is much, much simpler than the library book example). What matters is that the report is cited with the correct name, etc., not that it has a direct link. Technically a link isn't even needed, but it is still being included.
Right now anyone should be able to follow the citation with only one link mentioning glyphosate peer-review and a relevant publication date. Once in that folder, a reader simply just needs to use the table of contents if they are uncertain of where to go. EFSA uses multiple subheaders, so mentioning part 3 of 6 can add even more redundancy to the citation. In terms of tweaks to the citation template for more redundancy, this is really all that was needed to address any lingering access questions. Bon courage, you made the initial edit, so what do you think of the tweak I just made in this context? KoA (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can find the document pointed-to (unfortunately there is no way using established Standards to specify a URL to a target within a ZIP, something I failed to get traction for in my professional life, but I digress). It does strike me as a slightly odd source to be citing, seemingly a procedural document from part of the process of achieving a final view. Do we need to see the sausage being made?
On the wider point, there is no need for a document to be easily linkable, or even linkable at all, so long as it is cited correctly.
Myself, I'd cite the final report using the conventional WP:MEDREF format, i.e.:
Bon courage (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops, I was re-reading the talk discussion and thought it was you who made the edit to include the report, but it was actually Julius Senegal who added this specific report to what you included. Julius could probably say more of what their intent was, but something like Pesticide Peer Review TC 80 is what was considered the first level secondary source in this. It came up in previous discussion, so I can see why Julius was looking at adding it.
That said, I'm good adding this ref to the current pool. I got wires crossed on which specific source was being discussed earlier since we had issues about that earlier, but this is the full publication. TC 80 is referenced in that and previous discussion, so it doesn't hurt to keep it, but unless Julius had something to add about that, I don't know if we need to dive into where that older discussion was going. KoA (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much better now. Agree with @Bon courage that the other source is strange and not very helpful at this point. It just makes things more messy and hard to verify/access. I would remove it.
I still see WP:SYNTH issues with the current text. The EFSA never talked about bias yet we source it to them.
Also, out of all the reviews we discussed (and we discussed many), the one we currently have in the article is the only one that was funded by Bayer US - Crop Sciences, Monsanto Company, Chesterfield, MO, USA and whose author John Acquavella worked for Monsanto from 1989 to 2004 and has consulted for them on glyphosate-related epidemiology issues, including litigation, since January 2015. Not very WP:INDEPENDENT... We have other high quality sources that can support those statements so I would definitely avoid this one. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 19:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wish that would have been brought up a month ago on Acquavella. When I looked at it I was only looking at authorship and the text. If it was a university professor who wrote it, it would have been a better situation because universities have conflict of interest checks built in for that kind of funding, but consultants really do not. That just means though that we'd go back to the previous source being used by Bon Courage, Boffetta et al. that everyone at least appeared to not have issue with (aside from Julius replacing it with the more recent source).
All that said, the EFSA sources, especially the harder to link ones to deal with the subject discussing bias and issues in methodology, so this doesn't really change the content at all. Part 3 even discusses DLBCL mentioned in Boffetta, only Leon et al. finding a positive association, but still saying Overall, the EFSA WG on glyphosate concluded that the strength of the evidence assessed does not support an association between human exposure to glyphosate and cancer at any site. It looks like EFSA addressed many of the literature reviews coming up here in some fashion, so if lesser evidence is contradicting EFSA, it's probably best to leave it out. KoA (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I looked at it I was only looking at authorship and the text. what do you mean you were only looking at "authorship"? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thought was to use the EFSA source as this is currently the highest quality. --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And it's good to have a higher quality source, but the Acquavella source looks good too (and is more accessible), so that one should remain at least regardless of EFSA. Is there specific text from the EFSA source that mirrors what we've paraphrased from the Acquavella source though on bias and more robust studies? I think the main thing at this point is just being clear on what exactly is being sourced from EFSA given the amount of text in it, but otherwise I think the rest of the content is fine as-is. KoA (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went and dug a bit, and I think I found what you were referring to tweak the ref template, though let me know if I was off with that. That should be enough info now for the citation since you gave page number, etc. earlier, and the title of the specific report where page numbers restart is now mentioned too. I added Acquavella back though while doing that since it seems complimentary from what I can see. The quote at least gets to the point now that there's no association and avoids the issues with other inclusions discussed extensively above. KoA (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Above, Rana et al. (2020) is discussed. I've just noticed that there is a new systematic review by Rana and co-workers (doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139572). Could it be useful? --Leyo 00:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be:
  • Rana I, Nguyen PK, Rigutto G, Louie A, Lee J, Smith MT, Zhang L (October 2023). "Mapping the key characteristics of carcinogens for glyphosate and its formulations: A systematic review". Chemosphere (Systematic review). 339: 139572. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139572. PMID 37474029.
Which is a strong source (particularly if one disregards author COIs, as one should). However the conclusion is a bit 'meh'. It might be used to state that the authors found reasons to suspect that glyphosate has characteristics which suggest it will prove to be carcinogenic to humans. Bon courage (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LZ and MTS are retained as experts on behalf of plaintiffs in litigation pertaining to the development of cancer following glyphosate exposure. Being hired to be involved in that litigation would be an issue in terms of COI. If the tables were flipped with a review from scientists retained by Bayer, I'd expect similar issues too. Like the Acquavella source, it's probably best to avoid it due to all those hurdles and stick to sources not associated with the litigation.
Setting COI aside though, we have other arguably stronger sources like EFSA that say does not support an association between human exposure to glyphosate and cancer at any site, so it becomes a WP:DUE issue with a single review like this too. At the least, we wouldn't be in a great position to cite Rana as-is. KoA (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the conclusions of Bon courage and KoA. I just stumbled across it and wanted to bring it up for discussion (as Rana et al. 2020 was mentioned above). Interestingly, no such COI is declared in Rana et al. (2020), at least according to my incomplete "snippet view". They may have become involved in that litigation after 2020. --Leyo 00:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dalton R (March 2007). "Passive-smoking study faces review". Nature. 446 (7133): 242. Bibcode:2007Natur.446..242D. doi:10.1038/446242a. PMID 17361147. S2CID 27691890.
  2. ^ Kessler 2006, pp. 1380–3
  3. ^ "Critical Appraisal of the Enstrom/Kabat paper on secondhand smoke and British Medical Journal's role in publishing the paper". Archived from the original on 2003-10-03.
  4. ^ "American Cancer Society Condemns Tobacco Industry Study for Inaccurate Use of Data" (PDF) (Press release). American Cancer Society. 2003-05-13. Retrieved 2007-08-29.
  5. ^ Thun, Michael J (4 October 2003). "More misleading science from the tobacco industry". BMJ. 327 (7418): E237–E238. doi:10.1136/bmjusa.03070002. S2CID 74351979.

Lede: update needed?[edit]

I noticed that the 2015 EFSA assessment is cited in the lede. Should this be updated to the EFSA's 2023 assessment? --Leyo 13:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC) PS. Also the EFSA-specific information in Glyphosate#Europe seems to be partially outdated.Reply[reply]

True, also ECHA is outdated (confirmed 2022, that there is no change proposed to hazard classification). --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, thanks. Does anyone volunteer to draft a revised lede? --Leyo 10:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely agree it needs updating. EFSA is the best source we have on this. I tried updating the lede two months ago but the environment was quite toxic so this will be a hard pass for me. Good luck to some brave editor out there. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 11:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lede: summarise lawsuits section[edit]

I introduced into the Lead a summary of the Lawsuits section of the article per WP:LEAD. @Bon courage I was editing the text you reverted as I agree it was too detailed before. Hope you agree it is better now. If not let me know and I will self-revert so that we can figure it out. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, this is still undue, it no longer summarises the body and the delta between the Reuters source and Wikipedia's summary of it, is remarkable. One would have thought WP:BRD would be a better way to proceed in this case. Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've self-reverted while we discuss this.
The proposed text says:
Glyphosate-based products, particularly Monsanto's Roundup, have been the focus of substantial legal challenges. Approximately 165,000 claims have been filed, primarily accusing Roundup of causing cancer. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has settled many claims, paying billions in damages, but more than 50,000 cases are still pending as of 2023.
This is clearly factual and supported by Reuters and New York Times sources [19][20].
I think it is a good summary of the body (at the moment we don't even mention Bayer in the lead and don't make any mention of the substantial lawsuits involved). We obviously can't mention every single lawsuit here and this provides a good overview of the overall numbers involved. If you could specifically point out the issues you see we can fix them. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, are we talking about the same Reuters article? The one I'm seeing is entitled "Bayer wins latest Roundup cancer trial, ending losing streak" and that headline captures the gist of the article fairly well. Bon courage (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you should read the article first rather than just the title.
Most of the sentences in the proposed edit come directly from the Reuters article.
If you only intend to read the title maybe you would prefer this source from a few weeks ago that contains the same overall facts (165.000 claims total, 50.000 claims pending, tens of billions of dollars in damages paid so far): Bayer ordered to pay $1.56 billion in latest US trial loss over Roundup weedkiller November 20, 2023 [21]
I just used the latest Reuters article as a source but they are all the same obviously. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you should read the article first rather than just the title ← more bad faith falsity I see. I think since this appears to be trolling I shall WP:DENY. Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry you feel insulted by that question. I am simply pointing out that the title has absolutely nothing to do with the information in that edit. It is irrelevant. The relevant information is clearly quoted from the body of the articles cited:
  • Around 165,000 claims have been made against the company for personal injuries allegedly caused by Roundup, which Bayer acquired as part of its $63 billion purchase of U.S. agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018.
  • In 2020, Bayer settled most of the then-pending Roundup cases for up to $9.6 billion but failed to get a settlement covering future cases. More than 50,000 claims remain pending.
  • Like most plaintiffs in Roundup lawsuits, Jones alleged that the product caused him to develop a form of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
this comes from Reuters here or
  • Around 165,000 claims have been made against the company for personal injuries allegedly caused by Roundup, which Bayer acquired as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. In 2020, Bayer settled most of the then-pending Roundup cases for up to $10.9 billion. Around 50,000 claims remain pending, according to regulatory filings.
from Reuters here. (The NYT source is also helpful I think.)
I hope it is more clear now. I think this is a good summary of the lawsuit section as we clearly cannot detail all 165k cases specifically as they are mostly all the same and those numbers offer a pretty good and factual overview in my opinion. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 15:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mentioning what "Jones alleged" without mentioning that, you know, he actually lost the case (like in most similar cases), would seem ... ? Bon courage (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what you are arguing for here. I didn't mention Jones at all in any edit ever. It is 1 case out of 165.000. Beyer settled or lost tens of thousands of similar cases totalling over 10Billion dollars in damages. You don't think that's relevant? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 15:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow the source, which is mainly about how Bayer is reversing a temporary run of losses:

Before its recent string of losses, which produced verdicts against the company totaling more than $2 billion, Bayer had won nine consecutive trials, meaning it has now won 10 of the last 15 trials. Further cases are expected to be tried in the coming year.

Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, I don't like seeing either of you arguing over whether or not someone read more than the headline of a source. It's not unreasonable to argue that a headline contradicts how the source was summarized in an edit. The correct response to such an argument is not to ask whether the editor read the source, but to say something like although the headline says xxx, the main text of the source says yyy. Once one has been asked whether one read the source, the correct response is yes, and this is what I understand it to mean, and to leave it at that, without arguing that one has been insulted.
On the general issue of how much to say about the lawsuits in the lead, I think it's important to note that we have multiple pages in the topic area, and this one is primarily about the chemical compound and its uses and properties. We do indeed cover legal aspects on the page as well, so I'm receptive to adding something about it to the lead, but I would argue that it should be based on sources that are also cited in the main text. I would also want us to focus on what is already settled under the law, and not focus on allegations made in cases that have yet to reach a verdict. However, legal aspects should not be the most prominent things here, by far. They are more relevant to our pages on the brand products, and our pages on the company. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True.
Having that in the lede would make more sense in Monsanto or Bayer, respectively.
This is so useful here as having listed the stock value of Bayer.
Besides, lawsuits don't say anything about efficacy or tolerability of the substance. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All this blow-by-blow legal stuff based largely on WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources seems both tedious and undue to me, while telling us nothing about glyphosate. A sever haircut would improve matters I think. Bon courage (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I modified similar content at Roundup (herbicide), where I think there is a better case for some coverage, because it's a brand: [22]. It would be good to have some more eyes checking that. (Is even that too much? Or not enough?) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Tryptofish. This is not the "primary" page on this topic, however, it substantially covers the legal aspects of Glyphosate (as it should) and per WP:LEAD we should summarise it in the lead. I think I have provided a fair and accurate summary with my edit but I am open to suggestions if anyone has any (can it be shortened even more without losing important aspects? We can maybe avoid mentioning the 50.000 pending cases). ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 13:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the whole section should be removed. It's built from primary sources, but articles should be based on secondary sources. Surely some secondary source(s) offer some analysis of the legal lanscape on this? Bon courage (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bon courage Absolutely not. And I think you are gravely misunderstanding what WP:PRIMARY means as none (I've checked them all) of those sources used in that section are primary. I think we should slow down a bit here as there seem to be significant misunderstandings.
Also: you just reverted an edit by me to restore some text you introduced in the last few days. Since we are in 1RR I'll ask you to remove that additional text while we discuss it as I am disputing it entirely (see my edit summary which I think is pretty clear) and I don't see consensus here for its inclusion (see WP:ONUS). ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's fine, and it's not just my text. I am aware of 1RR. Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I disagree. And the WP:ONUS is on you to keep that text. It violates WP:DUE in a pretty spectacular way by focusing on one positive verdict out of hundreds of thousands. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 23:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section should be removed. The lawsuits are regarding the brand, Roundup, and specific companies that make the formulation. This article is about a specific chemical, not the brand. It's very much a WP:DUE violation. SilverserenC 21:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable sources do not agree. Here is a source we can use on the matter that covers the entire legal history of glyphosate based herbicides (GBH): The “Roundup” Controversy: Glyphosate Litigation, Non- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, And Lessons For Toxics Regulation Going Forward [26] by "Professor Watnick, Professor and Chair of the Department of Law at the Zicklin School, is an expert on the regulation of toxic substances to protect human health"[27]. The litigation was entirely centered around the specific ingredient Glyphosate in RoundUp and not covering this would be entirely WP:UNDUE ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 22:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been thinking this over, and here is what I'm starting to think. Short version: what Silverseren said.
Longer version: Looking at what's on the page now, the Legal cases section has three subsections: Lawsuits claiming liability for cancer, Advertising controversies, and Trade dumping allegations. Starting with the third one, it's a single sentence about glyphosate manufactured by Chinese companies (and thus not by Monsanto/Bayer!) being dumped in US markets. So that's potentially relevant for this page, because it's not about the brand. But it's about a dispute filed in 2010. It seriously needs to be updated, or else removed if nothing significant came out of it. But looking through the first two subsections, everything is about Roundup as manufactured by Monsanto/Bayer. Everything, 100%. So it's all about legal cases concerning a brand of glyphosate, coming from a single company. It's really not about glyphosate as a generic compound.
It should be removed, fully. And covered at pages about the brand-name product, the companies, and the legal cases. Especially with that standalone page about the legal cases, it's WP:UNDUE here. I'm fine with keeping the sections about legal status and about the science on health effects. And of course, if we don't have a section, then we don't summarize it in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Monsanto held the patent for Glyphosate from 1974 to the 2000s. They had a monopoly on its production and use and still produce (Bayer) the largest share of the market. Of course this section mostly talks about them. Why would you expect otherwise? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 00:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't expect otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So why do you say it's all about legal cases concerning a brand of glyphosate, coming from a single company. It's really not about glyphosate as a generic compound.
Glyphosate was invented and only produced by a single company so of course legal action only refers to that company and not others. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 00:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because this page is about the generic compound, and we have elected to have other pages about the Roundup brand, as well as about the two companies that merged. The legal cases (other than the one about Chinese dumping) are all about legal claims made about the branded product, and with the company as the defendant.
By my count, it's me, Bon courage, Julius Senegal, KoA, and Silverseren, all taking this position, and only you objecting. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually only you and Silverseren have agreed on this position so far. The other users have made different objections. All positions have varying degrees of inconsistency and gaping logical holes IMHO.
Also remember that you are talking about removing long standing content that has been on this page for years. So strong consensus will be required to proceed. Let's see what others say or we'll run an RfC on this as far as I'm concerned. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 01:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What policy is it that says "content that has been on [a] page for years" needs "strong consensus" for removal? Policy, I think, rather says that pages should be boldly improved, and that the onus for gaining consensus for including (not excluding) disputed content rests with those who would include it. This is only a B-class article, not GA or FA and so serious work needs to be done if it is to improve. To be clear: cutting the entire legal section would improve this article in my view (though maybe some "See also" links could be added). Bon courage (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:CONLEVEL. This content has been edited by hunderds(?) of editors and has been in the article since at least 2009. We won't touch it without an RfC. if you would like to remove it please propose an RfC text and we can see where that goes. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CONLEVEL doesn't say anything about content having some kind of 'tenure'. Anyway, consensus here seems clear that this needs removing, so I have done so. The article thus improves. You may of course try to satisfy the WP:ONUS to include this material if you wish to change this consensus, but since it is off-topic I think that's unlikely. Bon courage (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bon courage I have reverted to the last stable version. I think that deletion of longstanding content while discussion is ongoing is not WP:CAREFUL enough. That content has been there for decades. There is no rush to throw it all away and at least two editors do not agree that the section should be entirely removed as you did. I am particularly opposed and I don't believe you have sufficient consensus for such a drastic change. I would suggest once again an RfC to make such a drastic change. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 16:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am fine with the state of the article just before your revert, as the material seems defensible as due and on-topic. Consensus here is determined. There is no need for a RfC and WP:BOLD is the relevant guidance. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's an accurate summary of what others have said Tryptofish. I was looking more at leaving things as-is rather than repeat the type of expansions going on in my previous comment, but still was mentioning the need for pruning. As I look over comments here and the content though, outright removal does look like the best option.
On a side note about glyphosate producers, Monsanto's patent on it expired in 2000 in the US, over 23 years ago, but in 1991 internationally. Our article here covers it a bit already, but even 10 years ago, Chinese companies were the largest producers, not Bayer/Monsanto. It's been in generic status for decades, so your distinctions are important about brand vs. active ingredient. If this were the 90s, that may be a different story. I agree this really isn't the page for most of the content in the mid-2020s. KoA (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Monsanto/Bayer was (and still is?) the dominant producer and the dominant distributor of Glyphosate in the US where all of the court cases have been. This is a US only topic: the 165.000 claims against Glyphosate/RoundUP are only in the US. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roundup/Monsanto/Bayer-specific lawsuits could be condensed down to a sentence or two as this area is covered in the other articles. The Quaker Oats residue settlement does not specifically involve Roundup or Monsanto, nor does the Chinese trade dumping. Both of these should be covered here.Dialectric (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About covering those two, my memory was jogged by the RM below, but we already have a separate page on Glyphosate-based herbicides, so that's where those two would fit best. Consequently, I think there is an emerging consensus not to cover any of the lawsuits here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tryptofish: : I have restored the reflink for one of the Chinese dumping refs; it focuses on (pure) glyphosate as a traded commodity. The sales discussed in that article are of the chemical, not a glyphosate-based herbicide. Significant coverage of pure glyphosate trade is relevant to this article. The residue issue is also relevant here; testing showed trace amounts of glyphosate, again as an isolated chemical, not presence of glyphosate-based herbicide or surfactants.Dialectric (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for those edits, and I now agree with you that the trade dumping content is about glyphosate itself, and should indeed stay on this page. Thanks for correcting me on that. Looking at the oats residue issue, although I agree that the residue itself was glyphosate, it seems to me that the residue would have gotten there by way of herbicide use – maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see any alternative possibility. You point out that the tests were for glyphosate and found glyphosate, but is there sourcing to indicate that they also tested for surfactants or other ingredients, and did not find them? Or is it just that glyphosate was what was tested for? Absent sourcing that it was residues of glyphosate coming from some source other than herbicides, I'd prefer to put it in the glyphosate-based herbicides page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't get the point, the proposal was refuted several times due to several reasons. The Bayer-specific lawsuits would have their place at Bayer etc., but not to a single chemical substance. It is also a misinformation as neither the safety and efficacy of this chemical substance is defined by lawsuits. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am fine with providing only a summary of the legal cases involving Glyphosate and linking to the main articles or even better transcluding the lead from those sub articles so that maintaining them would be easier (if we have such good sub articles, which I doubt). But removing the sections entirely would be entirely inappropriate and violate WP:DUE significantly. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 13:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's been more discussion in the past 24 hours, and I'm only seeing one editor wanting to cover the lawsuits here, beyond maybe just a sentence or two, as opposed to Glyphosate-based herbicides or Roundup (herbicide). Look, there has been a wall of discussion over these things over the years, and the only significant changes in recent years have been over legal cases and over the science regarding non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Neither of those developments have much bearing on how we decide which topics should be standalone pages. It completely misses the point to want to repeat the same things on every one of those pages. I cannot imagine that we will ever have a consensus to merge this page with the other two, so this page should cover content that is specific to glyphosate, not glyphosate-based herbicides, or Roundup. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So now what? The application of WP:PAGs to this question is fairly straightforwrd, we have resolved the matter through local discussion and per WP:RFCBEFORE it would be bad to burden the community with a redundant RfC. Bon courage (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm in no hurry. We can leave things like this for a few more days, and see what happens. And also see what becomes of the RM below. I hope that we don't have to have an RfC, and I would regard a malformed or misleading RfC like this one as disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The version Bon Courage provided looks like it addressed the substance of this conversation just fine, including the general glyphosate content that would remain here included by other editors. If someone wants legal stuff related to formulations, the links are right at the top of the section. At least as someone who was initially just looking at keeping the original version, that diff is definitely an improvement in addition to reflecting the overall conversation here. Like you said, no rush either, but I agree we shouldn't need have to have an RfC on something with this level of agreement. We'll see what others say.
In the meantime, I am concerned how tags, etc. like these[28][29][30][31] were removed without explanation in the blanket revert.[32] KoA (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glyphosate has been at the center of litigation that led to the largest settlement in pharmaceutical history [33] and the worst merger in corporate history [34]. Any proposal that does not include those facts in the article would be egregiously WP:UNDUE. We've had those sections in the article for decades for a reason. As others and I have said: we can revise those paragraphs and provide a more succinct summary. But those facts will have to be mentioned and appropriate linking to the sub articles must be provided. I would regard WP:RECKLESS attempts (such as this one) at further editing those sections without strong consensus as disruptive. I would also remind everyone that WP:NOTVOTE applies. If we want to make large changes to this topic a well formed RfC is the way to go. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 10:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of that addresses the valid concern raised by KoA, that perfectly legitimate edits were reverted along with the rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first link is all about "Roundup lawsuits", not "Glyphosate lawsuits". We have consensus on what to do with this section (i.e heavy trim) and as others have observed, the weighty process of a RfC would be a waste of editor time. You have offered no policy-based rationale to retain the text, instead invoking arguments like that it is long-standing, which have no basis in the WP:PAGs. The article needs to improve. Bon courage (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do have consensus for a heavy trim of the legal section. The previous wording had presumed consensus, as discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, but presumed consensus is significantly weaker than discussion-based consensus. What about something like Since 2018, in a number of court cases in the United States, plaintiffs have argued that their cancer was caused by exposure to glyphosate in glyphosate-based herbicides produced by Monsanto/Bayer. Defendant Bayer has paid out over $9.6 billion in judgements and settlements in these cases. Bayer has also won at least 10 cases, successfully arguing that their glyphosate-based herbicides were not responsible for the plaintiff's cancer.Dialectric (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's a good starting point to work from. I think that the way you use the verb "to argue" for both the plaintiffs and the company works well as a way to keep it NPOV. I'm not sure whether you mean that to be in the lead, or in a section about Legal cases. I probably would not want it in the lead, because we are likely to do a major pruning of the main text. But I could see using that in place of the lengthier content we have now, in the Legal cases section, along with whatever else we decide to keep, such as the trade dumping dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My intent was to have this replace the bulk of the legal cases section.Dialectric (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would work well. Bon courage (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now  Done. Thanks all. Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those edits look good to me. Thanks for doing that. KoA (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edit can be a starting point but has some problems:
  1. Bayer has paid out over $9.6 billion in judgements and settlements this is incorrect/imprecise by a wide margin. Bayer has paid much more than that. In the past two months, in four separate cases, juries have awarded more than $2 billion in damages to a handful of roughly 50,000 claims that weren’t covered by the 2020 settlement. The $10 billion agreement is one of the largest in history. [35] 9.6B$ is how much Bayer has paid in one single settlement in 2020. In the last few months alone they paid 2B$ more (See also [36])
  2. Bayer has also won at least 10 cases, successfully arguing that their glyphosate-based herbicides were not responsible for the plaintiff's cancer this is WP:UNDUE weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. We are focusing on 10 positive cases out of almost 200.000. Bayer has settled/lost most of them with the largest monetary damages in Pharma history. This paints a rosy picture where there clearly isn't one. In over 100.000 cases Monstanto/Bayer has chosen to settle the matter out of court or has failed to prove in court that glyphosate does not cause cancer being forced to pay billions because of this.
We should report the total number of cases, the total number of outstanding cases and the fact that it was the largest Pharma settlement in history and has lead to what has been dubbed the "worst merger" in corporate history. See this NY Times in depth article
Also, has the removed content been moved to other pages? Or was it just deleted? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 09:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NYT article discusses damages which have been awarded not paid and notes "final awards in previous cases were significantly smaller" so your claim that $9.6 billion is incorrect is unsubstantiated. Further the article subject is Bayer and Roundup, not glyphosate, so I have doubts about whether it is appropriate to include in this article. SmartSE (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
largest Pharma settlement and "worst merger in corporate history" would be covered in the Bayer article if anywhere. If there is a RS source that states a total greater than $9.6 billion, that should be added to the article.Dialectric (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Around 165,000 claims have been made against the company for personal injuries allegedly caused by Roundup, which Bayer acquired as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. In 2020, Bayer settled most of the then-pending Roundup cases for up to $10.9 billion. Around 50,000 claims remain pending, according to regulatory filings. Reuters
  • In the past two months, in four separate cases, juries have awarded more than $2 billion in damages to a handful of roughly 50,000 claims that weren’t covered by the 2020 settlement. The $10 billion agreement is one of the largest in history . Bayer has set aside an additional $6 billion, which the company has said is enough to cover pending lawsuits as well as potential future ones. But analysts and investors worry Bayer could be on the hook for billions more, threatening the 160-year-old company’s future. New York Times
  • Bayer is currently facing about 50,000 Roundup lawsuits, even after agreeing in 2020 to pay nearly $10 billion to settle nearly 125,000 then-existing claims. Legal Examiner
Those paragraphs are pretty accurate summaries of the situation and I would base our text on those sources (of course I encourage everyone to read the entire articles). It is correct to say Bayer paid around 10B$ for the single 2020 settlement but it is incorrect to report it as a total amount as they have lost several cases totalling much more in damages than the single settlement (according to the NYT around 2B$ more in the last few months alone) and there are around 50.000 cases still pending.
I agree the merger should be covered in detail in the specific pages. However, Glyphosate is at the center of the Monsanto/Bayer merger and we should mention it to allow readers to have that context and evaluate if they wish to proceed to the Bayer/Monsanto articles per MOS:UL. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 10:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As this is Roundup-specifc and off-topic, I don't think we want anything more than what was agreed above, especially if it starts mixing up jury awards and settlement sums without explanation. Reverted to good. Bon courage (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As usual my edit [37] was entirely reverted with a short and dismissive edit summary [38] by @Bon courage. Even reintroducing obvious and egregious errors like the fact that the first lawsuit was in 2018 (it was actually in 2015). We currently have several clear factual errors in our text. Taking the time to better understand edits and to WP:ONLYREVERT when necessary would lead to a better article and better collaboration. This article is currently uneditable. I believe WP:STONEWALL applies at this point. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a short and dismissive edit summary ← did you not see the fuller explanation posted to the talk page (just above)? I commend it to you. (BTW, I notice STONEWALLing is defined on Wikipedia as "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." You either need to strike that (in my view backwards) accusation or raise it at an appropriate Wikipedia venue (ANI, AE ... ) with supporting evidence.) Bon courage (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was quite proper to restore the consensus language, as BC did. That language has consensus on this talk page, and the now-reverted change went against consensus. (Consensus is not the same as unanimity.) If Gtoffoletto experiences that as being "as usual", then you need to realize that you are making a practice of editing against consensus. That makes life difficult for other editors, regardless of whether there is technically no violation of 1RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can "consensus" change reality? For example: as I clearly pointed out in my edit, that was entirely reverted by BC with the support of Trypto, the first lawsuits were in 2015 and not in 2018.[39] Why was that obvious mistake reintroduced? Having to discuss any minor and obvious change to the article in this way is what I believe defines WP:STONEWALLING. Especially when edits are clearly factual, quite minor/uncontroversial, and well explained and sourced.
With regard to the rest of the edit: I believe it is obvious that focusing on 10 successful cases for Monsanto/Bayer out of circa 160.000+ that they settled/lost with the largest damages in corporate history is WP:UNDUE. But I might be wrong of course. We can proceed with an RfC and see which versions is preferred by the community at large. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

break

Does the "Advertising controversies" need to be dropped? Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was trying to figure that out too. The first two paragraphs are on Roundup, so those would be best elsewhere if at all.
The last paragraph on oatmeal is not on Roundup at least, thought that lawsuit was filed by The Organic Consumers Association, Moms Across America and Beyond Pesticides. Moms Across America was known for pushing a lot of fringe stuff on this topic awhile back, so at the least that section probably needs a closer look for what is WP:DUE on that subject. Key thing from one of the sources According to the complaint, tests from an independent laboratory found the amount of glyphosate in Nature Valley products was 0.45 parts per million. EPA standards allow for 30 parts per million in grains. KoA (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I deleted most of it, except for that last paragraph. As Dialectric and I discussed above the break, the oatmeal paragraph is not about branded Roundup, so I left that. There is an issue still remaining about whether or not to move it to Glyphosate-based herbicides. As I said above, I don't think it should remain here, as something about glyphosate itself, unless the sources tell us that they tested not only for glyphosate, but also for surfactants and other ingredients, and found that the other ingredients were not present, indicating that the glyphosate detected did not come from an herbicide. In my opinion, it's incredibly unlikely that this would have happened, because the glyphosate almost certainly did come from herbicide use. Therefore, it really belongs on the generic herbicides page, but not at the Roundup page, and not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every section of this article except for the 'Chemistry' section includes statements that are specific to herbicide applications. Given that glyphosate's use in herbicides is the only economically significant use of the chemical, this is not surprising. The question is: to what degree should any content here overlap with glyphosate-based herbicides? Dialectric (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the next section with my merger proposal: Glyphosate-based herbicides overlaps completely with this page expect for 1 small section basically (Glyphosate-based herbicides#Inert ingredients). They both talk about glyphosate and it's use as an herbicide (that's what it is used for mostly). I don't see the point in maintaining two identical pages. Especially given how hard and contentious it is to edit this subject area. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 17:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Glyphosate-based herbicides[edit]

I propose merging Glyphosate-based herbicides into Glyphosate. The two pages have a total overlap and maintaining both is extremely challenging. Glyphosate Herbicides are the main use of Glyphosate so a sub-section there would suffice plus merging most of the rest. We also have Roundup (herbicide) that can accomodate some specific content on that specific product (although it should probably be merged as well as Roundup=Main Glyphosate-based herbicide=Glyphosate in a bottle). ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Merge – see reasoning above ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Would make more sense to merge Roundup with Glyphosate-based herbicides. Glyphosate per se is just a chemical, and the article shouldn't be contaminated with all the branded herbicide noise. Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Glyphosate is a chemical that was invented by a company for specific use as an herbicide. It is not a "just a chemical". This article can't avoid covering that fact. We have some pages that drill down into the details of what I assume you are referring to as "noise" such as Monsanto legal cases and Roundup (herbicide) that should be linked from this article. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 17:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Bon Courage that if a merge was going to happen, this article should remain as-is and to instead merge Roundup (herbicide) → Glyphosate-based herbicides. Roundup is just one of many brands now with all the generics out there and being off-patent for around 30 years, and the owners of that brand aren't even the dominant producers of glyphosate anymore. Ironically, the more generalized title Glyphosate-based herbicides that is being proposed to be merged here would have more staying power and feasibility to navigate what was discussed at the RfC than Roundup (herbicide). KoA (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neuro toxcity[edit]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/


Abstract

Glyphosate, a non-selective systemic biocide with broad-spectrum activity, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It can persist in the environment for days or months, and its intensive and large-scale use can constitute a major environmental and health problem. In this systematic review, we investigate the current state of our knowledge related to the effects of this pesticide on the nervous system of various animal species and humans. The information provided indicates that exposure to glyphosate or its commercial formulations induces several neurotoxic effects. It has been shown that exposure to this pesticide during the early stages of life can seriously affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, and myelination. Glyphosate also seems to exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission and to induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death due to autophagy, necrosis, or apoptosis, as well as the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders. The doses of glyphosate that produce these neurotoxic effects vary widely but are lower than the limits set by regulatory agencies. Although there are important discrepancies between the analyzed findings, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate produces important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrates. 172.58.56.248 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MDPI predatory pay to publish journal. The International Journal of Molecular Science is an especially bad one, it seems. Since 2023, the journal has published over 11,000 papers. With 2023 alone having 24 issues of the journal with hundreds of papers in each issue. Add to that that the authors of this paper seem to almost exclusively publish papers on glyphosate and neonicotinoids and that they use multiple studies from discredited scientist Gilles-Éric Séralini and this isn't looking like much of an actual credible systematic review. SilverserenC 01:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1
Besides, EFSA > other older metareviews.
Acc. to EFSA (Part 3, p 188): No issues, even the NOAEL are high: "The NOAEL for systemic toxicity is 395 mg/kg bw per day in males, based on reduced BWG and food consumption in the 90-day neurotoxicity study in rat (Report No. 2060-0010); in the absence of neurotoxicity findings, the NOAEL for sub-chronic neurotoxicity is confirmed to be ≥ 1499 mg/kg bw per day in males. This is in line with the conclusion reached in Report No. (additional 90-day neurotoxicity study in rats)." --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories