I read through the WHO's report that the IARC cite for evidence for cancer in animals. All the 'types' of cancer that Roundup can cause, according to IARC, were not statistically significant in the primary literature. It is a bit odd that the IARC report used these data as evidence to me. I haven't gotten the section on carcinogen properties in humans yet but I'm aware that the non-hogkins lymphoma link has been studied more in detail and shown not to be present but this report was not considered.
JimTheEvo Thanks - the IARC process is certainly not above criticism, in part because the assessment is ultimately the professional opinion of the experts at the table (and as there are no definitive answers, it will depend on their reading of the data), and in part because only publicly domain studies/data are considered. In this case, my understanding is that confidential data exist that may have influenced the conclusions if folded into the analysis, although without them being public, this would also open up IARC to the criticism that others couldn't validate their conclusions. It's certainly a strong case for companies making confidential data public if they think it's relevant to evaluations like this. In the video, I was more interested in the process of coming up with the classifications, and their relevance, than critiquing the process itself - partly because, despite its limitations, the process does carry respect and influence. Here, one of the most important takeaways is that an IARC classification indicates at best the potential for something to cause cancer. Without information on exposure and dose-response, it cannot be used in isolation to provide insights into the probability of getting cancer - or of not getting cancer.
Risk Bites Before I start just should say, I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just interested in this topic! "In this case, my understanding is that confidential data exist that may have influenced the conclusions if folded into the analysis, although without them being public, this would also open up IARC to the criticism that others couldn't validate their conclusions." This is quite concerning! Have you got any links, I had a search for this but came up dry. All I could find was the lancet paper and the limited citation in there. I was under the impression that they could only consider limited publications. For examples those done independently of industry etc. " Here, one of the most important takeaways is that an IARC classification indicates at best the potential for something to cause cancer." This is where I disagree with you potentially. I fully get that your video was about what goes into to making these classifications but I'd argue that the evidence they cited in their report does not merit any respect in terms of science. All the references I could track down, that were cited in the report, said exclusively that roundup does not increase the risk of cancer in animals. There were no significant findings to show otherwise. I'm not sure if I was clear about this in my first post. The lancet paper makes reference to a earlier WHO report about the chemicals (the IARC reports doesn't have any refs but is near enough a carbon copy of the lancet paper). In that report the primary literature is cited and reviewed. Different types of cancer are discussed but in ever case I read, the report states that there was no significant increase in the control group to the treatment group for cancer. The IARC seem to have gone through this report and said this suggest a potential for cancer. Ignoring the fact that none of them (that I could find) were statistically significant. To me this is as 'good' science as the classic terrible science of Wakefield re MMR. The IARC shouldn't publish their finding under the scientific banner (i.e. Lancet) if they grossly ignore the finding of the primary literature they cite.
JimTheEvo Sorry for the slow response. On the confidential data, my bad for not being clearer - IARC only used public accessible data on this assessment (as they always do), which means that they will not have taken any proprietary studies into account. I gather that there are confidential data in industry studies that could have supported a downgraded characterization, but that weren't included in the analysis. Regarding the validity of the conclusions, at this point it's hard to assess this until the full monograph comes out - we'll have a better sense then of how existing studies were evaluated and weighed.
+JimTheEvo The 1991 EPA memo that refers to the unpublished Monsanto study shows statistically significant tumor development in a study of 180 rats. That's primary literature even though it's not published... so there is evidence right there. It cannot be denied. Pancreatic tumors develop on glyphosate ingestion in lab animals.
Perspective, data, probability: Here are two links: one from the April 2015 New Yorker Magazine: www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roundup-and-risk-assessment And another excerpts a Book,"Spurious Correlations" www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
I read through the WHO's report that the IARC cite for evidence for cancer in animals. All the 'types' of cancer that Roundup can cause, according to IARC, were not statistically significant in the primary literature. It is a bit odd that the IARC report used these data as evidence to me. I haven't gotten the section on carcinogen properties in humans yet but I'm aware that the non-hogkins lymphoma link has been studied more in detail and shown not to be present but this report was not considered.
JimTheEvo Thanks - the IARC process is certainly not above criticism, in part because the assessment is ultimately the professional opinion of the experts at the table (and as there are no definitive answers, it will depend on their reading of the data), and in part because only publicly domain studies/data are considered. In this case, my understanding is that confidential data exist that may have influenced the conclusions if folded into the analysis, although without them being public, this would also open up IARC to the criticism that others couldn't validate their conclusions. It's certainly a strong case for companies making confidential data public if they think it's relevant to evaluations like this.
In the video, I was more interested in the process of coming up with the classifications, and their relevance, than critiquing the process itself - partly because, despite its limitations, the process does carry respect and influence. Here, one of the most important takeaways is that an IARC classification indicates at best the potential for something to cause cancer. Without information on exposure and dose-response, it cannot be used in isolation to provide insights into the probability of getting cancer - or of not getting cancer.
Risk Bites
Before I start just should say, I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just interested in this topic!
"In this case, my understanding is that confidential data exist that may have influenced the conclusions if folded into the analysis, although without them being public, this would also open up IARC to the criticism that others couldn't validate their conclusions."
This is quite concerning! Have you got any links, I had a search for this but came up dry. All I could find was the lancet paper and the limited citation in there. I was under the impression that they could only consider limited publications. For examples those done independently of industry etc.
" Here, one of the most important takeaways is that an IARC classification indicates at best the potential for something to cause cancer."
This is where I disagree with you potentially. I fully get that your video was about what goes into to making these classifications but I'd argue that the evidence they cited in their report does not merit any respect in terms of science. All the references I could track down, that were cited in the report, said exclusively that roundup does not increase the risk of cancer in animals. There were no significant findings to show otherwise.
I'm not sure if I was clear about this in my first post. The lancet paper makes reference to a earlier WHO report about the chemicals (the IARC reports doesn't have any refs but is near enough a carbon copy of the lancet paper). In that report the primary literature is cited and reviewed. Different types of cancer are discussed but in ever case I read, the report states that there was no significant increase in the control group to the treatment group for cancer. The IARC seem to have gone through this report and said this suggest a potential for cancer. Ignoring the fact that none of them (that I could find) were statistically significant.
To me this is as 'good' science as the classic terrible science of Wakefield re MMR. The IARC shouldn't publish their finding under the scientific banner (i.e. Lancet) if they grossly ignore the finding of the primary literature they cite.
JimTheEvo Sorry for the slow response.
On the confidential data, my bad for not being clearer - IARC only used public accessible data on this assessment (as they always do), which means that they will not have taken any proprietary studies into account. I gather that there are confidential data in industry studies that could have supported a downgraded characterization, but that weren't included in the analysis.
Regarding the validity of the conclusions, at this point it's hard to assess this until the full monograph comes out - we'll have a better sense then of how existing studies were evaluated and weighed.
+JimTheEvo The 1991 EPA memo that refers to the unpublished Monsanto study shows statistically significant tumor development in a study of 180 rats. That's primary literature even though it's not published... so there is evidence right there. It cannot be denied. Pancreatic tumors develop on glyphosate ingestion in lab animals.
Can you be a little more specific as I can't see a study that used 180 rats. Do you mean the Stout study?
Thank you for explaining!!
Perspective, data, probability:
Here are two links: one from the April 2015 New Yorker Magazine:
www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roundup-and-risk-assessment
And another excerpts a Book,"Spurious Correlations" www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Distracting and pointless background music. I quit at 1:35
neatodd yeah - there are always the closed captions though ...
Double-speak runaround, passing the buck video -- apologist for the agrochemical industry -- just saying it like it is.