The great debate about Roundup causing cancer had a major shakeup in August 2018, when a court ruling went against Monsanto (parent company is Bayer) and awarded $289 million to Dewayne Johnson because Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The courts have reduced the settlement to $78 million and Monsanto is appealing that.
A few months later two more lawsuits reached the same conclusion.
For the general public this was proof positive that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup causes cancer.
But what are the facts?
Roundup and Glyphosate
Bayer, owner of Monsanto, has been releasing numerous products using the Roundup brand name. These do not all contain glyphosate, while others contain glyphosate and much more toxic herbicides. One type of Roundup now contains vinegar and no glyphosate. Gardeners need to clarify which product they are talking about when they use the word Roundup. This post is about the traditional product containing glyphosate.
Court vs Science
The original court case was juried. That means the result was an accumulation of the ideas and thoughts of the members of the jury. Most of these people have no training to evaluate scientific data or scientific reports.
Any conclusion they reached tells us nothing about the actual scientific facts.
What I found interesting is that many people on social media, did not understand this. Instead they considered a court case, lasting a few weeks, to be more compelling than 30 years of scientific scrutiny by thousands of scientists.
Proof Presented at Trial
What was presented at trial? Here is a glimpse of some of it.
“Johnson’s own doctors — including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma experts at Stanford University — agreed that the cause of the cancer was unknown.”
But the plaintiff’s expert, Chadi Nabhan, pointed to the fact that Johnson is considerably younger than typical patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The leap was then made; he must have gotten cancer by an unusual cause, like Roundup.
This is a clear case of incorrect use of logic. Even Dr. Nabhan acknowledged that up to 90% of such cancers are from unknown causes and that he did not know the cause for most of his patients.
The jury joined the dots and saw a clear link between Johnson’s cancer and Roundup, even though no such link was presented.
Controversial IARC Report
The controversial 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer report was also presented at court.
The findings of this report are often quoted by the general public, as proof that glyphosate causes cancer because it classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic.”
Much of the public reads this and concludes glyphosate causes cancer. But that is not what the report says. It says it is probably carcinogenic and that there is not enough evidence yet to label it carcinogenic.
By the way, alcohol, bacon and painting your house are classified as definitely causing cancer, by IARC. Why do we not have law suits against companies making these products? The emotion against these products is lacking.
The IARC report has been reviewed and discussed extensively and most authorities don’t agree with the conclusion for a number of reasons. The main reason is that the study ignored most of the scientific evidence and included only a couple dozen studies from the thousands available. Even three groups within the World Health Organization, which is the parent organization of IARC, disagree with the findings.
15 other agencies including the EPA, World Health Organization, European Food Safety Authority, and the European Chemical Agency have done extensive analysis of the science and concluded that there is NO evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.
Since the IARC report was released, a new study looking at 50,000 workers who handle glyphosate found no link between it and cancer, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Clearly the experts in this field do not accept the IARC conclusions but the jury did.
Glyphosate in Water and Mothers Milk
I am sure you have seen reports about finding glyphosate in drinking water and mothers milk, complete with headlines designed to scare you and sell advertising.
Lab tests today are so sensitive we can find just about any chemical anywhere. Finding the chemical means nothing, unless the amounts found are high enough. I analyzed this in Unnatural Fear of Roundup – Understanding Small Numbers.
California Doctors Support Monsanto
The California Medical Association, California Dental Association and California Hospital Association have taken legal steps to correct the conclusions of the Johnson court case. They filed an amicus brief with the courts voicing their opinion.
In short, they point out that “the answer to complex scientific questions such as that which the jury was required to resolve in this case should be based on accepted scientific evidence and rigorous scientific reasoning, not speculation and emotion”. A more detailed discussion can be found here.
It is not clear if this step will have any impact on the appeal, but it is good to see this group step up.
Emotion vs Science
Roundup causing cancer is a hot topic. A significant portion of the population feels that Roundup causes cancer, but much of their argument is based on misinformation, or emotion. We know that it is human nature to cling to beliefs even in the face of conflicting facts. Its part of our DNA.
The science in this case is very clear. There is no evidence glyphosate causes cancer. The fact that the trial ignored this fact exposes a deep flaw in the US legal system and probably others.
It took no time at all for lawyers to see some easy money here, and by June 2019, there were 18,400 pending cases in the US. A local Canadian legal firm has been advertising for “anyone who used Roundup” to contact them and make some money. The ambulance chasers have been busy.
Please limit comments to this subject and not other concerns about Roundup.
Thank you for this reasoned and thoughtful piece on Round-Up I will add it to my collection of book marks on the topic. Carey Gillam’s book (as I know you are aware) has little or nothing to do with facts similar to the jury decision.
Juries, unfortunately, have a tendency to find reasons to award damages to plaintiffs suffering obvious pain and suffering when the payer will be a giant faceless corporation. There’s also a widespread conviction that “something” must have CAUSED cancer. The notion that our own bodies can betray us without any outside agency is scary, so it’s more comforting to look for something to blame.
That said, it would be silly to conclude that glyphosate ISN’T potentially carcinogenic. Lots of things potentially are. But the fact that it’s been in common use for decades without any appreciable change in the incidence of cancer in the population means its harmful effects – if any – are almost certainly non-existent for domestic gardeners who use it occasionally.
However I won’t try to argue the case with people like the lady three blocks away who letter-bombed the neighborhood with a plea for us all to stop using Roundup, because it was giving her headaches. There is an enormous amount of valid reliable research demonstrating that people tend to cling more firmly to their prejudices when confronted with evidence that proves them misconceived.
so you have not read the book. Pages 255 to 293 have many scientific studies that you have not read about this poison. Again. The book is White wash and is full of science you choose to ignore.
I never said I read the book.
I am not analyzing each study. As my post says, experts at 15 international agencies have already done that and have reached a conclusion. I trust them more than the book White Wash.
I agree with you 100%. I know many people that have gotten non-hodgkins lymphoma that have never used Roundup.
Thank you for the column. None of the fact based data that I’ve seen concerning glyphosate indicate that it is cancer causing. There is much out there damning chemicals – whether in the soil, food, or air. I use Round – Up in my garden after harvest – it kills weeds in the patways that I’m too lazy to root up and get rid of by other means. I believe that the residual is gone by next spring. As with any tool, you use it with care. But there is more than enough fact based evidence to prove that it is benign to humans.
. . . proving once again that many people do not understand the differences between coincidence, correlation and causation.
I find myself concerned that the government does allow chemical companies to conduct their own tests. They don’t seem to require independent third party testing. Let’s look at how many pharmaceuticals make it on to the market then get taken off later–after people have died.
It is a necessary evil. A company starts testing their future products many years before they even decide to release a product. Nobody else would pay for this testing.
Lets say the product is ready for release and government insists somebody else tests it. Option one, the company hires an independent lab to do the testing – this has the same problem as the company doing their own testing. Option two, the government does the testing. In order to be sure there is no company influence, the tax payer would need to do the testing and nobody is going to accept this tax hike. There are all kinds of other complications with this.
Alcohol, bacon and house paint are choices. Glyphosate in breast milk is not. Have you educated yourself by reading “Whitewash” by Carey Gillam?
I have read some of her work – not science based.
Leslie, watch out for what Gilliam publishes?
I am an environmentalist, by which I mean I love our planet, and work to keep it beautiful where I can. I also use Roundup. Great post.
“… have gotten cancer by an usual cause, like Roundup.” should probably be: … have gotten cancer by an UNusual cause, like Roundup.”
Interesting article – thank you for posting.
I still cheerfully use Roundup to kill off the weeds in front of the house.
I have a little dome like attachment that fits on the end of the spray tube that hopefully limits any overs pray. It was only available in Home Depot for a short time and broke. Roundup manufacturers send me a replacement tube and dome thingy at no charge.
My wife will not allow me to spray in the back yard in case the dogs get cancer. So much for the power of false science.
Best regards
Dave
Thanks for catching that.