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.
Great article, thanks. From what I read there were many coffee growers amongst the ‘let’s sue Bayer for our unexplained cancers’. Farmers that have used a long list of pesticides, including now-banned insecticides like lindane – much more likely to have caused cancer than glyphosate.
If we did concede the relative harmlessness of glyphosate, we still must bear in mind that the overwhelming amount of it that is sold is contained in branded herbicides such as Roundup. These ubiquitous products contain surfactants and are not even required to disclose all their ingredients. These are not benevolent products.
I go with glyphosate’s second to none safety record with forty years of worldwide use of millions of tonsi
I wonder if those innocents who believe the false news realise what harm there would be to the environment if glyphosate ceased to be used. More erosion due to increased cultivation, more carbon dioxide from organic matter oxidation and more pollution by substitution of less safe herbicides
Indeed there is room for somevery useful research on what the environmental cost would be
I think I read two-three months ago an article that said that a product called Roundup, but containing acetic acid instead of glyphosate, is now available at garden centers in Austria. Ordinary vinegar is 5% acetic acid.
There are now numerous products with the collective name Roundup. In countries that have banned glyphosate for home use, Monsanto is now providing a Roundup with vinegar in it. It is available in Canada now.
It may be evil but it is far from necessary. It all boils down to greediness. We already know what toxins do to the earth and to us. I originally subscribed under the obviously erroneous assumption that you were focused on natural gardening methods and wouldn’t promote horrendous chemical concoctions – regardless as to whether they were cancer-causing in humans or not – yet you are defending the use of one of the most environmentally harmful substances that is used to spray and kill relatively harmless – and even beneficial plants with – when there are other non-toxic methods of removal. Kindly post my replies because If you don’t, I will – on every social media platform available.
The name of the site is GardenMyths – how does that imply only ‘natural gardening’? There are many myths about natural gardening.
I don’t promote “horrendous chemical concoctions”. Roundup is not one of those. It is safer than the vinegar in your home.
Paul – hallelujah- the voice of reason. None of my past two comments have made it past moderation – and this probably won’t either. This post is obviously biased in favor of Roundup and the extremely powerful Bayer corporation.
Your previous posts were deleted since I specifically asked that comments be restricted to this post – cancer causing Roundup – and your were not.
I have a question : why is the only concern about if a substance is carcinogenic? Whether it is or is not carcinogenic does not negate the fact that glyphosate kills soil life. Hard science has proven that the soil microbiome is deeply affected by the use of this substance. Fertilizer input requirements are rising in tandem with its increased use. Regenerative farming has recently married scientific research and is showing better yields and results with zero fertilizers and pesticides. Hard science also now showing that your gut microbiome is incredibly complex and uptake of even the smallest amount of glyphosate in your food has deep affects on gut health. I chose not to care whether it causes cancer or not. I care that anything that causes the death of something alive be it a weed or not will have an effect on a local ecosystem in some way. Ignoring these learnings for the sake of causing cancer seems to be a folly of rational thought.
Nobody said it is the only concern – but it is the only focus in this post and comments.
Thanks for the article Robert. Your article is based on the active ingredient. I am not scientifically educated as you, however, I have been lead to believe that it is not until the active ingredient is mixed with a delivery agent, such as water, that it becomes carcinogenic. Is there any truth to this or can it be scientifically debunked?
NO! Virtually all of the testing that has been done is on glyphosate mixed with water.
Roundup does contain other ingredients and a few years ago there was some health concerns about these ingredients. I have not seen recent discussions about them.
The reason I talk about glyphosate and not Roundup, in most cases, is that most research only concerns itself with the glyphosate part.
“Someday we shall look back on this dark era of agriculture and shake our heads. How could we have ever believed that it was a good idea to grow our food with poisons?” —Dr. Jane Goodall
And we wonder why cancer is so prevalent today.
So in the case of Roundup, you do not need to wonder any more.
We are accustomed to automatic corporate denial followed by obfuscation. It is difficult to sort through the facts of these matters. I continue to use Round-up judiciously. The jury probably erred in its conclusion, but it strikes me that given the element of unknown consequences it is probably not a good idea to spray Round-up repeatedly and routinely on millions of acres of crop land around the world. And if anyone is feeling sorry for Monsanto look into the consequences of dicamba ready soybeans, or their enforcement of ownership of open pollinated crops carrying their patented genetics.