Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Industry-funded meta-analyses

There are sometimes tin-foil discussions about whether meta-analyses funded by industry should be taken at face value as a reliable synthesis of other work. I do not think that in general accepting research funds from industry taints the resulting work. However in this case, thanks to published internal documents, we know that Monsanto funded and planned further funding of meta-analyses to produced desirable conclusions. And we can see that many meta-analyses on glyphosate are funded by Monsanto, particularly since 2016 (after the above-noted internal documents were written, but before they were made public). That includes studies cited multiple times in this article; some of which were used to replace cites to individual studies, under the implication that a meta-analyses is a superior source.

Ex: The Chang & Delzel paper, which makes hand-waving statements such as 'positive associations found may be due to bias and confounding' [this may be true of any study], prominently enough that that phrase made its way into this article.

• Readers won't realize the source of funding. I added "funded by Monsanto" to the description of that study; this was reverted because the study includes a disclosure statement. Sometimes that makes sense; in this case the disclosure makes clear that "sponsors were provided the opportunity to review the manuscript prior to journal submission", "inclusion of their suggestions was left to the discretion of the authors", and "[author] has provided consulting services to Monsanto on other issues [over the past 5 years]". Assuming all of this is true, that's a clear channel for COI: a repeat customer, who has the opportunity to review the research before publication and indicate what they think the results should say.
• In general, I don't think industry-funded metastudies should be used to replace direct cites to individual independent studies. (looks like that happened at least once last year w/ earthworm & soil analysis, but I haven't looked in detail)

– SJ + 02:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what specific edits you are asking for, but that NPR article you mentioned [1] closes with: The EPA concluded last fall that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer. Other scientific groups have come to similar conclusions, including a committee from the European Food Safety Agency, another U.N. agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and just today, the European Chemical Agency, ECHA. It also says that this "ghostwriting" thing is being driven by a lawsuit: Lawyers for the plaintiffs are arguing that Monsanto executives colluded with officials at the EPA to downplay glyphosate's health risks. So here's what this boils down to: (1) the scientific consensus is that glyphosate is not known to be a carcinogen (2) some litigants that are suing Monsanto disagree (unsurprisingly) with that consensus (3) meta-analyses also carry more weight than individual studies, and I believe that's written into WP:MEDRS somewhere. Geogene (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, here we go. Do not reject a high-quality type of study (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a source from lower levels of evidence (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. From WP:MEDRS, emphasis is mine. Geogene (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Aha! I greatly appreciate your tracking down this guideline. I often check MEDRS but never that part. I wonder about the potential tension between presuming that a meta-analysis is high quality, and disallowing concerns about its funding or inclusion criteria. Presumably impact factor and quality of peer review is still a primary guide, so a high-IF individual study can't be summarily replaced by a self-published meta-analysis. – SJ + 03:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In particular, this guideline does not support rejecting retaining a cite to an excellent primary source, just because there is a contrary meta-analysis. (If it does seem to say that, we should revise it.) I was not asking for rejection of any source, I am concerned with using a meta-analysis to reject other sources. The two say different things. – SJ + 23:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll admit to having lost track of what each of these sources is, but I think I can clarify something about MEDRS. The major takeaway from MEDRS is that statements that are health-related should be cited to review articles (secondary sources) and not to primary research reports. The concept is that it misleads readers if we say something based on a single study that might later be disproved, whereas by the time information gets into a review (which would usually include a meta-analysis of primary studies), it's been scientifically accepted to an extent that is sufficient for our purposes. And in health-related matters, it's especially important not to mislead readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a very important WP:AC/DS aspect to this. If any wording has to do with health effects of eating foods derived from GM crops that had been exposed to glyphosate, WP:GMORFC must be followed, period. Direct exposure to glyphosate, as a field worker or in the chemical industry, would not be covered, but WP:MEDRS would indeed apply. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My friend, do not worry. As soon as the information is negative about glyphosate, its protectors will come with a suitable excuses to remove the sourced information. The strangest facts - even a normal chemical analysis - can be shot down as being a health claim when not positive... The Banner talk 18:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC) This page is under Discretionary Sanctions. Please see specifically Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Casting aspersions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Q.E.D. The Banner talk 20:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've seen how industry funding works in agricultural related publishing, so it doesn't surprise me that the water gets murky when it comes up here on Wikipedia. Taking my editor hat off for a second and speaking as a scientist, I do personally look harder for potential conflict of interest during peer-review in such cases. If both authors were independent university researchers that got this funding, I'd be less worried. Consulting companies are a much more gray zone though, but not an automatic black mark. However, we really can't deal with that since we all just have editor hats here (and we don't do peer-review). If we want to make a criticism of due weight towards an industry-funded source (i.e., implying something was inaccurate or worse associated with the funding), we really need secondary sources such as MEDRS Geogene mentioned doing it, which I haven't seen at a cursory glance at least yet.

Also, here's the key portion of the disclosure in full The sponsors were provided the opportunity to review the manuscript prior to journal submission, but inclusion of their suggestions was left to the discretion of the authors, who retained sole control of the manuscript content and the findings. Statements in this paper are those of the authors and not those of the authors' employer or the sponsors. The last sentence is what's really important. If for some reason it was believed that was not the case, that would normally result in a rejection from the journal. When we cite these journal articles, the expectation is that they've done that fact-checking already. If something falls through the cracks (and it can happen) we should see commentary directly on that in sources reliable for critiquing science. Until then, we can't really do that as editors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I see the value in quoting secondary critiques. That takes more research time than I have just now, but I'll try to come back to it. – SJ + 03:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My personal experience and observations suggest that industry-funded reviews should not get the same weight as independent reviews. Regardless of transparency and what people say, there is always pressure to defer to the opinions of the people who give you money. The only way to avoid that pressure is not to show them the manuscript before submission, and even that isn't perfect. Looie496 (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Media manipulation

I note these two new edits, adding content that says that industry (ie, Monsanto) has manipulated the reporting of scientific findings: [2] and [3]. I'm concerned that these additions may have WP:POV problems or may oversimplify the situation. I'm not saying that the problem isn't real, but rather that the way that it is written makes it sound more open-and-closed that what it really is. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked that new section a little, and corrected/expanded the references. It wasn't a journal doing a retraction, it was a magazine removing an article from a website. And the other reference was a report prepared by minority staff for members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, not a report from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.--tronvillain (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Tronvillain:, when a magazine removes a previously published article from all digital sources, it is usually called a retraction. This isn't simply deciding to no longer host an old web page; they retracted after discovering that their reporting had not been independent. – SJ + 01:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it fits the definition. As I said, it's not a journal, and there wasn't an announcement. Or at least there wasn't one at the time - did they make one? Also, you're a little late. --tronvillain (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is the source cited for what happened: [4]. I would prefer to use wording that is close to the source, and the source says "Forbes removed the story from its website on Wednesday and said that it ended its relationship with Mr. Miller amid the revelations." The source also draws attention to Forbes' statement that the opinions are those of the author and not of Forbes. As such, I think wording along the lines of "removed the story" would be more accurate than "retracted". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Specific wording suggestion below. Yes, Tronvillain, I know this was a delayed reply... – SJ + 03:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, in the edit that comment was about, as far as I can recall all I had done was change "retracted" to "removed."--tronvillain (talk)

Ah yes, it was "which led to the retraction of a 2015 editorial"to "which led to the removal of a 2015 editorial." --tronvillain (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are links to previous talk about mostly the same issues: Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 13#Bloomberg and MEDRS and Talk:Glyphosate#Glyphosate is not synonymous with RoundUp; RoundUp deserves and needs its own page. Please be aware that the ghostwriting issues have been discussed a lot before, and that the issue is a contentious one, and also that there are Discretionary Sanctions in effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Tryptofish. There was most definitely no need to include this in the lead and in the body, so I have removed what was in the lead. I have doubts about the weight of the whole section though, given that it is citing two primary sources and an NYT piece discussing a single article written by Miller. Regardless of whether it is kept, it most definitely does not merit a whole section of the article devoted to it. It would seem to belong better in the section discussing the IARC report. SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with you. I want to take note of the fact that there was a lot of previous discussion about this, and there was at least something like a consensus that this issue fits better with pages about Monsanto or about the Roundup brand, rather than here. I do support the idea that we should cover issues of ghostwriting and so forth, as I said in previous talk, but I think that we have to be careful about sourcing and POV. I definitely agree with the removal from the lead section. As for the new section lower on the page, I would like to wait and hear from more editors before making up my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Roundup redirects here. This is the page about the Roundup brand. I'm trying to understand why all references to the retracted magazine article, and to the NYT article, were removed. The general controversy is widely mentioned in topical literature; the NYT article was notable in communities that track scientific fraud and reproducibility. Kingofaces43 I would be glad to see this tackled with nuance, and am happy to work on something with you. – SJ + 02:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The content was removed mostly because of WP:DUE. There's usually a lot of kerfuffles associated with claiming Monsanto did something bad that are actually much more complicated than they appears if even warranted at all. Part of that seems to often involve other groups that have interest against Monsanto in this topic ironically, so it's usually better to be cautious and craft something up that deals with the nuance over time. I'd have to get back up to speed on this one though since it's been awhile. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I can see that. I'm not generically anti-Monsanto; we just have bountiful primary documents in this case, from the company, narrating how they planned to pursue both a PR campaign (to discredit certain researchers) and a meta-analysis campaign (publishing positive studies and funding positive meta-analyses that build on them). – SJ + 03:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There had been a lot of talk about whether there should be a separate page on Roundup, and I had lost track of it when I referred to it being a separate page as opposed to a redirect. But there are pages on Monsanto and Monsanto legal cases, so I still think that most of this should be covered there instead of here. I'd be potentially receptive to a very brief mention here, if it is carefully and accurately worded, but I feel that anything lengthy would raise due weight issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. How about something like "In 2017, internal emails became public in which M. planned a public relations effort to amplify studies saying glyphosate was safe, and discredit a report that said it could be harmful. This revelation caused Forbes to remove an earlier opinion piece they had published about the safety of glyphosate, whose author had received drafts from Monsanto" ? – SJ + 03:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of removing the section from the body as well. In addition to the history you mentioned, there are two other main issues. One is that the IARC issue is a mess to try to describe in terms of NPOV, in part because a person involved with the committee that made the carcinogenic claim (that contradicts other WHO agencies) was also involved in the lawsuit against Monsanto and glyhosate re: lymphoma among other issues. The other is that the "ghostwriting" issue is still something I'm unsure of how to appropriately describe, but media manipulation seems to be pushing that beyond the bounds of NPOV quite a bit.

I've been keeping up on the news on this on occasion, but writing content on it all still seems tricky. We're starting to see some better summary sources out there though, so maybe we're getting closer to being able to really tackle it with all the nuance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Part of this should surely remain in the article. The aspect specific to glyphosate, is the dominance of Monsanto-funded research & meta-analyses, making it easy to produce a skewed meta-analysis that looks neutral and finds no conclusive evidence of health impact. This method of muddying the water is well-known in both industry and science circles: used to good effect with sugar and tobacco studies for decades. It isn't clear that this sort of bias has happened here, but it is clear that research into the topic was funded directly by Monsanto. The IARC report tried to articulate a bit of this, as do one or two other commenters who expressly note that the main difference between studies that find negative results and those that don't is how much weight they give to industry research. – SJ + 01:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards thinking that we should remove the section, at least for the time being, and it looks to me like the consensus is heading in that direction. Does anyone object to removing it? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps move the IARC response into the IARC section? --tronvillain (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if anyone else would comment, but I have no problem with moving a short version there and then deleting the rest. As far as I'm concerned, please feel free to do that, and then we can assess where we stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the section since there really hasn't been any support for it. On the question of including the IARC response, I'm a bit iffy on that right now. It's probably better to wait for more secondary sources in that case. There can be a point where whatever the IARC says in response, it would be considered undue weight in the context of the scientific community disagreeing with them, but that would be difficult for us to suss out right now where that line would be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Why leave out the IARC response? IARC is very much a part of the scientific community. Its members may have individual conflicts, just as researchers whose careers depend on research funds from Monsanto have conflicts. But IARC is designed to be a neutral facilitator of research, and the WHO and other agencies are as close to neutral sources as we're likely to have. Bear in mind, when it comes to balance, that Monsanto's PR team is talented, constantly hard at work, and prepares to discredit major studies before they come out. (They certainly extended to Wikipedia editing in the past.) Because of the public lawsuits in this case, there are plenty of primary documents showing that not only is this their MO at other times, it was at work here, including in encouraging reports discrediting members of the committee. – SJ + 01:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The IARC has been cited as not neutral due to conflicts of interest, etc. discussed on this talk page already. Overall, their claims have more or less been treated as WP:FRINGE or at least WP:UNDUE among the scientific community, including those independent of industry. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? I'd love an independent cite for this fringe claim. It's certainly a mess; but unclear how much of that is muddied waters. In particular the PR campaign that Monsanto themselves disclosed focused on discrediting IARC. And most of the claims against them were via op-eds that could easily have been part of a campaign. So we need to somehow include a subset of {IARC's claims and responses, the documented PR campaign against them, opinions of independent scientists since 2017}. – SJ + 03:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

We have a page on International Agency for Research on Cancer that goes into a lot of detail about the Glyphosate Monograph and the controversy that it generated. Keeping in mind the binding community consensus about the use of the phrase "scientific consensus" (but not, to be clear, about glyphosate) from WP:GMORFC, I feel strongly that we cannot simply treat the IARC as an outlet for mainstream science. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This article would benefit from having a 'history' section, with subsections for economic/usage history, and regulatory history. A well structured history section could include the ghostwriting issue without having to have a separate 'Media manipulation' section.Dialectric (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I like that idea. We have Discovery, as we should, but nothing beyond that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a paper "The history and current status of glyphosate" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28643882) which could be useful for this section, and the abstract says it is in the public domain but I have been unable to find a free full-text version.Dialectric (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dialectric: This link works for me. SmartSE (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - that works for me, as well.Dialectric (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

+1 to such a section. – SJ + 01:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ghost-writing and retraction

Pulling out this detail from the above (and I don't mean to rehash things; please point me to past discussion of this if it's in the archives).

The use of the term "ghost-writing" isn't bias from people who dislike Monsanto. It is how a staff scientist described how they might pursue an expensive public campaign to discredit the WHO report and push a different narrative. That scientist used the term "ghost writing" in many, many emails. Here is a partial list of emails from one of the court cases against Monsanto.

Forbes didn't know that their contributor had accepted drafts from Mon; in addition to removing his article, they ended their relationship with the author. Again, that's not just "taking an old article offline", it's recognition of malpractice.

This issue was covered by Forbes, Bloomberg[5], NPR[6], the NYT, and others. If you don't like the term ghost-writing, I'm open to hearing alternatives. But removing these refs altogether does not seem to strike the right balance. – SJ + 02:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I see two underlying parts to this (1) the question of whether to include content about it, and (2) whether to use the words "ghost-writing" and "retraction". I've commented on "retraction" above. I think "ghost-writing" should only be used with attribution, not in Wikipedia's voice. The Bloomberg and NYT sources never use the phrase, while NPR mentions it briefly in a quote. As for an alternative, something like "writing without attribution" might be neutral. But again, I have due weight concerns about what we would say here, as opposed to at Monsanto or Monsanto legal cases. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Some mention of the Henry Miller article and its removal seems appropriate. Monsanto published a response to the article's removal, which expressly defends the use of 'ghost writing' in its internal email. Two NYT articles mention it, both in the voice of the NYT and in describing the company's use of the term to deny it happened: "The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the EPA had worked to quash a review of Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate" ... "Heydens, a Monsanto executive, told other company officials that they could ghostwrite research on glyphosate by hiring academics to put their names on papers that were actually written by Monsanto."[7], "A former Monsanto employee appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, 'I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." e also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.' ...  [he] said in an email on Tuesday [2017] that 'there was no ghostwriting' and that his comments had been related to an early draft"[8]

Any wording is fine by me. – SJ + 03:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Depending on what other editors think, I could potentially be OK with something like what you proposed in italics in #Media manipulation, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hakim at the NYT isn't exactly always a very reliable source in agricultural topics (e.g., lack of familiarity in the topic showed up in the Kevin Folta stuff), so I'd be wary about using his articles as a secondary type source. That being said, I've got to take the time to re-read this all this weekend. I know there are some cases where ghostwriting did not occur (comments by Monsanto employees were mentioned in the acknowledgements), while others were more questionable. There's likely to be a bit more nuance in this version to add. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I went through things a bit. I think what we need to default to here is WP:MEDRS if we're going to talk about misconduct in scientific publishing for two reasons. One is how I mentioned that newspapers often get a lot of science stuff wrong. What's more important though is that what those newspapers are reporting on were based on what another group pushing a lawsuit are pushing and how easy it is to cherrypick emails. Overall, better to err on the side of caution since we normally don't let newspapers criticize journal publications (for better or worse).

So to break up the proposed text, the first bit deals with a claim that ghostwriting occurred. Digging around in the sources a bit (why do newspapers not link actual studies?) it's Williams et al. 2000. This is the one where Monsanto was actually acknowledged for contributions, so there shouldn't be anything that approaches WP:DUE unless it really was a case of "put your name on this manuscript". The second is about the EPA official "quashing" a review. From what I've seen described, that isn't any sort of collusion, but just that official saying the review was based on bad science and letting the company know. I'd be really wary about including the EPA stuff in any sort association of ghostwriting claims. For Heydens, it seems like this is being couched as internal emails with someone exploring this idea, but having others (rightly) shoot that idea down? That goes in to the later part of the proposed text too. If Heydens got called out internally and nothing happened after that, then I don't really know what we could show here. If there's more depth on that showing it became a problem, I'd definitely be more open to exploring those sources.

Basically, for Williams 2000, we'd either need a MEDRS source legitimately questioning the reliability of the study, or see a journal retraction. I haven't seen any of that, though if that all passes DUE, we should be seeing something of that sort in due time. I'll keep an eye out for retractions from that journal, but are there other studies being questioned here in sources? If we can ground something in MEDRS, I'm a bit more open to including newspapers and supporting sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

KofA, thanks for looking into this. But i'm having problems working out your analysis. First of all, I think that you are wrong about the applicability of MEDRS. If the proposed text has nothing to do with the health effects of glyphosate, then MEDRS is an irrelevant distraction. For convenience, I'll reproduce SJ's suggested text here:

"In 2017, internal emails became public in which M. planned a public relations effort to amplify studies saying glyphosate was safe, and discredit a report that said it could be harmful. This revelation caused Forbes to remove an earlier opinion piece they had published about the safety of glyphosate, whose author had received drafts from Monsanto"

That text is about emails, public relations, and Forbes' removal of an opinion piece. Although there is a context of glyphosate safety, there is nothing requiring MEDRS there.

Now that said, I certainly agree that there are WP:RS issues to consider here. If the information trail is: confidential emails → leak of emails by a party with a vested interest → press reports of what the vested interest party said, without independent press investigation of the veracity of what the vested interest party said – then that means that the only things we could consider saying would be something like "the lawyers said that XYZ", but not saying it in Wikipedia's voice.

But I don't think that the scientific content of the original research papers is relevant to the proposed text. I think that the fact of Forbes removing the piece is clearly adequately sourced and verifiable. Whether the author of the removed piece had received drafts from Monsanto depends on whether that author has acknowledged the assertion, as opposed to simply being an assertion made by the lawyers. And whether Monsanto planned a public relations effort and planned to discredit a report clearly does depend on the veracity of what the lawyers say the emails contained.

So that leaves us with whether we should say something like: In 2017, internal emails became public which, according to lawyers for someone suing Monsanto, indicated that Monsanto had planned a public relations effort to amplify studies saying glyphosate was safe, and discredit a report that said it could be harmful. I'm not sure if that satisfies WP:DUE, particularly for this page as opposed to the Monsanto or Monsanto-legal pages. I could go either way on that. But if consensus is that it is due weight here, then it's reasonable to add at least something about the Forbes removal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, I thought I was missing some article. I was focusing on the academic papers too much. That Forbes piece can be something we can dig into more. As for MEDRS, any time we critique a journal article either in its conduction, writing, or publication, that falls into the realm of needing MEDRS/SCIRS sources to do so. Newspapers just aren't qualified to do that. It looks like some of the commentary out there is directed at the Williams paper, but some is more related to the Forbes piece. I'm also on the fence where I'd be fine seeing some of this at Monsanto under public relations, but I'm unsure of any lasting DUE aspect here. Does all this really affect the safety standing? I'd say no, but a retraction on a glyphosate paper would be fair mention. In fact, I'm on the fence about most things on this overall recent subject, so that's where my overall caution comes from.

Zeroing on the Forbes bit instead, I think we have something that's a bit more solid. I will say that issue is one of the better sourced ongoings. It's good being mentioned at Henry_I._Miller and Monsanto at least. I'm not sure if it really would pass the bar for mention on this page yet, but if we were going to go ahead with mention of anything about all this email-based stuff right now at least, I'd be ok with the Forbes business. I'm trying to look at the other claims of ghostwriting on a case-by-case basis for inclusion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page now. I'd like to hear what more editors think about due weight, and I'll probably go along with that either way. I looked again at this source: [9], about whether Miller had confirmed the allegations against him, and the source says: "Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I believe the trail is : internal emails → made public via discovery in a public trial → press reports analyzing the content of the emails. The press are notoriously bad at judging such things and tend to pull from a short list of story arcs; but that's still our standard. I do think it's better to write "appeared to indicate [source]" than "indicated". Monsanto's primary docs show they http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Goals-After-IARC-Report.pdf mapped out a campaign] and funded people who wrote op-eds showing its safety, including Miller whose Forbes essay was later removed; but whether or not this gets called a "public relations effort" should be sourced to who said it. – SJ + 01:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable, and I agree that "appeared to indicate" would be a good approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, how is this: In 2017, internal emails became public which appeared to indicate that Monsanto had planned a public relations effort to amplify studies saying glyphosate was safe, and to discredit a report that said it could be harmful. This revelation caused Forbes to remove an opinion piece they had published challenging the IARC report, whose author had been engaged by Monsanto but did not reveal that connection.

Here's a peer-reviewed analysis of the challenges to research posed by such organized undermining, in AJIM: IARC Monographs Program and public health under siege by corporate interests. That speaks directly to why it is relevant to an overview such as this page. – SJ + 23:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm good with wording it that way, pending consensus about due weight. I think due weight is an issue, but I personally would be OK with something of this length. I have a word of caution about that source, though. It looks to me like three of the four authors are attorneys, and I would want to know their relationship (if any) to the court case before being ready to accept it as an unbiased source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Another issue is that it's a commentary, not a peer-reviewed article. It's basically the journal version of an editorial. One author is also retained by those pursuing the glyphosate litigation. That commentary can get into DUE territory by insinuating the IARC wasn't off base on this particular topic. I'd have to do more digging, but it looks like Infante was removed from an EPA panel on glyphosate. I haven't been able to dig much more than that yet though.

As for the text, I'm ok with it for the most part. I would just add who selectively released emails. I'm not so sure about amplify though, as that can feed into the WP:FRINGE idea that Monsanto just has all safety studies bought off, etc. Most of those studies have already been done, so I'd strike that part. In 2017, Monsanto internal emails became public through lawyers pursuing litigation against the company, which appeared to indicate that Monsanto had planned a public relations effort to discredit a report that said it could be harmful. This revelation caused Forbes to remove an opinion piece they had published challenging the IARC report, whose author had been engaged by Monsanto but did not reveal that connection. I'd have to think of what to tack on showing that the IARC report was widely discredited by the scientific community though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of cohort study

@IntoThinAir: Could you please elaborate on your removal of a large cohort study? --Leyo 12:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The text makes a medical claim, so its sources need to pass WP:MEDRS. A primary study such as the one cited fails WP:MEDRS. Review articles would be one type of source that would pass MEDRS. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 12:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a (free) commentary piece in the journal when the study was published. SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That's great. But it also does not meet MEDRS as it is a commentary, not a review article. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a large difference between selling the result of a cohort study as a fact and describing that a large cohort study found xyz. While I agree that the former is not acceptable, I don't generally concerning the latter. --Leyo 08:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Either way, we don't do either when it comes to WP:MEDRS since we're all anonymous editors here who can't engage in peer-review or follow-up critique of primary sources (more on that here). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That does not address my point. --Leyo 20:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, you said you don't agree describing that a large cohort study found xyz isn't acceptable. That's what I'm saying goes against MEDRS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You simple call it a primary study and you do not differentiate on how the results are presented. --Leyo 14:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

That would go against the standard convention that is used with WP:MEDRS. In general, the only time primary studies are used in medical topics is if we're also citing it alongside a review that discusses it for reference. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Meaningless statement

This statement is not even wrong, it is completely meaningless in agricultural terms: "Farmers quickly adopted glyphosate, especially after Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready crops, enabling farmers to kill weeds without killing their crops."

A correct statement could be for example "Farmers quickly adopted glyphosate, because it is a broad spectrum herbicide, and thus will kill all green plants sprayed, not only certain groups of weeds. That means fewer rounds in the field, and using less herbicide (with a link to Wiki entry Herbicides, and the difference between broad leaf, narrow leaf, and the more specialized herbicides).

Perhaps followed by "When Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready crops, it enabled farmers to kill weeds even more efficiently, and so use even less herbicide per hectare. In addition, herbicide resistant crops enables so called Conservation Agriculture(link), i.e. reduced tilling, which reduces water and fuel consumption, erosion, as well as carbon emissions. Today, several formulations of glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the World." (although even if that is true, it may sound a bit like trying to sell more of it?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronja R (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the current wording. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

My issue with that sentence is that it ignores the fact that many farmers used glyphosphate before GM crops came out (which wasn't until 1996). I actually like the proposed wording better, but it could be imroved even further. There is too much focus on GM crops when its use is much more broad than that and glyphosphate has been popular and useful for a long time. It is also not supported in the article body, or I can't find where it is supported. AIRcorn (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll bet Monsanto could provide supporting material. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Back in May 2018, I suggested on this talk page that the article would benefit from a history section. I found a few sources at that time but didn't go much further with it. I still think that would benefit the article, and can work on one this month. 'Quickly adopted' is imprecise, and I had trouble finding precise historical sales numbers from Monsanto for Roundup alone, though they do have some info on total ag chemical sales. As a side note, I think the archiving is a bit aggressive on this talk page, with discussions only a few months old getting auto-archived, and a level of activity that doesn't necessitate this.Dialectric (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of a history section. About the archiving, I just slowed it down to six months. (It had said three months but was actually set for 30 days, so that was the problem.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Roundup in the news... and it's not good, but should be covered onwiki

Hi I was surprised that the $289m damages story was not to be found onwiki. I heard it on the news in NL and then read the NPR story. For this amount of damages awarded and for international coverage, there should be a place for people to come to for answers. Probably it needs its own page at this point - maybe something like 2018 Roundup vs. Gardener lawsuit? Jane (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see the discussions just above. I'm inclined to think that the primary treatment of the lawsuit should be in Monsanto legal cases, where it is already being added, as opposed to a standalone page about the one lawsuit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It could be covered primarily at Roundup once reinstated, and at the legal cases page, but should also be in Monsanto's main article. As of now, we have one line in legal cases with only one source, a BBC article entitled "Glyphosate does not cause cancer". The coverage on WP of this case is thus far disappointing. petrarchan47คุก 17:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Disappointing but not at all surprising considering opinions such as "a fringe claim that glyphosate causes cancer (from non-qualified jurors), we do need to keep WP:DUE in mind considering the general scientific agreement on the matter." What "scientific agreement" is that? Two studies used copy/paste from Monsanto and released emails shows that the EPA was working with them as well. The only independent study, the one done by WHO, did find a probable link. Gandydancer (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It could also be convered in Monsanto legal cases, but it should be covered at Roundup also. Roundup should be a stand alone article - it isn't just Glyphosate as far as I know, and having it redirect here creates a strong impression that it is just a brand name for glyphosate:

US government researchers have uncovered evidence that some popular weedkilling products, like Monsanto’s widely-used Roundup, are potentially more toxic to human cells than their active ingredient is by itself...One problem government scientists have run into is corporate secrecy about the ingredients mixed with glyphosate in their products. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests show uncertainty within the EPA over Roundup formulations and how those formulations have changed over the last three decades.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Gandydancer, I prefer to defer to the WHO on this as well as many other scientific organizations:

The overall weight of evidence indicates that administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as 2000 mg/kg body weight by the oral route, the route most relevant to human dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. Several carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats areavailable. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.

That's keeping in mind of course that this is more recent than the highly criticized IARC designation. What we'll probably have to do is something similar to how the GMO safety consensus was handled (content wise, not DS RfC) outlining the sources saying it's not considered a high carcinogenic risk while addressing the minor viewpoints that received attention claiming it was (minus fringe stuff like Seralini most likely). To be honest, that's a lot to sort through, so I had been putting it off. It might be time to start tamping that content down more though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As an aside about the standalone article, if a separate article were created for the lawsuit, the place to discuss it would be AfD, not here. Looking over sources that span a period of several years, I'm of the opinion that an AfD nomination for this would be disruptive given the extent of available sources, if a standalone article were to be created.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the better place would be Monsanto legal cases for the lawsuit. If anything were to be created separate, we'd need to make more of a WP:SPLIT case from that page, in part because of all the WP:DUE issues. That being said, there's also an argument that this is a case of WP:INHERIT for Monsanto/glyphosate where notability doesn't transfer. If someone were to create it right now, I'd expect a quick redirect to the legal case page for the time being so it could be crafted without the added notability discussions first. Better to deal with WP:DUE first. Also, individual articles are usually reserved for cases showing significant impact at higher court levels like the US Supreme Court, not county level ones. Maybe it could get there, but I'd say WP:TOOSOON. That's all I'll say on that here though.

Also, your quote comes from Carey Gilliam, a journalist who both sells books related to vilifying glyphosate and is affiliated with USTRK, a well known WP:FRINGE organization in this subject (similar to the Heartland Institute if you want a parallel in something like climate change denial). They're basically never going to be considered a reliable source with their background. With glyphosate vs. Roundup though, separating articles becomes WP:UNDUE. Remember that glyphosate already has extremely low toxicity with oral LD50s being less toxic than salt and vinegar. Detergents tend not great for organisms in aquatic systems as is mentioned at Glyphosate#Glyphosate-based_formulations. You can say a detergent is more toxic than something with extremely low toxicity and technically be true, but be misleading when you don't clarify that the overall toxicity is still low (which is also reflected in that first paragraph I linked to). A lot of the mistaken "notability" people see in Roundup vs. glyphosate is due to incomplete readings for things like that.

The functional consensus right now is that glyphosate and Roundup are treated in the same article, at least based on edit history. I'm aware of previous discussions that did want a split, but that didn't functionally come to fruition, and editors instead moved on with treating them under the same article as nearly always done for pesticides unless there's an extreme case. If we reached the level of maybe agent orange where a known highly toxic contaminant was the major health issue in the first paragraph there, we'd have a better case for a split. Right now, you can't really talk about Roundup without mirroring most everything we have about glyphosate for proper context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

A stand alone article for this case should pass WP:GNG. If the blanking of newly created well-sourced notable articles because If anything were to be created separate, we'd need to make more of a WP:SPLIT case from that page, in part because of all the WP:DUE issues. continues, I really think it is a matter for AE and not the article talk page.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

section on Round Up

Why do you re-direct to here from Round Up? Round up is a mixture of many chemicals some of which are more harmful than Glyphosate. Claustro123 (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hit us with some well sourced facts, and you could prove that claim. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

However real facts may make little difference if you expect any changes to this article. Check the previous discussions. Gandydancer (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I always though RoundUp was just a commercial variety of Glyphosate, but am happy to be convinced it's more than that. If it is different, I would support creation of a new article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

HiLo, at one time there were two articles. There should be two because the additives to glyphosate that turn it into RoundUp (though there are now numerous similar products) have been named as the possible cause for what some believe to cause health problems. However, many of the studies that have been done are done with glyphosate alone, and to further complicate things RoundUp will not give a list of what they've added calling it a trade secret (they are not the only ones that can legally do this). I think what I've said here is mostly correct but I no longer bother to keep up with new info or work on any Monsanto article since it's a waste of time IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If the components of RoundUp are a secret, I can't see how we can write an article on them, nor blame them for problems. Reliable sources are what we need here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Half of the ingredients are secret. Just like the ingredients of Coca Cola yet you list Coca Cola.. Source is here.http://www.roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/msds/RoundupWeatherMaxTransorb2TechnologyLiquid-12452-EN-CA.518.pdf

Claustro123 (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this is RS or not - it's just the first thing that came up when I googled it. But at any rate, it will help you to become familiar with what's going on (I think - I haven't read it). [10] Gandydancer (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's Russian. That's not automatically bad, but they are unlikey to write glowing stuff about a big American corporation. I still see problems with the secrecy of the ingredients. Hard to write about stuff we don't know. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL, yes I see that I could not have made a worse choice if I tried. Here's what they have to say about the current Trump/Putin ongoings: [11] Google it and you will find plenty as the ongoing lawsuit has put it in the news. Gandydancer (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Well comrades, I read [12], and it's old news (and please don't anyone accuse me of being uninterested in real facts). The source is an opinion piece as opposed to a news report, and much of it is about the lawsuits over the emails, a topic about which we recently expanded what the page says. As for the other ingredients being toxic, the only scientific study mentioned by the source, and it is presented as being very important, is none other than the long-ago discredited Séralini study. Unless Wikipedia is switching over to alternative facts, I'm not seeing anything to add to the page. But if an actual reliable source emerges, I would definitely want us to cover it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have just skipped the part where I made fun of the Russian article. After reading their version of the current Russia/US political situation I didn't bother to waste my time reading it because my time is more valuable than that. Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I understand you on that and I didn't mean it that way, just making clear what I think about this stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

How about "Round Up Power Max" or "Round Up Weather Max" as listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claustro123 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Those are just trade names that we generally don't create separate articles for. Pesticide trade names are a dime a dozen in terms of the same or similar formulations getting rebranded. We generally stick with the active ingredient as the article title and mention trade names if there's anything of particular note with it there instead. There hasn't been anything new that would really warrant a split at this point though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• There is already consensus for a separate round-up article, it just needs someone to do it. The main problem is that some editors who have strongly advocated for a split are doing so because they want to create a POV fork more than an actual encyclopedic article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sir. I just returned from a visit to Wall Mart and while there I looked at the Round Up on their shelves. I found 4 separate mixtures that ranged from1% glyphosate to 50% glyphosate. The mixtures I found were Round Up 365, Round Up Super Concentrate, Round Up Extended Control and Round Up Concentrate Plus. I would like to respectfully suggest that the Product "Round Up" should have it's own page as Glyphosate is also used in other weed control products such as Monsanto's Vision. Claustro123 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That is actually justification for not splitting, and we don't decide WP:N by looking at Walmart products with the same active ingredient. As already mentioned above, pesticide products often get tons of different trade names and formulations. Us agriculture educators even need to point this out to farmers at seminars, etc., with respect to preventing pesticide resistance, so it's no surprise the general public gets confused by all the trade names as well. Generally, notable trade names, such as Roundup, get mentioned in the lead of the article, and that's about it. If another company becomes well known for their glyphosate formulation, that too will be mentioned here. Plus, a split would be redundant since nearly all of the information at this article would still remain here. A split isn't functionally improving anything at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Roundup passes WP:GNG under our notability guidelines - we would not be able to take sources discussing Roundup and use them interchangeably with Glyphosate, they are separate topics. I'm not sure why these articles were merged because the only links are to the dab page, but it seems there is consensus for recreation per Aircorn so I am working on getting the article started. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I created the article at Glyphosate herbicides - some of the redirects pointing here should probably be redirected there. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be entirely redundant with this article. Please keep in mind (especially reading my comment yesterday to you) that we can't say they are significantly different. Most of the formulation stuff can be easily handled here without violating WP:DUE by pointing out the POEA isn't allowed in aquatic formulations anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree, they are handled differently at the regulatory level and there is a lot of detail that this article doesn't cover. There is a lot this article doesn't cover and two articles is completely appropriate here. You should certainly know better then to unilaterally blank an article and redirect it, especially when most editors disagree with you. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Seraphim System, and I am happy that you created the new article. I particularly like the pagename, as opposed to calling the page RoundUp, both because it's more inclusive that way and because it makes it a little bit easier to stay away from making it a POV-fork (something I would vigorously oppose). I do believe that there is a sufficient rationale for making this page about the chemical compound, and the new page about the herbicidal products. (That probably will mean moving some content from here to there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I support the creation of a new article; I also think that a more focused RoundUp page could work, particularly if the focus was on marketing, sales, trademark history, and branding. Glyphosate-based products are indisputably distinct from their main ingredient, and as long as the article on the products makes this distinction clear, and meets wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, I see no issue with the split.Dialectric (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Just a reminder since we've had previous conversations on this, but the current glyphosate/cancer lawsuits are not something we've had consensus to include yet. Part of the caution is contradicting the current WP:MEDRS sources that say glyphosate is not a significant carcinogen. Someone filing a lawsuit is not enough to contradict that in terms of WP:WEIGHT. The bigger one though is that it's an ongoing lawsuit. Once has to be wary of ambulance chasing in a topic like this as it is, but until claims are considered to be valid in a completed cased, we're not really in a place to be showcasing claims in ongoing litigation that's prone to posturing, etc.

That being said, the whole lawsuit thing is tied to the IARC, conflicts of interest there, etc. so there may be areas to include mention of it before the close of the case. Tackling either one is messy, but if it's just mention of the case like I removed here (we're under 1RR which also includes essentially following WP:BRD), it's probably going to be easier on all of us policy-wise when the case is completed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we could still have perhaps one sentence about the existence of the suit at this time, without going into the allegations. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about that if we fit it into the IARC stuff in the last paragraph. The first sentence already mentions it to a degree. Maybe a slight tweak there if any? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm dope-slapping myself for having forgotten that we already had that material in that section! Thanks for reminding me. Actually, I think that's OK for now, and a good reason to wait for more resolution in the case before adding more content. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Does this change anything????? https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/glyphosate-listed-effective-july-7-2017-known-state-california-cause-cancer Claustro123 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, because that list includes pretty much everything, from chloral hydrate, warfarin, and asbestos, to ethyl alcohol, leather dust, aspirin, 'salted fish, Chinese style' and 'emissions from high temperature unrefined rapeseed oil' Sumanuil (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Case Resolved

This needs to be added to the page (as discussed above). The merging of RoundUp with Glyphosate needs to be reversed. Glyphosate is not synonymous with RoundUp, and this case is a good reason to finally make the correction I called for a year ago. It is the surfactants in the formulation that are being at least partially blamed for harm to humans. The internal documents show Monsanto is aware of this (pages 5-7 here). This was touched upon in The Nation who quoted one of the internal emails used in the case:

"Plaintiffs claim that Monsanto “knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone” but continued to advertise the product as safe. In a 2002 e-mail, Monsanto product–safety strategist William Heydens wrote to Donna Farmer, one of the company’s leading toxicologists: “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies—glyphosate is OK but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

HuffPost:

Brent Wisner, a lawyer for Johnson, in a statement said jurors for the first time had seen internal company documents “proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer.”

Until RoundUp has its page back, where do you all suggest this be added? petrarchan47คุก 09:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't belong anywhere in the article. One lawsuit in litigation crazy California is not proof of anything. We are seeing a law firm's perspective. I want to see these "secret" Monsanto documents. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I linked to them in above. petrarchan47คุก 17:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

At a minimum, the case verdict should be covered in Monsanto legal cases and I will add it tomorrow if no one else does first. There is significant coverage of this case. I agree that Roundup and Glyphosate are not synonymous and should have separate articles, and have said so for some time. This case would certainly merit some coverage in the Roundup article if we had one. We are not here to 'prove' anything about glyphosate or Roundup, but instead reflect what reliable sources say about it.Dialectric (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the resolution of the suit (with the caveat that I assume there are likely to be appeals, so this isn't final) does make the suit something that should be covered with some prominence. I'm neutral for the moment about whether it would be better to have it in a history section here versus a separate page about Roundup. But it unquestionably belongs in the legal cases page. I agree strongly with Dialectric that were are not here to 'prove' anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

For now, it’s probably better to take a wait and see approach beyond what’s currently up with WP:RECENTISM, in mind. Since this basically amounts to a fringe claim that glyphosate causes cancer (from non-qualified jurors), we do need to keep WP:DUE in mind considering the general scientific agreement on the matter. That being said, this stuff came out yesterday, so I’d expect independent scientists to be speaking out about it in the coming week or so that we could source to.

This is somewhat on par with a how a jury could still be easily misled vaccines cause autism, etc. as HiLo alluded to, so we will need to take care with it being a prominent case while also keeping in line with the fringe guideline. It won’t be easy crafting content to say the least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I propose to reinsert the sentence, "Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m damages to a farmer [per source: groundskeeper] in California, USA who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma " This is just a reliably sourced, neutral summary of the result of this law suit and clearly not WP:UNDUE in a section Legal cases. JimRenge (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the source, the word "farmer" should be changed to groundskeeper in the sentence above. JimRenge (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about how to write it, and I do recognize that we need to be careful about recentism. However, I would oppose adding nothing at all at this time, and I think we need to say something about it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn’t thinking of adding nothing, but trying to fit it into the current cancer discussions somehow for due weight. Aircorn has been doing some trimming lately, so I’m ok with the rough current version for now until we can dig into the material more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Jim, that content was already included, which is why I removed it. That being said, when some claims chemical X gave them cancer when the scientific community disagrees with such an outcome, we usually need some mention for due weight to avoid having WP:FRINGE viewpoints standing on their own. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, yes, I didn´t realize that you had removed redundant text/repetition. I see no serious problem with the short summary as it is. JimRenge (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is this article is about one ingredient in Roundup. Glyphosate makes up only 51% of the formulation, and this case brought out the fact that the adjuvants and other additives are not inert. It is anti-science for WP to continue to pass off Glyphosate as synonymous with Roundup, and the problem is further elucidated by the fact that we are quibbling over whether to mention this case in the "history" or cancer section here.

From internal documents shown to jurors https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/ is this quotation coming directly from Donna Farmer, lead toxicologist for Monsanto:

“The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use “Roundup” for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more. For example, you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.” petrarchan47คุก 17:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Petrarchan, this is getting into unrelated WP:OR or synth territory to the case with respect to Roundup vs glyphosate. Also, please be wary about cherrypicking emails provided by the litigants without context (I would hope most are aware of how bad "Climategate" got). A lot of the stuff in the case itself is going to be WP:UNDUE with respect to what WP:MEDRS sources have to say. If we're going to give any weight to the idea that the adjuvants are significantly causing cancer (not something really given weight by MEDRS from what I've seen), then we need MEDRS discussion of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:No original research the "policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". Petrarchan47 does not appear to be arguing that the quote be added to article space. Dialectric (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It may appear as SYNTH/OR but that is only because I didn't include my sources. The internal emails were reported on over a year ago, in the New York Times. The Intercept, considered WP:RS has been reporting on the issue of the "inert ingredients" since May. The recent case found that "specifically Roundup" was responsible for the man's cancer, as reported in Reuter's. They singled it out:

"Brent Wisner, a lawyer for Johnson, in a statement said jurors for the first time had seen internal company documents "proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer."

I will return back when I have time, to include all of my sources that have informed everything I've said on this talk page. Once you read the reporting, you will see that everything I've has been covered in RS, and I'm not using SYNTH. [Adding: CNN article discussing the fact that these non-Hodgkins court cases specify Roundup; the article goes into detail about the additives they believe cause harm.]

And this from the Guardian, reporting on the recent case: "Now...Monsanto’s secretive strategies have been laid bare for the world to see. Monsanto was undone by the words of its own scientists, the damning truth illuminated through the company’s emails, internal strategy reports and other communications. The jury’s verdict found not only that Monsanto’s Roundup and related glyphosate-based brands presented a substantial danger to people using them..."

Now here is the tricky part for us, we cannot appear to be helping the defense by confusing the public about the distinction between Glyphosate and the formulations, nor by the fact that without a Roundup page, we can't really cover the story of this and future cases properly. It's a bit 'too' convenient for Monsanto, it will almost look like they're exerting some influence over this website, which would make sense but we have the whole WP:NPOV thing to consider. Besides, Glyphosate and Roundup are two different animals. Google "synergistic effect" (RS has reported on SE too, I'm not using SYNTN here either.]

KoA43, would you be opposed to a "Roundup" article? petrarchan47คุก 10:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

For reasons that I'll explain just below, I would very strongly oppose the creation of RoundUp as a standalone page in addition to the page that has already been created. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm traveling and have an unreliable internet connection, so please bear with me, but I listened to some coverage of the verdict on NPR this (Sunday) morning, and something that struck me was that the reporter made a distinction in that the jury verdict was a legal finding, but that the jury may not have been in a position to make a scientific determination. I'm definitely in favor of covering the case prominently, but I think it may be useful to keep that distinction in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Trypto for that information. I think its very important as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

All that I am showing here is reason to go ahead and reinstate the Roundup article. Does anyone disagree? petrarchan47คุก 09:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: The new article is at Glyphosate-based herbicides. There is some support for this title over "Roundup" because it includes also includes Rodeo, etc. and discussing them all together is relevant for some of the content like aquatic toxicology. I don't think another split is needed just yet since the article itself is still rather short.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Um, no. I have just added many sources to this page justifying why Roundup should have its own page, called "Roundup". How do you tell the story of Monsanto's biggest selling product without using the word Roundup? How do you justify NOT having a page for "Roundup" specifically? This again, seems way too convenient for Monsanto/Bayer and not at all in keeping with common sense or how this encyclopedia usually operates. We have pages about high school rock bands but you all think not having a page called "Roundup" is OK? Please, defend your position. petrarchan47คุก 10:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"Roundup is the most popular weed killer on the planet ... The leading seller of glyphosate is Monsanto, the maker of Roundup." But you don't think it deserves it's own page? petrarchan47คุก 10:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think editors said they already added it to Monsanto legal cases. Roundup is a DAB page anyway, so that's unlikely to change. It would have to be called Roundup (herbicide) or something. I don't really want to get involved beyond that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel strongly that Glyphosate-based herbicides is the correct way to go. RoundUp redirects there, and Roundup is a DAB page, and that's the way that it should stay. RoundUp from Monsanto is one of the glyphosate-based herbicides, and the effect of giving it a separate page would inevitably be the creation of a WP:POV-fork that says "Monsanto and RoundUp are bad". --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

References