Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Glyphosphate now ( "20 March 2015 " ) stated by WHO to "probably cause cancer"

"IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides" ( 20 March 2015 ) http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

"Health Agency Says Widely Used Herbicide Likely Carcinogenic - Herbicide, glyphosate, is sold by Monsanto under Roundup brand " March 20, 2015 5:05 p.m. ET http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-agency-says-widely-used-herbicide-likely-carcinogenic-1426885547 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.104.17 (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop Making Us Guinea Pigs. An opinion by Mark Bittman, The New York Times. IjonTichy (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Added #1 and #2 sources. Not #3. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll just piggyback on this section, but content related to this was recently added to the lead. This is a very recent event that's still unfolding, so we don't yet know if it has enough weight to include in the lead or not per WP:RECENTISM. The first problem is that other sources like the EPA and other sources conflict with the WHO's findings, so just providing the WHO's stance is undue weight. Others are beginning to respond directly to the WHO's statement, so it's best to give the topic some time to flesh itself out before giving it more prominence. It's a bit too early to say more than what the WHO said within the body, so it can always be revisited when some time has passed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Disputed by Kingofaces43 [1], but not here on talk. Something I miss? -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not "that's still unfolding". It is a published WHO report. The consequences may be unclear yes, so we do not spceculate indeed. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Before we all get too worked up about this as the smoking gun that Monsanto critics have been waiting for, its probably worth noting that the IARC also considers wood dust as a known human carcinogen. The IARC's assessment deserves mention, side by side with the EPA's assessment that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. If one belongs in the lead, so does the other. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No, it is not "that's still unfolding". It is a published WHO report. The consequences may be unclear yes, so we do not spceculate indeed. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, then add EPA's conclusions. But that is no reason to omit WHO results. Now this: you say "very recently" "recenticism" "still unfolding" (quod non), "we don't yet know if it has enough weight" (WP:OR you ask?), "other sources like the EPA ... conflict" (OR again, and why shold EPA not be in there?), "Others are beginning to respond directly" (are you a journalist?), "some time to flesh itself out" (wiki wait for what?). In general, you are only asking for time. Are you sure you have no WP:COI? -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"the smoking gun that Monsanto critics have been waiting for" Does not give you right judgements though. WP:RS. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It recently hit the news, and other sources have just begun to respond to it. That's pretty much the definition of still unfolding. We know other sources are beginning to discuss the WP:WEIGHT of the WHO report, and other equivalent sources do not match WHO's findings. The former means it can be worthwhile (and no harm) to wait awhile. The latter means that solely mentioning the WHO report is undue weight in the lead. There's also the issue that the finding was for a specific group of people, which namely those in industrial usage being exposed to extremely high levels. We need to be very careful about blanket statements here. Please read WP:RECENTISM if you haven't already as it summarizes this very kind of scenario pretty well. Lfstevens edit is a step in a better direction that's fine while this is being discussed at least. At this point, it's best to work with the content in the body, give it awhile to breath, and then add it to the lead at a later date per WP:LEAD. Also, please remember to comment on content, not contributor on article talk pages please. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

EPA

I tightened the wording in both places. Now I'll go find the EPA ref. Everybody calm down and stop the name-calling. Lfstevens (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. Done. Hope everybody's happy. Lfstevens (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

^Thank you. Good work! David Tornheim (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"and other equivalent sources do not match WHO's findings." That's WP:OR sure. Kingofaces43 arguing 'newishness' about a scienctific publication needs to check thet COIs. But alas, their EPA FUD seems to do. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (redact personal attack. 2nd warning. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

By accident, I happened to read the source provided by the FUD. I say it should be removed from the lead. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The EPA assessment is from 1991/1993 and as a health claim over 20 years old should be removed from the article per WP:MEDRS / WP:MEDDATE.Dialectric (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

agreed. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to Kingofaces43 we must treat a 1991 report as RECENTICISM, "very recent event that's still unfolding", "some time to flesh itself out", "we do not spceculate [sic]". (read it while it lasts. Jytdog might strike it, but somehow not the "smoking gun that Monsanto critics ...") see. -DePiep (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not what he said. See TPG: "Do not misrepresent other people" Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I said nothing about the 1991 source yet. In such a case like that recentism obviously wouldn't be a factor, but we'd want to take a moment to look for more up-to-date sources from the EPA to reestablish their current view since they tend to provide updates relatively regularly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be added to the body of the article, and resumed in the WP:LEAD. No citations in the lead. Christian75 (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I found this: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf no date

It says:

"Health Effects Summary

"Acute: EPA has found glyphosate to potentially cause the following health effects from acute exposures at levels above the MCL: congestion of the lungs; increased breathing rate. Drinking water levels which are considered "safe" for short-term exposures: For a 10-kg (22 lb.) child consuming 1 liter of water per day, upto a ten-day exposure to 20 mg/L or up to a 7-year exposure to 1 mg/L.

"Chronic: Glyphosate has the potential to cause the following health effects from long-term exposures at levels above the MCL: kidney damage, reproductive effects.

"Cancer: There is inadequate evidence to state whether or not glyphosate has the potential to cause cancer from a lifetime exposure in drinking water.

Then there's this: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-0009

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats found no systemic effects in any of the parameters examined (body weight, food consumption, clinical signs, mortality, clinical pathology, organ weights, and histopathology). A second chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats tested at higher dietary levels, and a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) was identified at 20,000 ppm (approximately 940 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) based on decreased body-weight gains in females and increased incidence of cataracts and lens abnormalities, decreased urinary pH, increased absolute liver weight, and increased relative liver weight/brain weight in males. No evidence of carcinogenicity was found in mice or rats. In a chronic toxicity study in dogs, no systemic effects were found in all examined parameters.

There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure in developmental studies. A focal tubular dilation of the kidneys was observed in an older 3-generation reproductive study on rats at the 30-mg/kg/day level (highest dose tested (HDT)); however, a 2-generation reproductive study on rats did not observe the same effect at the 1,500 mg/kg/day level (HDT), nor were any adverse reproductive effects observed at any dose level. A clear NOAEL was established and the chronic reference dose (cRfD) was set at a level well below this effect. Neurotoxicity has not been observed in any of the acute, subchronic, chronic, developmental, or reproductive studies performed with glyphosate.

Neurotoxicity screening battery tests and an immunotoxicity study have been submitted to the Agency. Given the timing of the submission of these studies, the Agency has conducted preliminary reviews of these studies. The preliminary reviews show no effects up to the HDT for both the acute and subchronic durations for the neurotoxicity studies and no effects up to the HDT in the immunotoxicity study. EPA does not believe that further review will result in different conclusions concerning the neurotoxic or immunotoxic potential of glyphosate.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by glyphosate as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document entitled “Glyphosate. Section 3 Registration Concerning the Application of Glyphosate to Carrots, Sweet Potato, Teff, and Oilseeds (Crop Group (CG) 20) and to Update the CG Definitions for Bulb Vegetable (CG 3-07), Fruiting Vegetable (CG 8-10), Citrus Fruit (CG 10-10), Pome Fruit (CG 11-10), and Berry (CG 13-07). Human-Health Risk Assessment” on pp. 26-28 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a RfD—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for glyphosate used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in theFederal Registerof April 8, 2011 (76 FR 19701) (FRL-8866-8).

C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to glyphosate, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existingglyphosate tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364. EPA assessed dietary exposures from glyphosate in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for glyphosate; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for both proposed and existing commodities.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for glyphosate. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used both a screening level water exposure model (surface water) as well as monitoring data (ground water) in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for glyphosate in drinking water. The simulation model takes into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of glyphosate. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and monitoring data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of glyphosate for chronic exposures are estimated to be 8.11 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.03 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 8.11 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Glyphosate is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf (including golf courses and residential lawns) and for aquatic application. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:

Based on the registered residential use patterns, there is a potential for short-term dermal and inhalation exposures to homeowners who mix and apply products containing glyphosate (residential handlers). However, since short- and intermediate-term dermal or inhalation endpoints were not selected, a quantitative exposure risk assessment was not completed.

Based on the registered use patterns, children 1-2 years old may have short-term post-application incidental oral exposures from hand-to-mouth behavior on treated lawns and swimmers (adults and children 3-6 years old) may have short-term post-application incidental oral exposures from aquatic uses. Based on the soil half-life for glyphosate, intermediate-term soil ingestion was also considered for children 1<2 years old. The incidental oral scenarios for the turf assessment (i.e., hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion) should be considered inter-related and it is likely that they occur interspersed amongst each other across time. Combining these scenarios would be overly conservative because of the conservative nature of each individual assessment. Therefore, none of the incidental oral scenarios were combined.

Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found glyphosate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and glyphosate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that glyphosate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

Lfstevens, what is your takeaway from this material? Is there any evidence that the EPA has revised their position since the 1990s or incorporated newer studies into their analysis?Dialectric (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My take is that the EPA stuff is outdated. However, I was not impressed with the stuff behind the IARC report, either, although it's their call. The epidemiological studies left me with the impression that all pesticides are carcinogenic! That hardly seems likely, given their diverse modes of action. "Pesticide" is just a word, with no specific scientific content. However, given that glyphosate is the #1 pesticide, it's past time for a rigorous reanalysis of its health impacts. Of course, I'm just opining.... Lfstevens (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

EPA's REDS document is really outdated. we need to use it much less. I reworked the toxicity section - there were some issues there with the German report described in two places, like it was two different things. I also got rid of the popular media sources on the IARC report and used Nature News instead. And I simplified the description of this stuff in the lead... the story is pretty simple. It was found safe until just last year, when the meta-analysis published, and now the iARC report. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lymphoma

The lead contains the sentence

"Regulatory and scholarly reviews of the toxicity of glyphosate found it to be relatively safe as an herbicide, until a meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[5]"

I think this sentence is not really correct, as

• It implies that there was a sea change in the scientific consensus following this publication.
• The use of the word "identified" treats this finding as established fact.

However no source has been provided supporting a sea change in scientific thinking on this subject, and the conclusions of the meta analysis itself are controversial. I would like to propose changing this to something along the lines of

Most regulatory and scholarly reviews of the toxicity of glyphosate have concluded that it is relatively safe. One meta analysis of epidemiological studies published in 2014 concluded that exposure confers an increased risk of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. Others evaluating the data concluded that the results of the study were not convincing."

I am not deeply attached to any exact wording, but I think we need to communicate that different authorities have reached differing conclusions, and we need to remove the unsourced assertion that a sea change in opinion occurred in 2014. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with most of the change. Do we have a source for the final sentence? Lfstevens (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be the German report. It was in there previously with slightly different wording and the same citation can be used. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Toxicity sectioning

the way this is set up, within the toxicity section, there are 3 main subsections: toxicity of glyphosate itself, toxicity of individual additives, and toxicity of glyphosate formulations (the actual products used - which are glyphosate + additives). these need to stay separate, and sources need to be placed into whichever section is appropriate. some of the additives are more toxic than glyphosate itself. All the toxicology reviews deal with these diffferently and carefully. See the BfR for example... you will be able to see the same thing in the actual IAFR monograph when it publishes. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits of March 26

Several statements have been introduced and several have been removed that have moved the article away from WP:NPOV's requirement that the space given to different points of view should reflect their prominence among reliable sources.

• The version of the article from 12:16 today includes reliably sourced statements that have been removed, including:

"The German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) concluded that the available evidence does not point to mutagenic or carcinogenic potential."

This statement is supported not only in the source originally cited, but also in reference 52 of the current version of the article (page 34) iin which it is stated

"The potential genotoxicity of glyphosate was tested in an adequate range of in vitro and in vivo studies providing no evidence of genotoxic potential" and on page 35 in which the animal studies are reviewed, leading to the conclusion that "therefore, glyphosate was considered unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk in humans"

• The lead now contains the statement that "Regulatory and scholarly reviews of the toxicity of glyphosate found it to be relatively safe as an herbicide, until a meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in workers exposed to glyphosate.[5]" However, the findings of this study have been questioned and thus we should not say in Wikipedia's voice that an increased risk was "found". The sentence pointing out that the German health authorities had not found this study convincing was moved to the middle of the article, rather than juxtaposing the article supporting a connection. Why do the German health authorities not get equal billing with two guys who decided to write a meta analysis here?

Lastly, there is a 2015 systematic review of animal studies that failed to find any evidence of carcinogencity. It should be in here if we are going to quote a meta analysis of non-randomized epidemiologic studies in the lede. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25716480

Formerly 98 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's time for people to stop winging it with their edits. Let's develop a consensus here about which reviews to credit and what weight to give each one. Then we can come up with language. Lfstevens (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens, there is no big crisis here - this is what always happens when new studies come out. we have a flurry of activity, generally calm but sometimes with ... drama. this is not our first rodeo (there was seralini when that stuff published, seneff when that published, etc etc.)  :) I had some of my most fun and interesting and beautiful experiences in Wikipedia working on this kind of stuff and some of my ugliest. like i said it generally stays reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Formerly, thanks!

About the BfR analysis...

see your point. for the part on glyphosate per se, i amended that to "examined epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies that it found valid, and found that "no classification and labelling for carcinogenicity is warranted" and recommended a carcinogen classification of 1A or 1B." and cited pages in the BrR report.

also, i realized - as the BfR report points out on page 64ff of Vol 1, that the epidemiological studies are of glyphosate formulations. i moved the content about the BfR report and the 2014 meta-analysis and the 2013 analysis into the formulation toxicity section. zoiks, we all had blown that. and i added the content you had earlier suggested back.

and i see what you are saying, that the German report and the 2014 meta-analysis looked at the same data. added that contradiction into the lead.

happy to keep talking... we do our best to follow the sources, yes we do. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you did all that. There's a lot of little things to be careful about that can easily be missed; the methodical approach is so important. Anyone (even me with my background) can miss things sometimes without really sitting down to reread sources, so slow and steady wins the game. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I admire your willingness to reconsider your position in light of new data, but I think that version just went too far in focusing on what was currently in the headlines. Overall I agree that the FDA review is pretty dated (though how many of the studies are actually new?) and that IARC is probably the most prestigious and credible of the groups that have reviewed this data. But on the other side of the scale is the fact that they are the only major group to have reached this conclusion.

This study may be a little stale (2006) but the FAO and WHO reviewed glyphosate in 2006. They reached the same conclusions as the German group, though this is discounted a bit by the fact that the Germans appparently wrote the first draft of report.

Interestingly, the Germans have also published a response to the IARC report, stating "The fact that different bodies assess issues differently due to differing information and assessments of experimental data is part and parcel of the risk assessment process. BfR will therefore perform a thorough review of the classification issued by IARC once the monograph becomes available." This sounds like a nice summary to me.

Formerly 98 (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

generally per MEDRS we go for the most recent reviews, right? need to see when the most recent epidemiological studies were published, post 2006 or before. the German study noted in several places, that it took quite a few studies into account that hadn't been considered by other regulators before. just as a side note, i am really curious as to what studies the IARC folks considered and which they threw out. This is a key part of any tox review. The German folks took Seralini with a huge grain of salt for example; I wonder if the IARC folks kept it. We won't know until their actual monograph publishes - all we have is their summary now. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I"m ambivalent on the "most recent review" issue as what of course matters is whether new data was considered and the quality of those studies. From what I read on the German website, I suspect that the Germans gave little credence to non-GLP studies and IARC may have handled this differerntly, but we'll know soon enough. (Isn't this why we delayed adding information about the IMPROVE-IT trial until it actually publishes? Why are we doing it differently here?) Formerly 98 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see a list of the studies that the Germans used and which ones they threw out. Where can I find that information? Gandydancer (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gandy - the German report is like the National Toxicology report on BLP - really long, and carefully reviews all the literature. To get the report, go to the link in the ref. You have to register and give your email, and you get an automatic email back with links to the document, which has about ten volumes. We currently source from the 1st volume. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are the IARC sources (from the Lancet) International Agency for Research on Cancer Volume 112: Some organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon and glyphosate. IARC Working Group. Lyon; 3–10 March 2015. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Hum (in press).

Parker, CM, Van Gelder, GA, Chai, EY et al. Oncogenic evaluation of tetrachlorvinphos in the B6C3F1 mouse. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1985; 5: 840–854 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (5)

National Toxicology Program. Bioassay of parathion for possible carcinogenicity. Natl Cancer Inst Carcinog Tech Rep Ser. 1979; 70: 1–123 PubMed

Cabello, G, Valenzuela, M, Vilaxa, A et al. A rat mammary tumor model induced by the organophosphorous pesticides parathion and malathion, possibly through acetylcholinesterase inhibition. Environ Health Perspect. 2001; 109: 471–479 CrossRef | PubMed

Waddell, BL, Zahm, SH, Baris, D et al. Agricultural use of organophosphate pesticides and the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among male farmers (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2001; 12:509–517 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (65)

McDuffie, HH, Pahwa, P, McLaughlin, JR et al. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and specific pesticide exposures in men: cross-Canada study of pesticides and health. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.2001; 10: 1155–1163 PubMed

Eriksson, M, Hardell, L, Carlberg, M, and Akerman, M. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer. 2008; 123: 1657–1663 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (32)

Band, PR, Abanto, Z, Bert, J et al. Prostate cancer risk and exposure to pesticides in British Columbia farmers. Prostate. 2011; 71: 168–183 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (31)

Koutros, S, Beane, Freeman, LE et al. Risk of total and aggressive prostate cancer and pesticide use in the Agricultural Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2013; 177: 59–74 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (16)

US Environmental Protection Agency. Peer review of malathion: 18-month carcinogenicity study in mice. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-057701_undated_004.pdf. ((accessed March 6, 2015).)

Alavanja, MC, Hofmann, JN, Lynch, CF et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk and insecticide, fungicide and fumigant use in the agricultural health study. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9: e109332 CrossRef | PubMed

Jones RR, Barone-Adesi F, Koutros S, et al. Incidence of solid tumors among pesticide applicators exposed to the organophosphate insecticide diazinon in the Agricultural Health Study: an updated analysis. Occup Environ Med 2015 (in press).

Hatjian, BA, Mutch, E, Williams, FM, Blain, PG, and Edwards, JW. Cytogenetic response without changes in peripheral cholinesterase enzymes following exposure to a sheep dip containing diazinon in vivo and in vitro. Mutat Res. 2000; 472: 85–92 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (28)

De Roos, AJ, Zahm, SH, Cantor, KP et al. Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men. Occup Environ Med. 2003; 60: E11 CrossRef | PubMed

WHO/FAO. Glyphosate. Pesticides residues in food 2004 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticides Residues. Part II Toxicological. IPCS/WHO 2004; 95–162.http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/chemical-risks/jmpr/en/. ((accessed March 6, 2015).)

Bolognesi, C, Carrasquilla, G, Volpi, S, Solomon, KR, and Marshall, EJ. Biomonitoring of genotoxic risk in agricultural workers from five Colombian regions: association to occupational exposure to glyphosate. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2009; 72: 986–997 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (25) NB: content above added by — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) note by me Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

the above sources are for the summary, yes. the actual IARC monograph when it publishes will have many, many more. When it publishes it will be here: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/PDFs/index.php You can see they are pretty behind - the last one there is #108 and this is #112. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Toxicity in lead

The lead has a section that explicitly points out the IARC report. Their conclusion is at odds with other meta-analysis. I am clueless to why this report should be so explicitly mentioned in the lead section. WHO analyses are not published in scientific magazine, and WHO work groups have in the past also concluded that acupuncture is an effective treatment. Besides, the conclusion of the work group is criticized by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Not a light-weight: this scientific body advises the German government and the European Union commanded them to conduct a meta-analysis on the topic. I suggest to move all that from the lead to the appropriate section 'toxicity' and just write about the current scientific consensus in the lead. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Per MEDRS we follow the most recent secondary sources. These are currently the German BrF review and the WHO report. If want some critique of the WHO report, you need to bring a reliable secondary source saying why it or the IARC should be discounted; it cannot be discounted just based on what you say here. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, but still confused as to why the IARC report is in the lead and quoted verbatim, but the FIRA report and the 2015 meta analysis are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog, I don't mean that anything should be discounted. My point is rather that we should not have this discussion in the lead but in the toxicity section. And we should summarize this appropriately in the lead. Per MEDRS we follow the most scientific sources. The IARC and BrF reports are both not subjected to peer-review before publication in a scientific magazine. This means that it is an opinion of the organisation based on their analysis. The difference is that BfR's analysis is much larger (and BfR is more reputable than IARC but that seems to be not common knowledge). It would also be good to include meta-analyses that are published in scientific magazines. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

i agree, body first. that is where i did most of my work over the past day or so. we don't know what IARC analyzed yet, b/c they haven't published their full report; all we have is their summary. We do know (from the Nature News report) that they didn't include industry-funded studies, however. But that is about it. I reckon they reviewed everything else. about how to treat IARC, i just made an edit bringing a NYT article as a source. .Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Questionable Edit

Please see this. Now the link to the Lancet study is broken. I will leave someone else to fix it for reasons I dare not talk about here. David Tornheim (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks. that was boghog - he spends a lot of time properly formatting refs. the doi link is funky. the number was accurate. if you click on the pmid, you can click through to the abstract at Lancet Oncology again. it is behind a pay wall so the pubmed abstract tells you as much as the lancet abstract, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The link that was removed allows for free access.David Tornheim (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

here is the version of the article from before boghog's edits, and

here is the citation from that version: Kathryn Z. Guyton, et al, "Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate", The Lancet Oncology, 20 March 2015. PMID 25801782 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8 Where do you see a free link there? Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This link says, "This article is available free of charge." At the bottom of the page. David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. so it still the journal's abstract page. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting. David Tornheim (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

sure Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I got the full Lancet article. You just have to register at no charge. Here's the link: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8/fulltext

Lfstevens (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Source request

Could we have another source, please, for this material in the lead?

However, the same data had been analyzed by the German Institute for Risk Assessment in a report also published in 2014, which found that "the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing" with regard to correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers including NHL.

Many thanks, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah,

Is there a particular objection to this source? Per WP:MEDRS,

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. "

I believe the BfR would qualify and an "internationally recognized expert body" and thus as "an ideal source". Formerly 98 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, one of the issues is that I don't know where to find "the same data had been analyzed by the German Institute for Risk Assessment in a report also published in 2014, which found that ..." With the WHO paper, we have a supporting source (Nature) that explains the issues. I'd like to see something similar for the German report, so that we present it as others do. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right that what I added is poorly worded. I think what the source says (the page of the document that is cited in the text) is that the German group did not find the meta analysis convincing. Given the scope (many hundreds of pages) of this review, I assume that they went over the same studies on a one by one basis. But I would have to go back and spend some time looking at the report to assess that directly.

Part of the problem here of course is that when a government agency reiterates a historical consensus, it does not attract nearly as much attention as when one comes up with a position that is very different from what others have said. I have not found anything equivalent to the Nature article discussing the German review.

Formerly 98 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'll remove it for now, but we can restore it if we find a source that discusses it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and ran this down, and the German report includes all of the studies included in the meta analysis that found an increased risk associated with exposure. So I think this should be restored.

I also believe that the addition of the statement "In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals."[6][7][8]" in Wikipedia's voice and unbalanced by other reliable sources that reached the opposite conclusion to the lede is inappropriate. I respectfully request that you stop editing the article unilaterally. There is clearly a lot of different opinions here, and I think it would be much better to reach agreement on language on the talk page that get into a frenzy of reversions and counter-reversions. Its unpleasant and unproductive to edit that way and I think we are all reasonable enough to negotiate some agreed upon language. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not in WP's voice; it's a quote from the WHO. The way the report was quoted before was misleading.

You are correct, but if we are going to directly quote the WHO report I would think that we would directly quote the German report and the 2015 meta analysis that reached the opposite conclusion. At that point the paragraph is going to get unwieldy. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

We can restore the German report, but as it was written it was OR. Because this is a contentious point, we need a source that directly supports what is added. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I restored the BfR report without the first phrase. I also removed the quote from the WHO report from the lead which is UNDUE there; we didn't even quote it in the body. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps nitpicking, but I believe the "not convincing" description applied to the NHL epidemiology study only and the broader overall statement was "probably not a human carcinogen". "Not convincing" suggests a conclusion cannot be drawn, were as "probably not a carcinogen" directly contradicts IARC. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Source request again

Can we please have a source that discusses the German study so that we know how to summarize it?

Jytdog added to the lead: "The German Institute for Risk Assessment published a toxicology review in 2014, which found that 'the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing' with regard to correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers including NHL."

His source is the study itself, but it is long, and we don't know whether this is the best way to summarize it. There is a link to it here. The quote Jytdog uses is on p. 65. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

that is a great MEDRS source, and that is what a real toxicology review look like. it is freely available for you to VERIFY the content. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Drinking glyphosate

The following content is being edit warred into the article by 5.12.55.41 and 188.25.223.185 dif

On 26 march 2015 in a preview of an interview it was revealed that Monsanto lobbyist Dr. Patrick Moore said the chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer is safe for humans but then refused to drink it when the journalist offered him a glass.

He said that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, was not increasing the rate of cancer in Argentina and insisted that “You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you” but these arguments have been invalidated by his own behavior.

References

Does anybody find this content to be encyclopedia worthy? In my view: it is WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and it also doesn't describe what happened accurately. See here. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff for a tabloid, meaningless in terms of the issues of safety which must be addressed using WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that this Moore incident doesn't merit inclusion in this article, as Moore is not a recognized expert on the subject. Also, more an aside, sources have been corrected to say he is not a Monsanto lobbyist.Dialectric (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, ridiculous as a serious suggestion for an encyclopedia article. I hardly think this matter needs any more attention, honestly. Zad68 01:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I do wish that everybody would stop the stupid stuff. This is hard enough already. Lfstevens (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WHO Contradiction

As Spydoo points out, there is a contradiction in the article. It reads, "...the UN World Health Organization have all concluded pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic." which is at odds with "...the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans"". There is no source provided for the former claim, while IARC is tradionally the workgroup that classifies this for the WHO. The IARC indeed did a review years ago in which it found that glyphosate was not carcinogenic. Thus, Spydoo "Removed WHO from list of organisations that have found glyphosate to not be harmful, considering the upcoming release of study with adverse findings against the chemical." But Sjgknight undid this arguing "An org can find both things, complete removal doesn't make sense". While that is obviously possible, the article does not need 'whatever is possible', but what can be verified and substantiated. I support Spydoo's edit and enforced it again, noting in the summary, "that was probably based on the IARC review years ago. IARC redid exactly that review. WHO opinion IS changed on the matter." But Sarr Cat undid that with exactly the same argument as Sjgknight gave. I now request a source to substantiate the claim that WHO conclude that pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic, because it is very likely that opinion is based on a former review by the IARC. Which is now superseded by their latest review. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The content you and the others were edit-warring over was duplicative of content elsewhere. I just deleted it. Matter resolved, I think Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty rigid, because the duplication is necessary as every header should be an independent discussion. You also removed the position of the EC Health and Consumer Protection which is now no where to be found in the article. But I agree the whole section was unsubstantiated. Timelezz (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

yeah i should have mentioned that the content about EC Health and Consumer Protection Directorate was unsourced and should not have been there at all. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The new findings contradict their previous ones, correct? I see no mention of this fact in the article. (which could just be me being stupid, ill admit). I get where you're going in that the new review supersedes the old ones though. However, i don't like how the new report is mentioned right in the lead section without at least some mention of it's controversial status. SarrCat ∑;3 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

we generally do not cite the history of reviews. just the most recent, authoritative things. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I just thought it might be worthwhile to mention, as it seems that this particular review is controversial due to it going against what most scientific reviews have said so far (from what I can tell anyways.) I guess the main issue here is what position WHO takes, then I guess, yeah, go with the most recent review if that's the standard thing to do on WP. SarrCat ∑;3 20:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't we have the problem that WHO's current review has not yet been published? So no one can evaluate what it is based on. Currently all we have is a press release right? Ttguy (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

the people who did the review published a summary in lancet oncology, which is cited in our article. it is true that the full tox study has not published yet. there is discussion of this above (they are something like 6 volumes behind) Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Formula

change formula as it shows the Phosporus atom on the left where the pictures have it on the right

Kuklinsky-Sobral ref

The following ref was used to support the claim that glyphosate is taken up by roots. Kuklinsky-Sobral, Julia, et al. "Isolation and characterization of endophytic bacteria from soybean (Glycine max) grown in soil treated with glyphosate herbicide." Plant and soil 273.1-2 (2005): 91-99. I read that ref and i do not find where it says that. Where does it say that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

roots

So, the secondary sources all make it clear that in actual use, glyphosate is primarily taken up by leaves. there is uptake by roots but it is minimal, as glyphosate that doesn't stick to leaves or otherwise enters the soil, binds tightly to the soil. in my edit to the body yesterday, i added content about that, with sourcing (please do check that sourcing and if you disagree I am interested in hearing about that). because root uptake is minimal, i just removed "roots" from the lead here, since the lead is a summary and doesn't deal with small details generally. Since this is important to SageRad I went ahead and made the lead match the body in this dif. Unsure why this is so important to you, SageRad. Can you explain? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

To me, it is important not to minimize root uptake without data to support it. For now, i have added the new reference in place of the Kuklinsky-Sobral ref, as noted above. The new ref is Sprankle, Paul, W. F. Meggitt, and Donald Penner. "Rapid inactivation of glyphosate in the soil." Weed Science (1975): 224-228. This states clearly that glyphosate is taken up by roots in the research. The reason for the importance of root uptake is that glyphosate is commonly being used for "burndown" treatment prior to planting, and residues are indeed being found in the crops being grown in that soil, even when the crop is not directly sprayed during its growth. These are significant levels of glyphosate in crops such as wheat and other grains, which have not been directly sprayed even pre-harvest, and these levels have been reported by the FAO assays on glyphosate in 2005. For now, i will leave it as it stands, until i can find more solid data and sources on uptake by roots. I hope you understand why this is important and why it might not be accurately described by "minimally" -- I think that it is not fully known whether it's "minimally" or more like "significantly". Thanks for your patience. I hope this doesn't seem like nit-picking to you, but how the story is told is important, and this affects the food supply of the human species. I am seeking truth, not a bias in either direction. Let the truth speak. I do see too much obfuscation by the industry, however, out in the world, so i am watchful for bias in that direction. SageRad (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia is not about The Truth^TM and the more you talk that way, the more difficult you make things for yourself. Please do read WP:VERIFY. You really need reliable sources that root uptake matters; right now you don't have any that i can see. the science may change - I am just talking about now. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

seeking page protection

here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SageRad_and_User:Jytdog_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29 Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean and how can i help to resolve this? I do not think i am edit warring here, but discussing and replacing references with more appropriate ones as discussed, etc. Is this a charge against me in particular? SageRad (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

you have absolutely' been edit warring. Please read WP:EDITWAR. if i had been the game-playing asshole some people make me out to be, i would have been much more intentional and brought you there quickly to have you blocked. but in the real world I am not that guy. i have trying to talk with you and have been reverting your (policy-violating) edits - and thus edit warrring myself, which is why i filed the case against both of us. instead of pushing and pushing to change the article, we are supposed to discuss things when there is a disagreement and not go back and change the article more until we disagree. i finally filed the case to get the article locked, to force you to stop making poor edits so we can talk things through. articles should not get jerked around this way. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Then just let me say that i didn't *intend* to edit war. I'm getting accustomed to the culture of Wikipedia in regard to articles that are more closely watched or thought to be controversial. When i've made edits to grammar or small details on other pages, i've never encountered opposition of this kind, though i respect this, now. Also, i did make changes in response to your critiques of my changes -- like if you said it was not substantiated, then i added a reference. But... it's water under the bridge because, as of now, i am discussing here any proposed changes first. SageRad (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Added variation in rates of sensitivity of EPSPS to glyphosate

I added this sentence to note that EPSPS sensitivity to glyphosate varies by species among microbes and plants. "Glyphosate inhibits the EPSPS enzymes of different species of plants and microbes at different rates." I hope you find that the reference to Shulz 1985 is reliable and supports the statement that i added. I also hope you find it relevant to the basic biochemistry of glyphosate in its main mode of action as competitive inhibitor to EPSPS. I would also like to add a statement on the lower limits of sensitivity of microbial cells and plants to glyphosate, as that seems relevant to describing the biochemical interactions of the subject of this article. SageRad (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As to adding a sentence on the concentration of glyphosate that affects microbes, i would cite this paper to support a known level of effect. Jaworski, Ernest G. "Mode of action of N-phosphonomethylglycine. Inhibition of aromatic amino acid biosynthesis." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 20.6 (1972): 1195-1198. Here is the relevant table as an image. Note that PMG refers to glyphosate, as it was an earlier acronym for the chemical. Note the concentrations that show growth inhibition as measured by optical density over five days, and the lowest level tested, 10 uM, shows significant inhibition of growth. SageRad (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

content about lawsuit, sourced to lawsuit

SageRad added this content, which i reverted.

In April 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Monsanto alleging false advertising for the claim they made that Roundup herbicide (containing glyphosate as the active ingredient) acts on an enzyme that is not found in people. The plaintiff claims that because the EPSP synthase enzyme is found in microbes of the human gut microbiome, it is therefore found in people. The outcome of the case is pending.

References

First, this is sourced to the website of the people bringing the suit, so is essentially spam for the attorneys bringing it. This is not a reliable source. It is also not independent of the topic. (Again please see the essay WP:Controversial articles for the kind of sourcing that should be used on controversial topics). Finally, WP is WP:NOTNEWS. We don't "report" lawsuits being initiated (especially not via the lawyer's website); filing of lawsuits isn't noteworthy. Settlements/verdicts reported in reliable source are noteworthy. See WP:UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If it gets significant press attention or is certified as a class action, it might be worth revisiting. But I could just as easily file a lawsuit against Monsanto alleging that they are invading my privacy by listening to my thoughts. A mere filing by a handful of individuals is neither here nor there. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 13:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, i hear your points. SageRad (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do note, however, that i tried to source it not to that website which i found through Google, but to an article about it at Examiner.com but found that whole domain to be blacklisted, and so i found another way to source it. I also have requested to be able to cite the specific article on examiner.com at the whitelisting page, to have a news story and avoid this sourcing issue which i though y'all would have perhaps. SageRad (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

examiner.com is not a reliable source and is blacklisted for good reason. pretty much anybody can post a "story" there - it is essentially a wiki (see WP:SPS)- and the "story" there is really just a press release by the attorneys who filed the suit. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So also, let me say that i don't think Wikipedia is a news source, and the policy mentioned about is titled "What Wikipedia is not" -- and it does not state any policy against mentioning lawsuits filed. I understand your logic, Formerly, and if i filed a lawsuit alleging that Monsanto can read my thoughts or something, that would have no place clearly. However, if there is a notable lawsuit against any entity, i'd think its existence can surely be reported. So on principle i disagree, though i get the sense that you all don't think this is a lawsuit filing worthy of including in the article, while i do, and so i guess this is where i compromise on matters of editorial importance and inclusion, right? Of course, if the lawsuit were decided already, then it might be more worthy of inclusion, i would think. SageRad (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This filed lawsuit, whether certified or not, seems definitely to be of interest in coverage of glyphosate and particularly Monsanto, it is significant to anyone following the history of RoundUp and glyphosate, which in turn is central to the subject of GMOs in agriculture, and to residential pesticide use. The suit alleges: "Defendant makes the claim that Roundup, the world’s most popular weedkiller, works by targeting an enzyme supposedly found only in plants, but not in people ... Contrary to Defendant’s claim, Roundup targets an enzyme found in both plants and people." Simply the fact of the actual filing seems noteworthy, given the context, and the source which (correct me if I'm wrong) indicates a case number, showing that the case was actually filed.

As to WP:NOTNEWS, that guideline seems to favor including this item: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." The guideline goes on to describe cases where verifiable content is not generally suitable, focusing on breaking news (which I interpret as, "the fire seems to be spreading") and celebrity coverage. In context, the filing of this lawsuit is a significant current event.

Unless an editor believes this lawsuit does not exist, is literally made up, there is a reasonable source, and the subject is certainly noteworthy, so what other problem is there? --Tsavage (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The other problem, which was described above, is notability. If the NYTimes runs a story on this, it may be worth adding. But as editors, we are dependent on reliable secondary sources to inform us whether events are noteworthy. Right now, the silence of these sources is telling us that this event is not. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} `

@Formerly 98: It seems you are referring to WP:NOTABILITY, which is a standard for determining whether a subject merits a standalone article, and explicitly does not apply to content within an article: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" (WP:NNC). The basics within an article, I believe, are relevance and verifiability (WP:V), both of which I believe have been demonstrated.

It seems as if you are trying to fit rules to exclusion, that you want to exclude the item, rather than giving common sense editorial consideration to whether it improves or diminishes the article. Why do you think this item is not of significance? It doesn't matter whether the class action is certified or not, it is part of the history of the subject, a certain milestone. Don't forget, "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage." --Tsavage (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage and SageRad would open Wikipedia up to all kind of ax-grinders with a financial COI adding negative content about the object of their lawsuit. Briefs filed in lawsuits are not reliable for anything other than X said Y. The question becomes, why should we even bring that into an article. It becomes a question of WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: "would open Wikipedia up to all kind of ax-grinders" - Are you accusing me of, what, exactly? Is your argument that we should suppress otherwise valid content as a preemptive measure, to avoid the possibility of some terrible editorial event that it might cause?

"It becomes a question of WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, etc." - More misrepresentation of core guidance by tossing in of unexplained shortcuts (and here, from reading talk, you're aware that SageRad has told you s/he is a new editor, wishing to learn the rules). I already indicated how WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. WP:UNDUE is about not giving undue weight in representations of disputes and opposing viewpoints, it concerns content that is already there, not content exclusion. And what does etc mean, I generally read etcetera as "more of the same," which is in this case, what, additional cryptic WP:PAG shortcuts, you pick? This failure to address direct questions directly is unhelpful. --Tsavage (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

i'm not accusing you of anything except, by proposing to lower the sourcing bar so dramatically, proposing that we leave WP wide open to ax-grinding COI ridiculous stuff. I could file 100 lawsuits tomorrow against companies or organizations and turn around and add content about all of them to Wikipedia. Or, tort lawyer X can file a suit and publicize her case by adding content about it to Wikipedia, even though no independent, reliable sources are discussing it. It is crazy. That is why we look for independent reliable sources on things. Can you not see that? Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved lawsuits which have not received significant RS coverage are not usually included in wikipedia articles for a number of reasons, some of which are mentioned above. Examiner.com does not appear to be a reliable source. I suggest not mentioning this lawsuit in any article until it receives RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. We normally don't cover lawsuits like this until there is actually a result to report and reliable sources have deemed them important enough to cover for us to establish weight. Lawsuits happen all the time, so just mentioning that one occurred is unencyclopedic and fits WP:INDISCRIMINATE pretty well. Best to leave the content out for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard this before. For the record, verifiable lawsuits are acceptable content, I note the "not usually included" and "normally don't cover" as indications that this particular lawsuit is not deemed noteworthy by some editors at this time. As I have stated, I for one do consider the filing noteworthy, and awaiting further developments. That said, since the article is about glyphosate, and the suit is against Monsanto, I am inclined not to argue this position (with continued discussion or an RfC) here. However, over at Monsanto legal cases, a daughter article obviously devoted to Monsanto legal cases, this seems germane to the topic and noteworthy at this time. Jytdog directed the inclusion discussion there, to here, so I wonder what is the best way to proceed now? (If other editors continue to argue for inclusion here, I support that.) --Tsavage (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that the suit is about glyphosate as well as Monsanto. It's about whether Monsanto's claim that glyphosate is not found in animals is fraudulent. Monsanto was the developer of glyphosate as an herbicide, and this lawsuit relates directly to this herbicide called glyphosate on which the pages is supposed to focus, and there is a section "Legal Cases" with a subsection "Advertising controversy", and so it seemed obvious to me that it would be relevant to this topic. There is a simple question of "Do we want to include it in the article? Why or why not?" But couldn't we talk about THAT instead of the whole laundry list of allegation of technical violations that we've been through now? I'm still contending that this lawsuit is of interest to readers of an article on glyphosate, and that it fits in the weighting of the article, and would NOT stick out like a sore thumb as it would fit right into this subsection that exists, and add a little more content to it, and is relevant to anyone who desires to learn about glyphosate, and goes to the section on legal issues expecting to get a reasonable overview based on what others have thought is relevant and fits in the article. Instead, i see a resistance to doing so that has come out through attempts to keep this out of the article through various technicalities like sourcing issues, and it bothers me. It bothers me because it really feels like strongarming. Those who object could have simply voiced the concern from an editorial point of view and not on technicalities. It's not a good relationship among editors here. It's very contentious. It's like we're opposing advocates in a court of law. I suppose this happens sometimes, but you know who wins in court? The lawyers do. SageRad (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

so you do not understand that a brief is an WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You must have overlooked where I earlier noted: "Simply the fact of the actual filing seems noteworthy, given the context, and the source which (correct me if I'm wrong) indicates a case number, showing that the case was actually filed." If the case number does indicate actual filing (which I believe it does), and we have have no reason to believe the law firm in question fabricated a case number (which we don't), then, section directly after WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB, seems to allow unexceptional claims about the subject itself, which here is simply that the law firm filed and is in possession of a filed particular suit. But you KNOW this (or please point out my error by stating that you weren't aware of WP:SELFPUB), so why the wikilawyering? --Tsavage (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: "Lawsuits happen all the time, so just mentioning that one occurred is unencyclopedic and fits WP:INDISCRIMINATE pretty well" Your application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is as far as I can see is completely off-point, although I've seen it used like this by some editors, apparently relying on the word "indiscriminate" itself, rather than the actual policy section. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about large, undifferentiated data sets. Its other shortcuts are WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:NOTLYRICS, WP:NOT#LYRICS, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:PLOT, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:RAWDATA, and WP:WHIM. It is about groups and collections, not single instances, like a particular lawsuit. The four specific examples given are: "1. Summary-only descriptions of works; 2. Lyrics databases; 3. Excessive listings of statistics; 4. Exhaustive logs of software updates." The entire instructional content is: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." How does WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply here? --Tsavage (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is that we don't grab all information we possibly can. That eventually leads into weight (aka WP:NOTEWORTHY as some use it) where we look at each specific piece of information and decide if it's worth including. The two are very related where the former deals more with large and raw data sets, etc. Lawsuits are basically like raw unfinished data at the point we're talking about, so we let the actual analysis of that situation be determined in the court. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Allowing content sourced from PRIMARY, SPS sources with an obvious bias and financial interest in its bias is way, way outside consensus. I don't think anybody is advocating including content based on this source here any more, so i will not comment further. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice point to duck out, Jytdog: "obvious bias and financial interest in its bias" have nothing to do with whether a lawsuit has been legally filed. Unless you are suggesting that a law firm has intentionally misrepresented a filing and published a faked case number on the Net, then your comment is irrelevant. The whole point of WP:VERIFIABILITY is to ensure that there are credible sources that reasonably well-educated English-speaking readers can check. We can argue about the reliability of any one source, but as long as relative to the subject and weight, common sense says it is verified, that's ultimately the minimum acceptable standard. In fact, WP:V clearly states that simply believing an item is attributable is enough for inclusion, although when requested, explicit attribution is required. So for the existence of the lawsuit to be "inadmissable," you would have to state your belief that the lawsuit is in fact a fake, unattributable, no court records exist (if you pay the search fee and look it up in Californai Supreme Court Los Angeles, you won't find it), otherwise, we do not delete, we first tag for "citation needed," look for sources, and if a minimum acceptable source is found within a reasonable time (a few days, a couple of weeks, probably as a minimum), we use it, and later update it with a better one if required. That is also in WP:V. --Tsavage (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say on this. You are wrong and the position you are advocating would turn Wikipedia into a garbage dump. I am willing to believe you have good intentions but the road to hell is paved with them. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, about your comment on the same content and sourcing at the Monsanto legal cases article, I have opened a thread at RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Content_sourced_from_lawsuit_brief Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Look forward to seeing Kingofaces43, Formerly 98, and the gang over there. --Tsavage (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)