Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

About that deleted material

This is the text that was deleted.

In a legal case filed against Monsanto in France in May 2018, a surgeon who operated on a boy born with multiple deformities said that without any genetic antecedents, it was "highly probable" that the pesticide played a role in his deformities.

Correlations between high glyphosate levels in urine and shortened pregnancy have been observed. An Argentine study of vertebrate embryos concluded that "the direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to GBH in agricultural fields."

References

As I understand it Trypto's complaint is not that we report the fact that Monsanto is being sued in a case related to birth defects (though he *did* admittedly delete that), nor with the research into retinoic acid and reduced gestation periods, but the fact that these were right next to each other in the text. How would others (or Trypto) suggest these 3 items be arranged to keep everyone happy and still to provide readers with the information. (cf. wp:notcensored, etc.) p.s. there are some photo-pages about Argentinian birth defects in rural areas, but I thought that probably wouldn't pass the censors. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In general it's a bad idea to comment on legal cases that have only been filed. Anyone can claim anything in a filing, but that doesn't mean it is true. The primary research references are obviously not MEDRS-compliant (or even SCIRS) and I agree with Tryptofish that it is especially problematic to use these to reinforce the suggestion that the birth defect was caused by glyphosate when this is contrary to the status-quo that it does not affect reproductive health. Please knock it off with your mentions of censorship etc. these are long-established principles for dealing with health-related information on Wikipedia. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There is also the issue of WP:SYNTH. For WP to imply that primary source: 'Glyphosate can shorten the duration of pregnancy' plus primary source: 'Glyphosate does stuff in lab animals' equals 'what the surgeon said about a single case of a baby with birth defects', that's what WP:SYNTH is about. It's not about putting the sources in different places. It's about WP:NOR. And that in turn is why we use literature reviews rather than have editors decide to combine primary sources to communicate something. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see there's a study on the correlation between high levels of glyphosate pollution in Argentina and miscarriage (3x more likely) and congenital abnormalities (2x more likely). That said, the publisher is blocked as predatory on en.wp (SCIRP: ) It's very curious all that I am learning about how research gets banned/blocked/blacklisted from en.wp.

References

In matters related to this page, Trypto, could you also explain why since 2015 you haven't ever deemed it useful to add that the IARC had found the herbicide to be a "probable carcinogen" on the Roundup page you've principally authored (in large part by copying from this page)? Or why no mention had ever been made of the Monsanto Papers on this page or that one? (the prize, much less the articles, aren't exactly new...) These two facts are very, very strange.

I appreciate that you don't wish to consider the World Health Organization a *notable* exception to the list of regulatory / advisory institutions that have deemed the herbicide to be non-carcinogenic. Even if it *is* the WHO, "notable" could, I suppose be construed as editorializing. However, let's keep this in perpective. What follows is the one-sided story I found and had to fix at the Roundup entry you "steward"... (see here in particular which you said you copied from this page in Sept 2018). Could you explain why there was no mention whatsoever of the IARC finding, while that finding is an essential element of the article you were citing (the main purpose of the article being to react to / investigate that claim). This would seem to be WP:NOR of the highest degree... taking one article and skipping over the parts it is "inconvenient" that the article mentions.

Finally, any ideas why there is a line through the principal author of this entry's pseudonym on the talk page? Have they been blacklisted/blocked/banned/shot or are they OK? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really sound to me like you are asking me about content, which I would be happy to do, but rather that you are making innuendos about me. If you actually feel that there are problems with my conduct, take it to the appropriate venue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"Knock it off", SmartSE? I beg your pardon? Who are you to speak with me in such a manner? Please focus on arguing convincingly why the studies should be "removed". I don't think the average passerby will be convinced by your statement above. How is it that the Egyptian researcher mentioned two sections ago passed MEDRS? (because he was entrusted with making a national recommendation?)

Now as for whether RS reporting on a widely publicized lawsuit should be included in an encyclopedia entry, that's a different question. Also SmartSE & Tryptofish I would ask that you refrain from refactoring TP comments. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SmartSE that we should be avoiding using anything from ongoing cases where anything can be alleged. There are definitely WP:MEDRS issues with this too, so I don't really see anything we can do right now at least. Something to discuss if there are new secondary sources though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Questionable source

I question the use of this review article:[1] It is a review done by :Professor of Pesticide Chemistry and Toxicology, Assiut University and Deputy Chairman of the Agricultural Pesticide Committee (APC), Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, Arab Republic of Egypt. It appeared in the Journal of Toxicology and Health, which brings up nothing other than its own information when googled. I'd appreciate some feedback. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. The first thing I thought of was whether it might be a predatory journal, so I looked into it. At the link you provided, it's shown as being part of Herbert Open Access Journals (Herbert Publications). And that publisher is on this list: [2], which is generally considered the definitive list of such publishers. As such, it fails WP:RS and needs to be removed from this page and any other page that cites it.

That's a pity, because it probably is not the fault of the author of the review, because most authors who publish at these journals have been hoodwinked into thinking that the journal is legit. The author appears to be a full professor, and we obviously do not reject sources by authors from non-first-world countries, so the opinions there are probably on the up-and-up, and critical reviews of the literature are normally exactly what we want to use as MEDRS sources. Maybe that author also has published in a valid journal, which would be worth a look. But this one has to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked at what else the author has published, and he is really a very distinguished authority on the chemistry of these kinds of things, but he has only one other review about pesticides, and it's in the same publication. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what a pity indeed. That he would submit both reviews about pesticides to a predatory journal that uses made-up names as peer reviewers is probably not his fault. Gandydancer (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's so difficult to read affect online, that I have to check. I'm not sure whether you are being sarcastic about that, but I hope that's not the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, legitimate scientific journals almost never tell the authors who the reviewers were. Peer-review is typically done anonymously. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I am, of course, aware of that. Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Good, thanks. So I guess that means that you agree that he likely potentially did not know that it was a predatory journal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC) word changed --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I agree, we better avoid citing predatory journals. I am surprised to see that the same author who wrote: "When the conditions of glyphosate use in Egypt is rationally analyzed, it appears that exposure of the public to glyphosate is order of magnitudes far below the zero-risk dose." concludes one year later "(...) Taken all together, it can be fairly said that confidence in the regulatory certified ADI values is highly eroded." and proposes a new acceptable daily intake of 2.5 ng/kg bw/day, 1/400 000 of the existing ADI of 1mg/kg bw/day. (Yehia A. Ibrahim (2015). A regulatory perspective on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate, Journal of Toxicology and Health 2, 1. Yehia A. Ibrahim (2016). Hypothetical adjustment of the acceptable daily intake and correction of the underrated risk: A case study of glyphosate based herbicides, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Science 8 (7), 57.) The website academicjournals.org, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Science, is blacklisted by wikipedia. JimRenge (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC) suppl. JimRenge (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The source is still on the page (and the other pages where it was cited). That's because it's cited multiple times, and it was only removed at one place. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Done, removed it in Bayer, Monsanto, Roundup, Glyphosate, GBH, etc. JimRenge (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, JimRenge, that's much appreciated. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I didn't find anything that set off any red flags on predatory journals when I first found the source and looked at the time. I'll do a little bit more digging on replacement sources, but there are some pointing out that some of those Herbert journals are legitimate, and another review does point out Ibrahim as a good source for what various agencies have said on the matter. I'd have to dig into the specifics on this journal more though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The consensus at RSN and elsewhere has been pretty clear that we should not cite anything from sources that are on Beall's list of predatory journals, and I want to adhere to that consensus. I'm glad that you found that other review, however, because taking it along with the first one that I cite just below in "Other sources", they do fill the gap left behind by omitting Ibrahim. On the other hand, I'm pretty well convinced by my look for sources that it is no longer valid for us to say that IARC was the "only one". Flawed yes, and we should say so, but there are clearly newer sources that also raise concerns, and I want us to present a balanced view of both "sides". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That's my general sentiment too. I was curious if there was any such coverage of the journal itself in terms of reliability, but I didn't find any in a quick search. It's better to focus on other sources as you say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Other sources

I've looked for some better sources on the same issue.

• This: [3], looks to be a valid review by a qualified expert in a legitimate journal, that makes criticisms of IARC that are similar to what Ibrahim said.
• This: [4], is another good recent review, that says that current safety evaluations of glyphosate are out-of-date and that it should be regarded more critically.
• These: [5] and [6], present both "sides" of the issue.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I would want to know if the IARC claims that Monsanto's lawyers retained Bob Tarone (#1) were true, before paying $47 to read it. I've read the others (quickly) and it's true that they seem more balanced than what was in the article before, but they pretty clearly don't say the same thing as what the entry currently does so the text will need significant rewriting. The comments about non-US, non-European data/studies in #3 are particularly of interest. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears that Tarone has testified under oath that he did not receive any money and was not influenced in any way by Monsanto: [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A similar commentary by him here: [8]. But I don't think it adds much to the other article. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I should add that I came across that while searching for anything else about Tarone having had a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, all of the accusations come out of the IARC letter. And that letter says that the European Journal of Cancer Prevention was going to reclassify Tarone's piece from a "research paper" to an "opinion paper"; however, the present-day online version of the article still calls it a "research paper". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Better sourcing needed

I question the use of the following section of the article:

In October 2017, an article in The Times revealed that Christopher Portier, a scientist advising the IARC in the assessment of glyphosate and strong advocate for its classification as possibly carcinogenic, had received consulting contracts with two law firm associations representing alleged glyphosate cancer victims that included a payment of US$160,000 to Portier. According to Geoffrey Kabat, Portier played a key role in requesting the IARC perform a review of glyphosate carcinogencity and in deliberations that result in the IARC's conclusion that glyphosate was carcinogenic. Following these reports of Portier's actions, the IARC's final report was also found to have undergone significant changes compared to an interim report through removal of text saying glyphosate was not carcinogenic and to strengthening claims of carcinogenicity. During deposition, Portier said the interim report originally did conclude “limited evidence of animal carcinogenicity.” but denied knowing when the text was changed to “sufficient evidence of animal carcinogenicity”.

I can't read The Times article due to a paywall. Geoffrey Kabat (please see his article) used this blog for his information: [9]. Here's another example of Reuters' journalist Kate Kelland work: [10] Our article makes some pretty strong charges against Portier. Is this flimsy sourcing adequate? I don't think so. Gandydancer (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you for raising this, and the section just below as well. Over the last few days, I've been significantly reevaluating my own thoughts about how the page (and the one on Roundup (herbicide)) should be covering toxicity and the associated controversies, in light of new sources that I have just come across. In this regard, I'm going to give a more detailed reply in the section just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Can you please clarify what specifically you find problematic? The whole thing, or just parts? If you google the title of The Times article you should be able to find a copy on lankaweb.com. On the face of it, The Times, Reuters and an expert on risk doesn't seem to be 'flimsy'. SmartSE (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I know how to get that article but most of our readers don't. If this is worthy of repeating here it should be available in more than just this one site, using one expert with a questionable history, and a journalist that apparently is rather er, less than careful about her facts in writing at least one other article. As you know, WP insists on extra careful sourcing when it comes to what we have to say about people in general, not just the ones that have a bio here. This information needs to meet WP standards; it does not and it should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Access to sources is irrelevant to whether material should be included. The Times is a perfectly acceptable source for that and as evidenced here by the multiple references, there is more than one source discussing this. It's ironic you are alleging journalists are dishonest based off blog posts, while at the same time arguing that blogs (farmonline.com.au most definitely isn't either btw) about Benbrook aren't worthy of your attention. There is no dispute about Portier being paid by the lawyers, so why should it not be included here? SmartSE (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not worked on many WP bios as I have. If we're going to post dirt on someone WP insists we have sound RS from multiple sources to back it up. That is not evident here. "Portier being paid by the lawyers..." right. Why would he work for free? If there is something unethical about this it should be well documented, which it is not. Gandydancer (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in BLP about requiring multiple sources for critical information and regardless, this isn't the case. There's another one in Reason (magazine) here too: [11] and if anyone can access it, this in the WSJ may well mention it as well. And it's also covered in National Review [12]. SmartSE (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

When I was looking around for responses to the 2019 meta-analysis, I fairly quickly came upon online arguments about Geoffrey Kabat's criticisms of it, that centered on whether or not Forbes had banned him from writing for them, and all of it traced back to a brief posting on Twitter by a journalist who is in a dispute with Kabat. My (only) reason for pointing that out is to say that (a) the squabbles about which journalists are or are not corrupt are often petty and are difficult for us to source reliably, and (b) that we are probably best off giving very little space to them on pages like this one, that are about the chemicals, and leave it more for pages like Monsanto, Bayer, Monsanto legal cases, and Genetically modified food controversies, to discuss the accusations against persons. I think there are some basic controversies, such as the scientific conclusions of IARC versus other studies, and Monsanto possibly influencing some published papers, that remain germane to this page, but one reason that I'm pushing for a 2018–9 focus for the science is that it just isn't that useful for this page (or this talk page) to devote a lot of space to the history of "this person or that person was accused of corruption". In other words, if the issue is the toxicity or carcinogenicity of glyphosate and its formulations, we should cover it here, but if the issue is that one person or another got accused of stuff in the course of figuring out whether or not it is carcinogenic, we should leave it for other pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I will at least agree we don't really want to expand beyond what we currently have with the periphery stuff. That said, Portier's involvement within the IARC decision falls pretty squarely within the scope of this page until the IARC stuff does become more of a historical thing for this subject, so that's at least where the main focus should lie. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Question re sourcing

The following addition was removed with this reasoning: Best not to use a Benbrook et al. paper as discussed previously, and not a review in terms of WP:MEDRS (essays are often of much lower quality than even primary research articles).

Noting a 100-fold increase in the use of glyphosate-based herbicides from 1974 to 2014, the possibility that herbicide mixtures likely have effects that are not predicted by studying glyphosate alone, and that current safety assessments rely heavily on studies done over 30 years ago, a 2018 review found current safety standards to be outdated and "may fail to protect public health or the environment."

Why do you say we should not use Benbrook. BTW I'm aware it is not a MEDRS Review--I should have used a different term to avoid confusion. Gandydancer (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at our sourcing guidelines I find this article acceptable--especially considering the latest information is from 2000:

A 2000 review of the ecotoxicological data on Roundup shows at least 58 studies exist on the effects of Roundup on a range of organisms. This review concluded that "...for terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted for potentially exposed non-target organisms".

Also note that that review used Monsanto unpublished studies for the most part, Monsanto reps to help with the review, and this group: [13], who seem to be a tad shady. I should think that we'd be glad to have something newer that is not so heavily related to the possibility of Monsanto-bias. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

As I noted in the section just above, I've become very concerned over the past few days about how we have been treating these issues. In particular, when I was looking for more recent sourcing that followed up on the review from 2016, in the talk section above about "funded by Monsanto", I came across this just-published meta-analysis of the scientific literature on glyphosate and cancer. As I see it, this looks like the most recent literature review on the subject, in a reputable scientific journal, and is WP:MEDRS-compliant, and the authors do not have conflicts of interest. If editors see anything to contradict that, please tell me. And it concludes that glyphosate is correlated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. So I think that makes it the present-day scientific consensus, and we need to present it that way. As best I can tell, the source material still indicates very little acute toxicity of glyphosate, but that now, glyphosate does have to be regarded as a probable carcinogen.

So I'm thinking about how we should revise our pages about glyphosate and Roundup. And I'm beginning to think – but I want to know what other editors think – that we should remove most of the older material about "is IARC right or wrong?", because it's kind of "yesterday's news". We might want to briefly cover how there has been a long controversy over whether or not glyphosate is carcinogenic, and include the controversies over Monsanto authoring things, but I think we need to end up with the conclusion that it apparently is. That being the case, I think we should simply remove a lot of the stuff about back-and-forth about whether this or that journalist was right or wrong, and focus instead on where the science is today: focus on sources as of 2018 and 2019, and treat most pre-2018 stuff as "historic". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Here are some published responses to that review: [14], ([15] struck). I think it would be reasonable to present the review with those responses. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I struck one of those per [16]. I'm not convinced that the description of the paper being retracted is valid, but it would be sufficient to rely just on the other response, from the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say we should be cautious of presenting a single new analysis as over-riding the previous scientific consensus. The science continues to evolve, but I don't think that makes the older sources irrelevant and, as those links show, the conclusions are controversial and contrary to previous studies, including the cohort study which is the main source of new data in their analysis. I think it is ok to briefly mention the review, but it would be premature to think that this had changed the previous consensus. We need to wait and see how other researchers treat this analysis. SmartSE (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's another piece by Steven Salzberg that discusses the new analysis: [17]. Most pertinently The relative risks of cancer at 5, 10, and 15 years were actually lower in the group exposed to glyphosate, and yet Zhang et al. didn't mention this fact. This will presumably be covered in the literature soon. SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, I just read the meta-review. Thanks Trypto. Their focus on the high-exposure groups has got me thinking about that "dose makes the poison" hatnote. The six billion kilos scattered over the earth in the last ten years, which doesn't bake out after "green burndown," too. No wonder everyone's glyphosate levels in my postage stamp of the world are so high (local papers report on these urine tests). But reading the Germans, it's all alarmist hooey. Phew... that's a relief. :)

Regarding all the COI actions / channels, I would expect an encyclopedia to be historical and do imagine that the company's strategies for targeting certain publications will remain an important part of "knowledge equity" for the next 10 years, at least. How should the history of all these thorny questions and (maybe) magouilles be treated? Probably in a separate section from the science. I agree the most pressing concern for the scientific part of the entry is probably getting the precious MEDRS data up to date. But with 6 billion kilos served in this decade alone, I don't think this entry will ever be only about science, if it is meant to be encyclopedic. I also do not understand why the initial source Gandydancer added last night was reverted, though somehow after reading it I was pretty sure it would be for one reason or another. Can someone explain that removal without using capital letters in the middle of any sentences? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Smartse and SashiRolls, thanks both of you. I'm cautiously optimistic that we are coming closer to agreeing about the page. At this point, I do see a lot of back-and-forth about the 2019 meta-analysis. The more I look into it, the more complicated it looks to me. My reading of the sources for the past year or so is that the two major publications, for our purposes, are that meta-analysis and this major study from 2018, which finds no cancer correlation. I think both of them agree that any risk comes only with high-levels of exposure, which means people who actually work with the herbicide, as opposed to the rest of us who get exposed via what has accumulated in the environment.

I think that, yes, we should have a sort of "historical" treatment of the past decade or so, with an emphasis on controversy. The controversy about the IARC versus Monsanto does remain of current interest, but the IARC is no longer an outlier. And for the purely scientific part, we should emphasize these two studies from 2018–9, with some context about what other sources say about them. As I looked into the responses to the 2019 paper, it pretty quickly devolves into people on Twitter going back and forth about whether or not a writer was kicked off of Forbes, and I think Wikipedia should not get bogged down into that. Our emphasis should be that, as of now, those two sources are the main scientific ones for glyphosate and cancer, and we can briefly cover some of the criticisms of them. I'd be inclined to mainly rely on what major groups like the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment have said; opinion pieces in Forbes are probably not as useful for evaluating a MEDRS source. It's entirely possible that something else will come out six months from now that will require a further revision, but I think that this is where we are at as of now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The main thing here is that we can't use an individual meta-analysis that contradicts the plethora of other sources on the correlation subject (an analysis that is prone to false-positives) or cancer in general, much less a source that contradicts higher-tier evidence like the regulatory agencies that have already been fleshed out within the last five years. It gets into a recentism problem too looking too much at the most recent source even if it didn't have criticism rather than the totality or recent sources. Even disregarding that aspect, I'm not seeing anything new since we discussed the study at back in Feburary aside from the critical commentary of the review you provided here to override the various agencies that have assessed this in terms of evidence strength. At best, we'd be looking at fitting it into Glyphosate#Cancer like we do for the other criticized correlational studies as a single sentence or two.

On the type of restructuring you bring up, that doesn't really seem appropriate in this case. The IARC stuff is still very recent in MEDRS terms, and I have to mirror what SmartSE said above. Considering the lack of significant literature change, I feel like we'd just be rehashing old conversations we used to craft the current content. On the note of restructuring though, we do have three somewhat identical articles on this subject, so if I were personally considering any restructuring at this time, it would be getting the article suite down to two articles or even one someday. As I mentioned in a previous talk section, I don't really see anything happening in the sources that would result in significant changes or progress in the article right now though, so time it's probably the best choice for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the above before seeing your reply to me here. I'm obviously not going to change anything on the page right away, and I'm going to wait and see what other editors here hash out. I do think that we need to make the sourcing current, no matter how we present it, and I also think that, although MEDRS requires reviews, it doesn't require reviews of reviews. It seems to me that, even if the scientific consensus hasn't made a U-turn, it is clear that the "IARC as outlier" narrative is an historical one, and we cannot simply cling to it in the face of sources that say otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

As it stands right now, we don't have any sourcing showing the IARC is no longer an outlier. Back around 2015-16, the literature was much the same as it is now. Major agencies haven't reversed their assessments, and correlative studies coming out on NHL are still being criticized for the same methodological problems (e.g., self-reporting issues and confounding in high-exposure groups), hence my comment that there's not much we can do as editors right now. If all we had was dueling reviews, it might be a different story, but as it stands right now, we'd be pitting a single review against mulitiple higher-tier sources. That said, I do have an idea for how to tackle the most recent reviews to keep discussion focused on very specific content, but I'll have to get back to that after the weekend when I get back. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not try to explain scientific sourcing to me, and while we are at it, please go slower with reverting other editors on the page. The IARC is no longer the only major literature review that comes to the conclusion that it came to, because now there is another. That does not mean that the IARC has been "vindicated", as it were, in terms of its methodology. It doesn't even mean that it was "right". But it does mean that we can no longer say that it is the only one. And we do have to give significant weight to the most current sources. I'm fine with no longer saying, as I had earlier, that the scientific consensus has actually changed. But we now have to be clear that there is a significant weight among reliable sources for both "sides" of this debate. I already said that we should also cite criticism of the new meta-analysis from a major scientific organization. But we don't get to go beyond that, based on editor opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, on Benbrook, it doesn't qualify as a MEDRS source as you even said it wasn't a review. Not to mention in contradicts other sources that essentially say there isn't a significant concern with synergistic effects from formulations, and that text was already hammered out quite a bit in previous iterations. Add in Benbrook's ties with organic industry PR[18][19] that ironically actually do cross the WP:INDEPENDENT line as well as being well known for WP:FRINGE advocacy in the subject, it's definitely not an author to outright reach for. It's similar to how we avoid using Seralini carte blanche. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to read your blogs to form my opinions. Re the essay, it is my understanding that it can be used for an opinion. As for all this talk about FRINGE advocacy, I will need to bite my tongue on that suggestion rather than to reply. Gandydancer (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone explain that removal without using capital letters in the middle of any sentences? (did you really just source your argument to Medium & farmonline.com.au?) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS explains why we stick to reviews and why we don't reach for lower quality sources like essays, and the rest that needs to be addressed was already mentioned in my previous reply. For the sources, I suggest following what they discuss that is verifiable rather than getting distracted by sourcing since we aren't generating content based on those sources. That said, farmonline seems to be a normal news source on farm topics and there's plenty of other coverage of Benbrook's direct involvement in the organic industry if we want to start sourcing things in a different article.[20] At the end of the day, I'd expect people would raise a fuss if I tried using a source say by Kevin Folta, so if someone even made a false equivalence that what Benbrook was doing was no different than Folta, we'd already be avoiding that kind of author anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

stricken second-hand news

France is in an uproar about Monsanto's glyposhate profiling of journalists (allegations of GDPR-type violations). When will "knowledge equity" include this airing of sources and methods in its encyclopaedic entry on the product? Hard to guess. Each article cited mentions the European battle over glyphosate (in no case is it a passing mention), but reading the edit summary explaining the reversion (§) it's got nothing to do with glyphosate at all. (Redacted), meet π.

Front page news on glyphosate deleted

The "Monsanto France database": Right to privacy complaints On 9 May 2019, Le Monde and France 2 announced that they had a copy of the "Monsanto France database" that the PR firm Fleishman-Hillard compiled in 2016, the year after the IARC classification. These tables listed private data concerning journalists, scientists and politicians who were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 concerning their political opinions on, for example, "agriculture, pesticides, GMOs, and health... ." Le Monde & Stéphane Foucart filed a legal complaint in the High Court of Paris on 26 April based in part upon the right to privacy. Le Parisien announced it would file a complaint with the CNIL and Radio France is preparing legal action, as are a European deputy and the NGO Foodwatch. Ecological Transition Minister François de Rugy said he was not 'surprised' that corporations today appear to finance methods more reminiscent of foreign intelligence agencies. References

Also, perhaps less urgently / energetically, should we have graphs showing how the new import tariffs will affect US & Chinese glyphosate producers and/or US & Chinese farmers? ʘ ʘ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable sources about the tariffs and glyphosate, no. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I too am going to have to lodge a pro forma objection to the redaction on this page. Anyone should be allowed to address the good King o'. If you want to call me sashiro or SA. shirolls you can, that won't bother me. I take it squatters are allowed here, as long as they don't bring π? Fine. What do you want to do about the "front page news" Trypto? (see the glyphosate in the blue box here) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do about it is what Smartse did and describes just below: it fits much better at Monsanto legal cases than here. Thus, it's not a question of whether or not Wikipedia should cover it, but rather where Wikipedia should cover it.--Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

KingofAces beat me to it on removing this (I'd had my 1RR for the day). My reasoning was exactly the same however. This article is about the chemical in general, whereas those articles are specifically relating to Monsanto and their PR agency. If there is a legal case that comes out of it, it is distinct from the others already mentioned in this article that relate to the toxicity and marketing of the chemical. Including it in Monsanto legal cases is far more appropriate and the Le Monde headline you linked to supports this - Fichier Monsanto not Fichier glyphosate. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Be my guest. I'll add that page to my watchlist to watch it get done. I'd recommend working from the wiki-text above. Best, SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. I didn't understand what "a European deputy" meant so removed that for now. SmartSE (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Honeybee colony collapse disorder and glyphosate

If you google on bee death herbicide, the top hit is an ad from Bayer, "Does Glyphosate Impact Bees? | Understanding Glyphosate‎ -- Ad www.bayer.com/glyphosate‎ -- Glyphosate Is Safe For Bees And The Environment. Learn More Today"
which links to this rosy picture https://www.bayer.com/en/glyphosate-environment-biodiversity.aspx "Glyphosate’s Role in Preserving the Environment and Biodiversity"
Poor Bayer they didn't know what they got when they bought Monsanto.
And the 2nd hit is
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/25/651618685/study-roundup-weed-killer-could-be-linked-to-widespread-bee-deaths
September 25, 2018 "Roundup has been accused of causing cancer in humans and now scientists in Texas argue that the world's most popular weed killer could be partly responsible for killing off bee populations around the world... A new study by scientists at the University of Texas at Austin posit that glyphosate — the active ingredient in the herbicide — destroys specialized gut bacteria in bees, leaving them more susceptible to infection and death from harmful bacteria... glyphosate might be contributing to colony collapse disorder, a phenomenon that has been wreaking havoc on honey bees and native bees for more than a decade."
NPR and the University of Texas at Austin seem like reputable sources. No mention of bees anywhere on WP at glyphosate or Roundup (herbicide) though. JPLeonard (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about this in the past. I think the most recent discussion, from last fall, is at Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 15#Glyphosate / Honeybees. It would be really good if you could go back and read that, and then explain here what specifically has changed since then. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI

WP:ANI#Eyes, please, on Talk:Glyphosate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

many red-hot herrings: enough? SashiRolls t · c 16:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Since some editors have raised questions about what is or is not a personal attack, it's really pretty simple: comment on the content, not on the contributor. Saying that one used a source because another editor supported using it is fine; saying that some sort of "stamp of approval" by that editor is in effect makes a discussion about a revert about the editor rather than about the content that was reverted. Referring to another editor by a diminutive form of their username, when it is done in a friendly way, is fine; sarcastically making fun of the username as part of a dispute is not. Consider: if the editor has not welcomed being called that way, it's probably a bad idea to call them that, regardless of what one is willing to be called oneself. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC) "stamp of approval" was not intended as an insult. Re using an insulting diminutive form of an editor's user name, I have referred to you many times as "Trypto", as have others. People refer to me as "Gandy" at times. Actually I like it. If you find it insulting I will remember to be more careful in how I refer to you or others on this page. It seems rather uncalled for to alert ANI to watch this page over my behavior but I will accept your decision and not complain about it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying that you did not mean it as an insult. And my posting at ANI was not in any way singling you out; it was about multiple things that were happening. As I said, no one would have misconstrued your intent if you had just said that you cited the source because KofA had earlier said that it was OK. I'm fine with calling him KofA (as opposed to, for example, "kingcake"). And it's fine to call me Trypto, or Tryp, or Tfish. Also, context matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)d Actually I called him "Kingofaces", not kingcake or such. I will repeat, I'm surprised that an ANI alert was needed. We can agree to disagree on that. Gandydancer (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, I know that, but another editor called him that. That's why I hope you understand that it wasn't about you. A whole bunch of stuff was going on at the same time, and I would not have gone to ANI if the only thing were your comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Trypto, please stop twisting. I wrote "some kingcake" in an edit summary to a lighthearted edit after Kingo took a bazooka to 2.2K I'd left in the letterbox (which does tend toward being frankly incensing if you're just after an hour's copylabor). So, kingscake, as I should have spelled it in that edit summary, can be interpreted as food fit for a king, or as galette de roi (which allows the lucky bean-finder to be king for a day). Please, don't be chilly or silly or whatever in misreading some sort of meanness into an offer of pie & cake. Next time maybe I'll just bring frankincense. SashiRolls t · c 19:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Uh huh. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC) To me, the ANI thread looks like Tryptofish purposely throwing a chilling effect on Gandydancer, which is unfair and counter-productive. It's clear what Tryptofish was referring to with the ridiculous redaction of a "personal attack" that attacked none. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Nonsense. Why did my ANI post refer to reverting and 1RR? Did that have anything to do with Gandydancer (other than the fact that it was her edits that got reverted)? Why would I be expressing concern about her edits being reverted, if I were trying to chill those edits? Hint: [21]. I guess I don't have the Binksternet stamp of approval. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC) I'm afraid that I'm too dense to understand this post. What does the "Hint" mean? Gandydancer (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC) If it's too oblique, that's my fault, not yours, sorry. KofA reverted some of what you had written. In that diff, I scolded him for reverting it instead of just discussing it. And I mean what I said to him. And that was at the same time that I was making the other edits on this talk page and at ANI. And at ANI, the first thing that I raised was that there was too much reverting going on. Consequently, I was objecting to the reverting of something that you had written. Given that I did that, it's bizarre to be claiming that I was trying to put a chill on your edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC) You redacted Gandydancer's bland and not-very-personal talk page comment as a "personal attack", which is a wikilawyer maneuver to derail whatever constructive progress is being made by her, to mire her in discussion about process. You made it personal at that moment. And now you want people to avoid doing the same thing you did. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC) You misunderstand what is going on here, in a very major way. It's completely counter-factual to claim that I'm not doing my level best to keep constructive progress going forward. I'm one of very few editors here who are not taking "sides" in the POV issues under contention. As I've tried to explain already, one of the things I was doing was to object to the reverting of one of Gandydancer's edits, which is pretty much the opposite of trying to get her edits removed. So, let's see. You and Gandy have seen this as being about her. From what he said here and at ANI, it sounds like SashiRolls thinks it was about him. And I'll wager anyone who is game that Kingofaces will object to what I said to him, as soon as he gets back here. So we're up to three editors who each see it as just about them. The only discussion miring is the way that people have felt the need to reply and re-reply to the FYI that I posted here – as opposed to just being careful going forward about not making stuff personal. If it makes you feel better, I will call it a "counterproductive thing to say" instead of a "personal attack". I remember an ArbCom case a few years back, in which one of the disputing editors had a habit of ending all of his talk page comments by saying "Cheers", followed by his signature. A second editor, just once, had responded by sarcastically ending one of his own talk page comments with "Cheers". Just once, and nothing beyond that. And ArbCom sanctioned that second editor for doing so. (If you want to test whether that has changed, I'll call your bluff on it.) I realize that civility is difficult to define, and very subjective. But the bottom line is that it is never a good thing to treat Wikipedia as if it were us-against-them, where it's all about which "side" you are on and everything is personal. If you think that's wikilawyering with an agenda of pushing a POV, there's probably nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC) According to Tryptofish he is "one of very few editors here who are not taking "sides" in the POV issues under contention." There you certainly have a statement that divides editors into two camps: The good guys and the bad guys. I have to wonder who the other good guys are. And who are the bad guys? Gandydancer (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Facepalm Or, maybe it's not good-against-bad, but, for example, it's-a-review versus it's-an-essay. Or big-agriculture-is-good versus big-agriculture-is-bad. The whole idea of going straight to seeing it as good-guys versus bad-guys is exactly the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC) I really have no idea what you are talking about or where you are going with this. First you say "comment on the content, not on the contributor" and then you go right ahead and condemn others for their problematic POV positions while praising your own. And now you drag the review/essay discussion into this and and, from totally out of the blue, a big agriculture debate as well. Gandydancer (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Well, my explaining something that seems rather clear to me is certainly turning into quite the tangled web, kind of like a peat fire burning underground. I'll try to explain it again. I'll try to keep it very basic, so please accept my apologies if it sounds like I'm saying the obvious – but it really should be obvious, and my previous explanations seem not to have been clear enough. In editing controversial topics, editors often disagree. Sometimes, these disagreements are about getting point of view right. Sometimes, some editors take positions on one or another side of those POV positions. One place where editors have taken differing views at this page arises from views about big agriculture, and more specifically whether Monsanto has been a bad player regarding the possible carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Some editors are pretty consistently taking the position that the carcinogenicity is a big problem, and some other editors are pretty consistently taking the position that the carcinogenicity concerns are without merit. I believe strongly that it's better to reflect both perspectives on the page. So, for example, I've agreed with some editors in the past that the IARC needed to be presented as an outlier. But when the new meta-analysis came out recently, I changed my mind and am now disagreeing with those same editors and advocating that the page give more weight than before to the possibility that glyphosate may cause non-Hodgkin cancer. That's what I mean by not taking a single "side" in the discussions. Another example is where you have argued that a source is a review and I have argued that it is an essay (because it says "essay" right at the top of the journal page!). That's another discussion about POV. Am I "condemn[ing] others for their problematic POV positions"? No, that's just something you are reading into my comments even though it isn't there. Yes, I've condemned editors making things personal, but that's not based on one POV versus another. I said: "maybe it's not good-against-bad". If you are determined to construe that as "it is about good-against-bad", that's on you, not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the visual. Since you mentioned my edit at AN/I, did you pursue discussion with the author of this comment, or do you think it unactionable? Why is it that our BCP (biography of corporate people / biochemistry of chemical products) civility policies seem so much better enforced than the same policies on (some) BLP? I also notice that the civility problems I mentioned at ANI have already found some echo. The word "shill" seems to be one of that user's favorite words. I would have thought by now you would have lobbied to have them reformed, but it's possible I didn't fill one of the forms out correctly. No, Trypto, I don't think it's all about me. SashiRolls t · c 18:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC) I don't follow you around to the page topics where you edit and I do not. So there is no reason for me to start editing Tulsi Gabbard. I would have assumed that your edit at ANI was a request for admins to look there, and I'm not an admin. I wish that the civility policy were followed everywhere, and most certainly in areas where there are Discretionary Sanctions. The DS for post-1932 US politics should apply at the Gabbard page, and the DS for GMOs apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Look, everyone: This page and talk page have been put under Discretionary Sanctions by ArbCom, and there were good reasons for doing so. It's really very simple. If you disagree about something, comment on the content. Don't make it personal. Don't make it about someone else's supposed motives. It's not that difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Look, everyone: data-driven analysis of who leaves the most K here in the glyposhate talkpage letterbox. Kingofaces43: 180K Sagerad: 175K Smartse: 153K Tryptofish: 126K Jytdog: 121K -- SashiRolls t · c 16:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC) I think the "look everyone" mimicry is obnoxious and not needed. And it's a mystery to me why the information would add anything useful here. So two editors who were since topic-banned had made a lot of comments? So what? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Benbrook article on EPA vs IARC

• Benbrook, Charles M. (2019). "How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?". Environmental Sciences Europe. 31 (1). doi:10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7. ISSN 2190-4707.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

I don't think this has been discussed previously and I think it might be worth including. Given the author as has been discussed in the last few days we should be cautious, but quite unusually for a journal, there is an accompanying piece detailing the lengths that the editors went to to solicit reviews from independent experts which I think should negate worries over the authorship. From that We are convinced that the article provides new insights on why different conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and GBHs were reached by the US EPA and IARC. We already have content on why EFSA and IARC reached different conclusions (currently ref 152, by Portier et al.) and this could help compliment that. At the moment, I don't think our article does a great job of explaining why the IARC reached different conclusions to the others. In terms of what I would suggest adding, it would be a summary of the conclusions e.g. use of unpublished industry data, pure glyphosate vs formulations and risks to the general population vs risks to any people exposed. Something else I noticed in the accompanying piece is that they say that Bayer have made the unpublished industry data available online. SmartSE (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't know whether other editors will agree or disagree, but that sounds good to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting article that lays out the differences in a readable manner. The things I think might be missing from your presentation of the article is that Benbrook points out that nobody working uses "technical" glyphosate (the pure stuff), unpublished industry data is not peer-reviewed, though apparently Bayer has made it available for crowd-review, which is cool, but... :) Other ideas? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a bit going on lately and catching up on other things first, but another way to get around the authorship issue is to focus on other sources that discuss the differences that are plentiful already. Another problem is the journal itself. Environmental Sciences Europe is the journal the republished Seralini's rat study without peer-review and has gained a reputation for being an easy place to publish anti-GMO, etc. views. Frequently publishing fringe points of views does seem to bring it into a similar parallel as citing an acupuncture journal in a CAM topic, and I'm still looking into the claims that it falls into the predatory category.[22]

Considering the stuff the journal did in the Seralini affair, saying for this article they had multiple anonymous peer-reviewers (selected by Benbrook or the editor) doesn't really address journal reliability concerns. If it weren't for the journal issue, we could consider very careful use of the paper, but we're doubling up problems on this source with Benbrook being an author too. If there's a specific piece of info someone thinks is worthwhile, it shouldn't be hard to find other sources discussing it though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah well spotted. I should have noticed that, agree that reliability is dubious, but calling it predatory is probably a step too far. I think the conclusions are fairly uncontroversial so we should try to source them elsewhere and still consider including them even if this is the only source. SmartSE (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on limited time while also trying to catch up on all the stuff popping up on this talk page, so I'm on the fence about it being formally predatory without more research (and probably time better spent on other content), but definitely dubious as you say. There's a fair bit that could be included from previous sources we've discussed on the exact subject with respect to risk vs. hazard, so I'll go back through those when I get time to see if any additional details would be worth including. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait, not so well spotted after all? I could've sworn I'd read that the editor of Food & Chemical Toxicology who wrote the retraction notice for Séralini's paper was "under contract" with Monsanto ("lié par un contrat de consultant à Monsanto") Le Monde. This is old news isn't it? Like Séralini's response to the retraction: FCT SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

See also recent edits at Séralini affair. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, especially Trypto's long text about the former VP of RJ Reynolds' denial in the face of unambiguous documentary evidence (not published by the NYT) of his collusion with Monsanto to get the article retracted. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a strange way to describe it, but I would welcome other editors looking there and seeing what you think about it. (The reason that I noted it here was because SashiRolls referred to the Le Monde source here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Round in circles

I feel a little like I'm going "round in circles" myself, for having to bring this up, but I'd like to ask editors about Template:Round in circles, as it is reflected in these edits to this talk page: [23], [24], [25]. In my opinion, the template is a net positive to have on this page, because we continue to have new editors asking about issues that were already discussed and it would be helpful to all involved to remind those editors to check for those previous discussions – and I just don't understand why it would be beneficial to remove the template. Should we put it back? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

We do not need two search engines on the talk page. 99.9% of all other pages with TP archives have a simple search box. Having two search-boxes that function in the same way adds no functionality, just some chilling "it's all been talked about before" text. Given the shortcomings of this article, and the TP-dominance of 3-4 actors, the redundancy doesn't seem helpful at all. Much more informative, in my view, would be to include the top five TP editors names in the header, but this is true for any page. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

In other circling news, Kingofaces43 and Tryptofish seem to be working together at AE to have me banned for my writing. It was as I was preparing my defense that I thought I'd check who put the template on the page. It was Kingofaces43, so I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they comment below. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at the template page, and I see that a parameter can be added to remove the search box and just display the text. I agree that we don't need two search boxes, and it would be fine by me to put the message back without the box. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That looks like the pest approach as the point of the template wasn't the search engine, but the reminder. Even back when it was added, the redundancy wasn't a problem relative to reminding editors to check for previous discussions before repeating things all over again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I will register my disagreement, FWIW. The 17 talk pages that have been filled up by the TP leaders (Trypto, Kingo, Smart, jytdog) shows the degree of disagreement that exists with those who control the talk page (>600K from #1, #3, #4, #5). It would be best: not to constantly remind people who is "in charge"; and to stop rejecting 5-2 talk page consensus, as is being done concerning the Monsanto sourcing / ghostwriting on the page. SashiRolls ^{t · c}

Request for feedback

Before I go to all the work of adding information to our article I want to get assurance that this review is OK for us to use: "Ignoring Adjuvant Toxicity Falsifies the Safety Profile of Commercial Pesticides" [26] Also, which sections of the article should contain information from this review. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Mesnage is affiliated with Seralini, so that's already a red flag when things come out of those isolated groups, but you're using another Frontiers journal, which generally isn't considered reliable as you've been made aware of a few times now. I'd have to go digging for the talk section, but we've already had quite a bit of discussion on how to handle the adjuvant question where it essentially boiled down to things like POEA increasing the 'relative' toxicity of the solution, but that the toxicity is still extremely low, not a significant risk, etc. for humans. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please try to avoid scolding other editors with comments such as "as you've been made aware of a few times now". Also keep in mind that it was on your advice that I came across that article in the first place. Re using Frontiers journals, I am not ready to accept the opinion of three anonymous WP editors on just about anything, nor should any thinking person that wants to establish a fact. When I did research I found this: [27] Please refute this info and supply research that states they are not to be seen as reliable. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this probably isn't a suitable source given the authorship and journal. Frontiers was most recently discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_263#Frontiers_in_Neurology_-_blacklisted_or_no?. Alexbrn summed it up well Not blacklisted. But also, never used for anything other than mundane information. and Consensus [...] seems clear: we're not going to be using Frontiers sources for health claims SmartSE (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks but since I posted here I have seen the ongoing discussion at the RS article. So I won't post any farther here for now. Gandydancer (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll just add that it seems to me that there is a consensus in the source material that, broadly speaking, the toxicity of a pesticide formulation can readily differ from the toxicity of the single active ingredient. I would think that there would be plenty of reliable sources that would say that, and there is no good reason to rely on this one for that purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Responding to ping above. Yes, Frontiers journals are to be generally avoided. There's been quite a bit on this recently on WP:RS/N. Particularly for a "hot" topic like this, it is surely best to use sources of the best quality. Alexbrn (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Alexbrn. I'm not sure I agree with WP's take on Frontiers but I'm far from being an expert on sourcing and you most certainly are. Gandydancer (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

US Right to Know source

A new source was introduced in this edit by Gandydancer. This is a "viewpoint" article, but more importantly, it is authored by Carey Gilliam of USRTK, an organic industry lobbying group.[28] [29][30] Gilliam, a non-scientist from what I can find, profits by pushing the idea of glyphosate causing cancer in her Whitewash book as well.

This is basically much lower quality in terms of WP:INDEPENDENT than even previous discussions about independent university researchers getting industry funding, and more on par with citing an article directly authored by a Monsanto/Bayer employee. Last I checked, we were not doing the latter, and I'd still be opposed to using such non-independent direct sources like Monsanto, USRTK, etc. This looks like a pretty clear source to avoid unless we're significantly changing direction using independent sources in this subject. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I share your concerns about using that source and the bias of the author. USRTK are as bad as Monsanto. It's especially problematic how it is being used to counter a MEDRS review and paint it in a bad light. SmartSE (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I share these concerns too. I would think that it would be better to source that kind of information to a reliable mainstream journalistic news source. If those comments were considered sufficiently newsworthy to be reported, then they might be worth the WP:WEIGHT, but otherwise there are questions about how WP editors can select which kinds of quotes to present here, and which not to present. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This source is listed as a review at PubMed. I have added a second ref. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That comment doesn't address the problems at all, so please slow down with regards to the sourcing problems brought up in your recent edits. As for the new reference, the source itself gives no indication of who produced it just saying it was prepared for members of the US House of Representatives while heavily citing the website the Baumhed lawyers bringing the first lawsuit. Not to mention it's still not MEDRS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This should not have been deleted. I don't know why one would need to be a scientist in order to merit a place in an article about a product of which 6 billion kilos have been used in the last decade... The first author here appears to work at Tufts University and to have a PhD. We could of course mention USRTK and link to the Reuters' journalists book in the article if it would be better form... (just as nobody is trying to delete the content Monsanto boasts in internal emails that they ghostwrote). It just causes readers to be rightly suspicious of en.wp if we:

• delete widely-known and widely-reported information which is relevant and in the public domain
• refuse to acknowledge that peer-reviewed publications label Monsanto-funded publications as such
• allow only the company marketing the product and not their critics to have a place on the page (Smartse says: "USRTK is as bad as Monsanto", yet Monsanto's studies are published on this page...)

I suggest restoring the information there was no consensus to delete. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS policy applies here, so consensus is needed for the addition, not the other way around. It's pretty long-standing that we don't include studies done by Monsanto employees alone to source content due to the independence factor, and that applies to other competitors in the industry like organic groups. That's especially why we stick to independent sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The information has been added back to the page, this time sourced to Bloomberg, which also reports the quote: [31], and I appreciate that this is much better sourcing. I have, however, put an "under discussion" tag following the material: [32], and I want to explain why I did that. I recognize that there are well-sourced reasons to include, on this page, some sort of information about this controversy. But I have concerns about presenting it in this way. In a page section about human toxicity that is otherwise summarizing scientific reviews, this addition devotes a large percentage of the section to a single quote that is not about the science, but about a controversy that is described in the cited source as being one side of an ongoing court case, and which the source reports as one part of an article that also includes rebuttals and further context. Here, those additional perspectives are omitted while presenting what, on the face of it, seems very damning, even though the cited source treated the information more as being one side of an unresolved debate. To some extent, what WP:BLPPRIMARY says about the reliability of "trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents" applies here (albeit regarding an organization as opposed to an individual). Perhaps this could be better covered instead in Glyphosate#Legal cases. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It has become pretty clear to me that there is no source that will find acceptance here. In the past this information was refused saying it needed a WP:MEDRS source. So I added that and it was refused saying it was biased, though as far as I know it is PubMed's job to check out what they use and not the job of anonymous Wikipedia editors. One could as well call the Monsanto sponsored reviews too biased to use because their researchers were heavily involved in promoting Monsanto interests or too pro GM products. I added a US House pamphlet and it was refused saying that the authors were not listed. Tryptofish said "it would be better to source that kind of information to a reliable mainstream journalistic news source." So I used the Bloomberg site. Also found to be inadequate. When our readers read this article and see that we state, "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans," they need to know that Monsanto was involved in doing that review. Gandydancer (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I just said that "this is much better sourcing", and that "there are well-sourced reasons to include, on this page, some sort of information about this controversy", but that "this could be better covered instead in Glyphosate#Legal cases." In what has become a pattern that I will not tolerate any longer, you have turned that around to mean pretty much the opposite of what I said, as if I had said that this source is not good enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

To other editors: please do not revert the content that was added, so long as this discussion is going on. Let's figure out the best place and way to present the information, without any further reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) I believe that you are the one that is twisting comments. IMO this information should be added in the place that reports the outcome of the 2000 review and absolutely not in the legal sections portion. It makes a lot of difference, as I'm sure you are aware. This is not a legal concern, it is related to the fact that numerous sources show that Monsanto is implicated in the 2000 review that found the product to be safe. Gandydancer (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandy, I would suggest making a "reference group" and include all three of your references (as Trypto did here on Jill Stein's BLP for the Bo Gardiner blog and the passing mention of her in a Physics Today piece where the author points out what he calls an opinion piece slamming Stein on the Slate blog.) Thanks for your effort on this, Gandy. I've learned a lot from it. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree your views on the content being out of place and not appropriate sourcing for addressing scientific content. As a general comment to everyone, there are avenues for addressing scientific impropriety, and no such sourcing has come up yet. Either such sources comment on the review not being valid, or the journal itself acts saying there actually was impropriety, retracts it, adds erratum, etc. We also have to deal with the fact that the review is heavily cited (41 reviews citing at last check on Web of Science), and that has weighed in to previous discussions before this, hence the need for the round in circles template. In short, I'm not seeing anything new we can easily work with to change the previous times this has come up.

In general, the legal cases page is the better fit right now simply because it's mostly on what has gone on during the case. However, we still have problems you mentioned from the BLP aspect. The other is that pending cases like this are prone to a lot of things that aren't supported, and it's usually better to wait until a case concludes to suss out what was important from the legal standpoint. It's going to be extremely difficult to craft content even there at this time. The better option would be to remember WP:NODEADLINE and wait until we have better sourcing or description in terms of relevance whether it's on the MEDRS or legal side of things. I have to do that all the time when I personally see studies that have problems, but there's nothing in high-quality sources we can use yet as editors, so this is really no different. If we absolutely must have commentary on it now, it would belong outside of the science content here, and it would really need careful consensus before being inserted, as is expected of us as part of 1RR when content like this is initially disputed rather than reinserting it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The response of these three editors does not surprise me in the least and in fact it is exactly what I expected. In 2000 a Monsanto employee wrote, "The publication by independent experts of the most exhaustive and detailed scientific assessment ever written on glyphosate… was due to the perseverance, hard work and dedication of the following group of folks,” and then she listed seven Monsanto employees. She went on to say, "This human health publication on Roundup herbicide and its companion publication on ecotox and environmental fate will be undoubtedly be regarded as “the” reference on Roundup and glyphosate safety." And indeed she was correct--almost 20 years have passed and it does remain the reference on Roundup and glyphosate safety--at least it continues as such on Wikipedia if nowhere else. Gandydancer (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That makes it sound like Kingofaces43, Smartse, and I are editing as if we were Monsanto employees, when in fact we are neither suppressing the newer sourcing nor doing anything more than trying to edit according to policies and guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Birth defects

Something which has come up before here e.g. most recently at #About_MEDRS_sources and is covered in dubious sources e.g. The Ecologist (which is rehashing Earth Open Source) but which isn't included in the article is the alleged effect on birth defects. In 2013, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority published a review of these claims (along with other aspects) that is currently not included in the article. Should we include the APVMA report along with the other governmental positions and also include mention of birth defects somewhere? SmartSE (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

That APVMA source does seem to me to be a reliable source, and yes we should include any conclusions about causing birth defects. In looking at their summary of conclusions on pages 13–14, however, it's not clear to me what we would say about it, because they seem to conclude that there isn't much of an effect. I'd want to know more about other reviews if they exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes sorry I wasn't clear there - it concludes that there is no evidence it causes birth defects in humans, but we should include this, as the contrary seems to be a common theme e.g. [33], as well as that case in France and the reports above. There's also this systematic review from 2016 which is already cited as current ref 127. SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, with citing both sources. It can probably be a single sentence within an existing section, as opposed to something lengthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)