Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

EFSA and news of evaluation of the scientific quality of glyphosate genotox studies in July 2021

Just a heads up on some recent edits I had to remove. It looks like the core of those were based on an unpublished report by a couple researchers without peer-review, not from a major scientific body, etc., so there are major WP:MEDRS issues that warranted removal of that and the related popular press. It seems to have an appearance of science by press release and the common pitfalls of that rather than having something we could use for sourcing. KoA (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday I added two paragraphs to section 7.3.1, with links to media coverage on 2 July in The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and De Standaard ("In July 2021, European media reported...") about an evaluation of the scientific quality of glyphosate industry genotoxicity studies in EFSA's 2015 RAR. I'd like to explain here why I think it should be on the glyphosate page, and to seek your advice on how to proceed, because KoA subsequently removed my edit. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glyphosate&type=revision&diff=1034963560&oldid=1034920834 --Slackr (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• News sources: I see the discussion here about The Guardian as a source, but also note that The Guardian is cited as the only source for the paragraph just above mine ("In September 2017, The Guardian reported that sections of the Renewal Assessment Report..."). I have cited four leading European news outlets (The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, De Standaard). The story was on the front page of Le Monde's print edition of 3 July 2021 too, and widely reported in Austrian media too, where the authors are based. --Slackr (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sources outside of journals: The expertise by Nersesyan and Knasmüller which the media reported on has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but neither have the glyphosate industry studies which they evaluated. KoA noted in their second revert on the page yesterday that it "doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed or have the oversight required for sources outside of journals". Where can I find out more about the oversight required for sources outside of journals? --Slackr (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Why I added it: EFSA wrote in 2015 that "It is noted that unpublished studies that were the core basis of the peer review evaluation were not available to the IARC experts as reported in the IARC monograph 112 on glyphosate (IARC, 2015)." So these unpublished industry studies are key/core to understanding why IARC says there's "strong evidence" that exposure to glyphosate is genotoxic, but EFSA says glyphosate is "unlikely to be genotoxic". --Slackr (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that (wholesale) deletion and the reasoning for it seems inappropriate. First of all if we include efsa assessments (which article currently does), then we cannot cherrypick them and in particular not leave out the most recent ones, as that would amount to clear misrepresentation. Secondly i don't see this really as a WP:MEDRS case either, as the EFSA assessment doesn't really make any medival claims, but it assesses the scientific quality of the studies.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. This is important, sourced information and it belongs in the article. Jusdafax (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I disagree - it's not appropriate to use an unpublished report to question the accuracy of a reliable source such as the EFSA report per WP:PARITY. Note The Guardian stated European officials reaffirmed that view in an 11,000-page report issued last month which can be found here where they say No classification for germ cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity was warranted. The proposal from the four Member States does not foresee a change to the existing classification. Clearly there has been no change in the scientific consensus and we should not be adding doubt about the evidence unless it is a widely held view of the scientific community. @Kmhkmh: not sure what you mean by "leave out the most recent ones" - did you think that the Nersesyan and Knasmüller report was written by EFSA? SmartSE (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The 11,000-page report issued last month by four EU member states concerns a different licence application, including different glyphosate industry studies, and EFSA hasn't even done its assessment yet. So I think it would be wholly inappropriate to add doubt about the scientific quality of studies in that draft RAR at this early stage, and the Nersesyan and Knasmüller report does no such thing. --Slackr (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry it appears I misreadt edits in the version history and conflated Efsa with 2 cited scientists. So just ignore my comment above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding scientific consensus, I think it's relevant that EFSA noted that the unpublished industry studies "were the core basis of the peer review evaluation". How can there be a scientific consensus about hitherto unavailable (not only unpublished) studies? In my proposed page edit I included a ref link to the relevant EU General Court ruling "EFSA’s decisions refusing access to the toxicity and carcinogenicity studies on the active substance glyphosate are annulled". --Slackr (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Slackr, first I suggest reading WP:MEDRS. For medical related content, we stick to secondary sources such as peer-refereed journal literature reviews, meta-analyses, etc. but not primary research articles in journals, much less lesser primary sources. We also can use overviews from respected scientific professional organizations or government agencies. If we want content critiquing or criticizing content from those sources, we need another MEDRS source. We cannot use newspapers for MEDRS content like that either, and as discussed on related pages in the past, The Guardian does have a bit of a weak spot in terms of reliability when it comes to GMO related topics and WP:FRINGE.

The "report" you linked to is what we call gray literature. That's why I opened the initial talk page section on gray literature before you created this new one, so maybe you missed that. It's literally two random scientists who didn't submit their work for any peer-review and just uploaded to an Amazon server. There's no editorial oversight in that. That pretty much stops any conversation on content related to it dead in its tracks, and newspaper coverage doesn't really change anything as it becomes a variation of Science by press conference. KoA (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I had missed the link on gray literature before. Slackr (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that we could, hypothetically, include the criticism by the two authors in the future, if it were to be peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. And, if that happens, we probably should include it. But we have to be careful about basing content here on preprints.

It matters a lot how we treat the accuracy or inaccuracy of scientific information, particularly when it has direct implications for human health, as it does here. As it happens, there's an interesting discussion about just how important it may become for Wikipedia to get health information right, that is currently taking place on another talkpage: [1]. (As a thought experiment, imagine if, instead, we were discussing a preprint of something written by two persons who hold fringe views about the COVID pandemic, and news coverage of it in right-wing news media. Of course, I'm not saying at all that the two authors of the glyphosate piece are fringe.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

IARC report and genotoxicity

So, I fully agree with the citation needed tags in the Glyphosate#Genetic_damage section, particularly the "various other studies" part. Hopefully that gets fixed with actual sources or gets removed at some point. Anyways, i'm wanting to talk about the last line in there, which is accurate, but I feel like something should be added about it. Because of this source:

• Arnason, Robert (March 27, 2015). "Toxicologist pans UN glyphosate report". The Western Producer.

The claims of genotoxicity in the IARC report heavily focus/rely on a particular study. The article above is the primary author of said paper calling out IARC for misrepresenting his study and stating the literal opposite of what it concluded and found. Should this be noted in this section? The genetic damage section is rather small as it is. Silverseren^C 03:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The IARC monograph cites:

• "Solomon KR, Anadón A, Carrasquilla G, Cerdeira AL, Marshall J, Sanin LH (2007). Coca and poppy eradication in Colombia: environmental and human health assessment of aerially applied glyphosate. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol, 190:43–125. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-36903-7_2 PMID:17432331"

I did not find a pdf of the above, but I have not looked hard. The IARC monograph also cites:

• Bolognesi, Claudia; Carrasquilla, Gabriel; Volpi, S; Solomon, Keith R (2009). "Biomonitoring of genotoxic risk in agricultural workers from five Colombian regions: association to occupational exposure to glyphosate". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A. 72 (15–16): 986–97. doi:10.1080/15287390902929741.

I found a copy at [2], though a better source would be, well, better. There was also this email trail from Solomon: [3] on the US Right To Know website (usrtk). Note that usrtkn also has a report that a journal stated that one of Solomon's papers did not adequately acknowledge funding from Monsanto.[4], resulting in a retraction. Solomon does have two papers cited in the Wikipedia Glyphosate article itself. Searching the talk archives for Solomon finds some hits. usrtk.org is probably not a WP:RS source, but I found it helpful to fill me in on the context here.

The two papers seems to have more than a few citations, it would be good to see what some of the citations say about the papers. Cxbrx (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd avoid using USRTK if possible, since they're a known biased group based around anti-science stances on biotechnology and other fields (much like how their connected organization, the Organic Consumers Association, is anti-vaccine, anti-fluoridation, anti-mammography, and a number of other things). I would honestly consider USRTK to fall under WP:FRINGE sourcing. Silverseren^C 16:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

At least in terms of WP:MEDRS, that would technically be usable just for quoting Solomon, but as to what WP:DUE inclusion could be, I'd have to think about that some more. The rest of that article wouldn't really be usable here since anything outside of Solomon being quoted would be WP:MEDPOP. It would be a little easier if Solomon had wrote an editorial in a journal instead at a minimum, but something to keep an eye out for. KoA (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that USRTK is not an un-biased source, though in this case they have FOIA files on their site that have Solomon rebutting IARC's conclusion. These are primary sources, it would be better if there was a summary of peer-reviewed papers concerning Solomon's rebuttal. However, that's not what we have. What we do have here is Solomon, who appears to have been funded by Monsanto, rebutting IARC's interpretation of his paper. The Western Producer [5]coverage of glyphosate seems fairly balanced considering that it "publishes news of interest to western Canadian farmers." I'd be comfortable having the Western Producer article added as a reference, though I have no plans to update the article itself with any of this. Cxbrx (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Toxicity summary in lede

The last two paragraphs of the lede are incoherent and in my view place undue weight on the 2015 IARC publication. I'd like to see a brief, declarative summary that leads with the current scientific consensus. Hanjaf1 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I found the recently reverted summary to be an improvement. VdSV9•♫ 15:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I do agree it is clunky, but the challenge is that the IARC decision was controversial and affected the discourse quite a bit, so it does need some mention. It's not so much trying to validate the IARC, but approach it as WP:STEELMAN. The current setup is at least trying to achieve WP:DUE on all fronts by saying the IARC was a very minority or fringe view, and here's what basically all the other respected agencies have to say. The body is one thing, but the lead still needs a bit more detail than basically the reduction down to one sentence that I partially undid here. I'd definitely be open to discussing how we can prune that down for the lead though with all this in mind. KoA (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I see no reason to hedge around the IARC study in the lede. That discussion can be relegated to the appropriate section. The section on Toxicity - Cancer contains two paragraphs. Both lead with a declarative and appropriately sourced sentence summarizing of the evidence. IMO either of these sentences would be a better contribution to the lede than the wordy mess that is there currently. Hanjaf1 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Birds section

As I noted in my edit summary, the studies used in this added section are way too specific (Cockerels and mallards), obscure (Pakistan Veterinary Journal and Environmental Chemistry Letters), and primary literature (Self-evident) focused and the summary of the studies written in the section makes claims that try to imply dangerous toxicity when the very point is that ridiculously high concentrations are required to see any impact. That is what we refer to as low toxicity by every other measure available. If the studies actually try to push the claim that those concentrations are field realistic, then their biases and unreliability about the science itself are another reason not to include them as sources. Silverseren^C 02:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. That's a lot to claim with primary sources or speculation/general introduction in the last source. We need actual WP:SCIRS sourcing here that's specific to either species or actual documented effects. KoA (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

A hasty search shows me Oliveira is cited by doi:10.1002/jat.2997, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114372 & doi:10.1002/jat.2997. For Gill, it is cited briefly by doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818734-0.00006-1 and I don't see anything immediately unacceptable about Environmental Chemistry Letters, having a normal publisher affiliation (Springer). I have not examined the concentrations involved but over all I conclude this text should not be summarily removed. Invasive Spices (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It was summarily added in the first place without discussion on the merits of a birds section and whether there is actual research backing a claim of meaningful toxicity. I removed it on the same grounds for discussion to be had here. Being cited by others does not fix the issues I brought up or even address them. Silverseren^C 00:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion before adding text is not required. This is Wikipedia.

Being cited by others certainly does matter. In any other situation with such secondary support I would simply revert however I do agree that there is an inappropriate desperation across the world to find glyphosate toxicity where it does not exist. I have noticed entirely malapropos accusations to that effect in reviews which are otherwise credible and in good journals – in microscopy methodology instructions, in a botanist's autobiography ... It would be even easier to misrepresent concentrations as you're saying here. None the less it is possible that these are legitimate citations and we must be prepared for others to claim that they are. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be useful to summarize the scientific consensus from a recent review per WP:SCIRS. The sources cited were overly specific IMO. Nangaf (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Both specific and yet very vague too ironically in the sense that it didn't really address the relevant topic here. Simply being cited means nothing in that context, we'd actually need something relevant from the secondary sources from actually looking through them. That's ultimately why the content was removed. KoA (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Cancer

@KoA: I am unclear what kind of improvements you feel would be appropriate here. I have tried shortening the lede, and I have tried adding a summary of the consensus with an appropriate reference, and you have reverted them both. Are you satisfied with the current unreadable mess? I would appreciate a more constructive approach. Nangaf (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Like I mentioned earlier, the main issue was that we need WP:MEDRS sources in that section like review articles in journals, government scientific organizations, etc. GLP is good for lay-audiences, but not what we need for medical content. I went and tweaked things a bit to avoid "burying the lead" by having the consensus language show up earlier here. I realize I'm technically over 1RR on that, so if anyone is opposed to that right now, I'll self revert. Does that take care of concerns initially? Also keep in mind that some of this content is a product of having to balance sources and previous consensus, so some areas do get a little tricky wade through. KoA (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the breach of the revert protocol, that was accidental on my part. I do appreciate that this is a contentious topic about which editors may hold irreconcilable views. I do think the current edit is an incremental improvement so thanks for that. I think we agree on the desirability of an article that is somewhat easier to read, and I'm sure we we can get there in little steps. Nangaf (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chazzidy Harper (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tdepeyster (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Biased study included in Cancer section.

Citation 115 is a paper by Geoffrey Kabat and the paper fails to disclose he is a member of the board of scientific advisors of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a group that has received funding and guidance from Monsanto in the past. I believe the sentence + citation should be removed as it doesn't maintain neutrality. 98.37.18.134 (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Considering that USRTK is a known anti-science group, I don't think that's a useful source to be making such a claim. Also, having worked at a group that at one point received some funding from Monsanto wouldn't be a required disclosed COI for all future publications one does. Was the actual study and research done funded by Monsanto? Silverseren^C 08:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

| Considering that USRTK is a known anti-science group

I don't think it's necessarily relevant for determining if the paper's author is biased, but I would be grateful if you could provide a source for this for my own edification.

| worked at a group that at one point received some funding from Monsanto wouldn't be a required disclosed COI for all future publications one does

That isn't exactly an analogous situation though. In this case, he is an active board member for an organization where Monsanto is a client. Insulting a client could jeopardize his position as a board member, or the group's finances. The disclosure guidelines I've seen (one example) are more broad and seem like this would be covered. I'd be interested if you have a source that backs up the idea that this wouldn't be a required disclosure.

| Was the actual study and research done funded by Monsanto?

Given the individual's personal failure to disclose and the lack of transparency, historical failure to disclose, and criminal activities of ACSH and it's members I think the only answer is "we have no way to know" which doesn't seem sufficient. 98.37.18.134 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Forced increased use

Hello @Ttguy: I've reverted your most recent edit because I think the source says exactly that in the abstract, and several other places. Additionally if you remove the ref that way then the rest of the text doesn't have that ref with it either. Invasive Spices (talk) 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: The abstract says "likely"

"Further increases in the volume applied are *likely* due to more and higher rates of application in response to the widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds"

Which hardly constitutes evidence for the claim. In fact I would suggest the emergence of glyphosate resistant weeds would REDUCE the use of glyphosate. You are not going to try and kill glyphosate resistant weeds with glyphosate.Ttguy (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact the cited paper goes on to say "Genetically engineered crops with tolerance to glyphosate are widely grown, and their use has led to increased application of GBHs. This increased use has contributed to widespread growth of glyphosate-resistant weeds [36, 37]."

So the paper says the GM crops has led to more glyphosate and this has contributed to glyphosate resitant weeds. Which I the oposite of the claim made at the start - it says glyphosate resistance is the cause of the increased glyphosate usage.Ttguy (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change our text to reflect that likely. I agree that that is not the same as this is the reason. However, in these other points I think you've misunderstood how resistance works--

In fact I would suggest the emergence of glyphosate resistant weeds would REDUCE the use of glyphosate. You are not going to try and kill glyphosate resistant weeds with glyphosate. I understand however this is common. It isn't working so spray more. We may not have used enough.

So the paper says the GM crops has led to more glyphosate and this has contributed to glyphosate resitant weeds. Which I the oposite of the claim made at the start - it says glyphosate resistance is the cause of the increased glyphosate usage. That's not the opposite. One doesn't disprove the other. They are somewhat unrelated however. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Only able to take a quick look right now, but the study being mentioned is by Benbrook, so that's already a red flag. Even without that, I'd personally opt for leaving the content until a more descriptive source can be used since there does seem to be some confusion right now.

Normally, pesticide rates don't increase due to resistance as you're typically supposed to be using near the maximum labeled rate anyways for resistance management. There usually isn't room to just "up the dose" if a field has resistance issues. There may be reapplications initially, but usually you're going to have farmers switching to other modes of action. The currently removed piece of content doesn't seem very well supported from a WP:WEIGHT perspective at least, so probably best to leave out for now and tailor something else. KoA (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

EFSA

There's been a bit of edit warring going on, so just to make sure edit summaries aren't missed, the EFSA recently put out a press release for their findings on glyphosate. They intend to publish the full publication around the end of July, which is what we should primarily be basing content on, but the press release works for the single line of content we have at Glyphosate#European_Food_Safety_Authority.

Also as a reminder, we are supposed to flesh out content in the body first per WP:LEAD. That should be pretty easy to do once the full report is out, but in the meantime, we don't necessarily need to be updating the lead with each new development either. Better to wait and see how the structure of the overall body looks first. KoA (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. Proposing edits is not edit warring, just editing. So no need for those mischaracterisations.

With regards to the reverted edits: removing content from the body and the lead (not sure why you mention WP:LEAD) [6][7]

• The EFSA source is the most thorough WP:MEDRS risk assessment and peer review on this substance by one of the most important agencies in the world. It lasted 3 years and the conclusions are clear. It deserves WP:DUE weight in the lead.
• The fact that the full report is being published soon is irrelevant. The agency has clearly stated that the conclusions cannot change and has already published this information in multiple forms. See for example:

• EFSA explains the scientific assessment of glyphosate
• EFSA FACTSHEET on glyphosate

So the publication of additional material is irrelevant and won't change the content that I included in the article. And the Agency states clearly As with all peer-reviews of pesticide active substances, and according to EU legislation for pesticides, EFSA provides materials intended for publication to the applicant which is entitled to request confidentiality for elements relating to personal data or commercially sensitive information. Applicants are not able to request changes to the conclusions or the assessment itself nor submit additional information.[8].

Delaying the inclusion of this material in the article is unjustified. This is a WP:MEDRS source of the highest quality and should be thoroughly covered in the lead and in the body. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

KoA, I'd find it very helpful if you could summarize what things you would like to have cleared up by being able to have access to the final report. I mean something like xyz is unclear in what we have now, but should be clear when we can read the full publication.

I've looked at the disputed edits, and while I do think that it's very much WP:DUE to include significant coverage of the EFSA findings on this page, I think there are things to discuss about exactly how we word the content. I'm inclined to think that the reverted edits didn't get the wording right. (Saying in Wikipedia's voice that EFSA "conservatively allowed" is editorializing. I'd also prefer not to tell readers what EFSA's findings mean, as opposed to simply summarizing what the findings were.) Given that we have WP:1RR here, I suggest that we propose and discuss possible edits about EFSA here in talk, before implementing them on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on inclusion (I don't think anyone disputes that) and how exactly we word content. That's largely why I had been saying to wait until the full conclusions at the end of the month instead of relying on just the press release. Scroll to the bottom to Next Steps for more info: As soon as this process is complete, EFSA will publish its conclusions and all background documents related to the peer review and risk assessment in full on its website. In the meantime, just have the very short version in our text here that currently exists as placeholder until we have more sourcing to really expand content on.

There's a lot going on just in this edit, but there's care needed in modifying the scientific consensus statement and biodiversity doesn't really belong in the carcinogenicity discussion. For the EFSA-focused content itself though, I agree with the editorializing issue on "conservatively allowed". In this edit, there's a lot of potential context missing related to mentioning things like impurities, consumer risk, mammalian risk, etc. We also just don't know what may truly be at issue in our attempts at summarizing now until the more fleshed out conclusions are posted too, so that's why I was saying wait they week or two the EFSA said remains as a pretty clear cut WP:NODEADLINE case.

I'm mostly just making sure we aren't chomping at the bit to add something else when we know we aren't dealing with the finalized or fully fleshed out statements from EFSA yet. In journal terms, we're at the abstract stage right now waiting on the full paper to come out while avoiding speculation on what's in it. Waiting for that should make all of our lives easier here. KoA (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK We already have the conclusions published by the agency and any additional "analysis" on our part would be WP:OR. The stength of this review means it summarises the latest scientific consensus as far as we are concerned. So we should avoid "making it up" ourselves (as we currently do in the current article text) and just report what they published. No problem editing it further of course. Maybe we can WP:FIXFIRST. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if we can agree that a good approach will be to write it as a summary of what EFSA concludes, without any analysis in Wikipedia's voice of what the conclusions mean. And let's write some draft versions of what to say, here in talk, before putting it on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree with the approach @Tryptofish. Tried exactly that in my edits (I was basing it off their language as directly as possible) but of course I might have missed something. Despite my best efforts neither I nor Wiki are WP:PERFECT :)

Here is the paragraph as it was before the revert separated by sentence so that we can point out more easily any problems with specific parts. Feel free to comment directly below each if some problems are identified. The EFSA FACTSHEET on glyphosate is another good resource to use to check this text. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

1. In July 2023, EFSA re-evaluated after three years of assessment the putative impact of glyphosate on the health of humans, animals and the environment.
2. The EFSA risk assessment and peer review was conducted by dozens of scientists from EFSA and EU Member States.
3. It identified no "critical areas of concern", meaning concerns that affect all proposed uses of the substance thus preventing its approval or renewal.
4. Some data gaps remain and some issues could therefore not be fully evaluated, such as the assessment of one of the impurities in glyphosate, the consumer dietary risk assessment, and the assessment of risks to aquatic plants.
5. The available information did not allow the EFSA to reach a conclusion on the potential risk to biodiversity, due to its complexity and dependance from multiple factors.
6. With respect to ecotoxicology, a high long-term risk to mammals in 12 out of 23 proposed uses of glyphosate was identified.

References

(edit conflict) Gtoffoletto, that use of the wikilink completely misses the point. We don't have those conclusions, we have a preview of them. Journals were mentioned because the way this publication process works for EFSA is like we have an abstract in hand right now, but not the full publication for clarification. Nothing was said about making the article like a journal article.

Again, please slow down instead of rushing to conclusions about what sources are doing or saying. What EFSA has shared with the EU states won't change, but we don't know what that final report is yet. Either way, we're in a good state in the article until the full release until we can check what needs to be changed to better reflect sources or even expand. We can start with the summary as Tryptofish puts it at that point and work from there. It should be extremely straightforward at that point, much so more than now, so we shouldn't really need to dedicate additional text to this talk page until then. KoA (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If you were acting along your own arguments, you would also have removed “As a result, no critical areas of concern were identified.“ for now. 80.155.20.154 (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

KoA got a point.

The broader background of the EFSA decision is the question whether or not the authorization and use of glyphosate in Europe should be prolonged or terminated - key issue is the putative cancerogenic potential. After ECHA came 2022 to the conclusion that glyphosate is not cancerogenic, the assessment of the EFSA could have turned the tide. However, also EFSA did not see any issues with an authorization with glyphosate in Europe. That there is some areas which needs more research (as usual) is a sole sideshow. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, putting excessive focus on other areas of research when that wasn't the point of the EFSA investigation is misleading and seems like an attempt to insert negative claims about the subject that isn't actually backed up by the EFSA review. Silverseren^C 18:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Julius Senegal and Silverseren. It seems to me that the major point of information that we have from EFSA at this stage is that they determined not to treat glyphosate as a health hazard. There are also a bunch of caveats, over things that EFSA feels require more data, but I increasingly think that, in part per KoA, that we should hold off on including that on the page until the full publication becomes available. I've thought hard on the question of how that would fit with NPOV, because admittedly it leaves out the "criticisms" for now, but my reading of the source material that we have so far is that those "criticisms" are treated by the source as minor points. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I broadly agree with KoA on this. Nangaf (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree we should not excessively focus on the data gaps as those are not the main conclusions. We can tone them down (or even remove them) from the proposed edit. By looking at the EFSA FACTSHEET on glyphosate I see they identify 3 main conclusions that they distinguish from Issues that could not be finalised (3 items listed) and Outstanding issues (4 items listed).

The 3 main conclusions are:

1. The assessment of the impact of glyphosate on the health of humans, animals and the environment did not identify critical areas of concern. A concern is defined as critical when it affects all proposed uses of the pesticide under evaluation (e.g., pre-sowing uses, post-harvest uses etc.), thus preventing its approval or renewal.
2. In 2022, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) carried out a hazard assessment of glyphosate and concluded that it did not meet the scientific criteria to be classified as a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substance. EFSA used ECHA’s hazard classification for the purposes of the EU risk assessment on glyphosate.
3. With respect to ecotoxicology, the data package allowed a conservative risk assessment approach, which identified a high long-term risk tomammals in 12 out of 23 proposed uses of glyphosate.

The proposed edit covers those conclusions well (it does not cover the ECHA classification bullet as it is a methodological detail and we already cover that source in the article. However, it appears that sentences 4 and 5 of the proposed edit (see my last comment above) are not covered by the main conclusions but are included in the "other conclusions". We could maybe summarise them in a single sentence to indicate that some data gaps remain and keep the rest? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

How about this change to the proposed edit:

1. In July 2023, EFSA re-evaluated after three years of assessment the putative impact of glyphosate on the health of humans, animals and the environment.
2. The EFSA risk assessment and peer review was conducted by dozens of scientists from EFSA and EU Member States.
3. It identified no "critical areas of concern", meaning no concerns that affect all proposed uses of the substance thus preventing its approval or renewal.
4. With respect to ecotoxicology, a high long-term risk to mammals in 12 out of 23 proposed uses of glyphosate was identified.
5. Some data gaps remain and require more data to allow a complete assessment of all the proposed uses of the substance.

{{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would omit sentence 4 until the full publication can be reviewed by editors, as it focuses on a single point without us being able yet to evaluate due weight. I'd be OK with the remaining sentences, with some minor wordsmithing. I would want to hear from more editors before implementing anything, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You would selectively remove only one of the 3 main conclusions from the EFSA's assessment? Is it a coincidence that it is the only negative conclusion? WP:DUE absolutely does not justify that. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I've already commented in this thread on my thoughts about the POV considerations of selectively omitting negative conclusions, so I would prefer not to repeat myself here. My reading of the source is that there is one, not three, main conclusion: that there are no critical areas of concern. Then there are a series of apparently minor conclusions, of which ecotoxicology is only one, and not more prominent than the others. As I said, I want to hear what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It's our lucky day! It's just been published in full: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/8164 {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The assessment of the data package revealed no issues that could not be finalised or that needed to be included as critical areas of concern with respect to ecotoxicology for the representative uses assessed. A high long-term risk to mammals was concluded for 12 of the 23 representative uses based on tier 1 assumptions.. Good job EFSA on not letting us wait too long for this. The suspense for those additional details was killing me. Any other issues with the proposed edit? I guess we can also reinstate the text in the lead and source it (additionally) to the full study. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I've just started to read the full publication, not just the abstract: [9]. It's going to take some time for editors to take in all of the information there, and I'm particularly interested in what KoA thinks, since he is an expert on the topic. My initial reading seems to reinforce what I said in my previous comments. The authors seem to say more explicitly than in the earlier releases, that they regard all of the caveats as not being significant enough to change the overall conclusion that there are no major concerns. They present the caveats as things that they mention for the sake of completeness. We need to be careful about not giving them more prominence than the source indicates. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That's my very initial read too, though I probably won't be able to get around to this in full until the weekend. And yes, this just reinforces that we need to avoid cherry-picking out minor statements or burying the lead. Something like The assessment of the data package revealed no issues that could not be finalised or that needed to be included as critical areas of concern with respect to ecotoxicology for the representative uses assessed. (my bold) is very clear. Adding the other sentences like the 12/23 just after wouldn't be appropriate for our audience here since it would need the extra context for scientific audiences you mentioned. I'll see if I can do some wordsmithing to bring here that expands the last sentence a little bit though. KoA (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That's an incorrect interpretation. We need to stick to what the EFSA says in their material (which is WP:MEDRS) while wading through some bureaucratic jargon: A concern is defined as critical when it affects all proposed uses of the active substance under evaluation (...), thus preventing its approval or renewal[10]. That is why they concluded: A high long-term risk to mammals was concluded for 12 of the 23 representative uses based on tier 1 assumptions.. Not all uses have ecotoxicological concenerns (not critical), but just 12/23 uses. This is one of the 3 main conclusions according to the EFSA (see EFSA: What are the main conclusions?).

Question for KoA: Tryptofish mentioned you are an WP:EXPERT in this topic, can you provide more details? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Why, Gtoffoletto, are you still cherry picking?

In the above statement about the "long-term risk to mammals" you have "forgotten" to mention that: Suitable data to refine the risk assessment were not available. So this is a very weak statement of the EFSA. --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The text is clear: based on tier 1 assumptions. From my understanding this is a tiered risk assessment, so Tier 1 is typically a conservative risk assessment to determine whether there is a potential risk and they believe "yes". The EFSA specifies this in their summary of the conclusions by using the text the data package allowed a conservative risk assessment approach, which identified a high long-term risk.... We can specify this point similarly in our edit but it is a major conclusion according to the EFSA.

Maybe modify our 4th point slightly:

4. With respect to ecotoxicology, a high long-term risk to mammals in 12 out of 23 proposed uses of glyphosate was identified based on a conservative risk assessment approach. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Julius Senegal that this line of reasoning is continuing to cherry-pick and take the source out of context. KoA (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing this the same way that Julius Senegal and KoA do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean that I am taking things out of context? I'm directly quoting the EFSA factsheet. We need to stick to the source and avoid original interpretations. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point, we should be going by what the full source says, not by the fact sheet that was pre-published in advance. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Tryptofish, starting fresh here in response to your questions looking for my feedback, but I had some downtime today. To preface, compared to other EFSA reviews, this one is very tame and isn't putting up any major red flags. "Critical concerns" means that there's a problem across normal usage scenarios or "representative uses" (e.g., different rates, number of applications, locations). Critical concern is basically flagging an issue as needing significant change (or restricting use entirely). If it's a few related categories that have a concern, that's usually just something for considering a slight label tweak if there are significant or widespread issues within. I'd also caution folks that the way EFSA reports is very technical with a lot of the underlying jargon geared towards regulators or scientists familiar with the terminology, not your typical lay-editor or encyclopedia reader.

When it comes to mammals in the ecotoxicity section, it actually isn't standing out as highly significant for our purposes in terms of WP:DUE. It's just what ranked highest in the relative sense. When you dig into it though, they mention the risk is primarily for things like use prior to tillage/planting (not typical, but done for cover crop termination, etc.) for single applications or in multi-applications. They even get more specific to say it's just for small herbivorous mammals:

Source's discussion on mammals

Overall, there were no reliable higher tier data deemed suitable for refining the long-term risk assessment to small herbivorous mammals. Considering the diversity and complexity of the list of representative uses for glyphosate, the experts reconsidered the problem formulation by discussing which scenarios within the representative uses lead to exposure, hence risk, of small herbivorous mammals. The experts agreed that a small herbivorous mammal is likely to be exposed for the majority of the representative uses. The exceptions were for field crops57 (i) where the product is applied pre-emergent of the crop (but post sowing/planting) and (ii) post-emergent but when the application is made before growth stage BBCH 20. For these two scenarios, a low long-term risk to mammals was concluded. For the remaining representative uses, a high long-term risk to mammals was concluded. For a complete overview of the outcome of the risk assessment for mammals, please see Section 9.3.

In short, only small herbivorous mammals are likely to be exposed, and that's in non-field crop situations like orchards, etc. where critters like voles would be more apt to set up residence. They also don't mention what the risks actually are in this document except based on tier 1 assessments (e.g., in-vitro, sub-chronic studies, etc.). It sounds like that might be in the meeting minutes that are cited but not yet released, but if it is that much of a sidenote, we're definitely getting in the weeds. Given the other discussion of wild mammalian toxicity being low for acute exposure, water contamination, etc. any mention of risk to mammals would need to be crafted extremely carefully, and I don't have any great suggestions for that right now.

Considering all my text here is just on one small part of a single section though, it's pretty clear we're running into WP:DUE issues focusing on trying to arbitrarily fit in text about wild mammals. I'll see what I can do to draft up some newer higher level summary-level text in the meantime though. KoA (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree with your take on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. Your original interpretation of what a "Critical concern" is, is not the EFSA's definition. Just like your interpretation that this is not a main conclusion of the review. Both of these facts are directly and explicitly stated by the EFSA source. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing the full-length publication, not the preliminary fact sheet. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur with KoA and Tryptofish. --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking this over for text, I just went ahead and made the minor addition since there wasn't a lot of wordsmithing needed here. In short, I just added (my bold) As a result, no critical areas of concern were identified that would otherwise prevent glyphosate's registration renewal in the EU. The just drives home the point on what the assessment was for described within the sources without getting into minor details or excessive descriptions/jargon. I'm pretty content with the text as-is unless someone has suggestions for tweaks to the addition. If anything more is going to be said about the technical content, sources citing the EFSA report could give some additional insight on what should be added in the future if anything while also distilling it down for us in something a little more accessible for language. KoA (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish the factsheet is final and not preliminary at all. The EFSA has it on their main website page on glyphosate stating: 6 July 2023 EFSA shares its conclusions on the peer review of glyphosate with the European Commission and Member States to inform the decision they will take about whether to keep glyphosate on the EU list of approved pesticide active substances. EFSA publishes a factsheet and a press release, summarising the conclusions.. The report was finalised on that date. It is being gradually published as it passes all necessary redactions for confidentiality. The process will continue until October according to the EFSA. Of course even in the full report the definition of a "critical concern" has not changed. Section "9.2.Critical areas of concern" of the final report describes in detail what they are: An issue is listed as a critical area of concern if [...] this assessment does not permit the conclusion that, for at least one of the representative uses, it may be expected that a plant protection product containing the active substance will not have any harmful effect on human or animal health or on groundwater, or any unacceptable influence on the environment.

The above interpretations of the conclusions and of the meaning of critical concern are WP:OR. We are arbitrarily reinterpreting the EFSA's summary of the conclusions and misusing the term "critical concern". {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:1AM is a relevant essay to what we have here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: is the EFSA factsheet on Glyphosate an accurate summary of the EFSA's review?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 6 July 2023 the EFSA published a factsheet and a press release following the conclusion of its peer review of the risk assessment of glyphosate. On its official Glyphosate page it states: 6 July 2023 EFSA shares its conclusions on the peer review of glyphosate with the European Commission and Member States to inform the decision they will take about whether to keep glyphosate on the EU list of approved pesticide active substances. EFSA publishes a factsheet and a press release, summarising the conclusions. The full conclusions are expected to be published by the end of July 2023 and the background documents relating to the risk assessment and peer review are expected to be published between the end of August and the middle of October 2023. The fact sheet provides a "condensed" version of the conclusions (the full conclusions were published on 26 July 2023 and are 52 pages long) and highlights the "main conclusions" in the full report.

Is the factsheet an accurate and reliable summary of the EFSA's conclusions? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The factsheet is perfectly reliable. But that's not your problem with it or the point of this RfC you've made. As discussed in the section above, the factsheet and its conclusions have different due weight for different parts of the data it is discussing. You are trying to include minor points of fact or even points of "more data is needed" as definitive, large results, when they are not. Silverseren^C 23:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to follow reliable sources. If the EFSA factsheet is reliable and an accurate summary of the full study (this has been disputed above with claims that it is "preliminary" and not the "full source") then we don't need to make anything up. We can just use that and its summary of the conclusions. The factsheet states what the "main conclusions" are. Is it an accurate summary? Yes, or no. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of anyone disputing the reliability of the EFSA or its factsheet. An RfC wasn't needed to answer this question. KoA (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment After reading through the discussion above, I think this RfC completely misses the point and should be closed. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Disruptive RfC. I agree with the criticisms of this RfC, already made by other editors, above. The factsheet is a brief summary issued prior to the publication of the full report, and the full report goes into far more detail and nuance than the factsheet does. Insisting on a simplistic reading of the factsheet, when that simplistic reading is contradicted by the full report, read in its entirety, is a misuse of source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't been around here much recently, but seeing this I also read the discussion above and agree that this RfC is unnecessary. SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Summoned by bot. Here's a direct link for the full report. I read the abstract and background, and they match the summary. If any information is added to the article that contradicts the report, there are enough eyes here so that it can be discussed and verified. STEMinfo (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
  • It's clear that the RfC was created in a manner intended to mislead uninvolved editors, and the comment directly above illustrates that. I have therefore delisted it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I'll second this. Random person no 362478479's comment is uninvolved and describes the situation well in the section above this RfC. This was just a malformed RfC that didn't address what Gtoffoletto was trying to do in that section and misrepresented what other editors had actually been working on (i.e., Random's completely misses the point comment). The end result would have been that literally no one is saying the factsheet is unreliable with no change in content resulting from it. KoA (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

      @Tryptofish what do you mean you "delisted it"? Uninvolved editors are reviewing the topic and expressing their opinions (e.g. @Random person no 362478479 and @STEMinfo). They have opposite views so this does not seem to be a clear decision). If something in my text is not neutral enough I'll gladly change it. What exactly do you have an issue with? I tried to just report the facts as much as possible. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

      For the record, I think the RfC misses the point, but I do not get the impression that it was intentionally misleading or disruptive. The discussion was not about whether or not the factsheet is a reliable source. It was about whether or not we should use what is essentially the tl;dr version of the report when we can use the actual report. The factsheet is a summary written for a particular purpose. That purpose is not to give a summary for the general public. We have to take the entirety of the report into account and come up with a summary for Wikipedia's purpose. That may or may not look similar to the factsheet. If you want to get more input regarding whether or not to include particular information or a particular phrasing then you can start a new RfC for that question. Although you should first discuss with the others here how best to frame that RfC and come up with clear options. For example you could come up with two versions of a paragraph or section and ask which one should be used as is done in at Talk:Manhattan#rfc_0716BDA, or you could ask whether certain information should be included as is done at Talk:Fixed_penalty_notice#Request_for_comment. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

      Delisted means what I did in this edit: [11]. I think that Random person provides a very generous explanation of what I, too, think was flawed in the way the RfC was presented. (I would quibble that the factsheet actually was written for the general public. But I agree with the rest of the comment.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

      Thank you for the explanation @Random person no 362478479. Of course my goal here is not to mislead and I thank you for assuming good faith.

      Why do you believe the factsheet is not meant for the public? It was shared together with a press release and is included in the official public pages of the agency so my impression is that the purpose of the factsheet was exactly that of informing the general public (I see Tryptofish agrees). As you say, it is a tl;dr for the entire report and therefore (IMHO) the best way of understanding what the agency believes the "important" parts of the report are. That's why I would use it as a "compass" to choose what to give weight to in our coverage (as the full report is extremely detailed).

      This is why my question was: is this an accurate summary of the entire report?

      My logic is:

      1. it is from the author of the full report

      2. it is meant for explaining the report to the public in a succinct way

      3. Therefore: we should use it to guide our coverage in the article.

      We do not need to interpret a report that the majority of editors will not have the time or competence to understand. They have done it for us. We have been doing the same with other WP:MEDRS sources in the COVID-19 articles. We follow WHO guidance for the public on their website. That's the most efficient and reliable WP:MERDS source. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

      Editors here are entirely capable of reading and understanding the full report, so it is specious to argue that we should simply read the factsheet without reading the full report. And editors have read and understood the full report. In #Arbitrary break, just above, KoA provides a careful examination of what the full report says. Multiple editors agree with his analysis, and only you disagree. It is not OR, but rather, just a normal evaluation of WP:DUE weight that is an appropriate part of the editorial process. It's no different than when editors read a scholarly paper in its entirety, rather than just the abstract. As multiple editors have tried to explain to you, "[y]ou are trying to include minor points of fact or even points of "more data is needed" as definitive, large results, when they are not.", per Silver seren above. Multiple editors here do "have the time or competence to understand" the full report, and we have done so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

      See my comment below replying to STEMinfo's comment. Per WP:PSTS: All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. I'm glad other editors have the time and competence to interpret the report. They should publish their analysis so that we can use it in the encyclopaedia. Otherwise it is WP:Original Research. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: This RfC appears to have been worded in a deliberately misleading manner. Numerous editors have informed Gtoffoletto  as to why his/her proposed edits are not appropriate, but s/he has persisted in repeating the same argument. I suggest that it should be closed with prejudice. Nangaf (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment If info from the summary is added that conflicts with the full report, it can be corrected by those who have carefully read the full report, with specifics. Aren't we arguing hypotheticals until then? STEMinfo (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not exactly hypothetical considering what had already happened in the section above this. We're dealing with cherry-picking from a small detail in the summary factsheet as Tryptofish discusses more above a couple hours before your reply. Basically what you describe about those who have read the full report and speaking up has already happened before the RfC was started and why multiple editors are commenting on how this was set up being misleading in that context. KoA (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not hypothetical: Gtoffoletto is constructing an argument in favour of very specific details that are mentioned in the summary factsheet but seem very minor in the context of the full report. Nangaf (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not "building an argument". Wikipedia should not be based on original interpretations of sources. Per WP:PSTS: All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. If this source is an accurate summary we should not be making our own "interpretation" of what the EFSA is saying as that analysis was already done by a WP:MEDRS source."If the community, either through this RfC (which I've tried to word neutrally and fairly) or another RfC, believes this summary is accurate, then we will figure out how to adjust the article accordingly."

What Nangaf calls "very specific details" for example are referred to as "main conclusions" by the EFSA. I'm sorry Nangaf but I think Wikipedia should follow the EFSA in this case. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry Gtoffoletto, but you should consider WP:POINT. You are loosing more and more contenance.

In addition, we are not interpreting the source, but simply weight the key messages. Your whole RfC is intending to push your POV in the articlea. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact sheet has the same primary or secondary status as the report. Also I have not read the report, but it seems to me to be secondary. Unless I am mistaken it is a review, not a study. From reading the fact sheet I get the impression that the "main conclusions" are answers to specific questions. That does not mean that those answers are of equal importance. To illustrate this imagine a company that has a meeting. There are four points on the agenda. So they put out a summary that says:

1. It turns out people who use our newest product grow a third arm.
2. We made a loss of 5 billion dollars last year.
3. We're cutting 2,000 jobs.
4. Our company softball team has a new mascot.

Those are the "main conclusions" of the meeting, but clearly they are not of equal importance. If you want to argue that the point you want to include is important you can do so. But arguing that because it is on the fact sheet we have to use it is not the way to go. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the best way to put it is the factsheet is like an abstract of the full report if we use journal article language. I explained a bit above in the Arbitrary break section, but EFSA has a bit of template that use for all similar reports, which is why you'll see similar language. When it comes to how they summarize their reports, they often will list the issues they explored that rose to the top in a relative sense. If there wasn't much for concern, you'll get a few minor points in the highlights instead, which unfortunately can make it easier to cherry-pick if we aren't looking at the full context of the report. KoA (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Also I think the statement from the fact sheet would require context for people to really make sense of it: "With respect to ecotoxicology, the data package allowed a conservative risk assessment approach, which identified a high long-term risk to mammals in 12 out of 23 proposed uses of glyphosate." E.g. I bet that a lot of people would think that "conservative risk assessment" means the risk is likely higher when it means the opposite. Then there is the question "which mammals?" Why do they mention the data package, maybe because it has potentially severe limitations? etc. etc. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Julius Senegal says it very succinctly: "Your whole RfC is intended to push your POV in the article." Gtoffoletto keeps insisting that editors who have read the full source are engaging in original research, but that's just pot-and-kettle. The fact sheet comes with context, and editors aren't creating that context, because the same authors who wrote the fact sheet also wrote the full report. They are the ones who have provided that context, and all that we editors have to do is to read it and report it as the authors wrote it. The only place where there's original research is in the POV-pushing that pretends that an idiosyncratic reading of the fact sheet should take precedence over what the authors themselves have written in the full report. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree @Random person no 362478479. The goal here is to figure out what to add to the article.

We are currently summarising the entire report in one single sentence: As a result, no critical areas of concern were identified that would otherwise prevent glyphosate's registration renewal in the EU.

I think we all agree that this is insufficient? This source is one of the most important and thorough reviews on the subject to date. And is WP:MEDRS compliant. We should thoroughly cover it in its most important parts. Not just in passing with a single sentence.

This is the point of my RfC: I think we need to establish a source for an appropriate summary of this extensive work. We need a source to avoid WP:OR as our coverage must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. We can then discuss what to assign WP:DUE weight to. We don't need to put everything in the factsheet (if we deem it an accurate summary). But we should evaluate what does and doesn't fit in our article based on it.

For example our current coverage (the single sentence above) has several issues:

• "critical area" carries a specific meaning for the EFSA which we are not explaining. We are therefore improperly using the term and misleading readers. We should avoid the term altogether or explain clearly what the EFSA means (just like they do in the factsheet).
• it does not mention explicitly that no issues have been found that affect all uses of the substance with regards to carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic issues. (one of the main conclusions in the factsheet)
• it does not mention the ecotoxicological risks that have been identified (only for some uses = not critical) (one of the main conclusions in the factsheet)
• it does not mention the data gaps and outstanding issues remaining (one of the main conclusions in the factsheet). I think a short mention should be considered with appropriate weight. For example with regards to the risks for biodiversity "the available information does not allow firm conclusions to be drawn". This is an important issue that remains to be addressed. The factsheet (and the report) thoroughly cover this topic. We should not give the impression that the EFSA has concluded all outstanding issues.

I would also ask users to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the whole discussion by accusing me of some kind of hidden agenda with every message. Let's go back to assuming WP:GOODFAITH and let's determine how to best cover this important study. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we've reached the clear point of WP:IDHT, especially with something like I think we all agree that this is insufficient?. The comments from multiple editors about your proposed edits and cherry-picking of sources out of context here should be more than enough caution to drop the WP:STICK, and accusing editors of "bludgeoning" when you just repeat the problem behavior here is not helpful. The source is clear that there was nothing preventing registration in the EU, nor any major changes to that registration to note here. Editors do not need to WP:SATISFY you at this late-stage in the discussion on this. KoA (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with KoA. I can assure Gtoffoletto that I am not disregarding what you have been saying. I've read all of your comments carefully, and thought about them carefully. But I've concluded what I've concluded. Above, I pointed to WP:1AM. If you really think that other editors are not hearing you, I would encourage you to create a proper RfC, using the advice given above by Random person. You can make a specific proposal of what wording to add to the page, and present the RfC as a question of should we add that additional language or not. That would be preferable to the misleading RfC question you asked here. But honestly, your best course of action would be simply to drop the WP:STICK. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Effect on insects

It is often claimed that Glyphosate kills bees. But in the article there is no section for the effect of Glyphosate on bees or insects in general. I have added a section under 'Toxicity' and 'Glyphosate alone', under the other section headings. Hopefully someone may find some information to add? WestNab (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do you hope that? My view is that it's more likely that it causes bees no harm at all, but that the people marketing competing products are determined to paint this product in the worst possible light. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There isn't any particular information about glyphosate's impact on insects or bees in specific to cover. If it's a formulation that includes a surfactant, then that would have a negative effect, but so would anything that includes a surfactant. There's nothing about glyphosate's chemical structure that would make it especially harmful to insects. Silverseren^C 02:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are some original publications on sublethal effects (e.g. doi:10.1242/jeb.117291 or doi:10.1073/pnas.1803880115). @WestNab: Did you attempt to find recent review studies on that matter? --Leyo 15:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There is some studies, but overall we can read: "The risk for bees (...) was considered low." (EFSA 2015) or "low toxicity to honeybees for most uses" (EPA, 2022). Here we can read that risk assessments for chronic exposure (adult and larvae) for non-Apis bees were not available" (EFSA 2023).--Julius Senegal (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, on the subject of honeybees, it's best to stick to overviews specifically on honeybee health to avoid a lot of poor studies that slipped through the cracks and sometimes get cited uncritically be non-bee researchers. The Motta et al. study Leyo linked is one of those heavily criticized studies for poor design (there was a good Miles Power post on it), but got a lot of attention in the media for the headlines. With my entomologist hat on: it's usually a red flag if someone reaches for that study uncritically, but it's actually used as a teaching moment for students in some entomology courses.

The bee/glyphosate area is definitely one to wary of WP:FRINGE stuff that often makes headlines from small lab studies causes a stir, but is never substantiated or replicated at field-level. KoA (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That's why I asked the user about review studies. I didn't do a search myself. --Leyo 21:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

A potential source is the recent EFSA review (emphasis mine): The acute risk to honey bees in accordance with European Commission (2002) was concluded to be low for all the representative uses. Similarly, the risk from acute exposure was predicted to be low for all the representative uses when assessed in accordance with EFSA (2013) for honey bees and considering the available endpoints for the non-Apis bees. By using EFSA (2013), low chronic risk to adult and larvae honey bees was concluded for all the representative uses (at screening level risk assessment or Tier 1).[12] (see page 23). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

====Insects====

Glyphosate weakens the immune systems of insects by inhibiting the production of melanin, which insects often use as part of their immune defenses against bacteria and parasites; it thereby reduces the resistance of these species to infection by common pathogens. A study on moth and mosquito species highlights the potential for large-scale ecological impact including on malaria transmission. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/ingredient-in-common-weed-killer-impairs-insect-immune-systems-study-suggests and

The herbicide blocks also the symbiotic relationship between bacteria and insects, so the latter no longer receive essential compounds, like amino acids that they need from bacteria. The pesticide blocks growth by inhibiting the synthesis of some amino acids through the shikimate pathway. Many animals rely on a relationship with bacteria, which in turn rely upon the shikimate pathway to produce amino acids to give back to the animals; in other words, animals are indeed affected by glyphosate through the shikimate pathway.

Saw-toothed grain beetles live in a symbiotic association with bacteria. Their bacterial partners provide important building blocks for the formation of the insect’s exoskeleton, which protects the beetles from their enemies as well as from desiccation. A study demonstrates that the weedkiller glyphosate inhibits the symbiotic bacteria of the grain beetle. Beetles exposed to this weedkiller no longer receive the building blocks they need from the bacteria. It shows that glyphosate has the potential to harm insects indirectly by targeting their bacterial partners and thus to contribute to their decline.

This weedkiller damages wild bee colonies. The harm to bumblebees – vital pollinators – was not identified in regulatory risk assessments, which only test whether a pesticide rapidly kills healthy, individual bees. However, the collective failure to regulate colony temperature could have a massive impact on its ability to produce the next generation.

1. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/ingredient-in-common-weed-killer-impairs-insect-immune-systems-study-suggests

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8115815/

Glyphosate weakens the immune systems of insects by inhibiting the production of melanin, which insects often use as part of their immune defenses against bacteria and parasites; it thereby reduces the resistance of these species to infection by common pathogens. A study on moth and mosquito species highlights the potential for large-scale ecological impact including on malaria transmission.

2. https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/agriculture/another-way-glyphosate-is-harmful-to-insects/

The herbicide blocks the symbiotic relationship between bacteria and insects, so the latter no longer receive essential compounds, like amino acids that they need from bacteria. The pesticide blocks growth by inhibiting the synthesis of some amino acids through the shikimate pathway. Many animals rely on a relationship with bacteria, which in turn rely upon the shikimate pathway to produce amino acids to give back to the animals; in other words, animals are indeed affected by glyphosate through the shikimate pathway.

3. https://www.mpg.de/16862163/0506-choe-a-beetle-s-achilles-heel-155371-x

Saw-toothed grain beetles live in a symbiotic association with bacteria. Their bacterial partners provide important building blocks for the formation of the insect’s exoskeleton, which protects the beetles from their enemies as well as from desiccation. A study demonstrates that the weedkiller glyphosate inhibits the symbiotic bacteria of the grain beetle. Beetles exposed to this weedkiller no longer receive the building blocks they need from the bacteria. It shows that glyphosate has the potential to harm insects indirectly by targeting their bacterial partners and thus to contribute to their decline.

4. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/02/glyphosate-weedkiller-damages-wild-bumblebee-colonies Nicolaas19 (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR with sweet cherry picking disrespecting reasonable context.

Please stick to meta-reviews like that from EFSA before wasting time here. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nicolaas19: All you have done is copied the same content you added here twice and inserted it again into the article for a third time. That is not an attempt to seek consensus. The sources you have provided are all news reports about primary pieces of research. Our guideline on scientific sourcing states that we should cite reviews rather than primary research and on a topic as controversial and broad as this, it is even better if we use meta-reviews such as those conducted by EFSA as Julius Senegal has already mentioned. There is a big difference between finding detrimental effects in a laboratory study and concluding that the use of glyphosate has negative effects on insects in the real world. SmartSE (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Nicolaas19, as others have pointed out we have some guidelines on how to source scientific content: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science). The basic idea is based on the Hierarchy of evidence where reviews are considered at the "top of the pyramid". The EFSA is considered a high level source (and they actually also include in their assessments NGOs and other non industry sources so they are considered independent and reliable). Unless you can find a source of a similar level that contradicts them it will be hard to go against their conclusions. If you have any such high level sources we can work together to add them to the article. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Monarch butterfly populations – Glyphosate incorrectly blamed

This section effectively explains that the removal of milkweed contributed to an 81% decline in monarchs. Glyphosate is getting the blame for the decline of the butterflies because it was one tool used to remove the milkweed. This isn't logical. No matter what had been used to remove the milkweed, the butterfly population would have suffered. Blaming glyphosate is irrational. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree on deleting the whole paragraph.

First we have doubtful sources like "weedcontrolfreaks", I mean: really?

Then the source form 2000 only mentioned shortly glyphosate two times, but that's it. The 2013 paper (Pleasants) itself stated: At present, some milkweeds still remain in agricultural fields. or We note, however, that the estimate of the Midwest contribution to the overwintering population was made before significant glyphosate use in row crops and only represents 1 year of data.. The EFSA stated about Pleasants' paper: However, the study presents several limitations and uncertainties that should not be disregarded.

The last sentence in that paragraph is outdated, what happened thereafter?

So we don't know: weather conditions, the poisonous 2,4-D (!!!), and ofc maybe glyphosate.--Julius Senegal (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There are review papers that might be useful in this regard: doi:10.1111/1744-7917.12404, doi:10.3389/fenvs.2018.00086 --Leyo 15:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Leyo.

Both papers echo in principle what HiLo48 is mentioning:

The main problem is the decline in milkweeds, various species of Asclepias are essential for the butterflies.

The decline in milkweeds has various reasons (doi:10.3389/fenvs.2018.00086), only one of them is the "increase usages of herbicides causing death to milkweed plants" in agricultural fields (!). And among those herbicides, glyphosate is again one of them. milkweed plants were largely absent from agricultural fields But it is not that glyphosate would kill those butterflies.

The EFSA (Peer Review Report on Glyphosate, part III) only touches this point, and only refers to Pleasants and Oberhauser (see above). --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a more recent but less specific review, it cites this which showed that the decline in monarch populations began in the late 1940s and that the introduction of RR crops had little impact on the decline. Given the extensive coverage on the role of glyphosate on monarch populations, we should definitely still keep a mention of it in the article, but try to better summarise the current state of knowledge. SmartSE (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The simple point is that glyphosate did not cause the decline. It seems to me that even mentioning the issue is undue. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether something is true or not is irrelevant to WP:WEIGHT - there's a huge amount of coverage about it and it merits discussion here, even if the conclusion is that other factors are more important. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

But as your recent publication is showing that the decline began long before glyphosate was introduced I don't see the point to "blame" glyphosate for it (WP:VALID).

To the contrary we need to mention that glyphosate has almost no effect on this plant species outside fields where insecticides are not sprayed (a no brainer btw) which could "benefit the butterfly". This is an even complete different statement. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing a valid rationale for including this at all. First of all, if we are going to say that there has been some sort of controversy about glyphosate here, that tends to imply that "if there's smoke, there must be fire", and yet there appears to be no reliable sourcing that this is the case. The current version on the page suffers from that problem. The current version starts out by saying that herbicides in general decreased monarch habitat, which is really nothing specific to glyphosate. So herbicides in general, then deforestation and weather, per what the page says now. And a lawsuit filed eight years ago: what was the result? And sources above in this discussion only indicate that glyphosate magically caused monarch declines before glyphosate even existed. There's certainly a huge amount of sourcing and interest in monarch declines, but that's something to cover on another page. I come down on the side of deleting that material completely. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. Unless we also explicitly blame ploughs, shovels, people pulling out weeds, and every other herbicide ever used, for the monarch butterfly's decline. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)