Re: pesticide article

Thank you, thank you, thank you for your comments. I will save them forever to show those people who assert moral superiority because THEY wouldn't use Round-up. I use it as you do, sparingly and carefully. What would you use to kill an unwanted Wisteria which is still sprouting after four years? Cathy, zone 10 
On Aug 3, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Reidfamily wrote:
I think this discussion on the pesticide/cancer link article is a typical a case of letting our bias get in the way of actual science. This article when googled leads to a wide variety of well-meaning sites which quote it as a fact that "there is a positive link between NHL and Round-up." I doubt any of them have actually read the article, but they heard someone else say that that is what the article proved. Sadly, if you can access the article 
via PubMed, which my UC Davis status allows me, you will find that the
research uncovered NO SUCH THING. Unfortunately, people get a piece of information they don't really understand, and because it fits their dogma that 'all chemicals are bad', they jump on it and blow it up into something 
it isn't.
First, it should be noted that this 'case-controlled' study was conducted by 
phone interviews and written surveys which are notoriously unreliable.
There was no actual collection of residues from homes or environments to correlate the cases with real data. No government-regulated application sheets were accessed for the workers who were interviewed to assess real 
levels of potential exposure.
Second, the class of chemicals that could be correlated positively was the phenoxy-acetic acids (like 2,4-D and MCPA), an entirely different class of chemicals than glyphosate with an entirely different mode of action and chemical reaction to the environment. (with different break down products as 
previously pointed out.)
Third, out of over 700 people interviewed in a region of Northern Sweden, only four cases were exposed to glyphosate. The study doesn't explain what exposure means - what the level of exposure is, or if there is a difference between levels. This is probably because they are taking what people's memories will give them. Did these 4 drink it? Spill it on their skin? 
Inhale the spray?  We just don't know.
Lastly, as with any scientific research, one paper does not a fact make. There are many, many studies done constantly to find positive links between 
chemical applications and cancer, and they are conducted much more
rigorously than this one was. When a link to cancer is established, the 
chemicals are removed from the approved list.
It should also be pointed out that CORRELATION does not mean CAUSAL. When you deal with a group of people who have more than one factor in common, it can be extremely difficult to sort out a cause-and-effect relationship, since some other over-looked factor may be slanting the study (Did all these 
Swedes drink Vodka?).  For this reason, I rarely take these surveys as
actual "controlled" studies, though they do make interesting launching
points for more rigorous scientific research.
	Well, that's my two bits.  And as for glyphosate: it's my favorite
chemical, though I use it sparingly and only when hand-weeding is
impractical. If good science proves it harmful, I will mourn its passing 
from my shelf.

Karrie Reid
Folsom Foothill Gardener
Zone 9
(and UC Davis Master's candidate in Horticulture and Agronomy)
<winmail.dat>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index