This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Agriculture B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemicals B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment B‑class Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Just a note that I removed this addition as a non-MEDRS source. There is technically a secondary source citing the new publication, but that's a commentary often published alongside journal articles, so it's not really independent. It does comment on a common criticism of the some of the studies used by the IRAC though (i.e., correlative studies and using a population prone to other exposures), which we may want to flesh out with other sources in the future. The study has been discussed in scientific circles though (outside of what we can use on Wikipedia), so it may be worthwhile to keep an eye out for secondary source citations of this study. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on this reversion. And that IP has a history of making inappropriate edits to various articles. – SJ + 18:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reverted an IP once, when they have changed "an herbicide" to "a herbicide", and I don't want to mess with 1RR, but I think they need to be reverted again, if someone else will do it. My understanding is that the WP:ENGVAR convention for this page is to use US, not UK, English. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also placed the 1RR template on the IP's page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2015, and especially since the release of some Monsanto emails in 2017, the role of industry in shaping public discussion about & research on glyphosate has been notable in and of itself. I added a short section on it and a sentence in the lede. – SJ + 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk section immediately below, where I raise some questions about that content. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note these two new edits, adding content that says that industry (ie, Monsanto) has manipulated the reporting of scientific findings: [1] and [2]. I'm concerned that these additions may have WP:POV problems or may oversimplify the situation. I'm not saying that the problem isn't real, but rather that the way that it is written makes it sound more open-and-closed that what it really is. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Here is the source cited for what happened: [3]. I would prefer to use wording that is close to the source, and the source says "Forbes removed the story from its website on Wednesday and said that it ended its relationship with Mr. Miller amid the revelations." The source also draws attention to Forbes' statement that the opinions are those of the author and not of Forbes. As such, I think wording along the lines of "removed the story" would be more accurate than "retracted". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ghost-writing and retraction

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

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

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

This issue was covered by Forbes, Bloomberg[4], NPR[5], the NYT, and others. If you don't like the term ghost-writing, I'm open to hearing alternatives. But removing these refs altogether does not seem to strike the right balance. – SJ + 02:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

– SJ + 02:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what specific edits you are asking for, but that NPR article you mentioned [6] closes with: The EPA concluded last fall that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer. Other scientific groups have come to similar conclusions, including a committee from the European Food Safety Agency, another U.N. agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and just today, the European Chemical Agency, ECHA. It also says that this "ghostwriting" thing is being driven by a lawsuit: Lawyers for the plaintiffs are arguing that Monsanto executives colluded with officials at the EPA to downplay glyphosate's health risks. So here's what this boils down to: (1) the scientific consensus is that glyphosate is not known to be a carcinogen (2) some litigants that are suing Monsanto disagree (unsurprisingly) with that consensus (3) meta-analyses also carry more weight than individual studies, and I believe that's written into WP:MEDRS somewhere. Geogene (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

My friend, do not worry. As soon as the information is negative about glyphosate, its protectors will come with a suitable excuses to remove the sourced information. The strangest facts - even a normal chemical analysis - can be shot down as being a health claim when not positive... The Banner talk 18:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is under Discretionary Sanctions. Please see specifically Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Casting aspersions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q.E.D. The Banner talk 20:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]