Talk:Roundup (herbicide)

message: As of this moment, the article LEDE/LEAD lacks mention of the $Billions contained within the article.  Nuts240 (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the court cases, that is in part because any such content has to carefully not contradict scientific sources in that glyphosate is not a significant carcinogen. That is is one is a common WP:FRINGE talking-point. It's a difficult subject to write about, and it's also in flux, which makes picking out what is actually lead worthy even more difficult, usually needing talk page discussion. KoA (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not look to either edit-war or WP:Fringe. Law firms and those working for them are doing robocalls that begin "If you or a loved one" and are claiming to be seeking to distribute large sums of money (yes, it's understood that some of that largess will go to the caller's side). To not mention this, in some form, is not serving the wiki reading public. To go WP:FRINGE would also be a dis-service. I looked at WP:ONUS, per your suggestion, and perhaps the suggestion made there (Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article) might be better.  Zantac settlements was built on that idea. Do you recommend that I attempt this approach for Roundup? Nuts240 (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They key thing is that content needs to start in the body per WP:LEAD. Not everything is going to make it into the lead either. As for the sentence comparing patents and jury awards, that violates WP:SYNTH. In addition you're trying to claim harm was caused in that statement about juries, which I already cautioned about before you initially added it in relation to contradicting MEDRS sources. If you have something you want to add, work in the body of the article first, and keep in mind this is not the only article dealing with the subject. At this point, trying to create another page would just be a WP:POVFORK. In short, this is not a topic to just plow ahead on. KoA (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, taking a second look, even the first sentence was full on SYNTH too. You were trying to claim the source said something about patents when the 2001 source was only talking about total gross sales in 2000 of Roundup, not net profit, patent-based earnings, etc. and tried to compare that incorrectly other figures. That was not an appropriate use of sources at all. KoA (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

text: 	(#59) "Monsanto pulls Roundup advertising in New York", Wichita Eagle, Nov. 27, 1996.
would permit enhancing it to add a wikilink to Wichita Eagle, and better attribution to the authors. Nuts240 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really related to the topic at hand, but since the source isn't online and the other one is, probably easier to just rely on the verifiable source. KoA (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your key point, that pulling ads in response to a state's legal actions is not the main focus of the topic at hand.
Perhaps you can look at the more recent/June 2022 item
	APnews, Mathew Daly, 
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/court-rejects-trump-era-epa-finding-that-roundup-weed-killer-is-safe
Court rejects Trump-era EPA finding that weed killer safe
<be>For completeness I added the author names  Nuts240 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Billions

message: No mention of AMES and similar mutagenicity tests. Typically, positive results in the AMES test predicates to around 75% certainty (but not necessarily determine) carcinogenicity. To say, around 75% of chemicals that cause cancer come out positive in the AMES test. Also, not all chemicals that are positive in the AMES test cause cancer. For example, some mutagenic chemicals are broken down in the digestive tract, so they never get where they would do damage to an organism's cellular DNA. Anyway, I did a very quick Google search, and first thing that came up was a summary of 1996 studies from OSU (in Oregon), "Mutagenic effects:Glyphosate mutagenicity and genotoxicity assays have been negative. These included the Ames test, other bacterial assays, and the Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell culture, rat bone marrow cell culture, and mouse dominant lethal. It appears that glyphosate is not mutagenic." Glyphosate: Mutagenic effects Glyphosate mutagenicity and genotoxicity. Where we discuss controversies about carcinogenicity, results from mutagenicity tests should probably be included for consideration. Catrachos (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got numerous sources in the Carcinogenicity section that are a lot more recent than 1996, and nothing from that mutagenicity source contradicts what we already say on the page. This material is at least partially subject to WP:MEDRS, because we are talking about cancer risk in people, and so I would want to see that secondary sources about Roundup carcinogenicity refer to the mutagenicity data as significant enough to mention separately. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carcinogenicity