Talk:Glyphosate

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lede: summarise lawsuits section

I introduced into the Lead a summary of the Lawsuits section of the article per WP:LEAD. @Bon courage I was editing the text you reverted as I agree it was too detailed before. Hope you agree it is better now. If not let me know and I will self-revert so that we can figure it out. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is still undue, it no longer summarises the body and the delta between the Reuters source and Wikipedia's summary of it, is remarkable. One would have thought WP:BRD would be a better way to proceed in this case. Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've self-reverted while we discuss this.
The proposed text says:
Glyphosate-based products, particularly Monsanto's Roundup, have been the focus of substantial legal challenges. Approximately 165,000 claims have been filed, primarily accusing Roundup of causing cancer. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has settled many claims, paying billions in damages, but more than 50,000 cases are still pending as of 2023.
This is clearly factual and supported by Reuters and New York Times sources [1][2].
I think it is a good summary of the body (at the moment we don't even mention Bayer in the lead and don't make any mention of the substantial lawsuits involved). We obviously can't mention every single lawsuit here and this provides a good overview of the overall numbers involved. If you could specifically point out the issues you see we can fix them. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are we talking about the same Reuters article? The one I'm seeing is entitled "Bayer wins latest Roundup cancer trial, ending losing streak" and that headline captures the gist of the article fairly well. Bon courage (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read the article first rather than just the title.
Most of the sentences in the proposed edit come directly from the Reuters article.
If you only intend to read the title maybe you would prefer this source from a few weeks ago that contains the same overall facts (165.000 claims total, 50.000 claims pending, tens of billions of dollars in damages paid so far): Bayer ordered to pay $1.56 billion in latest US trial loss over Roundup weedkiller November 20, 2023 [3]
I just used the latest Reuters article as a source but they are all the same obviously. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read the article first rather than just the title ← more bad faith falsity I see. I think since this appears to be trolling I shall WP:DENY. Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel insulted by that question. I am simply pointing out that the title has absolutely nothing to do with the information in that edit. It is irrelevant. The relevant information is clearly quoted from the body of the articles cited:
  • Around 165,000 claims have been made against the company for personal injuries allegedly caused by Roundup, which Bayer acquired as part of its $63 billion purchase of U.S. agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018.
  • In 2020, Bayer settled most of the then-pending Roundup cases for up to $9.6 billion but failed to get a settlement covering future cases. More than 50,000 claims remain pending.
  • Like most plaintiffs in Roundup lawsuits, Jones alleged that the product caused him to develop a form of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
this comes from Reuters here or
  • Around 165,000 claims have been made against the company for personal injuries allegedly caused by Roundup, which Bayer acquired as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. In 2020, Bayer settled most of the then-pending Roundup cases for up to $10.9 billion. Around 50,000 claims remain pending, according to regulatory filings.
from Reuters here. (The NYT source is also helpful I think.)
I hope it is more clear now. I think this is a good summary of the lawsuit section as we clearly cannot detail all 165k cases specifically as they are mostly all the same and those numbers offer a pretty good and factual overview in my opinion. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning what "Jones alleged" without mentioning that, you know, he actually lost the case (like in most similar cases), would seem ... ? Bon courage (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are arguing for here. I didn't mention Jones at all in any edit ever. It is 1 case out of 165.000. Beyer settled or lost tens of thousands of similar cases totalling over 10Billion dollars in damages. You don't think that's relevant? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the source, which is mainly about how Bayer is reversing a temporary run of losses:

Before its recent string of losses, which produced verdicts against the company totaling more than $2 billion, Bayer had won nine consecutive trials, meaning it has now won 10 of the last 15 trials. Further cases are expected to be tried in the coming year.

Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't like seeing either of you arguing over whether or not someone read more than the headline of a source. It's not unreasonable to argue that a headline contradicts how the source was summarized in an edit. The correct response to such an argument is not to ask whether the editor read the source, but to say something like although the headline says xxx, the main text of the source says yyy. Once one has been asked whether one read the source, the correct response is yes, and this is what I understand it to mean, and to leave it at that, without arguing that one has been insulted.
On the general issue of how much to say about the lawsuits in the lead, I think it's important to note that we have multiple pages in the topic area, and this one is primarily about the chemical compound and its uses and properties. We do indeed cover legal aspects on the page as well, so I'm receptive to adding something about it to the lead, but I would argue that it should be based on sources that are also cited in the main text. I would also want us to focus on what is already settled under the law, and not focus on allegations made in cases that have yet to reach a verdict. However, legal aspects should not be the most prominent things here, by far. They are more relevant to our pages on the brand products, and our pages on the company. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True.
Having that in the lede would make more sense in Monsanto or Bayer, respectively.
This is so useful here as having listed the stock value of Bayer.
Besides, lawsuits don't say anything about efficacy or tolerability of the substance. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All this blow-by-blow legal stuff based largely on WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources seems both tedious and undue to me, while telling us nothing about glyphosate. A sever haircut would improve matters I think. Bon courage (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I modified similar content at Roundup (herbicide), where I think there is a better case for some coverage, because it's a brand: [4]. It would be good to have some more eyes checking that. (Is even that too much? Or not enough?) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tryptofish. This is not the "primary" page on this topic, however, it substantially covers the legal aspects of Glyphosate (as it should) and per WP:LEAD we should summarise it in the lead. I think I have provided a fair and accurate summary with my edit but I am open to suggestions if anyone has any (can it be shortened even more without losing important aspects? We can maybe avoid mentioning the 50.000 pending cases). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole section should be removed. It's built from primary sources, but articles should be based on secondary sources. Surely some secondary source(s) offer some analysis of the legal lanscape on this? Bon courage (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage Absolutely not. And I think you are gravely misunderstanding what WP:PRIMARY means as none (I've checked them all) of those sources used in that section are primary. I think we should slow down a bit here as there seem to be significant misunderstandings.
Also: you just reverted an edit by me to restore some text you introduced in the last few days. Since we are in 1RR I'll ask you to remove that additional text while we discuss it as I am disputing it entirely (see my edit summary which I think is pretty clear) and I don't see consensus here for its inclusion (see WP:ONUS). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine, and it's not just my text. I am aware of 1RR. Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I disagree. And the WP:ONUS is on you to keep that text. It violates WP:DUE in a pretty spectacular way by focusing on one positive verdict out of hundreds of thousands. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trouble with this section is that it is principally a collage of undigested new reporting, rather than the sort of WP:SECONDARY material we should be basing articles on. If we look at a legal textbook like this[5] it seems there are things which legal scholars consider relevant in this topic space, around the relationship between scientific uncertainty and law, and the role of expert testimony. Yet Wikipedia is trying to be a secondary source itself by assembling primary materials, in what could be taken as a push to imply something about the righteousness of the legal actions. It is frankly terrible. Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, WP:NOTNEWS is also the relevant policy here. Combined with comments above, there's definitely a case for this page to have the section pruned down based on overview level sourcing you mention rather than news reporting, especially on pending things. In the meantime, the tweaks you and Tryptofish worked on earlier on the 24th[6] took care of more immediate WP:DUE issues I was seeing already mentioned by others above, so the current version at least seems ok for now until higher quality sources are brought up here. KoA (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I mean, when we have scholarly legal analysis on the whole cancer/law/glyphosate science intersection like this[7], why have we just got an assemblage of dumb factoids here? These legal actions are, it seems, considered legally important - landmark even - and scholars have analysed the implications. We need to be reflecting WP:SECONDARY knowledge about this topic to be, at a basic level, encyclopedic. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, in relation to a a court case my understanding is that:
    • WP:PRIMARY would refer to the court verdict
    • WP:SECONDARY would be a reliable newspaper reporting on the verdict. (all sources of that section fall in this category)
    • WP:TERTIARY would probably be scholarly analysis of the verdict
    By all means let's add some tertiary sources. But claiming that secondary reliable sources (such as the Guardian, Reuters and the New York Times) are not suitable is absurd. Also calling landmark cases with tens of billions of dollars in damages "dumb factoids" is pretty uninformed.
    WP:NOTNEWS is totally irrelevant here (those are established facts that happened years ago and are well reported by all major secondary and even tertiary sources). So no valid reason for opposing those edits has been proposed here so far. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 16:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NEWSPRIMARY. News reporting is primary (although this is commonly misunderstood). When we have peer-reviewed schoalarship on this topic, why is this even a question? Bon courage (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. From WP:NEWSPRIMARY (emphasis mine): Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material. We obviously fall into the secondary category here as those articles are an interpretation of the verdict (the primary source). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 16:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Obviously" not, since they are transiently reporting on the verdicts as they happened, and not offering analysis of court documents (for which, in any case, news sources would only be marginally reliable). Bon courage (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we accept those are primary (we can disagree on that) WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD applies. Those are simple statements of fact reported by Reuters and every other reputable news organization in the world. There is no reason to dispute their correctness as far as I can see. So what is you argument against including them? So far I haven't seen any. If none emerge I will reintroduce the text unless we really must go through an RfC to solve this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 21:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section should be removed. The lawsuits are regarding the brand, Roundup, and specific companies that make the formulation. This article is about a specific chemical, not the brand. It's very much a WP:DUE violation. SilverserenC 21:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do not agree. Here is a source we can use on the matter that covers the entire legal history of glyphosate based herbicides (GBH): The “Roundup” Controversy: Glyphosate Litigation, Non- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, And Lessons For Toxics Regulation Going Forward [8] by "Professor Watnick, Professor and Chair of the Department of Law at the Zicklin School, is an expert on the regulation of toxic substances to protect human health"[9]. The litigation was entirely centered around the specific ingredient Glyphosate in RoundUp and not covering this would be entirely WP:UNDUE {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 22:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking this over, and here is what I'm starting to think. Short version: what Silverseren said.
Longer version: Looking at what's on the page now, the Legal cases section has three subsections: Lawsuits claiming liability for cancer, Advertising controversies, and Trade dumping allegations. Starting with the third one, it's a single sentence about glyphosate manufactured by Chinese companies (and thus not by Monsanto/Bayer!) being dumped in US markets. So that's potentially relevant for this page, because it's not about the brand. But it's about a dispute filed in 2010. It seriously needs to be updated, or else removed if nothing significant came out of it. But looking through the first two subsections, everything is about Roundup as manufactured by Monsanto/Bayer. Everything, 100%. So it's all about legal cases concerning a brand of glyphosate, coming from a single company. It's really not about glyphosate as a generic compound.
It should be removed, fully. And covered at pages about the brand-name product, the companies, and the legal cases. Especially with that standalone page about the legal cases, it's WP:UNDUE here. I'm fine with keeping the sections about legal status and about the science on health effects. And of course, if we don't have a section, then we don't summarize it in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Monsanto held the patent for Glyphosate from 1974 to the 2000s. They had a monopoly on its production and use and still produce (Bayer) the largest share of the market. Of course this section mostly talks about them. Why would you expect otherwise? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why do you say it's all about legal cases concerning a brand of glyphosate, coming from a single company. It's really not about glyphosate as a generic compound.
Glyphosate was invented and only produced by a single company so of course legal action only refers to that company and not others. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because this page is about the generic compound, and we have elected to have other pages about the Roundup brand, as well as about the two companies that merged. The legal cases (other than the one about Chinese dumping) are all about legal claims made about the branded product, and with the company as the defendant.
By my count, it's me, Bon courage, Julius Senegal, KoA, and Silverseren, all taking this position, and only you objecting. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually only you and Silverseren have agreed on this position so far. The other users have made different objections. All positions have varying degrees of inconsistency and gaping logical holes IMHO.
Also remember that you are talking about removing long standing content that has been on this page for years. So strong consensus will be required to proceed. Let's see what others say or we'll run an RfC on this as far as I'm concerned. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 01:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What policy is it that says "content that has been on [a] page for years" needs "strong consensus" for removal? Policy, I think, rather says that pages should be boldly improved, and that the onus for gaining consensus for including (not excluding) disputed content rests with those who would include it. This is only a B-class article, not GA or FA and so serious work needs to be done if it is to improve. To be clear: cutting the entire legal section would improve this article in my view (though maybe some "See also" links could be added). Bon courage (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CONLEVEL. This content has been edited by hunderds(?) of editors and has been in the article since at least 2009. We won't touch it without an RfC. if you would like to remove it please propose an RfC text and we can see where that goes. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CONLEVEL doesn't say anything about content having some kind of 'tenure'. Anyway, consensus here seems clear that this needs removing, so I have done so. The article thus improves. You may of course try to satisfy the WP:ONUS to include this material if you wish to change this consensus, but since it is off-topic I think that's unlikely. Bon courage (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage I have reverted to the last stable version. I think that deletion of longstanding content while discussion is ongoing is not WP:CAREFUL enough. That content has been there for decades. There is no rush to throw it all away and at least two editors do not agree that the section should be entirely removed as you did. I am particularly opposed and I don't believe you have sufficient consensus for such a drastic change. I would suggest once again an RfC to make such a drastic change. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 16:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the state of the article just before your revert, as the material seems defensible as due and on-topic. Consensus here is determined. There is no need for a RfC and WP:BOLD is the relevant guidance. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an accurate summary of what others have said Tryptofish. I was looking more at leaving things as-is rather than repeat the type of expansions going on in my previous comment, but still was mentioning the need for pruning. As I look over comments here and the content though, outright removal does look like the best option.
On a side note about glyphosate producers, Monsanto's patent on it expired in 2000 in the US, over 23 years ago, but in 1991 internationally. Our article here covers it a bit already, but even 10 years ago, Chinese companies were the largest producers, not Bayer/Monsanto. It's been in generic status for decades, so your distinctions are important about brand vs. active ingredient. If this were the 90s, that may be a different story. I agree this really isn't the page for most of the content in the mid-2020s. KoA (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Monsanto/Bayer was (and still is?) the dominant producer and the dominant distributor of Glyphosate in the US where all of the court cases have been. This is a US only topic: the 165.000 claims against Glyphosate/RoundUP are only in the US. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roundup/Monsanto/Bayer-specific lawsuits could be condensed down to a sentence or two as this area is covered in the other articles. The Quaker Oats residue settlement does not specifically involve Roundup or Monsanto, nor does the Chinese trade dumping. Both of these should be covered here.Dialectric (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About covering those two, my memory was jogged by the RM below, but we already have a separate page on Glyphosate-based herbicides, so that's where those two would fit best. Consequently, I think there is an emerging consensus not to cover any of the lawsuits here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: : I have restored the reflink for one of the Chinese dumping refs; it focuses on (pure) glyphosate as a traded commodity. The sales discussed in that article are of the chemical, not a glyphosate-based herbicide. Significant coverage of pure glyphosate trade is relevant to this article. The residue issue is also relevant here; testing showed trace amounts of glyphosate, again as an isolated chemical, not presence of glyphosate-based herbicide or surfactants.Dialectric (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for those edits, and I now agree with you that the trade dumping content is about glyphosate itself, and should indeed stay on this page. Thanks for correcting me on that. Looking at the oats residue issue, although I agree that the residue itself was glyphosate, it seems to me that the residue would have gotten there by way of herbicide use – maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see any alternative possibility. You point out that the tests were for glyphosate and found glyphosate, but is there sourcing to indicate that they also tested for surfactants or other ingredients, and did not find them? Or is it just that glyphosate was what was tested for? Absent sourcing that it was residues of glyphosate coming from some source other than herbicides, I'd prefer to put it in the glyphosate-based herbicides page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the point, the proposal was refuted several times due to several reasons. The Bayer-specific lawsuits would have their place at Bayer etc., but not to a single chemical substance. It is also a misinformation as neither the safety and efficacy of this chemical substance is defined by lawsuits. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with providing only a summary of the legal cases involving Glyphosate and linking to the main articles or even better transcluding the lead from those sub articles so that maintaining them would be easier (if we have such good sub articles, which I doubt). But removing the sections entirely would be entirely inappropriate and violate WP:DUE significantly. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's been more discussion in the past 24 hours, and I'm only seeing one editor wanting to cover the lawsuits here, beyond maybe just a sentence or two, as opposed to Glyphosate-based herbicides or Roundup (herbicide). Look, there has been a wall of discussion over these things over the years, and the only significant changes in recent years have been over legal cases and over the science regarding non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Neither of those developments have much bearing on how we decide which topics should be standalone pages. It completely misses the point to want to repeat the same things on every one of those pages. I cannot imagine that we will ever have a consensus to merge this page with the other two, so this page should cover content that is specific to glyphosate, not glyphosate-based herbicides, or Roundup. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So now what? The application of WP:PAGs to this question is fairly straightforwrd, we have resolved the matter through local discussion and per WP:RFCBEFORE it would be bad to burden the community with a redundant RfC. Bon courage (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no hurry. We can leave things like this for a few more days, and see what happens. And also see what becomes of the RM below. I hope that we don't have to have an RfC, and I would regard a malformed or misleading RfC like this one as disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The version Bon Courage provided looks like it addressed the substance of this conversation just fine, including the general glyphosate content that would remain here included by other editors. If someone wants legal stuff related to formulations, the links are right at the top of the section. At least as someone who was initially just looking at keeping the original version, that diff is definitely an improvement in addition to reflecting the overall conversation here. Like you said, no rush either, but I agree we shouldn't need have to have an RfC on something with this level of agreement. We'll see what others say.
In the meantime, I am concerned how tags, etc. like these[10][11][12][13] were removed without explanation in the blanket revert.[14] KoA (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glyphosate has been at the center of litigation that led to the largest settlement in pharmaceutical history [15] and the worst merger in corporate history [16]. Any proposal that does not include those facts in the article would be egregiously WP:UNDUE. We've had those sections in the article for decades for a reason. As others and I have said: we can revise those paragraphs and provide a more succinct summary. But those facts will have to be mentioned and appropriate linking to the sub articles must be provided. I would regard WP:RECKLESS attempts (such as this one) at further editing those sections without strong consensus as disruptive. I would also remind everyone that WP:NOTVOTE applies. If we want to make large changes to this topic a well formed RfC is the way to go. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of that addresses the valid concern raised by KoA, that perfectly legitimate edits were reverted along with the rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is all about "Roundup lawsuits", not "Glyphosate lawsuits". We have consensus on what to do with this section (i.e heavy trim) and as others have observed, the weighty process of a RfC would be a waste of editor time. You have offered no policy-based rationale to retain the text, instead invoking arguments like that it is long-standing, which have no basis in the WP:PAGs. The article needs to improve. Bon courage (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do have consensus for a heavy trim of the legal section. The previous wording had presumed consensus, as discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, but presumed consensus is significantly weaker than discussion-based consensus. What about something like Since 2018, in a number of court cases in the United States, plaintiffs have argued that their cancer was caused by exposure to glyphosate in glyphosate-based herbicides produced by Monsanto/Bayer. Defendant Bayer has paid out over $9.6 billion in judgements and settlements in these cases. Bayer has also won at least 10 cases, successfully arguing that their glyphosate-based herbicides were not responsible for the plaintiff's cancer.Dialectric (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good starting point to work from. I think that the way you use the verb "to argue" for both the plaintiffs and the company works well as a way to keep it NPOV. I'm not sure whether you mean that to be in the lead, or in a section about Legal cases. I probably would not want it in the lead, because we are likely to do a major pruning of the main text. But I could see using that in place of the lengthier content we have now, in the Legal cases section, along with whatever else we decide to keep, such as the trade dumping dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was to have this replace the bulk of the legal cases section.Dialectric (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would work well. Bon courage (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now  Done. Thanks all. Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits look good to me. Thanks for doing that. KoA (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit can be a starting point but has some problems:
  1. Bayer has paid out over $9.6 billion in judgements and settlements this is incorrect/imprecise by a wide margin. Bayer has paid much more than that. In the past two months, in four separate cases, juries have awarded more than $2 billion in damages to a handful of roughly 50,000 claims that weren’t covered by the 2020 settlement. The $10 billion agreement is one of the largest in history. [17] 9.6B$ is how much Bayer has paid in one single settlement in 2020. In the last few months alone they paid 2B$ more (See also [18])
  2. Bayer has also won at least 10 cases, successfully arguing that their glyphosate-based herbicides were not responsible for the plaintiff's cancer this is WP:UNDUE weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. We are focusing on 10 positive cases out of almost 200.000. Bayer has settled/lost most of them with the largest monetary damages in Pharma history. This paints a rosy picture where there clearly isn't one. In over 100.000 cases Monstanto/Bayer has chosen to settle the matter out of court or has failed to prove in court that glyphosate does not cause cancer being forced to pay billions because of this.
We should report the total number of cases, the total number of outstanding cases and the fact that it was the largest Pharma settlement in history and has lead to what has been dubbed the "worst merger" in corporate history. See this NY Times in depth article
Also, has the removed content been moved to other pages? Or was it just deleted? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article discusses damages which have been awarded not paid and notes "final awards in previous cases were significantly smaller" so your claim that $9.6 billion is incorrect is unsubstantiated. Further the article subject is Bayer and Roundup, not glyphosate, so I have doubts about whether it is appropriate to include in this article. SmartSE (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
largest Pharma settlement and "worst merger in corporate history" would be covered in the Bayer article if anywhere. If there is a RS source that states a total greater than $9.6 billion, that should be added to the article.Dialectric (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around 165,000 claims have been made against the company for personal injuries allegedly caused by Roundup, which Bayer acquired as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. In 2020, Bayer settled most of the then-pending Roundup cases for up to $10.9 billion. Around 50,000 claims remain pending, according to regulatory filings. Reuters
  • In the past two months, in four separate cases, juries have awarded more than $2 billion in damages to a handful of roughly 50,000 claims that weren’t covered by the 2020 settlement. The $10 billion agreement is one of the largest in history . Bayer has set aside an additional $6 billion, which the company has said is enough to cover pending lawsuits as well as potential future ones. But analysts and investors worry Bayer could be on the hook for billions more, threatening the 160-year-old company’s future. New York Times
  • Bayer is currently facing about 50,000 Roundup lawsuits, even after agreeing in 2020 to pay nearly $10 billion to settle nearly 125,000 then-existing claims. Legal Examiner
Those paragraphs are pretty accurate summaries of the situation and I would base our text on those sources (of course I encourage everyone to read the entire articles). It is correct to say Bayer paid around 10B$ for the single 2020 settlement but it is incorrect to report it as a total amount as they have lost several cases totalling much more in damages than the single settlement (according to the NYT around 2B$ more in the last few months alone) and there are around 50.000 cases still pending.
I agree the merger should be covered in detail in the specific pages. However, Glyphosate is at the center of the Monsanto/Bayer merger and we should mention it to allow readers to have that context and evaluate if they wish to proceed to the Bayer/Monsanto articles per MOS:UL. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this is Roundup-specifc and off-topic, I don't think we want anything more than what was agreed above, especially if it starts mixing up jury awards and settlement sums without explanation. Reverted to good. Bon courage (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As usual my edit [19] was entirely reverted with a short and dismissive edit summary [20] by @Bon courage. Even reintroducing obvious and egregious errors like the fact that the first lawsuit was in 2018 (it was actually in 2015). We currently have several clear factual errors in our text. Taking the time to better understand edits and to WP:ONLYREVERT when necessary would lead to a better article and better collaboration. This article is currently uneditable. I believe WP:STONEWALL applies at this point. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a short and dismissive edit summary ← did you not see the fuller explanation posted to the talk page (just above)? I commend it to you. (BTW, I notice STONEWALLing is defined on Wikipedia as "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." You either need to strike that (in my view backwards) accusation or raise it at an appropriate Wikipedia venue (ANI, AE ... ) with supporting evidence.) Bon courage (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was quite proper to restore the consensus language, as BC did. That language has consensus on this talk page, and the now-reverted change went against consensus. (Consensus is not the same as unanimity.) If Gtoffoletto experiences that as being "as usual", then you need to realize that you are making a practice of editing against consensus. That makes life difficult for other editors, regardless of whether there is technically no violation of 1RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can "consensus" change reality? For example: as I clearly pointed out in my edit, that was entirely reverted by BC with the support of Trypto, the first lawsuits were in 2015 and not in 2018.[21] Why was that obvious mistake reintroduced? Having to discuss any minor and obvious change to the article in this way is what I believe defines WP:STONEWALLING. Especially when edits are clearly factual, quite minor/uncontroversial, and well explained and sourced.
With regard to the rest of the edit: I believe it is obvious that focusing on 10 successful cases for Monsanto/Bayer out of circa 160.000+ that they settled/lost with the largest damages in corporate history is WP:UNDUE. But I might be wrong of course. We can proceed with an RfC and see which versions is preferred by the community at large. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

break

Does the "Advertising controversies" need to be dropped? Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure that out too. The first two paragraphs are on Roundup, so those would be best elsewhere if at all.
The last paragraph on oatmeal is not on Roundup at least, thought that lawsuit was filed by The Organic Consumers Association, Moms Across America and Beyond Pesticides. Moms Across America was known for pushing a lot of fringe stuff on this topic awhile back, so at the least that section probably needs a closer look for what is WP:DUE on that subject. Key thing from one of the sources According to the complaint, tests from an independent laboratory found the amount of glyphosate in Nature Valley products was 0.45 parts per million. EPA standards allow for 30 parts per million in grains. KoA (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted most of it, except for that last paragraph. As Dialectric and I discussed above the break, the oatmeal paragraph is not about branded Roundup, so I left that. There is an issue still remaining about whether or not to move it to Glyphosate-based herbicides. As I said above, I don't think it should remain here, as something about glyphosate itself, unless the sources tell us that they tested not only for glyphosate, but also for surfactants and other ingredients, and found that the other ingredients were not present, indicating that the glyphosate detected did not come from an herbicide. In my opinion, it's incredibly unlikely that this would have happened, because the glyphosate almost certainly did come from herbicide use. Therefore, it really belongs on the generic herbicides page, but not at the Roundup page, and not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every section of this article except for the 'Chemistry' section includes statements that are specific to herbicide applications. Given that glyphosate's use in herbicides is the only economically significant use of the chemical, this is not surprising. The question is: to what degree should any content here overlap with glyphosate-based herbicides? Dialectric (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the next section with my merger proposal: Glyphosate-based herbicides overlaps completely with this page expect for 1 small section basically (Glyphosate-based herbicides#Inert ingredients). They both talk about glyphosate and it's use as an herbicide (that's what it is used for mostly). I don't see the point in maintaining two identical pages. Especially given how hard and contentious it is to edit this subject area. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Glyphosate-based herbicides

I propose merging Glyphosate-based herbicides into Glyphosate. The two pages have a total overlap and maintaining both is extremely challenging. Glyphosate Herbicides are the main use of Glyphosate so a sub-section there would suffice plus merging most of the rest. We also have Roundup (herbicide) that can accomodate some specific content on that specific product (although it should probably be merged as well as Roundup=Main Glyphosate-based herbicide=Glyphosate in a bottle). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge – see reasoning above {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would make more sense to merge Roundup with Glyphosate-based herbicides. Glyphosate per se is just a chemical, and the article shouldn't be contaminated with all the branded herbicide noise. Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Glyphosate is a chemical that was invented by a company for specific use as an herbicide. It is not a "just a chemical". This article can't avoid covering that fact. We have some pages that drill down into the details of what I assume you are referring to as "noise" such as Monsanto legal cases and Roundup (herbicide) that should be linked from this article. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge as proposed. The whole premise of originally splitting out formulation/brand topics like Roundup (herbicide) was to keep this article on the active ingredient focused, and the proposed merge would cause issues there. There was an RfC awhile back that has been revisited a few times over the years that resulted in the formulation search terms like Roundup or Glyphosate-based herbicides not redirecting back to this page. There's a lot of history to unpack on the topic splits.
I agree with Bon Courage that if a merge was going to happen, this article should remain as-is and to instead merge Roundup (herbicide) → Glyphosate-based herbicides. Roundup is just one of many brands now with all the generics out there and being off-patent for around 30 years, and the owners of that brand aren't even the dominant producers of glyphosate anymore. Ironically, the more generalized title Glyphosate-based herbicides that is being proposed to be merged here would have more staying power and feasibility to navigate what was discussed at the RfC than Roundup (herbicide). KoA (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge as opposed. I agree with Bon Courage and KoA above, and I agree that, if anything were to be merged, it should be between those other two articles. (I'd have to think some more about which would be the merge target in that case, but it's not the question here.) KoA points to a previous RfC, and I'll point to earlier, archived discussions where this has already been discussed to death: Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 13#Glyphosate is not synonymous with RoundUp; RoundUp deserves and needs its own page and Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 15#Glyphosate-based herbicides. I feel like I've been needing to say this over and over, but there are two things: glyphosate as a chemical compound, with its properties and uses, and Roundup and related products, which are commercial products that contain this molecule. We have previously gone through so much discussion, ending with clear consensus to treat these two things as two separate topics, on separate pages, and I'm not seeing anything in the recent source material that would make us want to reconsider. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Roundup is simply glyphosate in a bottle with a surfactant. Glyphosate is the one and only active ingredient. The primary difference among the many available glyphosate products is the surfactant mixture found in the formulated product. Surfactants enhance the retention and absorption of glyphosate by plants contacted by the spray solution.[[22]]. You basically just change the color of the box and the wrapping but it is always just glyphosate. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting tired of having to keep repeating myself, but glyphosate as a chemical compound, and glyphosate sold in a bottle with surfactants and any other ingredients, with a company label on the bottle, are two different things, and the longstanding consensus has been that there should be separate pages for each of them, because each of them involves enough specific content that a single page would be overloaded. Given that you are being so insistent on longstanding consensus in the section above, you might want to pay similar attention to the consensus here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Roundup is sometimes glyphosate without surfactant (e.g., aquatic solutions where terrestrial formulations aren't allowed to be used due to non-target effects), but Roundup is also sometimes without glyphosate as bottles of vinegar[23], dicamba[24], etc.[25] Glyphosate though, is not definitively the one and only active ingredient.
    In the US at least, each formulation is something the registrant has to get label approval from the EPA on, and there's a lot going on on the regulatory side between active ingredient and the final EPA-approved product. It's never something as simple as just "changing the wrapping", and that's what past discussions have had to work with related to redirects, merges, etc., so we do need to be careful we are getting fundamentals right when discussing these subjects. KoA (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is the problem. RoundUp is a brand name that refers to multiple products that have only one thing in common: they contain Glyphosate. Our page is unclear about that and hence the problem. I am not sure the specific brand name "RoundUp" should have an article at all. RoundUp=Glyphosate based herbicides(GBH) for sure. And I'm not sure what the advantage is of separating Glyphosate and GBH since Glyphosate is only used for that purpose. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RoundUp is a brand name that refers to multiple products that have only one thing in common: they contain Glyphosate. No pages say that because in addition to what Tryptofish said, that statement is objectively not accurate as already discussed, even in my comment you are replying to. Repeating the claim does not make it any truer. That is why everyone else has been discussing how the formulations and different active ingredients make targeting/merges more complicated than depicted. KoA (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that statement is objectively not accurate what evidence do you have of this? Bayer says: glyphosate, the active ingredient in most Roundup® brand herbicides and other weed-control products.[26]. The only reason they say "most" is due to the ongoing litigation: To further reduce future litigation risk, we have transitioned the manufacturing of our glyphosate products for the U.S. residential L&G market to new formulations that have different active ingredients.[27]. In the rest of the world Bayer is very clear that Roundup is Glyphosate with surfactants: Roundup is the total systemic foliar herbicide, the combination of the active ingredient (glyphosate), in its salified form, with surfactants and inert agents specific for each type of formulation, available in 3 different formulations translated from Bayer's Italian Website [28] {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your question had already been answered, repeatedly, including in sources you are citing. It's been about 7 years now that Roundup≠glyphosate, so this isn't anything particularly new. KoA (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our Roundup article states The main active ingredient of Roundup is the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate. Another ingredient of Roundup is the surfactant POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine). Only a small subset of production and only in the US is not glyphosate based. And that specific production was specifically created to try and limit glyphosate litigation. If "Roundup≠glyphosate" was true the Roundup page would not exist as it would just be a generic herbicide brand with nothing notable about it. In any case: this merge proposal is about the Glyphosate and the Glyphosate-based herbicides articles. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the not-so-distant past we had only the glyphosate article and IIRC, the Glyphosate-based herbicides was created due to the difficulties of dealing with differences in toxicity between glyphosate vs glyphosate + surfactants. I agree with KoA and Tryptofish, that unless the previous discussions have been examined and arguments presented about why they reached the incorrect conclusion, there is no reason to revisit this. (I am also more sympathetic for towards merging Roundup into GBH and creating Roundup (brand) to deal with the fact that many consumer formulations of roundup no longer contain glyphosate, but this isn't the place to discuss that). SmartSE (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article does have significant overlap with both Glyphosate-based herbicides and Roundup (herbicide). This article is also long at over 8k words (see WP:SIZERULE), and a merge would make it longer. On length alone, merging more content in is suboptimal. A restructuring of these three articles could be done gradually that would reduce redundancy. Article overlap is understandable, given that (1)Glyphosate's only significant commercial and scientific application is as an herbicide, and (2) almost all references that discuss Roundup in detail also mention glyphosate. Condensing the lawsuit section here is a first step towards reducing overlap. Sections in each of these articles could likely be reduced in a similar manner as long as key points are mentioned and relevant sections of other articles are linked.Dialectric (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the content is basically a duplication. So we don't need to keep everything twice. I think we should try to only keep the unique content to avoid repetitions and just keep one final page. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dialectric I've analysed more in depth this point and I think a single section covering "Glyphosate based herbicides" would need to be added to this article with content from "Inert ingredients" (and maybe a general intro sentence from "Background") which is one of the few non duplicated sections of that article. Everything else is basically only about Glyphosate and not specific to GBHs. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro toxcity

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/


Abstract

Glyphosate, a non-selective systemic biocide with broad-spectrum activity, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It can persist in the environment for days or months, and its intensive and large-scale use can constitute a major environmental and health problem. In this systematic review, we investigate the current state of our knowledge related to the effects of this pesticide on the nervous system of various animal species and humans. The information provided indicates that exposure to glyphosate or its commercial formulations induces several neurotoxic effects. It has been shown that exposure to this pesticide during the early stages of life can seriously affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, and myelination. Glyphosate also seems to exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission and to induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death due to autophagy, necrosis, or apoptosis, as well as the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders. The doses of glyphosate that produce these neurotoxic effects vary widely but are lower than the limits set by regulatory agencies. Although there are important discrepancies between the analyzed findings, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate produces important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrates. 172.58.56.248 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MDPI predatory pay to publish journal. The International Journal of Molecular Science is an especially bad one, it seems. Since 2023, the journal has published over 11,000 papers. With 2023 alone having 24 issues of the journal with hundreds of papers in each issue. Add to that that the authors of this paper seem to almost exclusively publish papers on glyphosate and neonicotinoids and that they use multiple studies from discredited scientist Gilles-Éric Séralini and this isn't looking like much of an actual credible systematic review. SilverserenC 01:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1
Besides, EFSA > other older metareviews.
Acc. to EFSA (Part 3, p 188): No issues, even the NOAEL are high: "The NOAEL for systemic toxicity is 395 mg/kg bw per day in males, based on reduced BWG and food consumption in the 90-day neurotoxicity study in rat (Report No. 2060-0010); in the absence of neurotoxicity findings, the NOAEL for sub-chronic neurotoxicity is confirmed to be ≥ 1499 mg/kg bw per day in males. This is in line with the conclusion reached in Report No. (additional 90-day neurotoxicity study in rats)." --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate sentence

Stauffer Chemical patented the agent as a chemical chelator - the source listed does not support that claim see also https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132386/ 156.146.156.168 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that mistake. I made this edit, to correct it: [29]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Glyphosate"