[stumppy]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I was curious about this, so I searched the literature.

There was a commentary in the Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health addressing this specific study indicating their belief that there are several problems with the AHS study: first, its median follow-up is only 6.7 years, which is a short period of time for a cohort study following cancer latency, and they only followed a small number of NHL cases (92) instead of a pooled analysis of 650 that was available. They also (reportedly) redacted almost all of their source information and relied nearly exclusively on internal data rather than peer-reviewed literature for supporting information and listed no authors or contributors on their report.

I'd be pretty wary of this information absent further analysis.

Portier CJ, Armstrong BK, Baguley BC, et al Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) J Epidemiol Community Health 2016;70:741-745.

Wow, They could get almost any result they wanted by doing that couldnm't they?