Research finds 485 chemicals in US pesticide products linked to breast cancer
Teever
79 points
24 comments
September 28, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 77.5ms across 7,833 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Radiation link in flight attendant's breast cancer, French court finds dazhbog · 85 pts · August 26, 2026 · 43% similar
- French beekeepers' fury at lifting of pesticides ban geox · 12 pts · July 26, 2026 · 43% similar
- Cancer-related mortality among US pilots and flight attendants jader201 · 86 pts · August 21, 2026 · 42% similar
- 800 Canadian wildfires burning as air quality alerts extend to US geox · 56 pts · July 16, 2026 · 40% similar
- FDA authorized Zyn nicotine pouches without knowing what they were made of EA-3167 · 42 pts · July 14, 2026 · 39% similar
Discussion Highlights (4 comments)
mattmaroon
“Linked to” is a keyword indicating pseudoscience. Everything is “linked to cancer”.
VladVladikoff
I really hope that Canada joining the EU forces some stricter regulations on crops grown in Canada. It’s sad how poor of a job our government does to protect its citizens.
loeg
As usual in this kind of thing, "linked to" in this context does not mean anything like "actually known to cause breast cancer in humans." Just as we have cured cancer in rodents repeatedly, we have also caused cancer in rodents repeatedly, sometimes by giving them extremely high doses of chemicals that do not correspond to how much a human might consume.
timr
The actual paper [1] is quite bad. They mine the literature for chemicals with any publication that suggests a link to cancer (or appearance in certain databases based on the same approach), and then spend most of their efforts determining amounts of production and use of the chemicals in question. This is almost pure propaganda. No actual science has been performed, and the quality of the result is directly dependent on the underlying quality of thousands of individual studies that haven’t been reviewed. (To be completely fair to the authors, the Guardian article is completely misleading. Their goal was not to identitfy carcinogens , but rather, to engage in “risk reduction analysis” for the universe of chemicals that might plausibly be considered a carcinogen if you didn’t have any other evidence and cast a ridiculously wide net. Still a dumb goal, IMO, but not as dumb as the article makes it sound.) [1] https://pubs.acs.org/evhpaz/article/doi/10.1021/EHP.6c00022/...