It's been a tough week for agrochemical giant Monsanto and its flagship weed killer, Roundup. Roundup was again the culprit. A judge in Brazil also suspended the sale of glyphosate-based products in early August. With 4, plaintiffs suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma now lining up to sue Monsanto, it seems that significant cracks are beginning to show in a decades-long policy of outright denial that Roundup poses any risk to human or environmental health.
The glyphosate controversy shifted to a new forum this week: The House Science and Technology Committee. As might be expected, it was a highly political and ideological airing, illustrating the sharp differences among scientists, industry groups, regulators and politicians over the controversial herbicide glyphosate, sold exclusively until by Monsanto under its patent name Roundup, but now widely available in generic form from many suppliers.
Almost all of the Republicans and all but one of the scientists and regulators called to testify were critical of IARC—its funding and transparency.
Smith said his committee has interviewed a cross section of scientists and regulators who have serious concerns about a lack of transparency within the agency. Other regulatory interests can also be present. What was really going on at the hearing? Many common substances and activities that are perfectly safe when used or consumed in moderation, such as working the night shift, eating processed meat, staying out in the sun, coffee, alcohol — and glyphosate — have all been declared as possible carcinogens by IARC.
No other science research agency uses hazard classification; regulatory agencies assess risk — the chances that a person could get cancer under real-world conditions. Most scientists and almost every regulatory agency embraces the risk standard as most appropriate; many activists and a very few regulatory agencies use a precautionary hazard standard.
For instance, California has cancer warning signs at DisneyWorld park and is proposing adding them to coffee—and to glyphosate. The issue of whether glyphosate poses any human health hazards took second fiddle to the driving theme of the hearings: Much of the research in modern agriculture is driven by large corporations including Monsanto.
Another key theme running through this dispute — the more political dimension — is the involvement of agribusinesses playing a major role in the testing of their own products.
The data must be independently derived however, and is often supplemented by independent tests. But any corporate involvement is an anathema to activist groups. They claim companies will go to any length, legal or not, to protect a profitable product.
In the science world, there is no partisan divide over whether glyphosate, widely considered one of the most effective and mildest herbicides in use today, poses any serious health dangers. The December EPA report —whose conclusions confirmed a preliminary study first released under the Obama Administration —concurs with the findings of every major independent science organization in the world, except for IARC.
The draft human health risk assessment concludes that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The lynchpin of the activist case against these tools of modern agriculture is the charge that biotech companies and government regulators lie about how dangerous they are.
To that end, U. The Monsanto Papers is the centerpiece of the lawsuits pending against the biotech firm in San Francisco and its become the activist go-to documents, used all around the world by agricultural biotechnology opponents.
These themes were echoed in the Congressional hearings by Sass, the scientist from the Natural Resources Defense Fund. Does glyphosate cause cancer? The IARC monograph is the centerpiece.
In the congressional hearing, Dr. Most importantly, the agency excluded studies that found glyphosate did not cause tumors in rats. Reuters has reported that this research was included in a draft report but subsequently edited out of the finished monograph IARC released to the public.
It was on the basis of these animal studies that IARC classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. The fact that this section of the monograph was edited to exclude studies with contrary conclusions is a red flag.
Congress should reign in IARC cancer agency's 'corruption, distortion and fraud' In his deposition p for the lawsuits against Monsanto, Dr. Aaron Blair, an epidemiologist who helped produce the IARC monograph, admitted this data was excluded. Moreover, regulatory bodies like the US Environmental Protection Agencycharged with protecting Americans from dangerous chemicals, regularly accepts unpublished but ongoing research when evaluating pesticides for safety.
Neither answer is satisfying. This is probably why activist groups have worked so hard to defend the monograph against expert criticism. Gillam is a former Reuters reporter who left the news agency after public controversy about her biased reporting, signing on soon after with USRTK.
Why is there such a discrepancy between the IARC hazard findings and risk assessments of the regulatory and mainstream science communities? Glyphosate is considered as hazardous as grapefruit juice.
An important point to stress is that most scientists in this field have no relationship with industry. The basis for this claim is a series of emails between company scientists and independent biologist Dr.experiences in the United States and Europe and the reasons of opposition in Europe, despite that, why Monsanto pushed ahead so hard.
Monsanto is a leading biotechnology company, which an . Monsanto controls roughly 90 percent of the US GMO seed market. According to The Sleuth Journal, Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide pollutes about million hectares (1 hectare is equivalent to 10, square meters) in America, Europe, South America, Australia, and South Africa.
Monsanto is one of the most powerful companies attempting to shape the future of agriculture and the global food chain. It is by far the biggest seller of GM crops in the world and has been the most prominent and controversial corporation promoting the introduction of biotechnology in agriculture.
pesticides Did Monsanto know its weed killer could be deadly to people? After a gardener was awarded $ million for cancer he said was a result of exposure to Roundup weed killer, Monsanto still. Monsanto Europe Essay Case Study “Monsanto Monsanto Europe Monsanto was founded in by John Sweeny in St Louis Missouri.
The first product the company produced was artificial sweetener. A trade war with Germany caused the company to diversify and they began production of other familiar items such as caffeine and Aspirin.
Gillam, for example, railed against Reuters coverage of the controversy as “ a well-orchestrated and highly coordinated media coup [by] Monsanto Co. and friends.” She also complained that.