IARC glyphosate cancer review fails on multiple fronts

Failing Grade for IARC Glyphosate Cancer Review

Failing Grade for IARC Glyphosate Cancer Review

The International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph evaluation of certain insecticides and herbicides earns an F grade for failure to consider all the available studies, placing weight on weak and discredited studies (several in the advocacy community are already using this report claiming it is a vindication of the discredited Seralini GMO cancer claims), and most importantly failure to consider if glyphosate is a carcinogen at the doses to which consumers would normally be exposed. 

It would require doses of hundreds or even thousands of times higher throughout a lifetime–a highly unlikely event–for even a single case of cancer to be caused by glyphosate.  Many commonly encountered substances including coffee would fall into the same carcinogenic category if evaluated using the IARC flawed approach to this report.  Experts around the globe have objected to IARCs reclassification of glyphosate. 

The greater concern here is that it appears that IARC has been unduly influenced by anti-chemical activists who have persuaded it to take a politically popular hazard-based decision which is inconsistent with the weight of evidence and the underlying science.  Agencies like IARC have an important role to play.  It is shameful when that role is undermined by special interests for political objectives.

See also: Debunking pseudo-science risk claims about glyphosate.

What others are saying about the IARC pesticide monograph:

Filed Under: Grading ScienceNews

Tags: , ,

About the Author