In a move that will significantly expand the restrictions on per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – more commonly known as the “forever chemicals” – the International Agency for Research on Cancer has reclassified perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) as “carcinogenic to humans.” It did so even though no valid studies show it increases the risk of causing cancer in people. How will this reclassification increase pressure in Europe and the U.S. for more action? Here's a look.
IARC
The International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) conclusion that the sweetener aspartame "possibly" causes cancer is ... definitely stupid. Meanwhile, you can eat a diet consisting of 91 percent "ultra-processed" food and be healthy. So says a new study. Let's take a closer look.
Add the government to the Food-Industrial Complex
Vape Shops
Illegal guns
IARC and the WHO find another ingredient to jettison
After many years of sensational reporting about the cancer risks from Bayer’s Roundup weedkiller, with the main ingredient of glyphosate, it appears that the tide may be finally turning in the courtroom. When presented with complex science, juries understand it and get it right.
The New Lede — the Environmental Working Group's "investigative reporting" outlet — continues to mislead readers about pesticides. This time it’s spreading nonsense about a recent lawsuit challenging the EPA's assessment of the weedkiller glyphosate. Let's have a look.
Popular Science has joined the ranks of mainstream outlets that shill pesticide propaganda. Last week, the magazine published a story about glyphosate so atrocious that it could have been written by an activist at the Environmental Working Group.
Usually an excellent source for science-based commentary, The Conversation recently published, to put it charitably, a questionable article about the dangers of the weedkiller glyphosate. What did the authors get wrong? Almost everything.
As we’re in the midst of a reevaluation of whether the Virology Laboratory in Wuhan, China was the true source of the Covid-19 virus that caused the pandemic, a theory which the World Health Organization (WHO), many U.S. scientists, and the media rejected for over a year’s time, there is another issue that warrants a complete reexamination: The International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) assessment of glyphosate.
The recent excellent article by Josh Bloom, “NYC Pol Uses Phony Cancer Scare & ‘Children’ to Ban Glyphosate in Parks,” talks about the scare tactics used by a council member in New York to ban glyphosate (Roundup) from city parks. I’m taking a deeper dive looking at how the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and our EPA determine whether or not glyphosate causes cancer. A flawed process leads to flawed science, which like radioactivity – stays around forever!
A seemingly simple, seemingly non-controversial story from a local news outlet in New York talks about efforts to ban glyphosate (aka Roundup) from the city's parks and public places. But if you dig a little, the facts change. Plenty.
In the age of "Facebook science," the weight of evidence must compete with powerful popular narratives. Can common sense help? Let's take a look.
Sometimes facts beat hype. This week was one of those times. The EPA, after years of compiling and evaluating data, declared that it would not approve labels for the herbicide glyphosate that contained a cancer warning. This puts the U.S. agency in direct opposition to California's absurd Proposition 65, which would require a cancer warning label on the chemical -- even though it would be incorrect. The U.S. now joins a dozen other countries that have already determined glyphosate is safe as used.