Search

Roundup:glyphosateGiven the mainstream media's devotion to sensationalism when discussing GMOs, it was an unexpected pleasure to come across a recent Washington Post article on the subject.

The essay was entitled "It's the chemical Monsanto depends on. How dangerous is it?" This is such an important topic/question from so many points of view that it should be essential...

Like a broken clock that accidentally gets the time right, the State of California has finally stumbled upon the correct approach to coffee. Sort of. After widespread mockery and condemnation, the Golden State has had an epiphany: Maybe coffee doesn't cause cancer.

California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which is responsible for enforcing the abomination known as Proposition 65, proposed that coffee be exempt from bearing a cancer warning label. The OEHHA made this recommendation following a truly mind-blowing decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle, declaring that coffee must be served with a side of cancer fearmongering.

Likely due to embarrassment, the OEHHA sprang to action, proposing that coffee isn't so bad. They...

In Europe, technical matters which should be science-based, such as the authorization of marketing for chemicals or genetically engineered plants, quickly turn highly political. Even after having received as a prerequisite a green light from the European safety agencies, their authorization is dependent on a vote under a “qualified majority rule” of the 28 members states. This usually opens the door to demagoguery and domestically focused political calculations, with little consideration on the advice provided by scientific agencies. The renewal of the herbicide glyphosate has reached an unprecedented peak to this regard.

On November 27th, 2017, the EU member states finally agreed on a five-year renewal period for glyphosate, instead of the originally proposed 15 years...

When did school lunches become so contentious that law suits are filed over the processes used in their ingredients? True - they have never had fresh sushi or hand-crafted ravioli, but at a cost of about $2.50, what can we expect? 

Children are eating in the middle of their school day, which is important to sustain learning - despite what Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says. Most importantly, for some children, that tray contains the only healthy, nutritious meal that is ever routinely put in front of them.

However, some groups disagree that regular school lunches are healthy at all. For example, the ...

Diesel exhaust is linked to an increased risk of lung and bladder cancer, according to a report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The latest assessment reclassifies diesel exhaust from probably carcinogenic a categorization the group made in 1988 to level I, carcinogenic" to humans.

Given the additional health impacts from diesel particulates, exposure to this mixture of chemicals should be reduced worldwide, stated Christopher Portier, chairman of the IARC working group.

But it s important to keep two things in mind when analyzing the results. First, the IARC review was based on an occupationally exposed population, meaning...

Jurors in California have awarded $289 million to a man who claimed that his cancer was due to Monsanto’s herbicide glyphosate, even though that is biologically impossible. Even the judge acknowledged that there was no evidence of harm. Yet, trial lawyers manipulated a jury’s emotions and the public’s misunderstanding of science to score another jackpot verdict.

The plaintiff, Dewayne Johnson, claims that glyphosate gave him non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer that occurs when the immune system goes awry. There are three major problems with this claim.

First, as stated above, glyphosate does not cause cancer because it does not harm humans. It is an herbicide, so it is only toxic to plants. There is no known biological mechanism by which glyphosate could cause cancer,...

"Lying" is considered one of those words civilized people should never say. That's why politicians never use it. Instead, their opponents are "misinformed" or "misspeaking" or "using alternative facts." 

Well, the time for civility is over. Journalist -- if we can actually call him that -- Danny Hakim is lying to you. And it's not his first rodeo, either. He's built quite a track record for himself at the New York Times, publishing distorted information about GMOs and comparing agricultural pesticides to "Nazi-made sarin gas." 

Now, Mr. Hakim has written an...

William Shubb, Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, has put a halt to the champagne wishes and caviar dreams of California trial lawyers, a U.N. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Working Group participant, and organic industry front groups hoping to profit from a bizarre determination on glyphosate by IARC that weirdly bucked the science consensus. He has ruled that companies can't be forced to lie and put warning labels on glyphosate, an active ingredient in products like the mild weedkiller Roundup.

California was the perfect place to file the lawsuit because it is the only state that...

Two weeks ago, we reported on a bizarre decision by the online news arm of the journal Science: The outlet had reprinted an article from a politically slanted environmentalist website that hyped concern over a particular chemical. The article fell quite short of the high standards we associate with the journal.

Now, Live Science has done something similar, but it's far worse. Normally a reliable source of information (and an outlet with which ACSH has a reprinting agreement), Live Science published an article that is a dream for anti-pesticide and anti-chemical fearmongers.

The...

Chris Portier, Ph.D., an activist statistician who pushed to get the common herbicide ingredient glyphosate listed as a "hazard" for carcinogen labeling purposes while with the International Agency for Research on Cancer, only later revealed he was on the payroll of an anti-science litigation group that was targeting glyphosate at the time - Environmental Defense Fund.

A court deposition and the implicit threat of perjury should he lie forced Portier to disclose he was also being paid by a lawyer who wanted to sue over glyphosate once he helped get it declared a "probable" carcinogen. That left glaring questions: How did the law firm learn of the IARC...