glyphosate

It's no secret that the weed killer glyphosate shows up in our food. But how much of a health risk is this to consumers? A new review paper examining the evidence offers a reassuring conclusion.
Three well-known anti-GMO groups have attacked the New York Times for publishing a generally excellent story about crop biotechnology. Natural News, for example, called the article "pure propaganda masquerading as journalism." Unsurprisingly, Natural News is wrong.
In part one of this series, we looked at some of the hallmarks of sloppy pesticide reporting. We round out our analysis here with a breakdown of three more themes common to this species of junk journalism.
Pesticides can be very dangerous; they're also vital tools farmers use to produce our food. Here's a guide to help you navigate the media maze of sloppy reporting on pesticide safety.
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.
Lawyers and activists who allege that the weed killer glyphosate causes cancer have moved on to a second target: another herbicide called paraquat. Claiming this chemical can cause Parkinson's Disease, these courtroom crusaders are now suing the herbicide's manufacturers in pursuit of another payday. The science is not on their side.
A detailed investigation has exposed troubling connections between Scientology-affiliated lawyers and anti-GMO, anti-vaccine groups. For years, these forces have colluded to attack safe medicines and pesticides, while slandering scientists and organizations that challenge activist rhetoric as "Monsanto shills."
Facebook has proven itself incapable of reliably preventing the spread of "misinformation." If we needed more evidence, the company recently threatened to "restrict" the account of a prominent researcher for talking about science.
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. 
Countries that ban biotech crops aren't necessarily GMO-free. There's a prohibition-inspired lesson for regulators and activist groups in these nations if they're willing to listen.
The anti-biotech movement continues to warn that consuming GE crops makes people sick. A recent email blast from The Institute for Responsible Technology typifies the latest arguments coming from activist groups. How well do these stand up to the facts?
Another study highlights the overlap between genetic engineering in medicine and agriculture, offering another example of why the anti-GMO movement is losing its cultural relevance.