glyphosate

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.
Activist groups like to use children's health as a bargaining chip in debates about pesticide safety. I'm a dad, and I call shenanigans on this disingenuous scare tactic.
Suffering from "climate anxiety," some of America's entitled college students are working to get low-risk pesticides banned from their campuses, in a bid to slow global warming. They all need therapy and a basic science lesson.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently came out in support of "regenerative" farming as a solution to climate change. There is little evidence to justify her advocacy.
Anti-pesticide activist Carey Gillam recently moderated a panel discussion about the weed killer glyphosate. I attended and took notes. Here's what I saw.
Do biotech companies lie about the pesticide-saving benefits of genetically engineered crops? The activist group GM Watch says yes. Do they have a convincing case? Nope.
A reader asked us to examine a recent opinion piece full of spurious claims about the weed killer glyphosate. The story further confirms that newspapers cannot be trusted to faithfully report the facts about pesticide safety.
ACSH has gotten into it (again) with Carey Gilliam, a self-inflated journalist who just won't shut up about glyphosate, even though no one cares what she has to say. This time my buddy Cameron English was the "target." Not that he needs it, but I come to his defense!
Anti-pesticide activist Carey Gillam is beside herself because the public isn't worried about glyphosate exposure. Her complaint inadvertently and helpfully confirms that the anti-GMO movement has lost its sway over the food-safety debate.
Is the "GMO debate" finally over? A new study indicates the end might be near.
Social media platforms, fringe websites and activist groups are well-known sources of unscientific nonsense. Less discussed is the fact that ideological activism masquerading as research often finds a home in prestigious academic journals. One journal in particular has a long history of publishing such dubious content—The Lancet.
What chemicals, specifically, pose a danger as a potential human carcinogen? To address this issue two competing approaches, which use scientific data to evaluate chemicals for this danger, are at odds. Can we tease out which of these two may be “better”?