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.
Not that any of this matters to the people who get paid to lie about biotechnology. But to those activists, the scientific consensus on glyphosate is simply evidence of a gigantic Monsanto-led conspiracy. That would somehow involve the U.S. EPA, the European Food Safety Authority, the World Health Organization -- and now Brazil's national health agency, all of which agree that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/With much fanfare, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that hot beverages are carcinogenic. But a new study shows that tea is not a culprit.
The glyphosate scandal involving the International Agency for Research on Cancer has severely – and perhaps irreparably – damaged the reputation of the World Health Organization. Sixteen scientists contacted by Reuters refused to answer any questions about the glyphosate document. That's not how science operates; that's how Fight Club operates.
In Part 1, we looked at some very strange science coming from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Here, we examine some possible reasons for an apparent intentional omission of crucial data, which led to the misclassification of glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen." Looks like IARC knew this, but misclassified it anyway.
Another agenda-driven group is at it again, this time using our kids' school lunches for its own purposes. The vegetarian-centric Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is suing California schools. The group wants to have processed meats removed from students' lunches – a move that's less about health and more about pushing its agenda.
In June, we were besieged with headlines stating that hot drinks cause cancer. It was all due to a letter from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the same letter that overturned its long-standing claim that coffee causes cancer. The bottom line: IARC is confusing. So this holiday season, go ahead and have your coffee -- as hot as you like it.