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.
Jennifer Sass of the NRDC takes issue with the evil empire known as Lumber Liquidators, claiming the company plays Russian Roulette with the health and well-being of our children by selling formaldehyde-spewing laminate flooring. Unfortunately, she cites flawed methodology, delivering only an alarmist rant.
IARC calls glyphosate a carcinogen but actual experts at EFSA disagree. In fact, they actually suggest raising the the acceptable acute reference dose of glyphosate.
Worried about meat and cancer? You don't need to fret International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organization, is in the health scare business, as its analysis of coffee shows.
A well-written and illustrative article in the Washington Post explains a great deal about the U.N.'s International Agency for Research on Cancer, and Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate, Roundup. It should be required reading for Americans concerned about the chemical, as well as GMO food. We'll explain.
Another critique of the recent misguided (at best) IARC evaluation of glyphosate agrees with our dissection of the numerous, ideologically-driven failures of science leading to their assessment that the widely-used herbicide is a likely carcinogen, ignoring new data.