In March 2015, the UN International Agency for Research on Cancer set off a scientific and regulatory row when it declared that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup herbicide, is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The EPA reached the opposite conclusion in late 2017, that …
In a win for Monsanto, U.S. district judge William Shubb temporarily blocked a state agency in California from requiring warning labels on packages of the weedkiller glyphosate saying it posed a risk of cancer, reported Reuters. The state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment added glyphosate to its list of cancer-causing chemicals last July and planned to require warning labels beginning this July.
At a high-tension House hearing, members of Congress and expert witnesses yet again debated the safety of the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, the most popular herbicide in the world. The hearing, convened by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, brought a diverse panel to weigh the Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment of the chemical’s safety against the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s assessment.
The director of the UN International Agency for Research on Cancer rebutted criticism of his agency’s listing of glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, as probably carcinogenic to humans, saying the criticism included “repeated misrepresentations” of the IARC’s deliberations.
In a comprehensive look at the controversy over the weedkiller glyphosate, FERN in a story with The Nation magazine documents the steps Monsanto took in a concerted spin campaign with scientists and regulators to make sure the world’s most widely used herbicide remained free of any links to cancer. But author Rene Ebersole in the article, “Mass Exposure,” writes that the company's carefully constructed defense of the chemical is coming under increasing pressure, as its methods behind that defense are revealed.
Five weeks after the Canadian meat industry suggested the government should withdraw support from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the Health Ministry has its answer: No, thank you. As iPolitics reports: "No adjustments to their support would be necessary at this time," said a spokesman for Minister Jean Philpott.
Meatpackers in Canada are raising the same question as some U.S. House Republicans: Why does our government fund the International Agency for Research on Cancer? The IARC, based in France, has riled the pesticide and meat industries with recent rulings about the cancer risk of some of their …
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which ignited a global debate by rating glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans, has advised experts not to release documents requested under U.S. public records laws, said Reuters. In a letter and an email, IARC says it is "the sole owner of such materials" and "IARC requests you and your institute not to release any (such) documents," reports the news agency.
The National Institutes of Health has given the International Agency for Research on Cancer more than $1.2 million so far this year, says Chairman Jason Chaffetz of the House Oversight Committee. In a letter to the NIH director, Chaffetz blasts the IARC, part of the World Health Organization, for "controversy, retractions and inconsistencies," using its rulings on glyphosate and red meat as examples.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer started a global debate by rating glyphosate, the most widely used weedkiller in the world, as "probably carcinogenic to humans" while the EPA says its studies indicate it is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant to human health." Harvest Public Media says the difference in view is partially explained by the way the agencies chose to evaluate the issue.