ADVANCED SEARCH

IARC's Listing of Glyphosate Continues to Generate Much Controversy in the Scientific Community

A recent article in Horticulture Week reports on a paper that was published by ten experts in toxicology, oncology, pharmacology, biology, endocrinology, genetics and related disciplines, which challenges that the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) and United Nations Global Harmonised System for Classification and Labeling (GHS) use outmoded hazard-based schemes to evaluate cancer risks to the public.

The paper, published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, quoted Imperial College London Department of Medicine's Professor Alan Boobis, also the lead author, as saying "This hazard-identification only process places chemicals with widely differing potencies and very different modes of action into the same category. The consequences are unnecessary health scares and unnecessary diversion of public funds."

While in a story published by the Centre for Research on Globalization, Dr Peter Clausing says the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have twisted scientific facts to give glyphosate a clean bill of health.

Clausing made this accusation in front of five judges at the Monsanto Tribunal, held in The Hague from October 14–16.

Clausing argued that BfR’s and EFSA’s statements are contradicted by evidence contained in BfR’s own reports on glyphosate and the draft report submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) by the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Clausing, a former industry toxicologist who now works for Pesticide Action Network Germany, explained that the males of all five mouse carcinogenicity studies considered by these authorities to be of an acceptable quality showed a statistically significant increase in the incidence of one or several tumour types. Three of the five mouse studies exhibited a significant increase in one specific type of cancer, malignant lymphoma, emphasizing the reproducibility of the finding.

 


Printable PDF version

Other Links