Connect with us

Agriculture

Will IARC revisit its #glyphosate monograph?

SHARE:

Published

on

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Fresh revelations have raised the heat on the European Commission’s decision last month to re-initiate the procedure for extending the market authorization for the popular weed killer glyphosate. A recent investigation by Reuters revealed that the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) failed to take into account the findings of a major study that found no link between glyphosate and cancer, leading to a serious skewing of its own study that found glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic” in the first place.

According to court documents, Aaron Blair, a scientist at the US National Cancer Institute, had withheld the data knowing that its inclusion would likely have altered IARC’s analysis. The research in question came from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), which conducted a major long-term research project under the auspices of the US National Cancer Institute, observing some 89,000 farmers in North Carolina and Iowa since 1993.

Adding to the quagmire is the fact that Blair was a co-author of the study himself, but never made the effort to get it published on account of the paper being too lengthy to print. When outside experts were asked by Reuters to give their two cents on the matter, neither could explain how the size of a scientific study precludes it from seeing the light of day. But this is a key point: according to its statutes, IARC only assess published studies, meaning that the AHS research was casually breezed over. As the only major international agency classifying glyphosate as carcinogenic, Blair’s withholding of data suggests that, had the AHS study been made available, IARC’s assessment might have given the weed killer a clean bill of health. At the very least, the conveniently unavailable research facilitated IARC’s justification for reaching the conclusions they were eager to reach. Since Blair served as the chairman of the IARC committee that condemned glyphosate, his behavior as a scientist is particularly disturbing.

Adding insult to injury, the Reuters revelation comes mere weeks after European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker received a letter from environmental engineer Christopher Portier, in which he criticized that incomplete sets of scientific data were used for a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) study that cleared glyphosate of its supposed cancer link. That IARC is now facing accusations of suppressing a study with conclusions favorable to glyphosate is dealing another major blow to its credibility as a scientific institution.

In contrast, the results of studies conducted by other European agencies are being vindicated. Next to EFSA’s risk assessment of 2015, the European Chemicals Agency’s Committee for Risk Assessment (ECHA) also came to the decision “that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction”. The EC’s subsequent restart of the procedure to extend glyphosate’s market authorization should be a non-issue given the mass of scientific evidence.

Although Blair’s public disposition should have dispelled any shred of doubt, anti-pesticide activists seeking to ban glyphosate have poisoned public debate. A European citizens’ initiative (ECI) recently managed to reach the threshold (1 million signatures from at least seven countries) to require the EC to issue a formal response. The European Parliament also chimed in on the matter: perhaps spooked by the wave of concerned constituents, MEPs criticized EFSA on June 13th for including industry-sponsored studies in the agency’s assessment of glyphosate.

Advertisement

However, anti-glyphosate activists – who EFSA’s executive director Bernard Url accused of engaging in 'Facebook science' – are merely one of many groups seeking to undermine the established consensus. Far from being the only substance facing headwinds from misguided activists, the debate surrounding glyphosate is mirrored by that about the use of formaldehyde in chicken feed. The chemical is often used to prevent salmonella infections by consuming poultry and eggs, and like glyphosate, the formaldehyde issue is stuck in limbo. Activists argue that safer and equally effective alternatives have been found, but a salmonella outbreak in Poland after suspending its use demonstrated the danger of prematurely made decisions.

The controversies swirling around IARC demonstrate how one outlier study, made supposedly in the name of scientific impartiality but rooted in a biased agenda, can spark a wildfire that is exceedingly difficult to contain. But Blair’s admission of suppressing crucial research data at a crucial time could be the final nail in the coffin of the anti-glyphosate camp.

Share this article:

EU Reporter publishes articles from a variety of outside sources which express a wide range of viewpoints. The positions taken in these articles are not necessarily those of EU Reporter.

Trending