
WHO Cancer Agency Asked Experts to Withhold Weed-Killer Documents - okket
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-cancer-agency-asked-experts-to-withhold-weed-killer-documents/
======
CapTVK
This has been coming for quite a while. The IARC seems to have its own agenda
and it isn't always based on scientific integrity.

Good start for those who want to know what's been going on should check out
David Zaruk's site. He's been following the machinations at the IARC (NGO
activist engagement) for quite a while.

[https://risk-monger.com](https://risk-monger.com)

He also microblogs at his facebook site
[https://www.facebook.com/riskmonger/posts/550309911838746:0](https://www.facebook.com/riskmonger/posts/550309911838746:0)

"...IARC is a mess. They do not represent a balanced membership of the
research community (for their 50th anniversary event, of the 1000 guests, not
a single cancer researcher from industry was invited). Rather than retract
their biased glyphosate monograph, they have attacked other science
institutions like EFSA and the German BfR; they have publicly criticised
scientists, they have allowed an activist from the Environmental Defense Fund
to advise their panel and campaign on their behalf, they have provided data to
journalists to attack EFSA ... and now this! Wild, Straif and Guyton continue
to attack - they don't see the scandal they have caused - they will not go nor
will they retract the glyphosate monograph..."

------
finid
_Asked about its actions, the agency told Reuters on Tuesday it was seeking to
protect its work from external interference and defending its panels ' freedom
to debate evidence openly and critically._

Scientific studies in the public interest conducted by an organization like
that should be open. Outside groups should be given the opportunity to verify
your results. That's how science evolves.

~~~
epistasis
I'm not arguing that the IARC made the right scientific call on this
monograph, and in fact I think they are likely to be wrong since so many other
organizations disagree. However, I think it's absolutely essential to protect
the private deliberations in science.

What should be open is the final reasoning, the results and data that go into
a conclusion. But the process of getting there should allow people to make all
sorts of mistakes until they get it right, without facing undue scrutiny
during that process.

There are far too many biased groups that will take any indication of a simple
arithmetic error that gets corrected as a sign of corruption or manipulation.

In mathematics, a proof shows all the work, but you don't have to show all
your failed attempts until you get to a proof. I don't think that these
scientists should be treated differently.

~~~
finid
Making the "final reasoning" open without also making the data that was used
to reach that final reasoning creates too much room for speculation and
conspiracy theories.

Show me the data!

If I can examine it and reach the same or a different conclusion, then we can
begin a real discussion on why. That's science.

~~~
shapiromatron
The data are public.
[http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/index.php](http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/index.php)

------
dogma1138
Glyphosate was discovered by Monsanto and is one of the main components of
roundup but it's not patent protected anymore and it's used in one form or
another globally in 100's if not 1000's of herbicide products. So I don't
understand why the focus on Monsanto other than it's an "evil" name that is
more or less known.

This is also a weird request since the documents release was requested due to
the fact that this was found to be unsafe, even tho quite a few other bodies
found it to be generally safe even at pretty darn high doses (2000-5000mg/kg)
including the EU Food Safety Agency which is a pretty strict organization.

~~~
colordrops
> it's not patent protected anymore

Why does that make a difference? Monsanto makes $15 billion in revenue a year
directly or indirectly from its glyphosate sales. They also sell GMOs that are
glyphosate resistant, so they are helped by glyphosate sales whether it's sold
by them or not.

Seeds and genomics $10,243 million 68.3%

Agricultural productivity $4,758 million 31.7% [1]

[1] [http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/05/26/how-much-money-
does...](http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/05/26/how-much-money-does-
monsanto-make-from-roundup.aspx)

~~~
tptacek
They make their money from the glyphosate-resistant GMO crops, not from
glyphosate itself.

~~~
colordrops
Did you see the numbers I posted? They make 5 billion off of glyphosate.

Also, if the majority of their money comes from glyphosate resistant crops,
isn't it obvious that they have a strong vested interest in glyphosate?

~~~
Kalium
The numbers you posted suggest that they make a maximum of $5 billion off of
glyphosate ("Agricultural productivity"). It doesn't show how much of that is
actually glyphosate. You're free to assume it's 100%, but it may not be
maximally wise to expect everyone else to make the same leap of logic.

I expect their ownership of the Climate Corporation, which is about climate
and weather data, falls under "Agricultural productivity".

~~~
colordrops
You ignored the second half of my comments, which is that the other $10
billion of their profits are directly dependent on the commercial viability of
glyphosate, no matter who sells it.

~~~
Kalium
You're right! I did fail to expressly address the second half of your comment.
Please accept my apologies for this egregious oversight.

The other half of your comment suffers from the same flaw. The source you
provide has high-level numbers, but it doesn't show how much of that is
actually glyphosate-related. You're free to assume it's 100%, but it may not
be maximally wise to expect everyone else to make the same leap of logic.

It is known for certain that the number is not 100%, because Monsanto is known
to have revenue-generating businesses outside of glyphosate.

~~~
colordrops
I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole that always seems to appear whenever
Monsanto is discussed. You can see in Monsanto's own website and literature,
(for example [1]), that the majority of their revenue comes from glyphosate
and glyphosate related products. If you wish to gaslight and deny reality,
then we can end this discussion now.

details strong revenue of their glyphosate-resistent soybean:

[1] [http://www.monsanto.com/investors/pages/letter-to-
shareowner...](http://www.monsanto.com/investors/pages/letter-to-
shareowners.aspx)

~~~
Kalium
I'm sorry. I was unaware that it was gaslighting someone to suggest that
perhaps numbers in supporting documentation should be involved when they make
strong claims about verifiable financial questions.

I'll stop immediately. Please accept my deepest and humblest apologies.

~~~
colordrops
You can be sarcastic and rude, but you shouldn't be lazy. We aren't talking
about something abstract like whether alien life exists. You can visit the
website of the company's brands directly. If you still decide to sarcastically
ignore this, I will assume you have an agenda.

[http://www.monsanto.com/investors/documents/pubs/2007/ar_200...](http://www.monsanto.com/investors/documents/pubs/2007/ar_2007_glance.pdf)

Top products in the 10 billion revenue segment:

See references that each of these is glyphosate resistent

DEKALB [1] [2]

Asgrow [3] [4]

Deltapine [5]

Seminis [6]

[1] [https://www.aganytime.com/dekalb/specialty/Pages/Spring-
Cano...](https://www.aganytime.com/dekalb/specialty/Pages/Spring-Canola.aspx)

[2]
[https://www.aganytime.com/dekalb/Pages/default.aspx](https://www.aganytime.com/dekalb/Pages/default.aspx)

[3]
[https://www.aganytime.com/asgrow/Pages/default.aspx](https://www.aganytime.com/asgrow/Pages/default.aspx)

[4] [https://www.aganytime.com/asgrow/weed-mgt/Pages/Roundup-
Read...](https://www.aganytime.com/asgrow/weed-mgt/Pages/Roundup-Ready-Xtend-
System.aspx)

[5]
[http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/deltapine.aspx](http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/deltapine.aspx)

[6]
[https://www.seminis.com/global/us/products/Pages/Performance...](https://www.seminis.com/global/us/products/Pages/Performance-
Series-Sweet-Corn-Seed-Varieties.aspx)

~~~
dogma1138
No one doubts that Monsanto is making money of this, but they are really not
the only ones Bayer and BASF SE are big even bigger than Monsanto you also
have Pioneer (dupont) and quite a few other players which are of a similar
size. You also have China which are doing their own thing probably violating
every patent in the world in the process.

~~~
colordrops
> No one doubts that Monsanto is making money of this

What? The whole point of this thread was to allay Kalium's doubts. Am I taking
crazy pills here?

~~~
stock_toaster

      >  Am I taking crazy pills here?
    

If you are, then so am I. Could just be all the glyphosate though...

------
acqq
Who demands these e-mails from IARC was not researched in the article. It's:

"Energy & Environment Legal Institute"

[http://www.desmogblog.com/energy-environment-legal-
institute](http://www.desmogblog.com/energy-environment-legal-institute)

With "connections with “the Koch brothers, Art Pope and other conservative
donors seeking to expand their political influence."

"The Guardian has described E&E Legal/the American Tradition Institute as
having “a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling
environmental regulations"

------
searine
The IARC has long since undermined their credibility with scientists, and I
worry that their agenda driven publications will impact good work done by the
WHO.

Injecting agendas into scientific reviews poisons the well of trust, and trust
is half the battle when working to combat disease in foreign countries. The
WHO really needs to reign in the IARC and soon.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> Monsanto's vice president of strategy, Scott Partridge, told Reuters he
considered IARC's actions "ridiculous".

>> "The public deserves a process that is guided by sound science, not IARC's
secret agendas," he said.

It's great to see a big player like Monsanto advocating for open science.

/deadpan

------
edem
FYI: I thought this were about marijuana after reading the title not some
herbicide stuff.

------
Fiahil
> [...] United States, Europe, Canada, Japan [...]

Hey America, Europe is not a country.

~~~
crpatino
In most of the world America is not a country either, but a continent.

~~~
Fiahil
See? It's irritating, isn't it?

------
M_Grey
Does anyone have any links to the various relevant studies mentioned in this
article? I'm disinclined to take the word of a popsci rag on anything.

~~~
shapiromatron
Here's the link to the WHO report:
[http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/index.php](http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/index.php)

~~~
count_zero
Thanks for the link. From the summary of findings on page 78: "Glyphosate is
probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)."

From page 22 of the preamble: the category Group 2A "is used when there is
limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in experimental animals".

[http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-F06....](http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-F06.pdf)

~~~
searine
Also :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinogens)

Something may also be classified as 2A when "Exceptionally, an agent may be
classified in this group solely on the basis of limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans." Which I think Glyphosate falls into.

------
losteverything
Glyphosate is a key ingredient of the herbicide Roundup,

That's right.

