The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
One year ago, an agency of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) declared that glyphosate (or Roundup), the world’s most widely used herbicide, probably causes cancer. Then, in the fall, the European Food Safety Agency’s (EFSA) responded with an assessment that disagreed with the WHO’s findings.
In response, 94 scientists came out in support of the IARC’s original findings. This week [March 8], the group. . .released their article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health saying:
The most appropriate and scientifically based evaluation of the cancers reported in humans and laboratory animals as well as supportive mechanistic data is that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. . . [I]n the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that glyphosate formulations should also be considered likely human carcinogens.
. . . .
. . . .[T]he authors explain how EFSA unfairly discounted several good long-running epidemiology studies. . . They also argue that EFSA did not adequately account for the long latency period before cancer develops. . . .
. . . .
The authors of the new paper also found that EFSA discounted or dismissed many studies that used test animals or lab-based studies published in peer-reviewed journals, despite the fact that they are the professional standard for science research.
. . . .
For all of these reasons, the 94 scientists deemed the IARC study to be a better analysis of the research data, and therefore ultimately more protective of the public.
How could this paper impact the EPA’s upcoming assessment? It’s tough to say. But when the EPA does publish a reassessment of glyphosate, it could have important implications for agriculture.
Read full, original post: The Battle Over the Most Used Herbicide Heats Up as Nearly 100 Scientists Weigh In