The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
Two congressional committees — the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and the House Agriculture Committee — have asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to explain why her agency took the [glyphosate] assessment offline and is continuing to delay its release. On April 29, the EPA posted a report concluding that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide and other products) is “not likely to be carcinogenic.” . . . . But the EPA took it down on May 2, claiming the documents were “inadvertently” posted and only a preliminary report. “EPA has not completed our cancer review. We will look at the work of other governments. . . . our assessment will be peer reviewed and completed by end of 2016,” said an EPA spokeswoman.
. . . .
[House Science Committee chairman Lamar Smith] . . . senses that EPA foot-dragging might be based more on politics than on science: “That the EPA would remove a report. . .appears to be yet another example of this agency’s attempt to allow politics rather than science [to] drive its decision making. Sound, transparent science should always be the basis for EPA’s decisions.”
Read full, original post: The EPA vs. Science