Is EPA’s registration review of glyphosate being delayed for political reasons?

|

The Environmental Protection Agency appears to be punting a final decision on the safety of a controversial weedkiller into the next administration.

Since 2009, the agency has been conducting a registration review of glyphosate – one of the world most widely-used herbicides – and its risk to human and environmental health, an assessment required every 15 years.

The lengthy process has been fraught with delays, accusations of political maneuvering and even Congressional investigations.

Under questioning by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee in June, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy assured lawmakers the review would be finished this fall. But in their latest stall tactic – despite two internal reports concluding glyphosate does not cause cancer – the EPA postponed the meeting of a Scientific Advisory Panel [in mid-October] to yet again evaluate its carcinogenicity. In a statement, the agency said “due to changes in the availability of experts for the peer review panel…the meeting on glyphosate is being postponed to later in 2016.”

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith … said “The unwillingness of the agency to move forward with this analysis may be an attempt to pack the panel with individuals who have a pre-determined agenda or bias not based in sound science.”

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: EPA Again Delays Report On Safety Of Glyphosate

  • Alokin

    What is this more recent report, “Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential” dated 9/16/2016.

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/glyphosate_issue_paper_evaluation_of_carcincogenic_potential.pdf

    Doesn’t seem to be getting much play. It appears to be different from the 10/1/2015 paper from the Cancer Assessment Review Committee that was released and then pulled back. How many reports on glyphosate does EPA intend to produce?

    • Albert Stroberg

      Alokin- thank you for that reference.
      As a retired physician, current citrus farmer, recovered Lymphoma patient- I read this with some intensity. And came away once again, comfy.

      • Alokin

        Anti-glyphosate misinformation is so unfair to people who have had illnesses such as yours as well as to those who may become ill because it can lead epidemiologists in the wrong direction. The worst thing about being committed to an ideology is that it keeps one from pursuing the truth. The total failure of anti-glyphosate true believers to challenge their own ideas and instead, insist on the elimination of what is a demonstrably benign pesticide is likely to cause far more harm than glyphosate ever could.