The GLP is committed to full transparency. Download and review our Annual Report.

Infographic: Understanding ‘hazard vs risk’ illustrates lack of science behind IARC’s glyphosate cancer designation

| | July 7, 2017

Lately in the news of agriculture there has been a lot of controversy over the popular herbicide glyphosate being labeled as a carcinogen in California. According to peer-reviewed science and dozens of independent science, agriculture and health agencies it is not a carcinogen — with the lone exception of IARC (International Agency on Cancer Research), a sub agency of the World Health Organization, which labeled it as a class 2A “possible carcinogen.” But should this be cause for concern?

As I’ve previously written about here, the IARC measures hazards, not risks. They claim pretty much everything causes cancer–fishing poles, Disneyland, the sun and sunscreen, breathing air, drinking beer, eating bacon, playing cards, etc.

Related article:  Viewpoint: Pouring greed on an ethical fire—Questionable 'litigation finance' scam funds glyphosate-cancer lawsuit mill

Of course, the topic of cancer should never be taken lightly. But when every other agency claims glyphosate is in fact not carcinogenic to humans, one has to raise a skeptical eyebrow to the IARC.

inset hazard vs risk

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Farm Babe: Glyphosate is a carcinogen? Says who?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend