Viewpoint: Challenges to glyphosate, neonic safety shows science under attack from ‘viral misinformation’

| | November 6, 2017
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

The news of scientific prejudice [in the decision by IARC stating that glyphosate was a likely carcinogen, on top of the body of evidence showing the herbicide is safe, should have ended the political rancor over glyphosate in Europe.

It didn’t.

A few days after the Reuters story the European Parliament voted, 355 to 204, to ban the use of glyphosate by 2022.

Thanks to wondrous platforms like Twitter and Facebook it’s now possible to say “glyphosate probably causes cancer” fifty million times in a month.

In response to such viral misinformation, Canada’s ag leaders usually respond with: we need to talk more about the science of agriculture.

Related article:  Viewpoint: Guardian (UK) 'Toxic America' series: Anti-chemical activism masquerades as science journalism

One problem. That does little to nothing.

Another familiar response is that Europe is different. That sort of anti-pesticide campaign and political interference can’t happen here.

Not true.

Most entomologists and bee experts say neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides, play a small role in bee colony losses in Canada. The analogy I’ve heard is it’s like a boat with 20 holes in the bottom, with neonics representing one hole.

Patch that hole and you still have 19 holes.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Repetition can often make it true — and forget about the science

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend