Viewpoint: French media’s ‘fake news’ on glyphosate herbicide endangers science in Europe

In Europe, technical matters which should be science-based, such as the authorization of marketing for chemicals or genetically engineered plants, quickly turn highly political. Even after having received as a prerequisite a green light from the European safety agencies, their authorization is dependent on a vote under a “qualified majority rule” of the 28 members states. This usually opens the door to demagoguery and domestically focused political calculations, with little consideration on the advice provided by scientific agencies. The renewal of the herbicide glyphosate has reached an unprecedented peak to this regard.

On November 27th, 2017, the EU member states finally agreed on a five-year renewal period for glyphosate, instead of the originally proposed 15 years. This was only possible since Germany unexpectedly voted in favor of renewal. In a typical “government-can-do-anything” state of mind, President Emmanuel Macron said that he will ban glyphosate “as soon as alternatives have been found, or within three years at the latest.”

The glyphosate case also illustrates the “Era of Post-Truth” on scientific questions in the European Union, and in France in particular. The following fiction has become mainstream thinking: evil industries and productivist farmers are lobbying for the renewal of this herbicide at the detriment of health and the environment, neglecting its classification as a “probable carcinogen.” The facts are, however, strikingly different.

IARC cancer agency 43274382The classification as a “probable carcinogen” by a single working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has been refuted by a dozen scientific agencies around the world. Although fully marginalized, the IARC classification has stayed a favorite meme in most media. The dominance in media of false claims on glyphosate has been quantitatively analyzed in a blog post (in French).

Briefly, it says that 59% of the articles proposed by the French press were opposed to glyphosate (24% of which rather virulently), and these negative articles reached 84% of the Facebook audience. Furthermore, the arguments presented by the press from the Left side of the political spectrum were 100% opposed to glyphosate, while 50% were negative in the press from the Right. (Most of the positive arguments were related to the economic importance of glyphosate.)

Related article:  Epigenetics Around the Web: Should farmers use vinegar, instead of genetically engineered solutions, to protect crops from drought?

Thus, the French media stubbornly propagated “fake news” in regard to glyphosate by ignoring the broad scientific consensus on glyphosate being of low toxicity, not being an endocrine disruptor, and not being a “carcinogenic” compound under normal use. The press also ignored the facts pointing to the capture of the IARC working group on glyphosate by anti-pesticide activists, some with links to law firms seeking to earn a lot of money through lawsuits based on IARC’s decisions. Astonishingly, the press also ignored the inquiry by a journalist from Reuters who found unexplained last-minute changes made to the IARC report on glyphosate, which in each case went against the use of glyphosate.

Such a profound reality gap between scientific consensus and press articles deserves to be named the Triumph of Post-Truth. It is the outcome of a long anti-glyphosate campaign by anti-pesticide activists.

Want to follow the latest news and policy debates over agricultural biotechnology and biomedicine? Subscribe to our free newsletter.

This and other similar campaigns have taken root in the public as a consequence of a powerful disinformation movement operated for decades by professional activists. These disinformation groups are incredibly skillful at manipulating the public, while being destructive to science, agriculture, biotechnology, and many industries. These activists are exclusively concerned with promoting the political and financial well-being of the organic and natural products industries, science be damned.

Through the deification of Mother Nature and the shameless exploitation of public fear, this political movement has been able to proclaim itself as protecting the environment, public health, and the common good. Of course, these are all fictions. But in Europe, the Enlightenment has been supplanted by the Era of Post-Truth.

Marcel Kuntz, PhD, is an agricultural plant science researcher at the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

This article was originally published by the American Council on Science and Health as “Glyphosate: The Triumph Of Post-Truth In Europe” and has been republished here with permission.

10 thoughts on “Viewpoint: French media’s ‘fake news’ on glyphosate herbicide endangers science in Europe”

  1. GLP is an industry front group that never publishes any information critical of the GMO industry, and the toxic chemicals that support it.

    • Oh, the irony. Just this morning there was a GLP article summarizing a Quartz article about the Center for Food Safety’s criticisms of the Bayer takeover of the Monsanto name. GLP even linked to the Quartz article in its entirety. Look for the GLP article titled: Anti-GMO group: ‘Bayer is now the new Monsanto’ That’s a rather big hole in that conspiracy theory.

      • Hardly a noteworthy article, and I am sure you’re not referring to this nonsense piece about Monsanto’s acquisition by Bayer, driven in large part by the need to limit damage Monsanto will receive to the plethora of law suits it’s presently facing, to which GLP linked. The one to which you’re referring is a nice advertisement for the now chemical company behemoth. GLP is an industry front group.

        • What part of you stating categorically and incorrectly that GLP “never publishes any information critical of the GMO industry” did I get wrong?
          While I’m at it I would like to point out that you can’t even read comments for accuracy. Quartz does not equal Grist.

    • in addition to the fact that you have no proof of the front group nonsense and the fact that Verna is correct. They have allowed usrtk paid propagandist cary Gillam to post here.

    • There was just a 4 part series by Marc Brazeau debunking the meme that organic farm pesticides were worse and used in greater quantities than in conventional farming. But you haven’t really looked at any of the articles here before you did your drive-by troll act. Why do I bother?

      • Not impressive. Nobody that knows anything about organic farming, and the multitude of tests run by independent labs on pesticide, and other chemical residue content in wide varieties of organic, versus conventional food products would believe an industry created lie about organic farm use of chemicals.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend