Monsanto, expert witness spar over validity of IARC’s glyphosate-cancer finding

Roundup blog article header

An agricultural economist refuted Monsanto‘s assertion that the International Agency for Research on Cancer “cherry picked” studies to conclude that Monsanto’s herbicides cause cancer, testifying during a landmark California jury trial [July 27th] that the IARC based its findings on sound science.

…Charles Benbrook told a 16-member jury that the IARC based its findings on [peer-reviewed] studies, in which “the science is transparent.” Meanwhile, regulatory agencies largely base their findings…on studies conducted by the registrant of the pesticide at issue, which in this case is Monsanto. Benbrook said there were 17 scientists who reached the IARC finding and they weren’t financially tied to the outcome of the studies.

“They had no dog in the fight,” he said. “They were a group of scientists.”

Monsanto’s defense team has repeatedly characterized the agency as an outlier, arguing that its findings differ from those of European and American regulatory agencies, which found the chemical wasn’t dangerous.

During cross-examination, Benbrook conceded that there are “many different sources of science,” and regulatory agencies can’t review all of them.

“There is a lot of science going on around the world and it wouldn’t surprise me if any regulatory agency wouldn’t know about all of it,” he said.

Read full, original article: Monsanto Herbicide’s Link To Cancer Sound, Jury Told (Behind Paywall)

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-06-17-at-12.31.01-PM
Viewpoint: The dangerous influence of ‘woke’ post-modernism in science
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
marijuana-pot-in-hand-nveri-st-xpm-t-abq-fkifeos-s-rws-cmpx-
Facts & Fallacies podcast: Legalized weed drives drug addiction, psychosis?
Sampling_a_strawberry_32206461974
Viewpoint: Which is worse: Trace PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ on strawberries or the fear that scares people away from eating them?
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-4-2026-09_39_03-AM
Transgender female athletes and Title IX: Separating ‘policy’ from ‘legality’
photodune farming tractor s
Viewpoint: Glyphosate may be hazardous, but it is not dangerous as used by farmers. Critics of the Supreme Court’s Roundup ruling garble hazard with risk
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-01_14_50-PM
Viewpoint: Disinformation grift: The wellness industry is a lucrative and mostly worthless marketplace of ‘balms, brews, and baloney’
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-30-2026-11_55_58-AM
Viewpoint—Junk science: How predatory mass tort lawyers twist facts, scare the public about phantom chemical risks, and cash in on billion-dollar settlements
NYPICHPDPICT000011561063
Viewpoint: From magnetizing your head to taking useless supplements, the wellness craze has morphed into an obsession of the affluent
covid-vaccine
Blocked by Kennedy’s CDC, validated by peer-reviewed scientists: Suppressed COVID vaccine study published in JAMA finds 50% risk cut
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-19-2026-04_11_20-PM
Daubert for Dummies—Scientific Reliability in U.S. Courts: Daubert, Rule 702, and Made-for-Litigation Evidence
Trans-flag
Explaining the Supreme Court ruling empowering states to ban transgender female athletes from competing in women’s sports
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.