Congressional committee cuts funding to IARC over WHO agency’s controversial glyphosate-cancer finding

| | August 6, 2018

The House Committee on Appropriations has withheld funding for the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer—which receives about $2 million from the United States per year—because of controversy over the agency’s label for glyphosate, a chemical commonly used in weedkillers.

In a March 2015 review …. IARC labeled the weedkiller as “probably carcinogenic in humans,” based on limited evidence in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and “sufficient evidence” in animals.


IARC’s conclusions on glyphosate, made by a working group of 17 scientists from 11 countries, ran counter to guidelines of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority. EPA said glyphosate has “low toxicity to humans,” and an EFSA study in November 2015 found glyphosate “unlikely to be carcinogenic.”

Read full, original article: House committee defoliates NIH funding for WHO program that declares weedkiller Roundup a carcinogen (Behind Paywall)

Related article:  Federal judge halts California's plan to require cancer warning label on glyphosate products
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.

3 thoughts on “Congressional committee cuts funding to IARC over WHO agency’s controversial glyphosate-cancer finding

  1. Well I wish there were more details here because the conspiratards will just cry “paid off by Monsanto” when seeing this. It should have included info from the sources who discovered the bribe money from organic farmers funneled through a USRTK lawyer to the IARC for that designation.

  2. I do not think this article should be included on GLP. The source article is published on a right-wing website, The Washington Free Beacon (see the Read Full, Original Article link at end of story). The Free Beacon is known for misleading headlines and misrepresenting facts to support convervative causes. Let’s focus on the science of agriculture, not more opinions or politics. I know GLP can do better than this.

    • Have you identified anything in the article which is untrue? If not, you’re committing the genetic fallacy. As far as I can tell, the claims in this article are corroborated by other sources.

      Also, do you see the irony of saying ‘let’s not focus on politics’ right after emphasising the fact that the WFB is right wing as a reason it should not be trusted? Do I need to remind you that fear of GMOs is prevalent among liberals?

Leave a Comment


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

Send this to a friend