MARCH MADNESS: Industry Rallies Around Glyphosate Safety Amid Troubling Report
March 20, 2015 In a rather stunning development, today the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that it has classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup brand herbicides, with a 2A rating as a probable carcinogen.
The announcement having just taken place today, there is still much investigation necessary into the IARC evaluation process and data to reach a firm conclusion on the merits of the study.
CropLife International, as well as Monsanto, have both issued statements regarding the announcement.
CropLife International official statement
The IARC conclusions published in the Lancet Oncology contradict the world’s most robust regulatory systems – namely the European Union and the United States – where crop protection products have undergone extensive reviews based on multi-year testing and where active ingredients such as glyphosate and malathion been found not to present a carcinogenic risk to humans.
CropLife International believes that IARC has made its conclusions as a result of an incomplete data review where key evidence has been omitted.
The IARC results also contradict the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) which is an internationally recognized expert body administered jointly by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and IARC’s parent body, the World Health Organization. The JMPR is made up of the world’s foremost toxicology specialists and has also approved the safety of these active ingredients.
The crop protection industry, represented by CropLife, will continue to work with national regulators and international bodies to ensure each and every product goes through a rigorous testing procedure and only enters the market when approved as safe by the regulatory authorities.
CropLife International believes conclusions about a matter as important as human safety must be based on the highest quality science that adheres to internationally recognized standards. The IARC classification system is not aligned with current international regulations and their recent decisions create needless public concern.
Monsanto Statement On IARC Findings, released 3/20/15:
As consumers ourselves, safety is a priority for every person who works at Monsanto. And, we want to be clear: All labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product. In fact, every glyphosate-based herbicide on the market meets the rigorous standards set by regulatory and health authorities to protect human health.
We join fellow members of both the EU and U.S. glyphosate taskforces in our disagreement with IARC’s classification for several reasons:
- There is no new research or data here. Each of the studies considered by IARC have been previously reviewed and considered by regulatory agencies – most recently by the German government on behalf of the European Union.
- Relevant, scientific data was excluded from review. IARC received and purposefully disregarded dozens of scientific studies – specifically genetic toxicity studies – that support the conclusion glyphosate is not a human health risk.
- The conclusion is not supported by scientific data. IARC’s classification is inconsistent with the numerous multi-year, comprehensive assessments conducted by hundreds of scientists from countries worldwide who are responsible for ensuring public safety.
- IARC’s classification does not establish a link between glyphosate and an increase in cancer. It’s important to put IARC’s classifications into perspective. IARC has classified numerous everyday items in Category 2 including coffee, cell phones, aloe vera extract and pickled vegetables, as well as professions such as a barber and fry cook.
We take great pride in the science behind, and safety of, our products. We are committed to developing products that contribute to safe and nutritious food choices for all consumers. And, we are reaching out to the World Health Organization (WHO) to understand how, despite the wealth of existing science on glyphosate, the IARC panel could make a classification that disagrees with scientific and regulatory reviews.
We believe conclusions about a matter as important as human safety MUST BE non-biased, thorough and based on quality science that adheres to internationally recognized standards. We join others in viewing IARC’s process and its assessment with strong skepticism. IARC has previously come under criticism for both its process and demonstrated bias.
We urge anyone who wants to know more about glyphosate to look at the conclusions reached by regulatory authorities in developed countries that rigorously consider all available data, published and unpublished, in a comprehensive evaluation. You can also learn more at www.monsanto.com/iarc-roundup.
Statement from Dr. Philip Miller, Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs, Monsanto
“As consumers ourselves, the safety of our products is paramount to each of us who work at Monsanto, and our company is built on a foundation of science. All labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.
As recently as January, the German government completed a rigorous, four-year evaluation of glyphosate for the European Union. They reviewed all the data IARC considered, plus significantly more, and concluded “glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk in humans.”
We join fellow members of both the EU and U.S. glyphosate taskforces in our disagreement with this classification for several reasons: there is no new research or data that was used; the most relevant, scientific data was excluded from review; the conclusion is not supported by scientific data; and there is no link between glyphosate and an increase in cancer when the full data set is included in a rigorous review.
We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe. We have issued an urgent request for appropriate personnel of the WHO to sit down with the global glyphosate taskforces and other regulatory agencies to account for the scientific studies used in their analysis and, equally as important, to account for those scientific studies that were disregarded.
It is imperative for society that conclusions about a matter as important as human safety be non-biased, thorough and based on science that adheres to internationally recognized standards. The one thing about true science is that it is not selective. Unfortunately, this review does not meet the standards used by respected agencies around the world.”
Statement from Senior Fellow L. Val Giddins:
Today, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has departed from the scientific consensus to declare glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, to be a class 2A “probable human carcinogen”. This contradicts a strong and long standing consensus supported by a vast array of data and real world experience, and comes from an organization that rarely addresses potential pesticide carcinogenicity, perhaps because the real concerns in this area are minimal, and lie elsewhere. The IARC statement is not the result of a thorough, considered and critical review of all the relevant data. It is beyond the pale.
A vast body of relevant information, including dozens of detailed genotoxicity, studies, animal bioassays, peer-reviewed publications and regulatory assessments, that show no evidence of carcinogenicity, and confirm its safety were presented to the IARC, but seem to have been ignored. On the other hand, witnesses report one paper so severely criticized and discredited that it was condemned by the scientific community and withdrawn by the publisher was actually taken on board by IARC.
That the IARC seems to have even considered such a fatally flawed and withdrawn paper triggers the Séralini Rule: “If you favorably cite the 2012 Séralini rats fed on Roundup ready maize study, you just lost the argument.” The fact that IARC seems to be taking seriously this laughingstock publication suggests they have run thoroughly off the rails, gone beyond anything defensible as science, and well into fictional realms.
Scientific experts who have considered the body of relevant research do not agree with a categorization of glyphosate as carcinogenic for a very simple reason – it’s clearly not. There is nothing in the data to support such claims, and nothing in the deep reservoir of real world experience with glyphosate, to justify such a move. IARC did not consider any new research or data, and all the information they considered has already been evaluated by regulatory bodies around the world. The most recent of these reviews was conducted by Germany on behalf of the European Union.
IARC, a semi-autonomous “extension” of the World Health Organization, has been criticized before for advancing unsupportable conclusions reached using flawed methodology. But IARC’s assault on glyphosate breaks new ground, which is all the more ironic given its clearly superior safety profile compared to the likely alternatives. Glyphosate lacks the chemical structural characteristics of known carcinogens, and neither IARC nor anyone else has ever offered an even remotely plausible mechanism of carcinogenicity. No new data have been advanced to support this categorization, which can be reached only by ignoring and defying a vast body of data and experience. One might be forgiven for suspecting the intrusion of politics into the process; a suspicion not weakened by noting that one of the participants is employed by the Environmental Defense Fund, an organization of professional campaigners that has recently faced charges of manufacturing chemophobic alarms without scientific basis.
It seems IARC is in dire need of some adult supervision. Whether or not WHO finds the bureaucratic courage to apply such, and correct this policy miscarriage, remains to be seen. If they don’t will IARC start picking off the entire list of agrochemicals?
Subscribe Today For
