IARC Targets 2,4-D In Latest Report
June 29, 2015 The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has struck again. Earlier this year in March, this agency of the United Nations World Health Organization labeled the popular herbicide glyphosate as a “possible carcinogen” based upon a limited body of research data. On June 22, IARC announced that it was placing an even older herbicide, 2,4-D, within this same classification.
Naturally, the reaction from scientists, manufacturers and those within the agricultural community was swift. “Farmers use these proven tools to protect crops from weeds,” said Daren Coppock, president/CEO of the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), in a released statement. “They have passed through intense regulatory analysis and have been in use, in the case of 2,4-D, for more than 70 years.”
Other critics were even more harsh towards the IARC 2,4-D report, pointing out that the “possible carcinogen” conclusion was inconsistent with the governmental findings in more than 100 countries over the past seven decades, including the U.S., Canada, Germany, Japan, France, China, Brazil and the United Kingdom.
“No herbicide has been more thoroughly studied and no national regulatory body in the world considers 2,4-D a carcinogen,” said John Cuffe, a global regulatory sciences and regulatory affairs representative for Dow AgroSciences, which manufactures 2,4-D. “In fact, IARC stated that there is ‘inadequate evidence’ for human carcinogenicity.”
For now, the crop protection products industry will fight back as best it can to defend the safe use of 2,4-D in the world’s crop fields. However, agriculture should be prepared for more such debate in the near future as rumors say dicamba is next on IARC’s carcinogen hit list.
Loading ...In the meantime, ARA’s Coppock reminds observers that the U.S. government’s own EPA registration regimen for herbicides such as 2,4-D and glyphosate is much more comprehensive than IARC’s. “Consumers should take care interpreting the IARC’s report as definitive,” he said. “It is not representative of the body of science that shows these are safe products.”
Subscribe Today For
