This has been coming for quite a while. The IARC seems to have its own agenda and it isn't always based on scientific integrity.
Good start for those who want to know what's been going on should check out David Zaruk's site. He's been following the machinations at the IARC (NGO activist engagement) for quite a while.
"...IARC is a mess. They do not represent a balanced membership of the research community (for their 50th anniversary event, of the 1000 guests, not a single cancer researcher from industry was invited). Rather than retract their biased glyphosate monograph, they have attacked other science institutions like EFSA and the German BfR; they have publicly criticised scientists, they have allowed an activist from the Environmental Defense Fund to advise their panel and campaign on their behalf, they have provided data to journalists to attack EFSA ... and now this!
Wild, Straif and Guyton continue to attack - they don't see the scandal they have caused - they will not go nor will they retract the glyphosate monograph..."
Asked about its actions, the agency told Reuters on Tuesday it was seeking to protect its work from external interference and defending its panels' freedom to debate evidence openly and critically.
Scientific studies in the public interest conducted by an organization like that should be open. Outside groups should be given the opportunity to verify your results. That's how science evolves.
I'm not arguing that the IARC made the right scientific call on this monograph, and in fact I think they are likely to be wrong since so many other organizations disagree. However, I think it's absolutely essential to protect the private deliberations in science.
What should be open is the final reasoning, the results and data that go into a conclusion. But the process of getting there should allow people to make all sorts of mistakes until they get it right, without facing undue scrutiny during that process.
There are far too many biased groups that will take any indication of a simple arithmetic error that gets corrected as a sign of corruption or manipulation.
In mathematics, a proof shows all the work, but you don't have to show all your failed attempts until you get to a proof. I don't think that these scientists should be treated differently.
Generally, I think this is true. If a manuscript goes to review before publishing, typically the reviewers are anonymous and the reviews are shared only with the authors of the submitted manuscript. This process is usually secret and does protect the ability to be candid in review. The final published manuscript stands on its own atop its data, cited sources, and arguments.
We could have a debate about whether this is a good way to do things, and surely it could be improved, but it has worked not too badly in the past.
I think this is a little different though. The IARC is publishing a review of the literature, but it is both the author and the publisher. As such there's no intermediate, outside and independent step, and they should be extremely transparent about how they came to their conclusions. They should have reams of studies cited, and they should detail exactly how they weigh contrary strands of evidence. Simply saying, "it was sponsored by industry" is an inappropriate reason to eliminate a study. Again, each study stands on its own data, cited sources, and arguments. Be more critical if you don't trust the source, but consider the data and arguments.
I'm struck by how the IPCC seems to operate by casting a wide net for experts and striving to build a consensus everyone can get behind, and sign their name to. Shouldn't the IARC work the same way?
If the reasoning process is not thoroughly detailed in the original monograph, they absolutely should release an anonymized version of the deliberations.
The thing to remember as well with IARC is that it does its classifications with a hazard based approach, while most regulatory agencies use a risk based approach.
A hazard is something that can harm potentially harm you. Risk quantifies how likely that will happen.
Making the "final reasoning" open without also making the data that was used to reach that final reasoning creates too much room for speculation and conspiracy theories.
Show me the data!
If I can examine it and reach the same or a different conclusion, then we can begin a real discussion on why. That's science.
I don't think anyone was arguing the data that the final evaluation is based on should not be open.
The point is that the intermediate drafts of the evaluation itself do not need to be public and it's fair to deliberately keep them in the circle of people who are working on it or reviewing it.
There is no such thing as "undue scrutiny" for a public policy group. There is no amount of scrutiny that is too high. If you don't want scrutiny, don't take public money or make public policy.
>Asked about its actions, the agency told Reuters on Tuesday it was seeking to protect its work from external interference and defending its panels' freedom to debate evidence openly and critically.
Its the same idiotic rationale put forth by the FED and every other corrupt organization that wants to hide corruption, crime, and malfeasance. Even in cases where there are "legitimate" concerns about the sensitivity of released information (which isn't the case with the WHO), those concerns always pale in comparison to the benefits of transparency. Nobody should accept this sort of behavior from any organization that accepts any public funding or has influence over any public policy.
Which notes several cases without cancer links, but others with links "For all the
children of the pesticide applicators, risk was
increased for all childhood cancers combined,
for all lymphomas combined, and for Hodgkin
lymphoma, compared with the general population." It also notes there are "there are relatively few studies." So, noting that a link was 'probable' without saying "Yes" or "No" is not making up their minds.
They are basically saying, their is not enough information to declare it safe or dangerous.
No, that's not what "probably carcinogenic" means. There is a 5 point scale, yes, likely yes, less likely yes, unstudied, no. It has been studied which removes the unstudied. However, they don't say there is enough evidence to say "Yes" or "No."
There is also the question of whether they're talking about a direct carcinogenic effect on the personnel applying the Round Up product, versus antibiotic effect on consumers of food containing Round Up residue.
Because every study I've seen uses and SOLELY RELIES on Monsanto supplied data and is usually run by a Monsanto agent (current employ, previous employ, or political friend of Monsanto), although there was one study from Germany that did not have a Monsanto agent and came up with "probably not carcinogenic". You do not get data on how Roundup affects a population, excepting through Monsanto's blessing.
Glyphosate was discovered by Monsanto and is one of the main components of roundup but it's not patent protected anymore and it's used in one form or another globally in 100's if not 1000's of herbicide products. So I don't understand why the focus on Monsanto other than it's an "evil" name that is more or less known.
This is also a weird request since the documents release was requested due to the fact that this was found to be unsafe, even tho quite a few other bodies found it to be generally safe even at pretty darn high doses (2000-5000mg/kg) including the EU Food Safety Agency which is a pretty strict organization.
Why does that make a difference? Monsanto makes $15 billion in revenue a year directly or indirectly from its glyphosate sales. They also sell GMOs that are glyphosate resistant, so they are helped by glyphosate sales whether it's sold by them or not.
Seeds and genomics $10,243 million 68.3%
Agricultural productivity $4,758 million 31.7%
[1]
The numbers you posted suggest that they make a maximum of $5 billion off of glyphosate ("Agricultural productivity"). It doesn't show how much of that is actually glyphosate. You're free to assume it's 100%, but it may not be maximally wise to expect everyone else to make the same leap of logic.
I expect their ownership of the Climate Corporation, which is about climate and weather data, falls under "Agricultural productivity".
You ignored the second half of my comments, which is that the other $10 billion of their profits are directly dependent on the commercial viability of glyphosate, no matter who sells it.
You're right! I did fail to expressly address the second half of your comment. Please accept my apologies for this egregious oversight.
The other half of your comment suffers from the same flaw. The source you provide has high-level numbers, but it doesn't show how much of that is actually glyphosate-related. You're free to assume it's 100%, but it may not be maximally wise to expect everyone else to make the same leap of logic.
It is known for certain that the number is not 100%, because Monsanto is known to have revenue-generating businesses outside of glyphosate.
I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole that always seems to appear whenever Monsanto is discussed. You can see in Monsanto's own website and literature, (for example [1]), that the majority of their revenue comes from glyphosate and glyphosate related products. If you wish to gaslight and deny reality, then we can end this discussion now.
details strong revenue of their glyphosate-resistent soybean:
I'm sorry. I was unaware that it was gaslighting someone to suggest that perhaps numbers in supporting documentation should be involved when they make strong claims about verifiable financial questions.
I'll stop immediately. Please accept my deepest and humblest apologies.
You can be sarcastic and rude, but you shouldn't be lazy. We aren't talking about something abstract like whether alien life exists. You can visit the website of the company's brands directly. If you still decide to sarcastically ignore this, I will assume you have an agenda.
No one doubts that Monsanto is making money of this, but they are really not the only ones Bayer and BASF SE are big even bigger than Monsanto you also have Pioneer (dupont) and quite a few other players which are of a similar size.
You also have China which are doing their own thing probably violating every patent in the world in the process.
Believe it or not, sometimes being over-the-top polite and accommodating to people gets them to take a counter-point seriously. You just have to wrap it in a lot of stuff about how they're obviously right and you're clearly completely wrong. Once in a while catering to someone's need to be right lets you slip an idea past it.
The 10b are crops that are genetically altered to resist glyphosate. If glyphosate was banned, then they couldn't sell these crops anymore. Their profits are directly related to glyphosate.
Glyphosate resistance is just one of many traits marketed by Monsanto. Most of the headliners are insect resistance (Bt toxin) and resistance to other herbicides (Liberty) among others.
They're moving their business to focus on value-adds and other things that GMO haters can't torpedo with pseudoscience and FUD. Refuge in Bag solutions, seed coatings, new fungicides, traditional breeding, soil bacteria supplements, mapping & climate data, and other agricultural productivity solutions are the future of their business.
Even if you accept that they make all of their money from glyphosate resistance (which is patently false), the business is moving to emphasis that substantially less than it is now.
So why is it a weird request? To me it seems logical that the industry wanted to know how the WHO came to its conclusion, exactly because those other bodies all came to a conclusion which was the opposite of the WHO's.
Weird in the sense that it's usually would be the other way around and that a FOIA would be used to uncover some "coverup".
This time it seems that there might be some political reasoning behind it there were issues about this matter handled at the WTO (not WHO) before especially between the US and China.
With "connections with “the Koch brothers, Art Pope and other conservative donors seeking to expand their political influence."
"The Guardian has described E&E Legal/the American Tradition Institute as having “a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations"
The IARC has long since undermined their credibility with scientists, and I worry that their agenda driven publications will impact good work done by the WHO.
Injecting agendas into scientific reviews poisons the well of trust, and trust is half the battle when working to combat disease in foreign countries. The WHO really needs to reign in the IARC and soon.
So it doesn't seem to be about the actual research documents:
had been approached by interested parties, including lawyers representing Monsanto [..] and asked to release private emails as well as draft scientific documents
Thanks for the link.
From the summary of findings on page 78: "Glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)."
From page 22 of the preamble: the category Group 2A "is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals".
Something may also be classified as 2A when "Exceptionally, an agent may be classified in this group solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans." Which I think Glyphosate falls into.
Good start for those who want to know what's been going on should check out David Zaruk's site. He's been following the machinations at the IARC (NGO activist engagement) for quite a while.
https://risk-monger.com
He also microblogs at his facebook site https://www.facebook.com/riskmonger/posts/550309911838746:0
"...IARC is a mess. They do not represent a balanced membership of the research community (for their 50th anniversary event, of the 1000 guests, not a single cancer researcher from industry was invited). Rather than retract their biased glyphosate monograph, they have attacked other science institutions like EFSA and the German BfR; they have publicly criticised scientists, they have allowed an activist from the Environmental Defense Fund to advise their panel and campaign on their behalf, they have provided data to journalists to attack EFSA ... and now this! Wild, Straif and Guyton continue to attack - they don't see the scandal they have caused - they will not go nor will they retract the glyphosate monograph..."