Monsanto Demands Retraction for WHO’s Glyphosate Cancer Connection
A non-regulatory division of WHO called International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) just announced that glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide – is a probable human carcinogen. While that may seem like a tepid statement, it comes after a decision based on the view of 17 experts from 11 countries who recently met in Lyon, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of 5 organophosphate pesticides.
Even though Europe is set to re-approve glyphosate use next year, Monsanto company is “outraged” at the finding and its publicity.
It is using the technique “deny, deny, deny” and is demanding a retraction….
Monsanto’s aggressive response to the findings might be due to reports of stocks dropping by 1.9% on Monday following the IARC report.
Dr. Robb Fraley, Monsantos Chief Technology Officer, who expressed the flabbergast and outrage in a recent statement claims that it flies in the face of decades of “comprehensive safety reviews” and calls the announcement a cherry-picking of data with an agenda-driven bias. He rests all the weight on regulatory status but doesn’t mention that the regulatory agencies rest approval based on company statements.
After much hypocritical condemnation of IARC and accusations of causing confusion, Fraley reveals the kicker:
“IARCs process is not transparent…”
Monsanto really had nearly two decades of a heyday (and stock increases) with glyphosate approval. At first the EPA found a cancer risk based on animal experiments and then changed their tune with a nod of approval since the early 1990s.
Ultimately, the “yea or nay” rests with the EPA who will look at the IARC report as part of their review process, but will no doubt approve glyphosate anyway despite so many alarming independent studies that warn of devastating effects to humans. Just one found glyphosate to be implicated as a breast cancer cause at the parts per trillion range.
Monsanto’s chief, Hugh Grant – like the perfect deflector – admitted for the first time that ‘hubris’ could be responsible for consumer backlash against GMOs and GMO accessories. Not quite…
Make a product that doesn’t kill people and the land – then we’ll all sit down and talk about attitudes and perceptions.