Portier was paid $160K to attack glyphosate by lawyers suing Monsanto.
American NGOs have discovered that Brussels is the ideal place to launch a US lobby campaign. Hippie Go Home!
IARC has continued to slide into an crisis of legitimacy. Recent unethical, biased behaviour has left the agency no longer fit for purpose.
My solution to fix IARC is to pull its funding. As I publish this, the US is proposing to do just that!
IARC says they are transparent – they are not! They say their scientists have no conflicts of interest – they do! They say their scientific methodology is the strongest – no one else agrees. This is hypocrisy!
We know that IARC’s political bias, non-transparency and conflict of interest on glyphosate were bad. But according to a recent publication, it is nothing compared to how bad their activist science was.
Argumentum ad hominem is the tool you use when there is no science on your side. Is that why activists are using it so much today?
As I continue to migrate my site, this is my favourite blog from 2015. It looks at how the pesticide industry is restricted by its internal codes of ethical conduct that will not allow them to attack competitors, while the organic industry and NGOs have no issue with lying and spreading fear about pesticides. Industry (and society) will lose, but with integrity!
This is the first blog on IARC’s glyphosate monograph – a year later, we see how Portier has poisoned the well of cooperation between scientific assessment agencies.
Some counter-intuitive thinking. Maybe industry has alternatives to glyphosate that farmers and regulators don’t want. Maybe the NGOs and MEPs are acting as Monsanto shills?
IARC has not behaved like an international scientific agency within the WHO, but more like an NGO activist agency. Their glyphosate Working Group was driven by an activist scientist and since the publication, IARC has been attacking other scientific agencies that have roundly rejected their findings. IARC has been unprofessional, untransparent and unscientific. They need to retract their monograph on scientific and ethical grounds.
IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer) has fallen to a new low on any scale of research integrity. Yesterday it used an anti-industry, anti-pesticides journalist to defend its position on the glyphosate monograph against claims made by scientists, institutions, governments and the media (including this blog). The day after the release of the…