Roland Solecki, the head of pesticide safety at the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), gave the Süddeutsche Zeitung an honest interview on glyphosate.
Commissioner Andriukaitis left it to the JRC to assess the neonic ban. Conclusion: the 2013 ban was a failure. Time to retract!
EFSA was deceived by activist scientists who hid their conflicts of interest to get onto the bee WG and shape regulatory guidance.
EFSA moved the goalposts to ban neonics. They seemed to have scored an own goal!
In 2014 the European Commission banned 3 neonics. Its decision was based on activist science gaming EFSA and bias within DG Sanco (Santé). Nobody cared.
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.
Next week, the European Council will consider the European Commission’s last-ditch compromise effort to reauthorise the widely used herbicide, glyphosate. It won’t go well.
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.
Today an American media source contacted me to cover the story on this week’s censoring of my IARCgate blog. He wanted to have a short paragraph to explain the situation with IARC’s glyphosate scandal and why it is important. After sending him about two pages, where I tried to exclude many of the more complicated…
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…