Scientists working for law firms got IARC to hold panels to help them sue industry.
IARC’s recent letter to the US Congress showed six different ways to lie.
Europe’s failure to renew a safe, beneficial herbicide is a clarion call to reassess the illegitimate, hazard-based precautionary principle.
IARC is a sinking battleship. Should its captain go down with it, or resign and let others try to save it?
Portier was paid $160K to attack glyphosate by lawyers suing Monsanto.
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.
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.