IARC's program assesses the hazard of whether chemicals can cause cancer in humans, using studies wherein high doses were fed or injected into rats and mice to see whether they would develop tumors.
On the other hand, EPA's risk assessments sometimes rely on industry-funded studies, and at best examine whether long-term threat pesticides and herbicides pose danger based on expected relatively low levels of exposure for humans and animals.
IARC's finding that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic unleashed a wave of lawsuits over its continued use. Monsanto filed suit after California regulators (specifically the California Carcinogen Identification Commission) sought to require a mandatory warning of the potential cancer threat on the packaging label for Roundup, a move the company said would needlessly scare away customers. Numerous agribusiness groups, largely in the Midwest and largely growers of corn, soybeans, and wheat, have joined in Monsanto's suit to block California's move.
Monsanto said a few days ago that IARC's findings are an "outlier" (or a kind of exception to the rule or isolated anomalous and irrelevant study ) when compared to what scores of other studies and regulators around the world have found.
"We're pleased that serious questions are being asked about the discredited IARC opinion and the real harm it is causing to American farmers," said Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy.
The Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog association, has published data showing that Monsanto spent more than $4.3 million in spending during 2017 on federal lobbying. The company's executives and political action committee made about $600,000 in federal political donations during the 2016 election cycle, with the bulk of the cash going to farm-state Republicans!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From Stephen Fox, a personal comment:
This is all quite monstrous and unbelievable, an international embarrassment that this House Committee would play tunes written by Monsanto.
I will always have much more faith in the WHO and its cancer research arm than I ever would over the next 10 million years in Monsanto and its apparatchiks and goon squads, no matter how highly placed they were in several administrations.
Republicans cutting off the funding to WHO cancer research is adolescent, like a child throwing a tantrum and threatening to take his toys and going home.... If this story gets out to the world perhaps via Reuters New Agency, especially to the nations that have already banned or partially banned Roundup, it will make the USA look more stupid and more oblivious it is to consumers than it already has been appearing as of late to the rest of the world.
We require experts in this world of science and technology, but
if you don't like what an expert tells you, or what a Judge, for example, tells
you, do you really have the right to say "I don't like this pronouncement, so I
am not paying you?" You certainly couldn't do that in a court of law without risking a charge of Contempt of Court!
Monsanto's appeal of the ruling by the California
Carcinogen Identification Commission about a year ago was essentially based on atrociously stupid legal arguments, because it
was almost entirely based on the fact that the researchers were French. That appeal got thrown out of court in Fresno District Court as specious, so the Monsanto Executives ganged up
with their drone agricultural organizations in the farming states to sue California.
I don't see that going anywhere, judicially.
You would think those high priced Monsanto corporate lawyers would be able to come up with more cogent and incisive legal arguments, but alas, no, they can't, but they do understand how to manipulate Congress, yet are still using the same dumb arguments, maybe a bit stronger or better orchestrated, with conferences of lawyers at Monsanto that cost the company even more millions.
Incidentally as an aside: Why in the world would Bayer continue to want to acquire Monsanto? Their situation gets worse and worse, as it becomes more and more absurd.
So now their next step was to find pressure points in Congress to threaten to cut off funding, and Lamar Smith seems to have become their willing and able partner. WHO executives and researchers is without a doubt rolling their eyes in contempt and the member states will pony up to make up for the US contributions, if this successfully goes through the Congress. I do believe that less corporate-connected and wiser Congress Members than Lamar Smith will prevail, however.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
