In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a report declaring that the popular herbicide glyphosate is a "probable carcinogen." The agency's conclusion contradicts the view of every respected scientific body that has weighed in on the issue, and experts have long argued that IARC is sympathetic to anti-chemical activists who erroneously believe that glyphosate is toxic.
Just last week, it came to light that one of the experts on IARC's glyphosate panel, Chris Portier, was a paid consultant to lawyers who are suing Monsanto and is, in fact, not even an expert on glyphosate. Moreover, the 2015 report intentionally excluded research that contradicts IARC's conclusion that the herbicide is carcinogenic, according to Reuters.
On this episode of the show, science writer Jon Entine joins me to discuss this example of blatant corruption and secrecy at IARC and what it means for the debate around biotechnology and agriculture. Entine is the founder of the Genetic Literacy Project, an effort "to promote public awareness and constructive discussion of genetics, biotechnology, evolution and science literacy." He is also the author of two bestselling books, and his work has appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and the Washington Post.
Visit Jon's website and follow him on Twitter.
Let Them Eat Precaution: How Politics is Undermining the Genetic Revolution in Agriculture
Greed, Lies and Glyphosate: The Portier Papers
In glyphosate review, WHO cancer agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings
European Food Safety Authority's glyphosate page