Investigation

"In order to save glyphosate, the Monsanto corporation has undertaken an effort to destroy the United Nations' cancer agency by any means possible. Le Monde started the Monsanto papers, resulting in a dozen investigative articles exploring the many strategies used by Monsanto to interfere with science, influence the regulatory process and orchestrate PR campaigns to defend their products. "

 

These two articles uncover how Monsanto actively tried to undermine the credibility of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. 

 

https://www.europeanpressprize.com/article/monsanto-papers/

 

The Monsanto Papers: Roundup (Glyphosate) Cancer Case Key Documents & Analysis

The collection of documents known as The Monsanto Papers or The Monsanto Secret Documents are available, here, and explained in detail. Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman is one of the leading law firms representing people across the nation in lawsuits against Monsanto. These personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits claim that exposure to the herbicide weed killer, Roundup, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

 

https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/

 

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/

We’ve already been through the Monsanto Papers, and Gary Ruskin and his activist USRTK group is funded by the Organic Consumer’s Association, a group with a vested interest in banning Glyphosate since they see this as a way to undermine the established widespread success of transgenic crops and boost the sales of organic crops.

And I’ve already linked to the ambulance chaser’s web site and referenced some of their exhibits. So you’re just repeating a lot of what we’ve already been through.

I have little use for the IARC, which does t even assess risk - it assesses hazard. The IARC has its own scandal to worry about: the Portier Papers.

https://risk-monger.com/2017/10/13/greed-lies-and-glyphosate-the-portier-papers/

Reuters reports on this: In glyphosate review, WHO cancer agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings

In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC.

In another, a sentence in the draft referenced a pathology report ordered by experts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It noted the report “firmly” and “unanimously” agreed that the “compound” – glyphosate – had not caused abnormal growths in the mice being studied [but] in the final published IARC monograph, this sentence had been deleted.

Nice.

This is why we don’t look at only a single study or single agency when evaluating a substance, the banning of which would have world-wide negative impact to farmers, consumers and the global ecology.