5 ms·
Science? "Reuters found 10 significant changes that were made between the draft chapter on animal studies and the published version of IARC’s glyphosate assess
by pnw_hazor 7y ago
Science?
"Reuters found 10 significant changes that were made between the draft chapter on animal studies and the published version of IARC’s glyphosate assessment. In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumours was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one. Reuters was unable to determine who made the changes."
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- probably_wrong 7y agoAnd Monsanto has also been accused of ghostwriting papers supporting its position. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-...
- klmr 7y agoIt’s worth noting that these reviews were written in response to the ethically questionable and misleading IARC review. They did not impact the prevailing expert opinion, formed before the IARC review, that Roundup is generally safe and that there’s no systematic evidence suggesting its carcinogenicity.
- lordlimecat 7y agoEuropean Agri agencies as well as UN agencies say glyphosate is safe. Are we to assume a global conspiracy here, with Monsanto playing the part of the Bond villain?