3 ms·

Is that not a good thing? It's a different matter entirely if Monsanto fed false information to the reporter. But it seems like they're pointing out that the I

Is that not a good thing? It's a different matter entirely if Monsanto fed false information to the reporter. But it seems like they're pointing out that the IARC ignored scientific data and published an opinion on glyphosate contrary to the scientific consensus and every other regulator body. If the IARC's conclusions were flawed, Monsanto should be pointing it out. I'm also not sure why you'd need internal Monsanto emails to know that Monsanto is the source, since the Reuters article itself says Monsanto is the source about midway through.

sgift 7y ago
The IARC didn't "ignore scientific data", they came to a different conclusion based on weighting multiple studies available against each other than the one Monsanto would have preferred. It is precisely the job of the IARC to find a scientific consensus based on the available data and publish it. Monsanto on the other hand used Reuters to spread FUD about the IARC. A strategy right out of the cigarette industries playbook.
- nearbuy 7y ago
  > they came to a different conclusion based on weighting multiple studies available against each other than the one Monsanto would have preferred They also came to a different conclusion than every single other national and international agency on glyphosate. Which is why I'm inclined to believe the IARC is wrong here. Monsanto bribing or corrupting the scientists from every other agency studying glyphosate across many countries and the IARC being the only bastion of honest scientists is, in my opinion, pretty much impossible. If you read the Reuters article, it's quite specific about what the IARC removed from their earlier draft. For example, "In further discussion of the same 1983 study, IARC’s final published report refers to expert pathologists on a panel commissioned to reanalyze the work of the original investigators. The IARC draft notes that these pathologists “unanimously” agreed with the original investigators that glyphosate was not related to potentially precancerous tissue growths in the mice. IARC’s final report deletes that sentence. Reviewing a second mouse study, the IARC draft included a comment saying the incidence of a type of animal cancer known as haemangiosarcoma was “not significant” in both males and females. IARC’s published monograph, by contrast, inserts a fresh statistical analysis calculation on the data in male mice, and concludes that the findings were statistically significant." The IARC's final report removed the conclusion from every study finding that glyphosate was not carcinogenic (compared to the IARC's draft that was leaked to Reuters). That sounds like they're ignoring scientific data.

sgift 7y ago

The IARC didn't "ignore scientific data", they came to a different conclusion based on weighting multiple studies available against each other than the one Monsanto would have preferred. It is precisely the job of the IARC to find a scientific consensus based on the available data and publish it. Monsanto on the other hand used Reuters to spread FUD about the IARC. A strategy right out of the cigarette industries playbook.

nearbuy 7y ago
> they came to a different conclusion based on weighting multiple studies available against each other than the one Monsanto would have preferred They also came to a different conclusion than every single other national and international agency on glyphosate. Which is why I'm inclined to believe the IARC is wrong here. Monsanto bribing or corrupting the scientists from every other agency studying glyphosate across many countries and the IARC being the only bastion of honest scientists is, in my opinion, pretty much impossible. If you read the Reuters article, it's quite specific about what the IARC removed from their earlier draft. For example, "In further discussion of the same 1983 study, IARC’s final published report refers to expert pathologists on a panel commissioned to reanalyze the work of the original investigators. The IARC draft notes that these pathologists “unanimously” agreed with the original investigators that glyphosate was not related to potentially precancerous tissue growths in the mice. IARC’s final report deletes that sentence. Reviewing a second mouse study, the IARC draft included a comment saying the incidence of a type of animal cancer known as haemangiosarcoma was “not significant” in both males and females. IARC’s published monograph, by contrast, inserts a fresh statistical analysis calculation on the data in male mice, and concludes that the findings were statistically significant." The IARC's final report removed the conclusion from every study finding that glyphosate was not carcinogenic (compared to the IARC's draft that was leaked to Reuters). That sounds like they're ignoring scientific data.