I can certainly see how government agencies might be slow to update their position when new research comes out. > I'd look at the World Health Organization's I

I can certainly see how government agencies might be slow to update their position when new research comes out. > I'd look at the World Health Organization's IARC report in a different way. A researcher leaked to Monsanto confidential internal drafts of a UN organization's internal deliberations. Think about the implications of that. Whoever leaked that did so precisely in an effort to undermine the final report. Do you think they were otherwise an impartial and objective researcher? Probably not. Yet somehow they made their way onto an IARC panel which makes all effort to control for conflicts of interests, both perceived and real. Implying Monsanto had infiltrated the IARC and other agencies is quite literally a conspiracy theory, and I think in general unlikely. And in this case specifically, wrong. The draft wasn't leaked to Monsanto; it was obtained during legal proceedings. > That sort of influence is exactly how you have things such as the EPA saying glyphosate is perfectly safe at the same time that other countries, such as France, find it necessary to phase out and ultimately completely ban the product. French politicians banned glyphosate based on the IARC's report. That's not a separate data point.