This has been coming for quite a while. The IARC seems to have its own agenda and it isn't always based on scientific integrity.
Good start for those who want to know what's been going on should check out David Zaruk's site. He's been following the machinations at the IARC (NGO activist engagement) for quite a while.
"...IARC is a mess. They do not represent a balanced membership of the research community (for their 50th anniversary event, of the 1000 guests, not a single cancer researcher from industry was invited). Rather than retract their biased glyphosate monograph, they have attacked other science institutions like EFSA and the German BfR; they have publicly criticised scientists, they have allowed an activist from the Environmental Defense Fund to advise their panel and campaign on their behalf, they have provided data to journalists to attack EFSA ... and now this!
Wild, Straif and Guyton continue to attack - they don't see the scandal they have caused - they will not go nor will they retract the glyphosate monograph..."
Asked about its actions, the agency told Reuters on Tuesday it was seeking to protect its work from external interference and defending its panels' freedom to debate evidence openly and critically.
Scientific studies in the public interest conducted by an organization like that should be open. Outside groups should be given the opportunity to verify your results. That's how science evolves.
I'm not arguing that the IARC made the right scientific call on this monograph, and in fact I think they are likely to be wrong since so many other organizations disagree. However, I think it's absolutely essential to protect the private deliberations in science.
What should be open is the final reasoning, the results and data that go into a conclusion. But the process of getting there should allow people to make all sorts of mistakes until they get it right, without facing undue scrutiny during that process.
There are far too many biased groups that will take any indication of a simple arithmetic error that gets corrected as a sign of corruption or manipulation.
In mathematics, a proof shows all the work, but you don't have to show all your failed attempts until you get to a proof. I don't think that these scientists should be treated differently.
>Asked about its actions, the agency told Reuters on Tuesday it was seeking to protect its work from external interference and defending its panels' freedom to debate evidence openly and critically.
Its the same idiotic rationale put forth by the FED and every other corrupt organization that wants to hide corruption, crime, and malfeasance. Even in cases where there are "legitimate" concerns about the sensitivity of released information (which isn't the case with the WHO), those concerns always pale in comparison to the benefits of transparency. Nobody should accept this sort of behavior from any organization that accepts any public funding or has influence over any public policy.
Glyphosate was discovered by Monsanto and is one of the main components of roundup but it's not patent protected anymore and it's used in one form or another globally in 100's if not 1000's of herbicide products. So I don't understand why the focus on Monsanto other than it's an "evil" name that is more or less known.
This is also a weird request since the documents release was requested due to the fact that this was found to be unsafe, even tho quite a few other bodies found it to be generally safe even at pretty darn high doses (2000-5000mg/kg) including the EU Food Safety Agency which is a pretty strict organization.
Why does that make a difference? Monsanto makes $15 billion in revenue a year directly or indirectly from its glyphosate sales. They also sell GMOs that are glyphosate resistant, so they are helped by glyphosate sales whether it's sold by them or not.
Seeds and genomics $10,243 million 68.3%
Agricultural productivity $4,758 million 31.7%
[1]
So why is it a weird request? To me it seems logical that the industry wanted to know how the WHO came to its conclusion, exactly because those other bodies all came to a conclusion which was the opposite of the WHO's.
With "connections with “the Koch brothers, Art Pope and other conservative donors seeking to expand their political influence."
"The Guardian has described E&E Legal/the American Tradition Institute as having “a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations"
The IARC has long since undermined their credibility with scientists, and I worry that their agenda driven publications will impact good work done by the WHO.
Injecting agendas into scientific reviews poisons the well of trust, and trust is half the battle when working to combat disease in foreign countries. The WHO really needs to reign in the IARC and soon.
[+] [-] CapTVK|9 years ago|reply
Good start for those who want to know what's been going on should check out David Zaruk's site. He's been following the machinations at the IARC (NGO activist engagement) for quite a while.
https://risk-monger.com
He also microblogs at his facebook site https://www.facebook.com/riskmonger/posts/550309911838746:0
"...IARC is a mess. They do not represent a balanced membership of the research community (for their 50th anniversary event, of the 1000 guests, not a single cancer researcher from industry was invited). Rather than retract their biased glyphosate monograph, they have attacked other science institutions like EFSA and the German BfR; they have publicly criticised scientists, they have allowed an activist from the Environmental Defense Fund to advise their panel and campaign on their behalf, they have provided data to journalists to attack EFSA ... and now this! Wild, Straif and Guyton continue to attack - they don't see the scandal they have caused - they will not go nor will they retract the glyphosate monograph..."
[+] [-] finid|9 years ago|reply
Scientific studies in the public interest conducted by an organization like that should be open. Outside groups should be given the opportunity to verify your results. That's how science evolves.
[+] [-] epistasis|9 years ago|reply
What should be open is the final reasoning, the results and data that go into a conclusion. But the process of getting there should allow people to make all sorts of mistakes until they get it right, without facing undue scrutiny during that process.
There are far too many biased groups that will take any indication of a simple arithmetic error that gets corrected as a sign of corruption or manipulation.
In mathematics, a proof shows all the work, but you don't have to show all your failed attempts until you get to a proof. I don't think that these scientists should be treated differently.
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|9 years ago|reply
Its the same idiotic rationale put forth by the FED and every other corrupt organization that wants to hide corruption, crime, and malfeasance. Even in cases where there are "legitimate" concerns about the sensitivity of released information (which isn't the case with the WHO), those concerns always pale in comparison to the benefits of transparency. Nobody should accept this sort of behavior from any organization that accepts any public funding or has influence over any public policy.
[+] [-] Retric|9 years ago|reply
They are being attacked simply for taking a while to decide an issue.
[+] [-] dogma1138|9 years ago|reply
This is also a weird request since the documents release was requested due to the fact that this was found to be unsafe, even tho quite a few other bodies found it to be generally safe even at pretty darn high doses (2000-5000mg/kg) including the EU Food Safety Agency which is a pretty strict organization.
[+] [-] colordrops|9 years ago|reply
Why does that make a difference? Monsanto makes $15 billion in revenue a year directly or indirectly from its glyphosate sales. They also sell GMOs that are glyphosate resistant, so they are helped by glyphosate sales whether it's sold by them or not.
Seeds and genomics $10,243 million 68.3%
Agricultural productivity $4,758 million 31.7% [1]
[1] http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/05/26/how-much-money-does...
[+] [-] misja111|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kafkaesq|9 years ago|reply
The article doesn't seem unduly Monsanto in any case.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] acqq|9 years ago|reply
"Energy & Environment Legal Institute"
http://www.desmogblog.com/energy-environment-legal-institute
With "connections with “the Koch brothers, Art Pope and other conservative donors seeking to expand their political influence."
"The Guardian has described E&E Legal/the American Tradition Institute as having “a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations"
[+] [-] searine|9 years ago|reply
Injecting agendas into scientific reviews poisons the well of trust, and trust is half the battle when working to combat disease in foreign countries. The WHO really needs to reign in the IARC and soon.
[+] [-] YeGoblynQueenne|9 years ago|reply
>> "The public deserves a process that is guided by sound science, not IARC's secret agendas," he said.
It's great to see a big player like Monsanto advocating for open science.
/deadpan
[+] [-] edem|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fiahil|9 years ago|reply
Hey America, Europe is not a country.
[+] [-] detaro|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crpatino|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] M_Grey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c0nducktr|9 years ago|reply
It doesn't appear that they have released information on the actual studies at this time.
[+] [-] shapiromatron|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] losteverything|9 years ago|reply
That's right.