IARC int'l agy for Res on Cancer

yikes target 819=<div>=</div><div>no lnx in orfig (monsanto tag]</div><div><a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/10/monsantos-triumph-over-junk-science/">
</a></div><div><a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/10/monsantos-triumph-over-junk-science/">https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/10/monsantos-triumph-over-junk-science/</a></div><div>LAW_CRIMEMONSANTOIllustration on resisting junk science by Linas Garsys/The Washington TimesCOMMENTARYBy Tiger Joyce - - Monday, October 10, 2022OPINION:[note no cya caveats]One of the country’s most vilified companies prevailed in a recent jury trial against sympathetic witnesses in the “judicial hellhole®” that is the 21st Judicial District of Missouri. The story of how the truth won out over an elaborate scheme cooked up by junk scientists and the trial bar is worth exploring.All 10 jurors in that St. Louis courtroom sided with Monsanto after a month of testimony that opened with plaintiffs brought to tears as they recalled the horror of learning of their diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a severe form of cancer. Expert witnesses testified that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s signature Roundup weedkiller, was to blame for triggering the disease.The trial bar successfully monetized the same argument in June 2020, to the tune of over $10 billion in settlements and verdicts. Yet more trials are underway, featuring a long list of victims of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who were attracted by a $60 million advertising campaign holding out the hope of “substantial compensation.”But the St. Louis case fell apart under cross-examination as their expert witnesses proved less than credible. One of those expert witnesses, William Sawyer, advertised on his LinkedIn resume that he was a “board-certified toxicologist.” But when confronted on the stand, was forced to admit he was unable to obtain certification from the American Board of Toxicology after twice failing the required exam. Mr. Sawyer then turned to Robert O’Block, founder of the American College of Forensic Examiners, who supplied an appropriate diploma. However, Mr. O’Block was so willing to certify any paying customers that some reports say he once certified a cat. Mr. Sawyer’s “career” as a full-time expert witness in glyphosate product liability trials has made him a millionaire. Billing $785 an hour, he’s collected $2.5 million from his testimony in four Roundup trials.But at least Mr. Sawyer had academic training in toxicology. By contrast, fellow expert witness Charles Benbrook testified about glyphosate’s health effects despite having no training in medicine, chemistry or epidemiology. Mr. Benbrook, an economist, took a physics course in college — that’s the sum of his formal education in the sciences.Mr. Benbrook runs the Heartland Health Research Alliance (HHRA), which produces studies linking cancer to herbicides such as Roundup, as well as competing herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D. His studies are likely laying the groundwork for a future lawsuit against those products. The trial bar values Mr. Benbrook’s endeavors, rewarding him $1.3 million for his testimony in addition to his $220,000 salary. The trial bar not only provides funding to Mr. Benbrook’s nonprofit, scientific research organization, but it also provides management direction. HHRA’s vice chair, Robin Greenwald, is a partner at Weitz & Luxenberg — one of the many firms suing Monsanto.Trial lawyers funding and managing the organization producing “scientific” studies cited as evidence in a trial is a clear conflict of interest. But conflicts of interest aren’t new to Mr. Benbrook. A few years ago, he was caught coordinating his academic work with outside interests, forcing the New England Journal of Medicine to update a paper it published to reveal Mr. Benbrook’s previously undisclosed funding from litigators and the organic food industry. In April, Cornell University microbiologist Kathleen Hefferon pointed out that another scientific journal article co-authored by Mr. Benbrook violated clear ethical standards for peer review.There’s a reason the trial bar turned to individuals with dubious credentials and a loose appreciation of ethical norms — the truth simply isn’t on their side.Environmental safety agencies in the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the European Union have spent decades reviewing the health impacts of glyphosate. All agree that no credible evidence exists linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.But one outlier organization says otherwise. An advisory group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) deemed glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen.” In 2017, a senior scientist on that IARC panel testified critical evidence favorable to glyphosate had been withheld and would likely have changed IARC’s conclusion. The panel, however, was run by Christopher Portier, a scientist who received $160,000 from litigators and worked under the direct supervision of Ms. Greenwald.It seems that most evidence against Monsanto was produced by individuals under the direct financial sway of litigators.It’s a tribute to the resilience of our judicial system that a set of brave jurors stood for the truth in this instance, but it’s also a warning. Judges and state legislatures across the country must implement reforms to align expert evidence standards with those set forth by the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court. This will ensure jurors hear only evidence reflecting the true consensus of the scientific community and not unproven conclusions of paid litigation “experts.” Ultimately, the onus falls on individual judges to prevent lawsuit abuse and junk science in their courtrooms.    Tiger Joyce is president of the American Tort Reform Association. note no coi disclosures]=</div>=<div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 27px;"><div data-hveid="CAMQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFSgAMAN6BAgDEAA" style=""><div class="rc" style="position: relative;"><div class="r" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; line-height: 1.57;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-flex; max-width: 100%; line-height: 1.3;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><div class="ellip" style="overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjADegQIAxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">Glyphosate-gate: IARC's Scientific Fraud | American Council on ...</a></div></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="display: inline-block; line-height: 1.57; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 1px;"><cite class="iUh30 bc" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px; line-height: 1.5;">https://www.acsh.org › news › 2017/10/24 › glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientifi...</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=forbes+zaruck+iarc&oq=forbes+zaruck+iarc&aqs=chrome..69i57.10631j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b3" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQ7B0wA3oECAMQAw" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQqR8wA3oECAMQBA" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:70xHavLjncMJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:70xHavLjncMJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQIDADegQIAxAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); max-width: 48em; line-height: 1.57;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:70xHavLjncMJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:70xHavLjncMJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQIDADegQIAxAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Oct 24, 2017 - Thanks largely to the investigative work of David Zaruk on Science ... The Economist, Forbes, Scientific American, and USA Today, where he ...</a></div><div data-base-uri="/search" id="ed_1" data-ved="2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQ2Z0BMAN6BAgDEAc" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="g" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 27px;"><div data-hveid="CAAQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFSgAMAR6BAgAEAA"><div class="rc" style="position: relative;"><div class="r" style="margin: 0px; line-height: 1.57;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-flex; max-width: 100%; line-height: 1.3;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><div class="ellip" style="overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQFjAEegQIABAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">IARC's Game of Chicken with Congress | American Council on ...</a></div></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="display: inline-block; line-height: 1.57; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 1px;"><cite class="iUh30 bc" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px; line-height: 1.5;">https://www.acsh.org › news › 2017/11/08 › iarcs-game-chicken-congress-...</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=forbes+zaruck+iarc&oq=forbes+zaruck+iarc&aqs=chrome..69i57.10631j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b4" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQ7B0wBHoECAAQAw" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQqR8wBHoECAAQBA" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dDZXmYdng2EJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:dDZXmYdng2EJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQIDAEegQIABAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 1.57;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dDZXmYdng2EJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:dDZXmYdng2EJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQIDAEegQIABAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Nov 8, 2017 - Meanwhile, IARC's posturing may get its funding pulled. ... by independent blogger David Zaruk, Ph.D., the ethical breaches of IARC environmental ... Forbes - “on many of the most critical issues of our time, the “progressive” ...</a></div></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dDZXmYdng2EJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:dDZXmYdng2EJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQIDAEegQIABAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://science.house.gov//imo/media/doc/02.06.18%20-%20Spinning%20Science%20and%20Silencing%20Scientists_0.pdf?1">https://science.house.gov//imo/media/doc/02.06.18%20-%20Spinning%20Science%20and%20Silencing%20Scientists_0.pdf?1</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">2/18 house</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">key Players. The individuals listed below are some of the key players mentioned in the internal Monsanto emails and records cited in this report. Brief descriptions of their affiliation with Monsanto and their activities surrounding glyphosate are summarized below.  John Acquavella: Former Monsanto Company Scientist, Paid Monsanto Consultant. Currently works as a Consultant/Professor Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University.  </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Bruce Chassy: Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition and Monsanto grant recipient. Chassy helped organize writing campaigns to scientific journals criticizing studies on glyphosate at Monsanto’s request and runs a nonprofit called Academics Review that Monsanto reportedly helped to establish to provide an “independent” voice supporting glyphosate and other issues of interest to Monsanto.  Donna R. Farmer: Monsanto’s lead toxicologist and a Monsanto employee since 1991.  </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A. Wallace (“Wally”) Hayes: Former Editor-in-Chief for Vision and Strategy at Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, which, during his tenure, published and retracted the Seralini rat study. Reportedly was paid $16,000 by Monsanto in a consulting contract.  </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">William F. Heydens: Currently Monsanto’s Product Safety Assessment Strategy Lead.  Larry Kier: Former Monsanto toxicologist. Authored, “Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations,” which found glyphosate posed no risk to humans.  David J. Kirkland: Monsanto contractor who was a co-author with Larry Kier on the study “Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations.”  </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Henry Miller: Stanford Hoover Institution fellow and former contributor to Forbes. In 2015, Miller published a Forbes article critical of IARC that was solicited–and largely ghostwritten –by Monsanto. Forbes cut ties with Miller and retracted his articles when they discovered his failure to disclose ties with Monsanto.  </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dr. James Parry was a Geneticist at Swansea University in the United Kingdom who was hired by Monsanto in 1999 to evaluate the genotoxicity of glyphosate. Monsanto refused to conduct additional tests at his request and attempted to “move him from his position.”  Eric Sachs: Monsanto Science and Policy lead since 2005; botanist and plant geneticist.  David A. Saltmiras: Former Monsanto Company Toxicology Manager and author on the so-called Greim Study that refuted animal data indicating glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.  </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Gilles-Éric Séralini. French molecular biologist who conducted a study that found rats fed glyphosate-tolerant corn treated with Roundup had an increased risk of developing tumors. The study, published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, was retracted by journal editor and Monsanto contractor A. Wallace Hayes.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">...</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By February 2015, a battle plan to confront what they suspected would be bad news for glyphosate was already underway.6 “We should assume and prepare for the outcome of a 2B rating (possible human carcinogen); a 2A rating (probable human carcinogen) is possible but less likely.” Glyphosate received the 2A rating by IARC. According to several key records unsealed in the multi-district litigation against Monsanto, including the company’s “Preparedness and Engagement Plan for IARC Carcinogen Rating of Glyphosate,” dated February 17, 2015, Monsanto was ready for a fullborne defense of glyphosate when IARC released its Monograph on glyphosate in March 2015.7 The Monsanto attack plan included efforts to “amplify” their message that glyphosate was safe pointing to industry-sponsored studies and industry-placed news stories. They sought to generate industry “outrage” over what they thought would be a 2B rating. They had plans to address these “new allegations” regarding the potential hazard of glyphosate and to “neutralize” the impact. </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">They also sought to “amplify” the “positive” message about glyphosate’s safety via social media platforms including Twitter and Facebook. They turned to industry trade groups, such as CropLife and industry front groups, such as Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review as platforms of support for industry spokespersons. They also sought third-party experts to “blog, op/ed, tweet and/or link, repost, retweet, etc.” They were planning an onslaught of actions to help undermine IARC and to embolden their justifications to dismiss IARC’s scientific findings. They have carried out that battle plan in a consistent and very aggressive manner ever since. Separately from Monsanto’s attacks on IARC they have also tried to wield their influence at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well. In some instances, they have objected to key scientists sitting on EPA science panels reviewing glyphosate’s safety. There have also been questions about other tactics. In May 2017 the EPA’s Office of Inspector General opened “an investigation into reports that an EPA employee may have colluded with Monsanto to conduct a biased review of glyphosate,” according to the IG’s letter announcing the investigation.8 </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Hiring journalists to discredit IARC. </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="">In Monsanto’s effort to discredit IARC, they sought to recruit writers to publish pieces echoing their criticisms of IARC’s process. In February 2015, one month before IARC published their glyphosate monograph that found glyphosate to be a “probable human carcinogen,” Monsanto scientist Eric Sachs reached out to Henry Miller, a Forbes contributor and a Medical Doctor and Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank. Sachs prompted Miller on the desired content of the article, writing, “Ideally, your article would precede the IARC decision. Why not set the table with the weight of scientific evidence before IARC convenes? Then, regardless of what they do, your article will set the state for a science-based response.”18 Miller agreed – and, after a follow-up email, requested a “high quality draft” from Monsanto. 19</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Officials at the company quickly got to work and provided Miller with a draft that was posted on the Forbes website largely unchanged. The article was published on March 17, 2015, with the title: “March Madness from the United Nations.”20 When this ghostwriting was discovered, Miller was fired by Forbes. In a statement to Retraction Watch, a Forbes representative said: “All contributors to Forbes.com sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing. When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed all of his posts from Forbes.com and ended our relationship with him.”21 ...</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dDZXmYdng2EJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:dDZXmYdng2EJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQIDAEegQIABAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dDZXmYdng2EJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:dDZXmYdng2EJ:https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/08/iarcs-game-chicken-congress-12107%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiYjuuvk6TkAhVN2qwKHYQABSQQIDAEegQIABAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a href="https://www.europeanpressprize.com/article/monsanto-papers/">https://www.europeanpressprize.com/article/monsanto-papers/</a><div class="article-intro" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); padding: 3rem 0px 0px; line-height: 1.35; position: relative; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important;">This piece by Stéphane Horel and Stéphane Foucart at Le Monde won the European Press Prize in the category Investigative Reporting in 2018. To see who's been nominated for the 2019 edition, click <a href="https://www.europeanpressprize.com/shortlist-european-press-prize-2019/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">here</a>.

</div><div class="article-text" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px auto; padding: 3rem 0px;"><h2 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.1;">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.</h2>These two articles uncover how Monsanto actively tried to undermine the credibility of the International Agency for Research on Cancer.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.1;">The Monsanto Papers, Part 1 
— Operation: Intoxication.</h2>02/06/2017<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.33; padding: 4rem 4rem 4rem 8rem; margin: 0px; max-width: 50vw;">“We have been attacked in the past, we have faced smear campaigns, but this time we are the target of an orchestrated campaign of an unseen scale and duration.”</blockquote>Christopher Wild’s smile quickly faded. Through the window of the high rise where the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is headquartered, the rooftops of Lyon, France, spread out behind his tall figure. Christopher Wild is the director of the agency so he weighed every word—speaking with a seriousness appropriate for the situation. For the past two years, a blazing onslaught has targeted the institution he is running: the credibility and integrity of IARC’s work are being challenged, its experts are being denigrated and harassed by lawyers, and its finances weakened.For nearly half a century IARC has been charged, under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO), to draw up an inventory of carcinogens. But now the venerable agency is beginning to waver under the assault. The hostilities were launched on a specific date: March 20, 2015. On that day, IARC announced the conclusions of its “<a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/index.php" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Monograph 112</a>“. The findings left the whole world stunned. Unlike the majority of regulatory agencies, IARC declared the most widely used pesticide on the planet to be genotoxic (it causes DNA damage), carcinogenic to animals, and a “probable carcinogen” for humans.The pesticide is glyphosate, the main component of Roundup, the flagship product of one of the world’s most well-known companies: Monsanto. Glyphosate is also the Leviathan of the agrochemical industry. Used for more than 40 years, it is present in no less than 750 products marketed by about 100 companies in more than 130 countries.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Glyphosate, the bedrock of Monsanto</h6>Between 1974, when it was placed on the market, and 2014, the use of glyphosate increased from 3,200 tons to 825,000 tons per year. A dramatic increase that is due to the massive adoption of seeds that are genetically modified to tolerate it – “Roundup Ready” seeds.Of all the agrochemical companies that could be affected by measures to restrict or ban the product, there is one whose very survival is at stake. Monsanto, which developed glyphosate, has made the chemical the bedrock of its economic model. The company has built its fortune selling Roundup and the seeds that go with it.So when IARC announced that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic,” the American firm reacted with unprecedented brutality. In a company statement, it vilified IARC’s work as “junk science”— a selective “cherry-picking” of data, based on an “agenda driven bias,” all leading to a decision made after only “hours of discussion at a one-week meeting”Never before had a corporation so crudely challenged the integrity of an agency under the aegis of the United Nations. The battle was launched—the one taking place in the open at least.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">A year’s work to evaluate the pesticide</h6>Because in its own offices Monsanto was dancing to a completely different tune. The company knew full well that IARC’s evaluation of glyphosate was carried out after a year of work by a group of experts, who then met for several days in Lyon to deliberate. IARC procedures require that the industries affected by the product under review have the right to attend this final meeting.For the evaluation of glyphosate, Monsanto had sent an “observer,” the epidemiologist Tom Sorahan, a professor at the University of Birmingham (UK), whom the company sometimes employs as a consultant. The report he sent to his bosses on March 14, 2015, assured them that everything was done according to the rules.“I found the Chair, sub-chairs and invited experts to be very friendly and prepared to respond to all comments I made,” wrote Mr Sorahan in an email sent to a Monsanto executive. The email appears in the “Monsanto Papers” —a collection of the company’s internal documents that a U.S. court started to make public in early 2017 as part of ongoing lawsuits.“The meeting followed the IARC guidelines,” the observer added. “Dr Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Programme, has an intimate knowledge of the IARC rules and insists these are followed.”<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Counter-attack</h6>The academic scientist, who has not responded to requests from Le Monde, seemed to be very embarrassed by the idea that his name might be associated with Monsanto’s response to the IARC decision: “I do not wish to be referenced in any document from your PA/PR people,” he wrote, though at the same time proposing that he would be “happy to assist in formulating statements that you may wish to make” in the inevitable counter-attack that the company was putting in place.A few months later, the non-American scientists who had been members of the IARC panel on glyphosate all received the <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/349946295/Lettre-de-Hollingsworth-a-Consolato-Maria-Sergi" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">same letter.</a> Sent by Monsanto’s law firm, Hollingsworth, the letter told them to hand over all the files related to their work on “Monograph 112.”Drafts, comments, data tables … everything that had gone through the IARC computer system. “If you decline to provide the files,” the lawyers warned, “we request and instruct you to immediately take all reasonable steps in your power to preserve all such files intact pending formal discovery requests issued via a US Court.”“I found your letter intimidating and noxious,” said one of <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/349947319/Lettre-de-Consolato-Maria-Sergi-a-Hollingsworth#from_embed" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">the scientists in his reply dated November 4, 2016</a>. “I find your approach reprehensive and lacking in common courtesy even by today’s standards.”Pathologist Consolato Maria Sergi, a professor at the University of Alberta in Canada continued: “I consider your letter pernicious because it maliciously seeks to instill some anxiety and apprehension in an independent group of experts.”Lettre de Hollingsworth à Consolato Maria Sergi by LeMonde.fr on <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/349946295/Lettre-de-Hollingsworth-a-Consolato-Maria-Sergi" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Scribd</a> <h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Intimidating maneuvers</h6>U.S. members of the IARC working group are being subjected to even more “intimidating” measures. In the U.S., the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, allows every citizen—under certain conditions—to request access to documents produced by public bodies and their officials: memos, emails, internal reports, etc.According to our information, since November 2015 the law firms Hollingsworth and Sidley Austin have filed five applications to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) alone where two of the group experts are employed.Applications on other scientists have also been made to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA),Texas A&M University and Mississippi State University. Some of these institutions have even been subpoenaed by Monsanto lawyers as part of ongoing glyphosate litigations – and therefore obliged to hand over some of their internal documents.Is the aim of these intimidating maneuvers to silence criticism? World-renowned scientists who are usually open to media requests did not respond to Le Monde’s requests—even for interviews off the record. Some did agree to speak but only from a private line outside office hours.Members of the U.S. Congress do not need to use FOIA to be able to hold federal scientific institutions accountable. Republican Jason Chaffetz, former member of the House of Representatives and former chair of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-09-09-JC-MM-CL-to-Collins-NIH-Doc-Request-Process.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">wrote</a> to Francis Collins, the director of NIH, on September 26,
2016. IARC’s decisions have “generated much controversy and alarm,” he wrote. And despite its “record of controversy, retractions, and inconsistencies,” IARC receives “substantial taxpayer funding” from the NIH.In fact, 1.2 million euros out of IARC’s 40 million euros annual budget comes from a NIH grant. For this reason Jason Chaffetz asked the NIH director for details and justifications of all NIH expenditure related to IARC.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Characters that are almost out of a John Le Carré novel</h6>The same day, the Chaffetz letter was <a href="https://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/ACC-Welcomes-House-Committee-Interest-in-IARC.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">applauded</a> by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). As the U.S. chemical industry’s powerful lobbying organization, of which Monsanto is a member, they “hope that it will shed light on the close and somewhat opaque relationship” between the IARC and American scientific institutions. The chemical lobby had found a valuable ally in Mr. Chaffetz. In March, the former congressman wrote to the head of another federal research organization – the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) – to ask her to account for the research that the institution has funded on the harmful effects of bisphenol A, a compound widely used in some plastics.What better way to neutralize an institution than to cut off its funding? In the months following the publication of “Monograph 112,” CropLife International, the organization that defends the interests of pesticide and seed companies around the world, approached some representatives of the 25 member states of IARC’s governing council to complain about the quality of the agency’s work.Known as “Participating States,” they contribute about 70 percent of IARC’s total budget. According to IARC, at least three of them—Canada, the Netherlands and Australia—were approached. None of them replied to Le Monde’s requests. Throughout 2016, characters who seemed to be almost out of a John Le Carré novel made their appearances in the glyphosate saga. In June, someone who presented himself as a journalist but did not announce or register himself as such attended the conference organized by IARC in Lyon for its fiftieth anniversary.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">The strange Mr. Watts</h6>Prowling among scientists and international civil servants, the man was seeking details about the functioning of IARC, its funding, its monograph program, and so on. A few months later, at the end of October 2016, the man reappeared—this time at the annual conference of the <a href="https://www.ramazzini.org/en/the-institute/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">Ramazzini Institute</a>, a renowned and respected cancer research organization based near Bologna, Italy. Why on Earth the Ramazzini? Perhaps because the Italian institute had announced a few months earlier that it was going to conduct its own carcinogenicity study on glyphosate. Related: <a href="http://www.ehn.org/of_mice_monsanto_and_a_mysterious_tumor-2497173718.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Of mice, Monsanto and a mysterious tumor</a>Christopher Watts – that’s the man’s name – asked questions about the independence of the institute and its funding sources. Because he used an e-mail address that ended “@economist.com,” those he approached did not question his affiliation to the prestigious British weekly, The Economist. To the scientists who did ask for details, he said he worked for the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a consultancy which is a subsidiary of the British press group.The EIU confirmed that Mr. Watts had indeed produced several reports for them but was “unable to confirm in what capacity he attended” the two conferences. “During that time, he was working on a story for The Economist, which ultimately was not published.” Oddly enough, the weekly’s newsroom replied “there’s no one of that name on our staff.”The only thing that seems clear is the name of a company that Mr. Watts created at the end of 2014: Corporate Intelligence Advisory Company. According to the administrative documents, the personal address of Mr. Watts is located in Albania. He did not wish to answer questions from Le Monde.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Intrusive and bureaucratic guerrilla warfare</h6>Within the space of a few months, at least five individuals presented themselves as a journalist, independent researcher or assistant in law firms to approach IARC scientists and researchers involved in IARC’s work. All were seeking very specific information about the agency’s procedures and funding.One of them, Miguel Santos-Neves, works for a New York-based economic intelligence company called Ergo.According to a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/nyregion/investigation-of-conservationist-conducted-on-ubers-behalf-crossed-the-line-judge-rules.html?r=0" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">report in the New York Times</a> in July 2016, he was collared during a U.S. judicial investigation for misrepresenting his identity. On behalf of Uber, Mr. Santos-Neves had investigated a plaintiff who had filed a classaction suit against the company and questioned his professional entourage under false pretenses. Ergo did not respond to Le Monde’s enquiries.Just like Christopher Watts, two sister organizations with nefarious reputations are interested not only in IARC but also in the Ramazzini Institute. The Energy and Environmental Legal Institute (E&E Legal) introduces itself as a non-profit organization, the missions of which include to “hold accountable those who seek excessive and destructive government regulation that’s based on agenda-driven policy making, junk science, and hysteria.”The Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, for its part, says “it seeks to provide a counter-weight to the litigious environmental movement that fosters an economically destructive regulatory regime in the United States.”According to Le Monde, they have initiated no fewer than 17 FOIA requests to the NIH and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Engaged in legal, bureaucratic and intrusive guerrilla warfare, they have demanded the correspondence of several American officials “containing the terms ‘IARC’, ‘glyphosate’, ‘Guyton'” (Kathryn Guyton is the IARC scientist responsible for the “Monograph 112”).They seek the smallest of details on scholarships, grants and other financial and nonfinancial relationships between these American agencies, IARC, some scientists, and the Ramazzini Institute.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">“Let nothing go”</h6>The two organizations are headed by David Schnare, a confirmed climate sceptic who is known for harassing climate scientists. In November 2016, Mr. Schnare temporarily left E&E Legal to join Donald Trump’s transition team. As forSteve Milloy, who is also among the leaders of the organization, he is a wellknown figure in the small world of tobacco industry funded propaganda. When asked about their motivations and sources of funding, the president of E&E Legal replied by email: “Hi, we’re not interested in participating.” The attention on these FOIA requests is amplified by op-eds published in some media outlets.One of them, The Hill, is mandatory reading for every political player in Washington DC. Their authors are a squadron of propagandists that the association US Right to Know (USRTK) has documented as having longstanding ties to agrochemical companies and conservative think tanks, such as the Heartland Institute or the George C. Marshall Institute, both known for their major role in the manufacture of climate skepticism. Their writings expose exactly the same arguments. And sometimes even the same phrases: the “shoddy science” of an IARC ravaged by conflicts of interest and “widely criticized”—yet without ever saying by whom.The lawyers involved in U.S. lawsuits revealed that Monsanto also used more discreet means. Responding under oath to questions from lawyers representing people who attribute their cancer to Roundup, the firm’s executives revealed a confidential program aimed at countering all criticisms and called “Let Nothing Go.”The transcripts of these hearings remain confidential. But memos from the law firms involved allow a little more to be known. They show that Monsanto uses third-party companies that “employ individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry but who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs.”<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">The machine seems to be racing ahead with the advent of Mr. Trump</h6>In recent months, the coalition against IARC has grown. At the end of January 2017, a few days after the inauguration of Donald Trump at the White House, the American Chemistry Council joined its ranks. The U.S. chemical lobby has opened a new front on social networks in the form of a “Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research,” with a dedicated <a href="http://campaignforaccuracyinpublichealthresearch.com/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">website</a> and a <a href="https://twitter.com/The_CAPHR" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Twitter account.</a>Its stated purpose is to obtain a “reform” of the IARC monograph program. The powerful lobbying organization has put aside the kid gloves: “A side of bacon or a side of plutonium? It’s all the same according to IARC.” The tweet goes with a photomontage showing two fluorescent green bars dipping into bacon and eggs on a plate.In October 2015, IARC indeed classified processed meats as “carcinogenic” and red meat as a “probable carcinogen” like glyphosate. Perhaps having privileged access to President Trump’s closest circle provides a feeling of omnipotence to these chemical and agrochemical industries? The chief American lobbyist of the American Chemistry Council, Nancy Beck, taken over as Deputy Assistant Administrator at the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention of the U.S. EPA, the very agency that oversees the re-examination of the glyphosate file.And was not Andrew Liveris, the boss of Dow Chemical, a member of the American Chemistry Council, entrusted by Donald Trump in person to lead the president’s “Manufacturing Jobs Initiative”?The machine seems to be racing ahead with the advent of the Trump era. At the end of March, the Republican Texan Lamar Smith, chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, <a href="https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/sst-committee-probes-niehs-contract-grant-recipients" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">addressed</a> the now former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price. Smith focused his demands on the financial links between the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the Ramazzini Institute in order, he wrote, to “ensure that grant recipients adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity”.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Ignorance and lies</h6>That is all it took for this congressman’s request to become, in the writings of two propagandists called Julie Kelly and Jeff Stier, a “Congress’s investigation” into the “obscure organisation” that is the <a href="http://ignorance%20and%20lies%20that%20is%20all%20it%20took%20for%20this%20congressman%27s%20request%20to%20become%2C%20in%20the%20writings%20of%20two%20propagandists%20called%20julie%20kelly%20and%20jeff%20stier%2C%20a%20%22congress%27s%20investigation%22%20into%20the%20%22obscure%20organisation%22%20that%20is%20the%20ramazzini%20institute.%20published%20shortly%20afterwards%20in%20the%20national%20review%2C%20their%20article%20attacked%20personally%20both%20the%20director%20of%20niehs%20linda%20birnbaum%2C%20accused%20of%20promoting%20a%20%22chemophobic%20agenda%2C%22%20and%20her%20former%20associate%20director%2C%20christopher%20portier%2C%20who%20accompanied%20iarc%27s%20work%20as%20an%20%22invited%20specialist%2C%22%20described%20as%20a%20%22well-known%20anti-glyphosate%20activist.%22%20both%20were%20described%20as%20%22ramazzini%20fellows%22.%20according%20to%20kelly%20and%20stier%2C%20this%20is%20another%20example%20of%20%22how%20science%20has%20been%20politicized.%22%20the%20story%20was%20also%20taken%20up%20by%20others%2C%20including%20breitbart%20news%2C%20the%20farright%20website%20co-founded%20by%20steve%20bannon%2C%20the%20former%20white%20house%20chief%20strategist.%20to%20describe%20the%20institute%20or%20collegium%20ramazzini%20%28the%20two%20are%20confused%20in%20the%20articles%29%20as%20an%20%22obscure%20organization%22%20here%2C%20or%20as%20a%20%22kind%20of%20rotary%20club%20for%20activist%20scientists%22%20elsewhere%2C%20is%20at%20best%20ignorance%20and%20at%20worst%20a%20lie.%20founded%20in%201982%20by%20irving%20selikoff%20and%20cesare%20maltoni%2C%20two%20leading%20figures%20in%20public%20health%2C%20the%20collegium%20ramazzini%20is%20an%20academy%20of%20180%20scientists%20specializing%20in%20environmental%20and%20occupational%20health.%20%EF%88%B0%20%EF%82%99%20%EF%83%92%20%EF%83%A0%20linda%20birnbaum%20and%20christopher%20portier%20are%20%22fellows%22%20of%20the%20collegium.%20and%20so%20are%20the%20head%20of%20the%20iarc%20monographs%20program%20kurt%20straif%2C%20and%20four%20other%20experts%20from%20the%20monograph%20112%20working%20group%2C%20all%20top-flight%20scientists%20in%20their%20respective%20fields./" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Ramazzini Institute.</a> Published shortly afterwards in the National Review, their article attacked personally both the director of NIEHS Linda Birnbaum, accused of promoting a “chemophobic agenda,” and her former Associate Director, Christopher Portier, who accompanied IARC’s work as an “invited specialist,” described as a “well-known anti-glyphosate activist.” Both were described as “Ramazzini fellows”.According to Kelly and Stier, this is another example of “how science has been politicized.” The story was also taken up by others, including Breitbart News, the farright website co-founded by Steve Bannon, the former White House Chief Strategist. To describe the Institute or Collegium Ramazzini (the two are confused in the articles) as an “obscure organization” here, or as a “kind of Rotary Club for activist scientists” elsewhere, is at best ignorance and at worst a lie. Founded in 1982 by Irving Selikoff and Cesare Maltoni, two leading figures in public health, the Collegium Ramazzini is an academy of 180 scientists specializing in environmental and occupational health.Linda Birnbaum and Christopher Portier are “Fellows” of the Collegium. And so are the Head of the IARC Monographs Program Kurt Straif, and four other experts from the Monograph 112 working group, all top-flight scientists in their respective fields.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">“We are not afraid”</h6>The launch of a long-term toxicology study on glyphosate by the Ramazzini Institute in May 2016 has made a target of an organization renowned for its expertise in cancer. The Head of the Research Department of the institute, Fiorella Belpoggi, is one of the few scientists who agreed to speak to Le Monde: “We are few, we have no money, we are just good scientists and we are not afraid.”The attacks on the Ramazzini and the IARC are very unlikely to stop. After glyphosate, other strategic chemicals are on IARC’s list of “priorities” for the period 2014–2019. These include more pesticides and also bisphenol A (BPA) and aspartame. The NIEHS happens to be one of the world’s leading funders of research on the toxicity of BPA. As for aspartame, the study that alerted the world to the carcinogenic properties of this sweetener was carried out several years ago… by the Ramazzini Institute.“I hadn’t realized we were so important before this,” whispered Fiorella Belpoggi, “but if you get rid of IARC, NIEHS and the Ramazzini Institute, you get rid of three symbols of independence in science.” A type of science that has become a threat to economic interests worth hundreds of billions of euros.In order to save glyphosate, the Monsanto corporation has undertaken an effort to destroy the
United Nations’ cancer agency by any means possible.<h4 style="margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Here is part two of an investigation from Le Monde.</h4>They had promised it was “safer than table salt” – but that was in the advertisements. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It is the main ingredient in their flagship product, Roundup, the bedrock on which their firm has built its economic model, its wealth and its reputation. A product which has been on the market for more than 40 years and became a best-seller with the development of genetically-modified seeds called “Roundup Ready.” It is this product, glyphosate, that could in fact be carcinogenic. On March 20, 2015, Monsanto took a major hit. On that day, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate to be genotoxic (it causes DNA damage), carcinogenic for animals, and a “probable carcinogen” for humans. The jury was a group of 17 seasoned experts representing 11 different nationalities who were brought together by this official UN agency, which is responsible for establishing an inventory of carcinogenic substances and whose scientific opinions on the matter have been authoritative for half a century. There was therefore no doubt that this would also be the destiny of their conclusions on glyphosate, published in the form of a report called “Monograph 112.”<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">A declaration of war</h6>Safe from prying eyes, the fury of the U.S. corporation crossed the Atlantic via optical fibre. On the very same day, a message that carried the whiff of a declaration of war was sent to Geneva (Switzerland) to the director of the World Health Organization (WHO), which is IARC’s parent organization.The letterhead sported the famous little green branch framed by an orange rectangle: the Monsanto logo. “It is our understanding that IARC participants purposefully chose to disregard dozens of studies and publicly available regulatory assessments that support the conclusion that glyphosate does not pose a human health risk,” wrote an accusatory Philip Miller, Monsanto’s Vice President of Global Regulatory and Governmental Affairs. Among the points that he wanted to be discussed in an “urgent meeting” were what “steps can be immediately taken to rectify this highly questionable review and conclusion,” the selection criteria for the experts, and even “an accounting of all funding for the classification of glyphosate by IARC, including donors.” The roles had switched: it was now the international organization that had to be accountable to the company.Throughout the summer of 2015, CropLife International—the lobby organization of the agrochemical sector in which Monsanto is a member—took over the<a href="https://fr.scribd.com/document/349945700/Lettre-de-Monsanto-a-l-OMS" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;"> intimidation by</a> letter. Intrusive demands jostled with veiled threats.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">IARC, a stronghold of independence and integrity</h6>IARC has seen it all before. Not for the first time is it the target of criticisms and attacks —those are commensurate with the agency’s reputation. Although IARC’s evaluations do not have any regulatory value, they can sometimes threaten huge commercial interests.<a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/industry/who_inquiry/en/" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">The most documented attack </a>concerns passive smoking, which was evaluated by IARC at the end of the 1990s. But even in the heyday of confrontations with Big Tobacco, the weapons used were relatively tame. “I have been working for IARC for 15 years and I have never seen anything like what has been happening in the past two years,” confided Kurt Straif, Head of the agency’s Monographs Program.It would be difficult to make IARC look like a controversial agency, contested within the scientific community itself and driven by an “anti-industry” bias. For the <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1409149/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">overwhelming</a> majority of scientists in the academic world—cancer specialists or public health researchers—the agency represents a stronghold of independence and integrity. “I honestly have trouble imagining a more rigorous and objective way to proceed towards collective scientific reviews,” said epidemiologist Marcel Goldberg, a researcher at the French National Institute for Health and Medical research (INSERM), which has participated in the work of several monographs. For each of them, IARC brings together around 20 researchers from different countries, selected not only for their experience and scientific competence but for the absence of any conflicts of interest.Moreover, IARC bases its opinions on studies published in scientific journals and excludes confidential industry-sponsored studies. This is not the case for most regulatory agencies, which—on the contrary—may give decisive weight to studies performed and supplied by the companies whose products are being assessed. Among them is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the official EU agency in charge of assessing risks related to pesticides.In fall 2015, the European Union was to decide whether or not it would renew its authorization for glyphosate for at least another decade. As the basis for that decision, EFSA’s opinion on glyphosate was much-awaited. By November, Monsanto could take a breath. <a href="https://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/press/news/151112" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">EFSA’s conclusions</a> contradicted IARC: EFSA concluded that glyphosate was neither genotoxic nor carcinogenic. Shortly afterwards, Monsanto’s breath was taken way again.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Attack against a scientist</h6>A few weeks later, around a hundred scientists <a href="http://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">severely criticized</a> EFSA’s conclusions in a respected journal, considering them flawed by numerous shortcomings. Behind the initiative was a U.S. scientist who had helped the scientists working on IARC’s monograph as an “invited specialist.”It was on him that the attacks concentrated.In environmental health circles, Christopher Portier is certainly not a nobody. “I have read here and there that Chris Portier has no competence and it’s probably one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard,” said Dana Loomis, the Vice Director of the IARC monographs. “He developed many of the analytic tools that are used everywhere to interpret toxicological studies!” Mr Portier is one of those scientists whose CV does not fit in less than 30 pages.Author of more than 200 scientific publications, he has been Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), director of the U.S. Agency on Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, associate director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and of the National Toxicology Program. “That’s undoubtedly a unique career,” said Robert Barouki, director of a toxicology research unit at INSERM.Newly retired, Christopher Portier now offers his competence as an expert and adviser to several international organizations, including the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a U.S. environmental protection NGO.And it is this man who was to become the target of an attack … On April 18, 2016, the news agency Reuters published a<a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">long article on IARC</a> in which the agency was described as a “semi-autonomous” WHO agency guilty of “confus[ing] consumers.”The article referred to “concerns about potential conflicts of interest at IARC: It involves an adviser to the agency who is closely linked to the Environmental Defense Fund, a U.S. campaign group opposed to pesticides”.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Rants and recriminations</h6>“Critics,” wrote Reuters, “argue that IARC shouldn’t have allowed him to be involved in the assessment of glyphosate.”Remarkable detail: the news agency—which declined to respond to Le Monde— meanwhile quoted three scientists who castigate the institution, without ever mentioning that all three are widely known to be industry consultants. But who are these nameless “critics”? In reality, the criticism of IARC can be traced back to the blog of David Zaruk, a former lobbyist for the chemical industry, who has worked at some point for the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller.In Brusssels, where he is based, Zaruk is infamous for his penchant for insults (the authors of this article have been his targets several times). He was the first to protest against Portier’s conflicts of interest, which he considers undermine IARC’s opinion. And he has persistently flayed the American scientist in the course of no less than twenty long posts around the topic of glyphosate – not to mention his tweets.Related: <a href="http://www.ehn.org/monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-smear-campaign-2509710888.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">The Monsanto Papers, Part 1—Operation: Intoxication</a>Professor Portier is described successively as an “activist”, a “rat”, a “demon”, a “weed”, a “mercenary”, and even a “little shit”, who “wormed his way” into the fruit that is IARC. To him, the agency is like a “scab”, and “the more” he “pick[s] at it”, “the more pus [he sees] coming out” because IARC is “infected by its hubris,” and “infected by politicised activist science” and “infected by anti-industry bias.”Zaruk says he has had “three contacts” with Monsanto but denies he has been remunerated for his writing. “I did not receive a penny for my blogs on glyphosate,” he stated in an email to Le Monde. In April 2017, he published again a diatribe against NGOs, Christopher Portier and several journalists, which he illustrated with a photograph of Nazis burning books on the Opernplatz in Berlin in 1933.Zaruk’s ramblings could have been easily checked and invalidated. But the prestigious guarantee of a Reuters’ article gave the go-ahead to their wide dissemination. Within a few weeks, the accusations of conflicts of interest were transmitted and quoted in The Times of London, the daily The Australian, and in the U.S. in National Review and The Hill under the signature of Bruce Chassy, an emeritus professor of the University of Illinois funded by Monsanto—as confidential documents obtained by the association US Right to Know (USRTK) in September 2015 have shown.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Conflicts of interests</h6>Zaruk’s “work” was also cited in Forbes magazine in an op-ed signed by a biologist affiliated with the Hoover Institution, a think tank close to the Republican party. His name appears in declassified archives of the tobacco industry. At that time, this man would offer to write columns or land media appearances to “communicat[e on] risks and science”. Rates between $5,000 and $15,000.The attacks of the Brussels blogger were also echoed by well-known propaganda websites, such as the American Council on Science and Health and the Genetic Literacy Project. Fed by PR people linked to the pesticides and biotechnology industries, the latter published an article about Christopher Portier and IARC signed by Andrew Porterfield, who <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/351688010/Andrew-Porterfield-LinkedIn-Mai-2017" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">describes himself</a> quite simply as a “communications consultant for the biotechnology industry.”And what about the suggestion that Portier faces conflicts of interest? Did the Environmental Defense Fund—through him—weigh in in favor of IARC’s decision to classify glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen”? “Because he had a link to this organization, Portier had the status of ‘invited specialist’,” explains Kathryn Guyton, IARC’s scientist in charge of Monograph 112. This means that he was consulted by the working group but didn’t contribute to the decision to classify the chemical in one category or the other. Real conflicts of interest however exist—but elsewhere.In May 2016, while the press and the blogosphere were all out in relaying suspicions of malpractice at IARC, it was the turn of another group of UN experts to release their opinion. The Joint Meeting on Pesticides Residues (JMPR), a joint WHO and UN Food and Agriculture (FAO) organization group that rules on risks related to food (and not to exposure via inhalation, skin contact, etc) cleared glyphosate.Almost one year earlier, a coalition of NGOs had warned WHO about conflicts of interest in the JMPR. Three of its members collaborate with the International Life Science Institute (ILSI), a scientific lobby organization financed by major agribusiness, biotechnologies and chemical industries—from Mars to Bayer and from Kellogg to Monsanto.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Serious allegations</h6>Toxicologist Alan Boobis (Imperial College, United Kingdom) was serving as copresident of JMPR but also chair of ILSI’s board of trustees. Angelo Moretto (University of Milano, Italy) was rapporteur in the JMPR while acting as an industry consultant and member of the board of trustees of a structure created by ILSI. Vicky Dellarco, also a member of JMPR, was an industry consultant and a member of various ILSI working groups.JMPR experts are supposedly subjected to the same independence rules—among the strictest in the world—as those applied at IARC, namely the WHO rules. Because it can alter the credibility of the institution and its decisions, an apparent conflict of interest is as serious as an actual conflict of interest. However, questioned by Le Monde, the WHO confirms that “no expert was deemed to have had a conflict of interest preventing their participation in the JMPR.”This answer left Hilal Elver and Baskut Tuncak dissatisfied; they are respectively the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/ToxicWastes/Pages/BaskutTuncak.aspx" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Special UN Rapporteur on right to food</a> and the<a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/ToxicWastes/Pages/BaskutTuncak.aspx" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;"> Special UN Rapporteur</a> on hazardous substances and wastes.“We respectfully call upon WHO to explain how exactly it came to the conclusion that the experts’ ties to industry did not present an apparent or potential conflict of interest under its own rules” is how these two experts reacted when questioned by Le Monde. “Strong, clear and transparent processes for conflicts of interest are essential for the integrity of the system” they said before “encouraging” the organizations of the United Nations to “review” them.These two experts wrote in their report on the right to food that some “serious claims” exist “of scientists being ‘bought’ to re-state industry talking points.” The report, which was handed over to the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2017, also underlined that: “The pesticide industry’s efforts… have obstructed reforms and paralyzed global pesticide restrictions globally.” Throwing discredit on IARC, its working group experts and the quality of the scientific work accomplished—these “efforts” are of strategic importance, even vital necessity, to Monsanto.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Court cases underway in the United States</h6>Close on Monsanto’s heels are several U.S. law firms representing victims or relatives of victims who have died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), a rare cancer that affects white blood cells which they attribute to exposure to glyphosate. For their lawyers, IARC’s Monograph 112 constitutes an essential piece of evidence. For Monsanto, Monograph 112 could weigh heavily on the final verdicts. According to legal documents, the amount of damages and other payments in the U.S. could well amount to billions of dollars for the 800 plaintiffs—a number that will “probably” rise to 2,000 by the end of the year, according to Timothy Litzenburg, a lawyer at The Miller
Firm. Confidential memos, spreadsheets and internal briefs: all in all, ten million pages taken from the boxes in Monsanto’s archives and from entrails of its PCs. This is the amount of documents that the company has been forced to hand over to the court to date. In the U.S., a procedure called “discovery” allows this kind of raid on the adversary’s paperwork.From the mass of scanned documents, released drip by drip, that are the “Monsanto Papers”, the multinational’s response plan emerges. Take this “confidential” PowerPoint document dated March 11, 2015, with slides that develop a strategy of influence in the form of “Scientific Projects.” Among other ideas, a “comprehensive evaluation of carcinogenic potential” of glyphosate by “credible scientists,” and “possibly via Expert Panel Concept” is mentioned. That will be done.In September 2016, a series of six articles appeared in the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology. They exonerated glyphosate. But, as the publication was openly “sponsored and supported” by Monsanto, would anything other than this have been possible?The authors were <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/351691109/Panel-d-experts-Glyphosate-de-Monsanto" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">the sixteen members of the “glyphosate experts panel”</a> to whom Monsanto confided the task to “review the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph on glyphosate.”Their recruitment was delegated to Intertek, a consultancy specialized in the production of scientific material for companies facing regulatory or legal difficulties related to their products. Monsanto and its allies also called on the services of Exponent and Gradient, two other firms engaged in the business of “product defense.”<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">“Glyphosate task force”</h6>The crisis management PowerPoint also envisaged the publication of an article about IARC itself: “How it was formed, how it functions, hasn’t evolved over time, they are archaic and not needed now.” The scientist who was suggested as a possible author has published nothing on the issue so far.However, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230016303038" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">an article</a> that perfectly matches the hostile specifications was published in a minor journal in October 2016. IARC’s system of classification has “become outmoded” and “serve[s] neither science nor society,” wrote the 10 authors. “This is how eating processed meat can fall into the same category as sulfur mustard gas.” IARC’s approach, they said, is at the origin of “health scares, unnecessary economic costs, loss of beneficial products, adoption of strategies with greater health costs, and the diversion of public funds into unnecessary research.”It was a very unusual tone for a scientific journal. This is perhaps because Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology is a special kind of publication. Not only does its editorial board include numerous industry players and consultants but also its editor in chief, Gio Gori, is a well-known figure in the history of the tobacco industry.Owned by the powerful scientific publishing group Elsevier, this is the official journal of a supposedly scholarly society, the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology (ISRTP). No significant information about the society is available on its website and neither Gori nor ISRTP nor Elsevier responded to questions from Le Monde. It has therefore not even been possible to identify anyone in charge – let alone its sources of funding. However, last time ISRTP published its sponsors, in 2008, the list of six included Monsanto.As to the 10 authors of the article, some of them have worked or are currently working for the Swiss group Syngenta, a member of the “glyphosate task force” of the industrial players selling glyphosate products. Some are private consultants. Others are academic scientists and take part in the activities of the scientific lobbying organization, ILSI. Among them are Samuel Cohen, professor of oncology at the university of Nebraska, Alan Boobis, co-president of JMPR, and Angelo Moretto, rapporteur of the same JMPR.<h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">“Shock tactics”</h6>These three scientists pursued the trail. A few months later, they published on the propaganda website called the Genetic Literacy Project, which had relayed the personal attacks against Christopher Portier, a text claiming that IARC “should be abolished.”The agency was accused of fuelling “chemophobia” among the public. If it is not reformed, they wrote, IARC “should be relegated to the regulatory museum where it belongs, along with other historical artifacts, such as the Model T Ford, the biplane, and the rotary dial telephone.”In scientific circles, convention holds that the author of the first draft of a text takes responsibility for any modifications up until the very last corrections. Which one of the authors wrote these two texts—published by the scientific journal and on the Genetic Literacy Project website? “I can’t remember,” replied Alan Boobis when asked by Le Monde, explaining “it was a whole process,” and that the writing had “undergone quite a lot of refinement over the year.”This is “a bit of shock tactic,” acknowledged Boobis. Asked why the article was published on this website, Boobis admitted that the Genetic Literacy Project was not famous for its rigour, but explained that the text was refused by a scientific journal. Their arguments are identical to those of Monsanto and their allies. “This is a very odd position that we’ve reached that any association with industry whatsoever is regarded immediately as an indication of bias, corruption, confounding, distortion or whatever,” answered Boobis.Is the “abolition” of IARC what Monsanto wants? The corporation did not wish to answer Le Monde’s questions.</div>
https://theintercept.com/2019/08/23/monsanto-republicans-cancer-research
EMAILS SHOW MONSANTO ORCHESTRATED GOP EFFORT TO INTIMIDATE CANCER RESEARCHERS

Lee FangAugust 23 2019, 3:00 a.m.IN 2015, the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, classified glyphosate, an active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, as a “probable carcinogen,” setting off a global debate about the world’s most popular weedkiller.
Over the last four years, Republicans in Congress have excoriated and pushed to defund the IARC, casting their defense of the chemical as a quest on behalf of small American farmers. Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., has written that his outrage over the cancer research is on behalf of the “farmers and food manufacturers who rely on traditional farming methods to produce the food that fuels America — and the world.”
But according to a recent trove of documents, the ongoing political assault on the IARC has been scripted in part by Monsanto, the St. Louis-based chemical and seed conglomerate that produces Roundup and Roundup-resistant crops.
Roundup has been cash cow for the company since the 1970s, fueling billions of dollars in annual profits. Its use has skyrocketed in recent decades since the company developed genetically modified corn and other crops that are resistant to it; it is now the world’s leading herbicide.
A growing number of individuals say that Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the dangers of using Roundup and had marketed the chemical spray as harmless to humans, while internally recommending that its own employees use gloves and protective gear. Critics say that the Roundup formula used in the U.S. also contains a surfactant that makes the herbicide far more toxic than the variation of the spray sold in the European market.
Monsanto, which merged with German multinational pharmaceutical company Bayer AG last year, is facing as many as 11,000 cases relating to glyphosate. Last year, Dewayne Johnson, a former groundskeeper now dying of cancer, was the first to win his jury trial in San Francisco state court against Monsanto, alleging that years of using Roundup contributed to his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Johnson was awarded $289 million by a jury, though a judge later reduced the amount to $78 million. Another plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman, also alleged that he spent decades spraying the glyphosate-based weedkiller with little to no protective gear and developed the same blood cancer, won a similar case in federal court this year.
[Plaintiff Dewayne Johnson after hearing the verdict in his case against Monsanto at the Superior Court of California in San Francisco on Aug. 10, 2018. Photo: Josh Edelson, Pool/AP]The newly disclosed files, released by a plaintiff’s law firm, Baum Hedlund, include company emails, documents, and deposition transcripts showing that Monsanto lawyers and lobbyists guided lawmakers, coordinating efforts to question the IARC’s credibility and slash U.S. support for the international body.
The company has denied claims that its products cause cancer, and Monsanto lawyers have declared that Environmental Protection Agency’s designation of glyphosate as safe should clear the company of any legal liability. In a recent marketing campaign, Bayer touted its friendly cooperation with regulators as a sign that the public should have nothing to fear from its products.
But the documents also suggest that the firm has used its influence with lawmakers to antagonize regulators, applying pressure and investigative threats to shape the science used to research glyphosate and other controversial chemical compounds, as part of a larger campaign to silence critics and discredit the IARC.
IN JUNE 2015, Michael Dykes, then serving as Monsanto’s vice president of government affairs, laid out the company’s strategy for “managing the IARC issue,” following the cancer research center’s determination that March.
The company, he wrote in an email, had dispatched its team of lobbyists to brief “key staff at EPA, USTR, USDA, and the State Department as well as members of Congress” to raise concerns with the IARC’s scientific process, and with how the decision could impact agriculture as well as international trade. Lobbyists also met with an official at the Department of Health and Human Services; they saw the agency’s support as key “to secure a WHO clarification.”
Later in the year, Dykes updated the Monsanto team with plans to push back against the IARC, including the possible placement of advertisements — in the form of letters from third-party groups — in Capitol Hill newspapers, as well as preparation to use a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing as a venue to get the EPA to reaffirm support for glyphosate. “We will make sure Committee members ask EPA the glyphosate safety question,” Dykes wrote.
[Roundup weed killing products on May 14, 2019. Photo Illustration: Scott Olson/Getty ImagesThe following year, FTI Government Affairs, one of several consulting firms guiding Monsanto’s political response to the IARC decision, assisted GOP lawmakers with an effort to investigate U.S. support for the IARC.
In one email sent by Todd Rands, a former Monsanto attorney working with FTI, sent a draft of a letter ostensibly written by Rep. Rob Aderholt, R-Ala., a senior lawmaker on the House Appropriations Committee, addressed to Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes for Health. NIH is the government agency responsible for most federal public health research and is the largest funder to the IARC. The letter, in fact, had been written by FTI consultants, along with Rands’s edits, accordingto his deposition testimony.
The FTI-written letter declared that glyphosate “does not cause cancer,” accused the IARC of peddling “bunk science,” and threatened a reassessment of the NIH budget to ensure that the agency is “committed to only funding organizations that produce information and conclusions based on sound science, robust processes, and credible methodology.”
During his deposition, Rands said that he believed it appropriate for Monsanto to draft a letter on behalf of a lawmaker to NIH, calling such ghostwriting a “common practice in Washington.”
It’s not clear what Aderholt’s office did with the FTI-authored letter. Aderholt’s office did not respond to a request for comment from The Intercept. On June 2, 2016, Aderholt sent a letter to NIH to request a briefing on the IARC’s designation of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen and “the standards that NIH places on research funded by the U.S. taxpayers,” a letter that mirrored many of the demands in the FTI letter, though it used different language.
More GOP letters and demands for investigation over NIH’s funding for IARC followed. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, then-chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., Chaffetz’s successor as Oversight chair, and Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, then-chair of the House Science Committee, all called for inquiries into IARC funding and the designation of glyphosate as a carcinogen.
The Monsanto lobbyists closely conferred with the committees as they honed in on the IARC’s funding. Drew Feeley, an attorney for the GOP staff of the House Oversight Committee, emailed an FTI consultant to explain that his office was working to attach a line to a government budget bill designed “to apply to IARC” in order to slash its funding over the glyphosate issue. “Thanks again for coordinating,” Feeley wrote to the Monsanto consultant. Feeley, notably, is now serving as an attorney with the Council on Environmental Quality, the White House office that oversees environmental policy.
“We expect the House OGR investigation about IARC to expand as they move into the new administration,” wrote Rands, in an update to Monsanto colleagues.
Last year, under Smith, the House Science Committee devoted an entire committee hearing into questioning the IARC, with a focus on its conduct around glyphosate. Smith subsequently sent more letters to cancer researchers in Norway, demanding they “correct the flaws in IARC.” The House Appropriations Committee followed up by cutting $2 million in funding to the IARC, a symbolic move to distance the U.S. from the international body, which relies on a budget of around $40 million from a range of member countries.
THE CONGRESSIONAL OUTREACH was only part of a multifaceted effort to control the backlash sparked by the IARC designation.
In recent years, a great deal of new information has come to light around Monsanto’s work to conceal the potential health risks around glyphosate. Earlier this month, new documents revealed that Monsanto operated a “fusion center” to discredit critics of the company, including former Reuters journalist Carey Gillam, who has written extensively about glyphosate. The operation even monitored and considered legal action again singer Neil Young, a critic of Monsanto.
Le Monde, the French newspaper, published an award-winning investigation on the controversy, referring to the Monsanto-run campaign to discredit the IARC as an effort to “intimidate” the cancer research center.
A separate cache of litigation files, released in May, revealed that Monsanto also contracted with Hakluyt, a corporate intelligence firm, to keep close tabs on political elites in Washington. The company consulted with senior Trump and EPA officials, and confirmed that the administration would support Monsanto on glyphosate issues. “We have Monsanto’s back on pesticide regulation,” a domestic policy adviser in the White House told Hakluyt.
[pixA building on the campus of Monsanto headquarters in St. Louis on May 23, 2016. Photo: Michael B. Thomas/AFP/Getty ImagesThe last year has exposed other cloak-and-dagger tactics. The company was criticized for ghostwriting scientific studies on the safety of glyphosate, which were presented as independent research. At the San Francisco civil trial over glyphosate, an FTI consultant working for Monsanto was caught posing as a journalist working for the BBC and another British outlet.
And in 2017, one of the most stunning disclosures revealed that a senior EPA staffer, Jess Rowland, had quietly tipped Monsanto off to the fact that federal agencies had sought to reevaluate the safety of glyphosate, boasting to the company that he could “kill” federal investigations into glyphosate. Shortly before a crucial European Union vote on glyphosate products, the EPA suddenly released a report declaring the safety of the product. The document was later taken down because it had not yet been completed. One Monsanto official relayed to a colleague that Rowland had told him, “If I can kill this I should get a medal,” in regards to the glyphosate review conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a department of Health and Human Services.
After leaving the EPA, Rowland went to work in the private sector, consulting for chemical companies.
There’s also a revolving door between lawmakers supporting Monsanto and professionals working on behalf of the company. Shortly after retiring from Congress this year, following his investigation of the IARC, Lamar Smith took a job at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a lobbying firm that represents Bayer-Monsanto’s interests in Washington.=<a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014">https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014</a>BS berezowhe first director of IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer), Dr. John Higginson, was also a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health Those were the glory days of IARC, which was founded for the purpose of identifying human carcinogens for further study and to guide health policy.Unfortunately, much has changed since 1965. Fifty-two years after its inception, IARC has become a fringe group, seemingly more interested in scaring people than identifying actual health threats. Any organization that <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/08/10/hot-beverages-world-health-cancer-coffee-column/88511276/" target="blank" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">declares bacon to be as dangerous as plutonium</a> has entirely lost its way.Things started to unravel for IARC over a popular herbicide called glyphosate, which it considers a "probable human carcinogen." Every major science and regulatory body disagrees, including the <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/17/494301343/epa-weighs-in-on-glyphosate-says-it-doesnt-cause-cancer" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">U.S. EPA</a> and the <a href="https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">European Food Safety Authority</a> (EFSA). Even the <a href="https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/who-clarifies-glyphosate-risks/1010208.article" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">World Health Organization</a>, which is the parent of IARC, believes that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer. What is going on?We now have an answer. Thanks largely to the <a href="http://www.science20.com/david_zaruk/is_chris_portier_the_andrew_wakefield_of_pesticides-227402" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">investigative work</a> of David Zaruk on Science 2.0, <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weedkiller-scientist-was-paid-120-000-by-cancer-lawyers-v0qggbrk6" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">The Times</a> reports that Christopher Portier, a key IARC advisor who lobbied to have glyphosate listed as a carcinogen, accepted $160,000 from trial lawyers representing cancer patients who stood to profit handsomely by suing glyphosate manufacturers. Mr. Portier's failure to disclose such an obvious conflict of interest has exploded into a textbook case of scientific fraud.Glyphosate-gate: A Case of Scientific FraudIt gets worse. Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">reports</a> that evidence that glyphosate was harmless was intentionally edited out of an IARC monograph. The monograph also distorted other studies it cited, for instance, by concluding that the research found a link between glyphosate and cancer when the opposite was true. Furthermore, Reuters writes that "the agency won't say who made the changes or why." Sixteen scientists contacted by Reuters refused to answer any questions about the edits. That's not how science operates; that's how Fight Club operates.Truly, it is difficult to overstate the seriousness of what IARC and Mr. Portier have done. As Dr. Zaruk writes for <a href="https://risk-monger.com/2017/10/23/iarcgate-six-reasons-why-iarcs-head-christopher-wild-must-be-fired/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">his Risk-Monger site</a>, such behavior undermines not only the World Health Organization but the scientific enterprise itself. How can people trust health advice when the regulators who dispense it can be bought off by trial lawyers?Sometimes, Money MattersAt ACSH, we believe that good science is good regardless of who pays for it -- be it academia, the government, non-profits, or industry. Scientific research must be judged on its merits alone. That's why <a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/23/if-you-cry-corporate-shill-youre-conspiracy-theorist-12008" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">people who cry, "Corporate shill!" are little more than conspiracy theorists</a>.However, bad science is another issue entirely. The vast majority of the time, bad science is promulgated by researchers or journalists who aren't good at their jobs or don't know any better. Occasionally, bad science is promoted by people who are being bought off. This is one of those times.IARC has severely and perhaps irreparably damaged the reputation of the World Health Organization. Besides, given the sheer number of regulatory bureaucrats who already exist in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere, IARC's role is redundant and only serves to add confusion rather than clarity.It ought to be defunded and disbanded and we are recommending the U.S. government do just that.
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-investigation-who-2477067618.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-investigation-who-2477067618.html</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="headline-container" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px;">Monsanto Calls for Investigation Into WHO Agency for Ignoring Monsanto-Funded Studies</h1></div><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px;"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-url="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-investigation-who-2477067618.html" data-headline="Monsanto Calls for Investigation Into WHO Agency for Ignoring Monsanto-Funded Studies" data-elid="2477067618" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description">The agrochemical and seed giant <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto</a>, one of the world's most controversial corporations, is <a href="http://www.politico.eu/article/monsanto-roundup-attempts-takedown-of-iarc-who-linking-its-weedkiller-to-cancer/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">attempting to take down</a> a World Health Organization (WHO) agency that in 2015 linked the Monsanto product <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" style="text-decoration-line: none;">glyphosate</a> to an increased risk of cancer in humans. That year, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found that the widely used herbicide is "<a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-10.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">probably carcinogenic to humans</a>."The decision was a major blow to Monsanto as its most popular product, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Roundup</a>, is glyphosate-based. Following the IARC's decision, the European Union began to consider banning the product altogether, potentially depriving Monsanto of a significant stream of revenue. Monsanto, which is seeking <a href="http://www.politico.eu/article/monsanto-roundup-attempts-takedown-of-iarc-who-linking-its-weedkiller-to-cancer/" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none;">the EU's renewal</a>of the chemical's license for the next 10 years, is now also fighting a high-profile court case attempting to bring IARC's 2015 decision—as well as the agency itself—under scrutiny.Central to Monsanto's case is its argument that the IARC failed to consider two studies that found <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" style="text-decoration-line: none;">glyphosate</a> to be safe. The first <a href="http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">was conducted by</a> the German-based Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which concluded in 2015 that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans." The second is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819582/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a study</a>from "independent" German scientist Helmut Greim, who conducted a meta-analysis and found that "glyphosate's carcinogenic potential is extremely low or non-existent."Monsanto <a href="https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/glyphosate-report-response/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">has claimed</a> that IARC's lack of consideration for these two studies proved that the agency's findings were an "outlier" in linking glyphosate exposure to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" style="text-decoration-line: none;">cancer</a>. Their failure to include these two studies, according to Monsanto's vice president of strategy, Scott Partridge, shows that the IARC "was corrupted apparently with individuals who have an agenda" and warrants an external investigation into the workings of the agency and its leadership....</div></div></div></div>http://www.alternet.org/environment/republicans-rush-monsantos-aid-industry-biased-reuters-reportIn  their latest attempt to shield Monsanto from accountability, House Republicans have seized upon the flawed and biased reporting of a Reuters journalist whose work has emerged as a key lobbying tool for the embattled agrichemical company as it faces <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">lawsuits</a>, regulatory threats and a wave of awful <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html?r=0" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">press</a> coverage <a href="http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/08/04/monsanto-ghostwriting-stanford-university-hoover-institution-fellow/amp/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">about</a> <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">allegations</a> of improper influence over <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-dicamba-insight-idUSKBN1AP0DN" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">research</a>.On Tuesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/visuel/2017/06/01/operation-intoxication-les-reseaux-de-monsanto_5136945_3244.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">demanded answers</a> about “possibly withheld information” that “could change” a cancer panel’s decision to list glyphosate, the main chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, as a probable human carcinogen. <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-08-08-TG-BF-SR-to-Collins-NIH-Aaron-Blair-due-8-22.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Gowdy’s letter</a> was heavily referenced with one source: a June 14 <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Reuters article</a> by Kate Kelland.  But the Kelland article that drove Rep. Gowdy’s lobbying was <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/reuters-kate-kelland-iarc-story-promotes-false-narrative/" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">deeply flawed</a> and contained errors Reuters has refused to correct.What’s more, as I reported <a href="http://fair.org/home/reuters-vs-un-cancer-agency-are-corporate-ties-influencing-science-coverage/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">last month in FAIR</a>, the flawed Reuters-article-turned-lobbying-tool was only the latest in a series of biased articles Kelland has written about the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since the agency <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">listed glyphosate</a> as a Class 2 carcinogen.The IARC working group of scientists—now the chief target of Monsanto’s “war on science,” as the French newspaper <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/06/01/monsanto-operation-intoxication_5136915_3244.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Le Monde reported</a>—did not conduct new research, but reviewed years of published and peer-reviewed research before concluding there was limited evidence of cancer in humans from real-world exposures to glyphosate and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in studies on animals. IARC also concluded there was strong evidence of genotoxicity for glyphosate alone and for Roundup herbicide, whose use has <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/glyphosate-now-most-used-agricultural-chemical-ever-422419" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">skyrocketed</a> alongside Monsanto’s genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops.In her stories about the IARC decision, Kelland has ignored much of the published research backing the classification and has instead parroted industry’s criticisms of the scientists. Her reporting has relied heavily on pro-industry sources, failed to disclose their industry connections and presented cherry-picked information out of context from documents she did not provide to readers.Raising further questions about Kelland’s objectivity as a science reporter are her close ties to the Science Media Centre, a <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/science-media-centre/" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">controversial nonprofit PR agency</a>that connects scientists with reporters and gets its <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">largest block of funding</a> from industry groups.<a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/science-media-centre/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Multiple researchers</a> have accused SMC, which launched in 2002 <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Science-Media-Centre-consultation-report.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">partly as an effort</a> to tamp down news stories driven by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, of downplaying the environmental and human health risks of controversial products and technologies that are important to its funders.Kelland’s bias in favor of SMC is evident; she appears in the PR agency’s <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/film/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">promotional video</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SMC-Views-from-the-front-line-essays-on-the-SMC.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">promotional report</a>, regularly attends <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Risk%20Communication%20with%20the%20media_0.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">SMC briefings</a>, speaks at <a href="https://storify.com/Paraphyso/wellcome-trust-science-media-centre" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">SMC workshops</a> and attended <a href="https://blogs.fco.gov.uk/sunilkumar/2013/11/26/engaging-science-and-media/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">meetings in India</a> to discuss setting up an SMC office there.Neither Kelland nor her editors at Reuters would respond to questions about her relationship with SMC or to specific criticisms about her reporting. SMC Director Fiona Fox said her group did not provide Kelland with sources for her IARC stories beyond those included in SMC’s press releases.It is clear, however, that Kelland’s reporting on glyphosate and IARC mirrors the views put forth by SMC experts and industry groups on those topics—and also raises serious concerns about bias and fairness in science reporting.Reuters takes on cancer scientistOn June 14, 2017, Reuters published a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">special report</a> by Kelland accusing Aaron Blair, an epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and chair of the IARC panel on glyphosate, of withholding important data from its cancer assessment.Kelland’s thesis that Blair withheld crucial data was at odds with the source documents on which she based her story, but she did not provide readers with links to any of those documents, so readers could not check the veracity of the claims. Her bombshell allegations were then widely circulated, repeated by reporters at other news outlets (including <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/monsanto-roundup-glyphosate-cancer-who/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Mother Jones</a>) and immediately deployed as a <a href="https://www.bna.com/monsanto-cancer-study-n73014453449/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">lobbying tool</a> by the agrichemical industry.Kelland’s story went so far as to suggest that the information supposedly withheld could have changed IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Yet the data in question was but a small subset of epidemiology data gathered through a long-term project known as the <a href="https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/atniehs/labs/epi/studies/ahs/index.cfm" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Agricultural Health Study</a> (AHS). An analysis of several years of data about glyphosate from the AHS had already been published and was considered by IARC, but a newer analysis of unfinished, unpublished data was not considered, because IARC rules call for relying only on published data.After obtaining the actual source documents, Carey Gillam, a former Reuters’ reporter and now research director of U.S. Right to Know (the nonprofit group where I also work), <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/reuters-kate-kelland-iarc-story-promotes-false-narrative/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">laid out</a> multiple errors and omissions in Kelland’s piece.The analysis provides examples of key claims in Kelland’s article, including a statement supposedly made by Blair, that are not supported by the 300-page <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">deposition of Blair</a> conducted by Monsanto’s attorneys, or by other source documents.Kelland’s selective presentation of the Blair deposition also ignored what contradicted her thesis—for example, Blair’s many affirmations of research showing glyphosate’s connections to cancer, as Gillam wrote in a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monsanto-spin-doctors-target-cancer-scientist-in-flawed_us_594449eae4b0940f84fe2e57" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Huffington Post article</a>.Kelland inaccurately described Blair’s deposition and related materials as “court documents,” implying they were publicly available; in fact, they were not filed in court, and presumably were obtained from Monsanto’s attorneys or surrogates. (The documents were available only to attorneys involved in the case, and plaintiff’s attorneys have said they did not provide them to Kelland.)Reuters has refused to correct the errors in the piece, including the false claim about the origin of the source documents and an inaccurate description of a key source, statistician Bob Tarone, as “independent of Monsanto.” In fact, Tarone had <a href="http://governance.iarc.fr/ENG/Docs/IARC_responds_to_Reuters_15_June_2017.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">received a consultancy payment</a> from Monsanto for his efforts to discredit IARC.In response to a USRTK request to correct or retract the Kelland article, Reuters global enterprises editor Mike Williams wrote in a June 23 email:<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We have reviewed the article and the reporting on which it was based. That reporting included the deposition to which you refer, but was not confined to it. The reporter, Kate Kelland, was also in contact with all the people mentioned in the story and many others, and studied other documents. In the light of that review, we do not consider the article to be inaccurate or to warrant retraction.</blockquote>Williams declined to address the false citing of “court documents” or the inaccurate description of Tarone as an independent source.Since then, the lobbying tool Reuters handed to Monsanto has grown legs and run wild. A June 24 <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-in-a-scientific-dispute-over-roundup-monsanto-gets-a/article_dca54b1d-6025-5c8a-b765-cf286adac9ec.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">editorial</a> by the St. Louis Post Dispatch <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/mailbag/editorial-relied-on-inaccurate-reporting-about-glyphosate-study/article_754e8e59-c63a-5925-bdc0-0006af6cc05c.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">added errors</a> on top of the already misleading reporting. By mid-July right-wing blogs ,were using the Reuters story to accuse IARC of <a href="https://twitter.com/USRightToKnow/status/885194196839129088" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">defrauding U.S. taxpayers</a>, pro-industry news sites were predicting the story would be “<a href="https://morningconsult.com/opinions/cancer-data-suppressed-international-organization/" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">the final nail in the coffin</a>” of cancer claims about glyphosate and a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pg/Science-News-Today-1927007787570501/reviews/" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">fake science news group</a> was promoting Kelland’s story on Facebook with a phony headline claiming that IARC <a href="https://twitter.com/USRightToKnow/status/885192740677595137" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">scientists had confessed to a cover-up</a>.Bacon attackThis was not the first time Kelland had relied on Bob Tarone as a key source and failed to disclose his industry connections in an article attacking IARC.An April 2016 <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">special investigation</a> by Kelland—“Who Says Bacon Is Bad?”—portrayed IARC as a confusing agency that is bad for science. The piece was built largely on quotes from Tarone, two other pro-industry sources whose industry connections were also not disclosed, and one anonymous observer.IARC’s methods are “poorly understood,” “do not serve the public well,” sometimes lack scientific rigor, are “not good for science,” “not good for regulatory agencies” and do the public “a disservice,” the critics said.The agency, Tarone said, is “naïve, if not unscientific”—an accusation emphasized with capital letters in a sub-headline.Tarone works for the pro-industry <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company-beta/1929869/" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">International Epidemiology Institute</a> and was once involved with a <a href="http://news.cision.com/the-investor-relations-group/r/environmental-health-trust-questions-new-study-claiming-no-cell-phone-brain-cancer-link-among-childr,c9147452" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">controversial cell phone study</a>, funded in part by the cell phone industry, that found no cancer connection to cell phones, contrary to <a href="http://science.time.com/2010/09/27/health-a-cancer-muckraker-takes-on-cell-phones/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">independently funded studies</a> of the same issue.The other critics in Kelland’s bacon story were Paulo Boffetta, a controversial ex-IARC scientist who wrote a paper defending asbestos while also <a href="http://www.rightoncanada.ca/?p=2400" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">receiving money to defend</a> the asbestos industry in court; and Geoffrey Kabat, who once <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_E._Enstrom" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">partnered</a> with a tobacco industry-funded scientist to write <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">a paper</a> defending secondhand smoke.Kabat also serves on the advisory board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">corporate front group</a>.The day the Reuters story hit, ACSH posted a <a href="http://www.acsh.org/news/2016/04/18/whats-ailing-iarc-another-round-of-criticism-ensues" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">blog item</a> bragging that Kelland had used its advisor Kabat as a source to discredit IARC.The industry connections of her sources, and their history of taking positions at odds with mainstream science, seems relevant, especially since the IARC bacon exposé was paired with a Kelland <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">article about glyphosate</a> that accused IARC advisor Chris Portier of bias because of his affiliation with an environmental group.The conflict-of-interest framing served to discredit a letter, organized by Portier and <a href="http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/03/03/jech-2015-207005" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">signed by 94 scientists</a>, that described “serious flaws” in a European Union risk assessment that exonerated glyphosate of cancer risk.The Portier attack, and the good science/bad science theme, <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/04/18/glyphosate-battles-different-european-agencies-came-different-cancer-conclusions/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">echoed through</a>chemical industry <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">PR channels</a> on the same day the Kelland articles appeared.IARC pushes backIn October 2016, in another <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cancer-iarc-exclusive-idUSKCN12P2FW" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">exclusive scoop</a>, Kelland portrayed IARC as a secretive organization that had asked its scientists to withhold documents pertaining to the glyphosate review. The article was based on correspondence provided to Kelland by a <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/energy-environment-legal-institute" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">pro-industry law group</a>.In response, IARC took the unusual step of posting Kelland’s questions and the <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Reuters_questions_and_answers_Oct2016.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">answers they had sent her</a>, which provided context left out of the Reuters story.IARC explained that Monsanto’s lawyers were asking scientists to turn over draft and deliberative documents, and in light of the ongoing lawsuits against Monsanto, “the scientists felt uncomfortable releasing these materials, and some felt that they were being intimidated.” The agency said they had faced similar pressure in the past to release draft documents to support legal actions involving asbestos and tobacco, and that there was an attempt to draw deliberative IARC documents into PCB litigation.The story didn’t mention those examples, or the concerns about draft scientific documents ending up in lawsuits, but the piece was heavy on critiques of IARC, describing it as a group “at odds with scientists around the world,” which “has caused controversy” with cancer assessments that “can cause unnecessary health scares.”IARC has “secret agendas” and its actions were “ridiculous,” according to a Monsanto executive quoted in the story.IARC wrote <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Reuters_Readmore_Oct2016.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">in response</a> (emphasis in original):<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The article by Reuters follows a pattern of consistent but misleading reports about the IARC Monographs Programme in some sections of the media beginning after glyphosate was classified as probably carcinogenic to humans.</blockquote>IARC also <a href="http://governance.iarc.fr/ENG/Docs/IARC_responds_to_Reuters_15_June_2017.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">pushed back on</a> Kelland’s reporting about Blair, noting the conflict of interest with her source Tarone and explaining that IARC’s cancer evaluation program does not consider unpublished data, and “does not base its evaluations on opinions presented in media reports,” but on the “systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent scientific studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests.”PR agency narrativeThe Science Media Centre—which Kelland <a href="http://archives.cjr.org/the_observatory/science_media_centers_the_pres_1.php" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">has said</a> has influenced her reporting—does have vested interests, and has also been criticized for pushing pro-industry science views.<a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Current and past funders</a> include Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Coca-Cola and food and chemical industry trade groups, as well as government agencies, foundations and universities.By all accounts, SMC is influential in shaping how the media cover certain science stories, often getting its <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/working-with-us/for-journalists/roundups-for-journalists/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">expert reaction</a> quotes in media stories and driving coverage with its <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/working-with-us/for-journalists/briefings-for-journalists/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">press briefings</a>.As Kelland explained in the SMC <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/film/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">promotional video</a>, “By the end of a briefing, you understand what the story is and why it’s important.”That is the point of the SMC effort: to signal to reporters whether stories or studies merit attention, and how they should be framed.Sometimes, SMC experts downplay risk and offer assurances to the public about controversial products or technologies; for example, researchers have criticized SMC’s media efforts on <a href="http://www.talkfracking.org/frackademics/frackademics-case-study-4/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">fracking</a>, <a href="http://www.emfacts.com/download/Science_media_centre_spin.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">cell phone safety</a>, <a href="http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-SMC-and-its-campaign-against-MECFS.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Chronic Fatigue Syndrome</a> and <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckcG9udmZWVGxmMkk/view" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">genetically engineered foods</a>.SMC campaigns sometimes feed into lobbying efforts. A 2013 <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/science-media-centre-of-attention-1.13362" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Nature article</a> explained how SMC turned the tide on media coverage of animal/human hybrid embryos away from ethical concerns and toward their importance as a research tool—and thus stopped government regulations.The media researcher hired by SMC to analyze the effectiveness of that campaign, Andy Williams of Cardiff University, came to see the SMC model as problematic, worrying that it <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/science-media-centre-of-attention-1.13362" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">stifled debate</a>. Williams <a href="http://www.scidev.net/global/journalism/feature/uk-s-science-media-centre-lambasted-for-pushing-corporate-science.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">described SMC briefings</a> as tightly managed events pushing persuasive narratives.On the topic of glyphosate cancer risk, SMC offers a clear narrative in its press releases.The IARC cancer classification, according to <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">SMC experts</a>, “failed to include critical data,” was based on “a rather selective review” and on evidence that “appears a bit thin” and “overall does not support such a high-level classification.” <a href="https://monsanto.com/company/media/responses-iarc-glyphosate-classification/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Monsanto</a> and other <a href="https://scottsmiraclegro.com/media/glyphosate-answers/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">industry</a><a href="https://gmoanswers.com/iarc%E2%80%99s-classification-glyphosate-%E2%80%93-what-does-it-mean-you" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">groups</a> promoted the quotes.SMC experts had a much more favorable view of risk assessments conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (<a href="https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">EFSA</a>) and the European Chemicals Agency (<a href="https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">ECHA</a>), which cleared glyphosate of human cancer concerns.<a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-efsas-conclusions-on-glyphosate-safety/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">EFSA’s conclusion</a> was “more scientific, pragmatic and balanced” than IARC’s, and the <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-the-european-chemicals-agency-echa-committee-for-risk-assessment-not-classifying-glyphosate-as-a-carcinogen/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">ECHA report</a> was objective, independent, comprehensive and “scientifically justified.”Kelland’s reporting in Reuters echoes those pro-industry themes, and sometimes used the same experts, such as a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSKCN0T61QL20151117" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">November 2015 story</a> about why European-based agencies gave contradictory advice about the cancer risk of glyphosate. Her story quoted two experts directly from an <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-efsas-conclusions-on-glyphosate-safety/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">SMC release</a>, then summarized their views:<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In other words, IARC is tasked with highlighting anything that might in certain conditions, however rare, be able to cause cancer in people. EFSA, on the other hand, is concerned with real life risks and whether, in the case of glyphosate, there is evidence to show that when used in normal conditions, the pesticide poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.</blockquote>Kelland included two brief reactions from environmentalists: Greenpeace called the EFSA review “whitewash,” and Jennifer Sass from the Natural Resources Defense Council said IARC’s review was “a much more robust, scientifically defensible and public process involving an international committee of non-industry experts.” (An <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/glyphosate-iarc-got-it-right-efsa-got-it-monsanto" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">NRDC statement</a> on glyphosate put it this way: “IARC Got It Right, EFSA Got It From Monsanto.”)Kelland’s story followed up the environmental group comments with “critics of IARC…say its hazard identification approach is becoming meaningless for consumers, who struggle to apply its advice to real life,” and ends with quotes from a scientist who “declares an interest as having acted as a consultant for Monsanto.”When asked about the criticisms of pro-industry bias of the SMC, Fox responded:We listen carefully to any criticism from the scientific community or news journalists working for U.K. media, but we do not receive criticism of pro-industry bias from these stakeholders. We reject the charge of pro-industry bias, and our work reflects the evidence and views of the 3,000 eminent scientific researchers on our database. As an independent press office focusing on some of the most controversial science stories, we fully expect criticism from groups outside mainstream science.Expert conflictsScientific experts do not always disclose their conflicts of interest in news releases issued by SMC, nor in their high-profile roles as decision-makers about the cancer risk of chemicals like glyphosate.Frequent SMC expert Alan Boobis, professor of biochemical pharmacology at Imperial College London, offers views in SMC releases on <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-the-european-food-safety-authority-efsa-draft-scientific-opinion-on-the-safety-of-the-artificial-sweetener-aspartame/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">aspartame</a> (“not a concern”), <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-press-release-from-fote-and-gm-freeze-about-glyphosate-in-urine/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">glyphosate in urine</a> (no concern), <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-on-insecticides-and-birth-defects-to-be-published-in-occupational-and-environmental-medicine-a-bmj-specialist-journal-2-2/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">insecticides and birth defects</a>(“premature to draw conclusions”), <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-research-on-alcohol-and-cancer/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">alcohol</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-efsa-report-conclusion-that-seralini-study-conclusions-were-not-supported-by-data/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">GMO corn</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-of-trace-metals-and-lower-or-higher-cancer-risk-as-published-in-gut-2-2/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">trace metals</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-investigating-content-of-and-contaminants-in-laboratory-rodent-diets/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">lab rodent diets</a> and more.The <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-the-european-chemicals-agency-echa-committee-for-risk-assessment-not-classifying-glyphosate-as-a-carcinogen/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">ECHA decision</a> that glyphosate is not a carcinogen “is to be congratulated,” according to Boobis, and the <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">IARC decision</a> that it is probably carcinogenic “is not a cause for undue alarm,” because it did not take into account how pesticides are used in the real world.Boobis declared no conflicts of interest in the IARC release or any of the earlier SMC releases that carry his quotes. But he then sparked a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/unwho-panel-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-glyphosates-cancer-risk" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">conflict-of-interest scandal</a> when news broke that he held leadership positions with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a <a href="https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/ilsi-wields-stealthy-influence-for-the-food-and-agrichemical-industries/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">pro-industry group</a>, at the same time he co-chaired a U.N. panel that found glyphosate <a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">unlikely to pose a cancer risk</a>through diet. (Boobis is currently <a href="http://ilsi.org/about/leadership-support/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">chair</a> of the ILSI Board of Trustees, and <a href="http://ilsi.eu/about-us/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">vice president ad interim</a> of ILSI/Europe.)ILSI has received <a href="https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/ilsi-wields-stealthy-influence-for-the-food-and-agrichemical-industries/" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">six-figure donations</a> from Monsanto and CropLife International, the pesticide trade association. Professor Angelo Moretto, who co-chaired the U.N. panel on glyphosate along with Boobis, also held a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/unwho-panel-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-glyphosates-cancer-risk" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">leadership role in ILSI</a>. Yet the panel <a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/faq/en/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">declared</a> no conflicts of interest.Kelland did not report on those conflicts, though she did <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y71HR" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">write about</a> the findings of the “U.N. experts” who exonerated glyphosate of cancer risk, and she once recycled a Boobis quote from an <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/experts-respond-to-the-news-that-high-levels-of-dioxins-have-been-found-in-slaughtered-pigs-in-the-republic-of-ireland-2/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">SMC press release</a> for an article about <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ireland-food-recall-idUSL751490720081207" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">tainted Irish pork</a>. (The risk to consumers was low.)When asked about the SMC conflict of interest disclosure policy, and why Boobis’ ISLI connection was not disclosed in SMC releases, Fox responded:<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We ask all researchers we use to provide their COIs and proactively make those available to journalists. In line with several other COI policies, we are unable to investigate every COI, though we welcome journalists doing so.</blockquote>Boobis could not be reached for comment, but told the Guardian lnx, “My role in ILSI (and two of its branches) is as a public sector member and chair of their boards of trustees, positions which are not remunerated.”But the conflict “sparked furious condemnation from green MEPs and NGOs,” the Guardian reported, “intensified by the [U.N. panel] report’s release two days before an EU relicensing vote on glyphosate, which will be worth billions of dollars to industry.”And so goes it with the tangled web of influence involving corporations, science experts, media coverage and the high-stakes debate about glyphosate, now playing out on the world stage as Monsanto <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">faces lawsuits</a> over the chemical due to cancer claims, and seeks to complete a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-world-s-top-weed-killer-cause-cancer-trump-s-epa-will-decide" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">$66 billion deal with Bayer</a>.Meanwhile, in the U.S., as Bloomberg <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-world-s-top-weed-killer-cause-cancer-trump-s-epa-will-decide" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">reported</a> on July 13: “Does the World’s Top Weed Killer Cause Cancer? Trump’s EPA Will Decide.”A version of this story originally ran in <a href="http://fair.org/home/reuters-vs-un-cancer-agency-are-corporate-ties-influencing-science-coverage/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting</a>.<div wibbitz="embed-main-player" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="bio-new body_environment" style="width: 630px; line-height: 22px; height: auto; border-top: 3px solid rgb(223, 223, 218); clear: both;"><div class="author-bio">Stacy Malkan is co-director of <a href="http://usrtk.org/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">U.S. Right to Know</a>,</div></div>==</div></div></div></div></div>