"Industry has been manipulating this process for years."
(Photo: Anztowa/flickr/cc)
May 03, 2016
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used industry-funded research to conclude that the herbicide chemical glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans--contradicting findings by the World Health Organization (WHO)--according to an analysis the EPA posted to, then swiftly removed from, its website on Friday.
"EPA's determination that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic is disappointing, but not terribly surprising--industry has been manipulating this process for years," said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). "The analysis done by the World Health Organization is more open and transparent and remains the gold standard."
The agency's since-deleted analysis (pdf), which includes an October 2015 memorandum from its Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), states:
The epidemiological evidence at this time does not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and solid tumors. There is also no evidence to support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and the following non-solid tumors: leukemia, multiple myeloma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.
The analysis cites private biochemical firms such as Inveresk Research International, Nufarm, and Arysta Life Sciences.
WHO reported the exact opposite in a groundbreaking March 2015 study, which prompted a wave of measures against the use of the chemical. California placed it on the state's public 'cancer list' in September, while workers around the country lined up to sue Monsanto for conducting what they called a "prolonged campaign of misinformation" to convince farmers, consumers, and the government that its Roundup line of products was safe to use.
As CBD points out, the studies cited in the EPA's analysis are unpublished and have not been subject to public scrutiny. In addition, they focus on testing glyphosate as a singular ingredient rather than examining the effects of herbicides available in stores.
"Most products containing glyphosate have other ingredients that can make the pesticide more dangerous," CBD said.
This is not the first time the EPA has been caught using biased research to approve dangerous chemicals. Last November, the Intercept's Sharon Lerner reported that the agency used Monsanto's own research to determine that there was "no convincing evidence" that glyphosate was an endocrine disruptor.
An EPA spokesperson said Friday that the document was posted to the website prematurely and was removed "because our assessment is not final," and that the agency would release a completed, peer-reviewed analysis by the end of 2016.
Meanwhile, as the agency played damage control on Friday, a lawsuit was filed in San Francisco alleging that glyphosate residues in Quaker Oats discredit the food company's claims that its product is entirely natural.
"Glyphosate is a synthetic biocide and probable human carcinogen, with additional health dangers rapidly becoming known," the lawsuit states. "When a product purports to be '100% Natural,' consumers not only are willing to pay more for the product, they expect it to be pesticide-free."
The news comes just as advocacy groups including Friends of the Earth and Beyond Pesticides plan a rally outside the White House on Wednesday to deliver 400,000 petitions to the EPA calling for a ban on the chemical.
EPA is currently undertaking a "registration review" of glyphosate, which determines whether chemicals can be used safely for the next 15 years based on scientific evidence.
"We shouldn't gamble with the risk of cancer and must take appropriate precautions until we get a conclusive answer about the true dangers of glyphosate," Donley continued. "The indiscriminate drenching of farms, ball fields, and backyards with glyphosate needs to end."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
agroecologybeyond pesticidesbiotechnologycancercenter for biological diversityenvironmentepafriends of the earthglyphosateherbicidesleukemiamonsantopesticidespublic healthroundupworld health organization
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used industry-funded research to conclude that the herbicide chemical glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans--contradicting findings by the World Health Organization (WHO)--according to an analysis the EPA posted to, then swiftly removed from, its website on Friday.
"EPA's determination that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic is disappointing, but not terribly surprising--industry has been manipulating this process for years," said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). "The analysis done by the World Health Organization is more open and transparent and remains the gold standard."
The agency's since-deleted analysis (pdf), which includes an October 2015 memorandum from its Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), states:
The epidemiological evidence at this time does not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and solid tumors. There is also no evidence to support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and the following non-solid tumors: leukemia, multiple myeloma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.
The analysis cites private biochemical firms such as Inveresk Research International, Nufarm, and Arysta Life Sciences.
WHO reported the exact opposite in a groundbreaking March 2015 study, which prompted a wave of measures against the use of the chemical. California placed it on the state's public 'cancer list' in September, while workers around the country lined up to sue Monsanto for conducting what they called a "prolonged campaign of misinformation" to convince farmers, consumers, and the government that its Roundup line of products was safe to use.
As CBD points out, the studies cited in the EPA's analysis are unpublished and have not been subject to public scrutiny. In addition, they focus on testing glyphosate as a singular ingredient rather than examining the effects of herbicides available in stores.
"Most products containing glyphosate have other ingredients that can make the pesticide more dangerous," CBD said.
This is not the first time the EPA has been caught using biased research to approve dangerous chemicals. Last November, the Intercept's Sharon Lerner reported that the agency used Monsanto's own research to determine that there was "no convincing evidence" that glyphosate was an endocrine disruptor.
An EPA spokesperson said Friday that the document was posted to the website prematurely and was removed "because our assessment is not final," and that the agency would release a completed, peer-reviewed analysis by the end of 2016.
Meanwhile, as the agency played damage control on Friday, a lawsuit was filed in San Francisco alleging that glyphosate residues in Quaker Oats discredit the food company's claims that its product is entirely natural.
"Glyphosate is a synthetic biocide and probable human carcinogen, with additional health dangers rapidly becoming known," the lawsuit states. "When a product purports to be '100% Natural,' consumers not only are willing to pay more for the product, they expect it to be pesticide-free."
The news comes just as advocacy groups including Friends of the Earth and Beyond Pesticides plan a rally outside the White House on Wednesday to deliver 400,000 petitions to the EPA calling for a ban on the chemical.
EPA is currently undertaking a "registration review" of glyphosate, which determines whether chemicals can be used safely for the next 15 years based on scientific evidence.
"We shouldn't gamble with the risk of cancer and must take appropriate precautions until we get a conclusive answer about the true dangers of glyphosate," Donley continued. "The indiscriminate drenching of farms, ball fields, and backyards with glyphosate needs to end."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used industry-funded research to conclude that the herbicide chemical glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans--contradicting findings by the World Health Organization (WHO)--according to an analysis the EPA posted to, then swiftly removed from, its website on Friday.
"EPA's determination that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic is disappointing, but not terribly surprising--industry has been manipulating this process for years," said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). "The analysis done by the World Health Organization is more open and transparent and remains the gold standard."
The agency's since-deleted analysis (pdf), which includes an October 2015 memorandum from its Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), states:
The epidemiological evidence at this time does not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and solid tumors. There is also no evidence to support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and the following non-solid tumors: leukemia, multiple myeloma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.
The analysis cites private biochemical firms such as Inveresk Research International, Nufarm, and Arysta Life Sciences.
WHO reported the exact opposite in a groundbreaking March 2015 study, which prompted a wave of measures against the use of the chemical. California placed it on the state's public 'cancer list' in September, while workers around the country lined up to sue Monsanto for conducting what they called a "prolonged campaign of misinformation" to convince farmers, consumers, and the government that its Roundup line of products was safe to use.
As CBD points out, the studies cited in the EPA's analysis are unpublished and have not been subject to public scrutiny. In addition, they focus on testing glyphosate as a singular ingredient rather than examining the effects of herbicides available in stores.
"Most products containing glyphosate have other ingredients that can make the pesticide more dangerous," CBD said.
This is not the first time the EPA has been caught using biased research to approve dangerous chemicals. Last November, the Intercept's Sharon Lerner reported that the agency used Monsanto's own research to determine that there was "no convincing evidence" that glyphosate was an endocrine disruptor.
An EPA spokesperson said Friday that the document was posted to the website prematurely and was removed "because our assessment is not final," and that the agency would release a completed, peer-reviewed analysis by the end of 2016.
Meanwhile, as the agency played damage control on Friday, a lawsuit was filed in San Francisco alleging that glyphosate residues in Quaker Oats discredit the food company's claims that its product is entirely natural.
"Glyphosate is a synthetic biocide and probable human carcinogen, with additional health dangers rapidly becoming known," the lawsuit states. "When a product purports to be '100% Natural,' consumers not only are willing to pay more for the product, they expect it to be pesticide-free."
The news comes just as advocacy groups including Friends of the Earth and Beyond Pesticides plan a rally outside the White House on Wednesday to deliver 400,000 petitions to the EPA calling for a ban on the chemical.
EPA is currently undertaking a "registration review" of glyphosate, which determines whether chemicals can be used safely for the next 15 years based on scientific evidence.
"We shouldn't gamble with the risk of cancer and must take appropriate precautions until we get a conclusive answer about the true dangers of glyphosate," Donley continued. "The indiscriminate drenching of farms, ball fields, and backyards with glyphosate needs to end."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.