Siding With Monsanto, GOP Threatens to Cut Off WHO Funds Over Glyphosate Finding
"Are we willing to sell out the public's right to know about harmful chemicals in the places we work, live, and play, just so that Monsanto can sell more glyphosate?"
During a House Science Committee hearing on Tuesday, Republican lawmakers sided with the chemical industry in questioning the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) classification of glyphosate--the key ingredient in the Monsanto-produced weedkiller Roundup--as a probable carcinogen and threatened to cut off the agency's funding.
"Fundamentally, this hearing is about the ability of a public health agency to call a carcinogen a carcinogen, even if it makes a huge amount of money for a powerful corporation."
--Jennifer Sass, Natural Resources Defense Council
IARC, a branch of the World Health Organization, immediately came under fire from industry groups and right-wing lawmakers after arguing in 2015 that the scientific literature shows glyphosate "probably" causes cancer in humans.
On Tuesday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) continued these attacks, suggesting that IARC's conclusion about glyphosate is "unsubstantiated" and "not backed by reliable data"--a talking point that has been strongly disputed (pdf) by independent scientists.
"The selective use of data and the lack of public disclosure raise questions about why IARC should receive any government funding in the future," Smith said, citing government officials and a former scientist for the pesticide industry.
While one Monsanto official was quick to express his excitement "that serious questions are being asked about the discredited IARC opinion," other experts characterize GOP attacks on the IARC as the product of an industry-funded disinformation campaign aimed at undermining scientific findings that threaten corporate profits.
During her testimony (pdf) at Tuesday's hearing, Jennifer Sass, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, highlighted a 2015 paper by University of Southern California medical professor Dr. Jonathan Same, who argued that attacks on the IARC "can be traced to the 'playbook' of the tobacco industry for discrediting findings related to active and passive smoking."
"Fundamentally, this hearing is about the ability of a public health agency to call a carcinogen a carcinogen, even if it makes a huge amount of money for a powerful corporation," Sass said. "Are we willing to sell out the public's right to know about harmful chemicals in the places we work, live, and play, just so that Monsanto can sell more glyphosate?"
In a report (pdf) released ahead of the hearing--which makes use of documents that have come to light thanks to ongoing lawsuits against Monsanto--Democrats on the House Science Committee expressed their agreement with Sass, detailing the pesticide industry's attempts to control the public debate about glyphosate as well as the scientific studies that have been conducted to assess its potential harm."
"These efforts appear aimed at corrupting and disrupting any honest, thorough, and complete scientific evaluation of glyphosate and its potential adverse impact on the public's health," the report concludes.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
During a House Science Committee hearing on Tuesday, Republican lawmakers sided with the chemical industry in questioning the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) classification of glyphosate--the key ingredient in the Monsanto-produced weedkiller Roundup--as a probable carcinogen and threatened to cut off the agency's funding.
"Fundamentally, this hearing is about the ability of a public health agency to call a carcinogen a carcinogen, even if it makes a huge amount of money for a powerful corporation."
--Jennifer Sass, Natural Resources Defense Council
IARC, a branch of the World Health Organization, immediately came under fire from industry groups and right-wing lawmakers after arguing in 2015 that the scientific literature shows glyphosate "probably" causes cancer in humans.
On Tuesday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) continued these attacks, suggesting that IARC's conclusion about glyphosate is "unsubstantiated" and "not backed by reliable data"--a talking point that has been strongly disputed (pdf) by independent scientists.
"The selective use of data and the lack of public disclosure raise questions about why IARC should receive any government funding in the future," Smith said, citing government officials and a former scientist for the pesticide industry.
While one Monsanto official was quick to express his excitement "that serious questions are being asked about the discredited IARC opinion," other experts characterize GOP attacks on the IARC as the product of an industry-funded disinformation campaign aimed at undermining scientific findings that threaten corporate profits.
During her testimony (pdf) at Tuesday's hearing, Jennifer Sass, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, highlighted a 2015 paper by University of Southern California medical professor Dr. Jonathan Same, who argued that attacks on the IARC "can be traced to the 'playbook' of the tobacco industry for discrediting findings related to active and passive smoking."
"Fundamentally, this hearing is about the ability of a public health agency to call a carcinogen a carcinogen, even if it makes a huge amount of money for a powerful corporation," Sass said. "Are we willing to sell out the public's right to know about harmful chemicals in the places we work, live, and play, just so that Monsanto can sell more glyphosate?"
In a report (pdf) released ahead of the hearing--which makes use of documents that have come to light thanks to ongoing lawsuits against Monsanto--Democrats on the House Science Committee expressed their agreement with Sass, detailing the pesticide industry's attempts to control the public debate about glyphosate as well as the scientific studies that have been conducted to assess its potential harm."
"These efforts appear aimed at corrupting and disrupting any honest, thorough, and complete scientific evaluation of glyphosate and its potential adverse impact on the public's health," the report concludes.
During a House Science Committee hearing on Tuesday, Republican lawmakers sided with the chemical industry in questioning the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) classification of glyphosate--the key ingredient in the Monsanto-produced weedkiller Roundup--as a probable carcinogen and threatened to cut off the agency's funding.
"Fundamentally, this hearing is about the ability of a public health agency to call a carcinogen a carcinogen, even if it makes a huge amount of money for a powerful corporation."
--Jennifer Sass, Natural Resources Defense Council
IARC, a branch of the World Health Organization, immediately came under fire from industry groups and right-wing lawmakers after arguing in 2015 that the scientific literature shows glyphosate "probably" causes cancer in humans.
On Tuesday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) continued these attacks, suggesting that IARC's conclusion about glyphosate is "unsubstantiated" and "not backed by reliable data"--a talking point that has been strongly disputed (pdf) by independent scientists.
"The selective use of data and the lack of public disclosure raise questions about why IARC should receive any government funding in the future," Smith said, citing government officials and a former scientist for the pesticide industry.
While one Monsanto official was quick to express his excitement "that serious questions are being asked about the discredited IARC opinion," other experts characterize GOP attacks on the IARC as the product of an industry-funded disinformation campaign aimed at undermining scientific findings that threaten corporate profits.
During her testimony (pdf) at Tuesday's hearing, Jennifer Sass, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, highlighted a 2015 paper by University of Southern California medical professor Dr. Jonathan Same, who argued that attacks on the IARC "can be traced to the 'playbook' of the tobacco industry for discrediting findings related to active and passive smoking."
"Fundamentally, this hearing is about the ability of a public health agency to call a carcinogen a carcinogen, even if it makes a huge amount of money for a powerful corporation," Sass said. "Are we willing to sell out the public's right to know about harmful chemicals in the places we work, live, and play, just so that Monsanto can sell more glyphosate?"
In a report (pdf) released ahead of the hearing--which makes use of documents that have come to light thanks to ongoing lawsuits against Monsanto--Democrats on the House Science Committee expressed their agreement with Sass, detailing the pesticide industry's attempts to control the public debate about glyphosate as well as the scientific studies that have been conducted to assess its potential harm."
"These efforts appear aimed at corrupting and disrupting any honest, thorough, and complete scientific evaluation of glyphosate and its potential adverse impact on the public's health," the report concludes.