SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"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," said Jennifer Sass, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. (Photo: GMWatch.org)
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?"
Feb 07, 2018
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
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.
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.