GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Latest News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
    • Contact
    • About
    • Links
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • Archive
      • 2018 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
    • Daily Digest
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
  • Contact
  • About
  • Links
  • Donations

LATEST NEWS

  • Exposé of Monsanto's history of toxic pollution nominated for award
  • CFS and State of California win appeal over listing of glyphosate as probable carcinogen
  • UCSF Industry Documents Library publishes key agrichemical industry papers
  • Local courts lift Arkansas dicamba ban, creating chaos
  • Zombie GMO myths
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMO INFO

10 Questions About GM Foods
Do GMOs increase yields and reduce pesticide use, and are they needed to feed the world? Find out in the 16-page document, 10 Questions About GM Foods.

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

News Archive

  • 2018 articles
  • 2017 articles
  • 2016 articles
  • 2015 articles
  • 2014 articles
  • 2013 articles
  • 2012 articles
  • 2011 articles
  • 2010 articles
  • 2009 articles
  • 2008 articles
  • 2007 articles
  • 2006 articles
  • 2005 articles
  • 2004 articles
  • 2003 articles
  • 2002 articles
  • 2001 articles
  • 2000 articles

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

IARC expert defends glyphosate cancer verdict

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 20 November 2015
Twitter
Dr Kate Guyton says the IARC is more independent and transparent than the EFSA

Dr Kate Guyton says IARC more independent and transparent than EFSA

Dr Kate Guyton, the senior toxicologist who worked on the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) report that classified glyphosate as a carcinogen, has explained why the IARC report came to a different conclusion to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA recently said the chemical was not likely to be carcinogenic.

In a radio interview with BBC Farming Today, Guyton defended the methods used by IARC. She said IARC had conducted "the most independent, rigorous and transparent evaluation”, based on “rigorous scientific criteria” that were openly published in a preamble to the report. She added that the evaluation was performed by the “world’s leading experts”.

Guyton said the main difference between the two reports was that IARC had only used studies that were publicly available for independent scientific review”, which is “extremely important for independence and transparency”. EFSA included other studies that were not published and that IARC were not able to review.

In fact, Guyton is referring to industry-sponsored studies that are kept hidden from the public under commercial confidentiality rules. EFSA’s evaluation relied heavily on these industry studies.

Quite apart from the bias inherent in secret industry-sponsored studies, many were done according to outdated methods.

Guyton was asked whether the IARC report was worrying people unnecessarily about a
risk which was only theoretical, given the low levels at which the chemical was actually used in the real world. Guyton replied, “Our evaluation is based on studies of people who were exposed in their work, so these are real-world exposures, and in those studies there was evidence of cancer being caused. So I don’t think that’s a valid criticism.”

The BBC interviewer said that with two respected bodies like the IARC and EFSA disagreeing, it was hard for the public to know who to believe. Guyton replied, “Our evaluation was done according to the strictest international standards. Our review was reviewed by Germany as part of the EFSA process and they affirmed our conclusions according to our criteria.

EFSA report not independent

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe criticised EFSA's report as not independent, but “a copy of the German government agency BfR’s assessment and the pesticide industry dossier” compiled by the industry-funded Glyphosate Task Force.

PAN accused the GTF of "hiding and misinterpreting tumour incidences from experimental studies".

The contradiction between IARC’s report and the German government’s report on glyphosate classification was examined by toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing for PAN Germany. Clausing detected major flaws in the assessment of glyphosate by BfR.

In his critical review, Clausing highlighted that even without considering independent academic literature, significant tumour incidences were found in five mice studies and at least two rat studies of the regulatory animal experiments produced by the industry.

According to PAN Europe, unlike the IARC and in violation of OECD standards for interpreting carcinogenicity studies, BfR and EFSA considered these tumour incidences as irrelevant to glyphosate exposure, by:
i) cheating on the use of the “control” groups
ii) overlooking statistically significant results
iii) considering cancer incidences in human epidemiology studies as inconsistent and
iv) dismissing genotoxicity (DNA damage) data as irrelevant due to the lack of carcinogenic effects.

PAN Europe’s chemicals officer Hans Muilerman commented, “It is unacceptable that EFSA decided to dismiss the scientific evidence showing the potential of glyphosate to cause cancer and genotoxicity, putting at risk human health and the environment.”

Report: Claire Robinson

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2018 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design