GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • 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
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 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
  • 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
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • 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
  • Contact
  • About
  • Donations

LATEST NEWS

  • Regenerative organic farming, not GM, is the solution to the climate crisis

  • First application for approval of CRISPR/Cas plants in the EU

  • Residents adopt council land to stop it using toxic glyphosate weedkiller

  • Germany: 94 associations call for strict regulation of genetic engineering

  • Glyphosate-based herbicides do not contribute to sustainable agriculture

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

LATEST VIDEOS

  • Seed keepers and truth tellers: From the frontlines of GM agriculture
  • Myths and Truths of Gene-Edited Foods
  • Dangers of gene-edited foods

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

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!

94 scientists explain why EFSA got it wrong on glyphosate

Details
Published: 04 March 2016
Twitter

Roundup Pesticide on Shelf

Peer-reviewed article criticizes EFSA over incorrect use of data, ignoring evidence of tumours in lab animals, and reliance on secret studies to come up with a verdict that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer

A group of 94 scientists has published an article explaining the differences in the evaluation of the weedkiller glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential by two scientific organisations.

Glyphosate is sprayed on over 80% of GM crops grown worldwide and is the most used herbicide in the world.

The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) came to opposite conclusions on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. The IARC classified glyphosate as a “probable” human carcinogen, but EFSA said a cancer link was unlikely.

The EFSA decision, based on a report prepared by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), even indicated that the allowable daily intake of glyphosate, the amount that humans can safely ingest each day over a lifetime, could be increased.

The 94 authors of the new article include most of the group of 96 scientists who publicly condemned EFSA’s assessment of glyphosate as “not supported by the evidence”. They also include many members of the original IARC Working Group that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.

In the article, which is published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, the 94 scientists point out a number of deficiencies in EFSA’s report, including:

* EFSA “dismissed any association of glyphosate with cancer without clear explanation or justification”.
* In order to dismiss evidence of various types of cancer in mouse studies, EFSA invoked “historical control data” from unrelated experiments. The proper controls are the concurrent controls within the experiment. In doing this, EFSA ignored guidelines for using such data in evaluating cancer findings established by the OECD, the European Chemicals Agency, and in the scientific literature – even though the first two authorities are cited in BfR’s own report. The scientists explain, “Thus, EFSA incorrectly discarded all findings of glyphosate-induced cancer in animals as chance occurrences.”
* EFSA ignored important laboratory and human evidence of DNA damage (genotoxicity) from glyphosate herbicides.
* EFSA confirmed that glyphosate induces oxidative stress but then, having dismissed all other findings of possible carcinogenicity, dismissed this finding on the grounds that oxidative stress alone is not sufficient for carcinogen labelling.

GMWatch would add that EFSA’s reliance on irrelevant historical control data to dismiss significant findings of toxicity from pesticides is common practice in ‘regulatory science’. The practice has been challenged before in relation to findings of birth defects in laboratory animals fed glyphosate in regulatory tests.

The 94 scientists also state that scientific progress relies on transparency of data so that findings can be questioned and tested by others. However, they write, “Many of the elements of transparency do not exist” for BfR’s report on glyphosate:

“For example, citations for almost all references, even those from the open scientific literature, have been redacted. The ability to objectively evaluate the findings of a scientific report requires a complete list of cited supporting evidence.”

As another example, the scientists add, no authors or contributors are listed for either the BfR or the EFSA report, a requirement for publication in virtually all scientific journals, where financial support, conflicts of interest and affiliations of authors must be fully disclosed. This is in direct contrast to the IARC Working Group evaluation, which lists all authors and all publications and required full public disclosure of relevant conflicts of interest prior to the Working Group meeting.

In the most important example of non-transparency, BfR relies for its verdict of the non-carcinogenicity for glyphosate on unpublished studies that were commissioned and are owned by pesticide manufacturers. These studies are kept hidden as trade secrets and IARC was unable to review them, a point that the scientists criticize in their article: “The use of confidential data submitted to the BfR makes it impossible for any scientist not associated with BfR to review this conclusion.”

The case for transparency of such data was recently made by scientific reviews expert Paul Whaley, who condemned EFSA’s practice of keeping secret those studies which it claims exonerate glyphosate from suspicion of causing cancer. Whaley wrote: “If the secret data which EFSA could access but IARC could not is so compelling, why keep it confidential?”

The answer to this question may be that many pesticide approvals, including that of glyphosate, would not survive full transparency of data and conflicts of interest of those involved. A system that relies on keeping crucial facts hidden from the public and scientific community is not sustainable.

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 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design