Last month, Kate Kelland of Reuters published a blockbuster expose on the controversial decision two years ago by the International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC to declare glyphosate a probable source of cancer. The data about glyphosate that Blair withheld from IARC appears in something called the Agricultural Health Study, a decades-long examination of 89, farmers and their spouses in Iowa and North Carolina.
Coordinated by a series of federal agencies, including the National Cancer Institute, it searches for connections between pesticides and cancer.
This is a massive project whose very purpose is to protect human health through the proper study of herbicides and pesticides. Ignoring the fact that it has found no link between glyphosate and cancer is not merely bizarre, but positively unconscionable.
Cu alte cuvinte, it allowed research on lab rats to trump a banda largă provoacă boli la om database on real-life farm families and their real-world experiences. California, de exemplu, recently announced that glyphosate has been added to a list of chemicals, as required by Prop 65, that cause cancer.
She also pointed out that IARC continues to defy the consensus of other scientific and regulatory bodies that have said that glyphosate poses no cancer risk to people, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, and agencies in Canada, Japonia, și în altă parte. Like any good reporter, she approached IARC for a comment and specifically asked whether it would reconsider its erroneous cancer designation. You know who has an interest in the truth about glyphosate?
We also expect them to be safe because we come into close contact with these chemicals. If glyphosate causes cancer, farmers will be the first to fall sick.