WHO agency targeted by Monsanto lobby group over glyphosate cancer link

In defence the lawyers from Monsanto are trying characterize the work of IARC as “flawed”, as one of the court documents reveals

“Court records show that plaintiffs’ attorneys are building their cases around the IARC classification”, writes Carey Gillam from the American food watchdog U.S. Right to Know on the website of the Huffington Post. In response, Monsanto’s lawyers are trying – in defense against the legal claims – to characterize IARC’s work as ‘flawed’, as one of the court documents reveals. Plaintiffs have brought on cases in the states California, Florida, Missouri, Delaware and Hawaii. Most claims filed against Monsanto originate from farmers who have fallen ill, or in some cases their surviving relatives. One of the allegations is that the agricultural giant, big in seeds and pesticides, despite experimental animal studies indicating risks since the 1980s, continued to sell glyphosate to U.S. farmers advertising it to be as ‘safe as table salt’.

The stakes are high for the agricultural company from St. Louis, Missouri. Doubts about safety of glyphosate could potentially hurt its business model deeply. Monsanto is the world’s largest producer of glyphosate, a product with an estimated market value of 6.5 billion U.S. dollars. The company also leads worldwide in the sales of agicultural seeds, many of which have been genetically altered to make the plants resistant against unlimited use of the herbicide – a product line called ‘Roundup Ready’. The seeds and weed killer are sold together as one package, a strategy that has earned Monsanto a dominant position in the U.S. market for soybeans and corn.

But according to Kathryn Guyton, a senior scientist with IARC, there is a good explanation for these statistics: “IARC is charged to evaluate substances where there is already some suspicion that they may cause cancer”, she tells in an interview with OneWorld. “Another thing to realize is that somewhere about half of the substances evaluated end up in a category labeled ‘not classifiable’, which means that we can’t tell.”

As with any political decision, perception plays an important role. It is therefore helpful to industry that also another voice has joined the chorus in questioning IARC’s credibility. On October the 22nd 2016, an article authored by the British professor Alan Boobis is published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, a peer-reviewed journal with a special focus on chemicals regulation. “Cancer classification on hazard-identification such as IARC…are outmoded” it reads, “unintended consequences: health scares, costs, and diversion of public funds”.

On its website, the American Chemistry Council makes reference to Alan Boobis’ study to underscore its criticism that IARC’s work is of ‘questionable relevance’.

The article in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology not only targets IARC’s methodology, but also criticizes what it calls the ‘outmoded’ model used in the European Union to regulate carcinogenic chemicals. The EU’s approach has some important similarities with that of IARC. According to EU law, pesticides that cause cancer are prohibited categorically, irrespective of the exact levels consumers are exposed to them in their daily lives. It is this fact that makes IARC’s conclusions very relevant for regulators in the EU.

In a written response, a Monsanto spokesperson does not reply to questions about whether or not the campaign initiated by the American Chemistry Council is linked to the court cases brought against the company in the United States. The spokesperson emphasizes that Monsanto fully supports what it calls the efforts by ACC ‘to educate the public about the harmful and misleading practices of the French-based IARC group’. According to Monsanto, IARC’s verdict on glyphosate is ‘baseless’ and ‘runs counter to 40 years of well-established research and studies in more than 160 countries’ which would presumably demonstrate its safety beyond any doubt.

Translated by Elizabeth Verwey.