On Tuesday, The Hill reported that, “The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is being called on the carpet to explain why it gave tens of millions of dollars to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a United Nations agency that has been accused of “quackery” and “cherry picking” its facts.” The article further states, “Congress simply wants the NIH to explain its support and staff involvement with an agency that has been widely criticized for its shoddy science and plagued by questions of bias.” Special thanks to the author of this article – Dr. Bruce Chassy, U of IL professor emeritus. Read the full article online.
On a related note, in an op-ed published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology on October 22, ten prominent toxicologists wrote that IARC cancer classification schemes are outmoded and serve neither science nor science. Read more online.
In addition, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), Australia’s chemical regulatory agency, joins the U.S., Canada, Europe in rejecting IARC’s glyphosate cancer claim. “Exposure to glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans,” the agency states in a report.
Also earlier this week House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith sent a blistering letter to EPA Administrator McCarthy about EPA involvement in the IARC glyphosate monograph and her earlier answers to the House Science Committee in written and oral testimony this year. Click here to see the Politico story on Mr. Smith’s letter.
And finally — IARC has this week identified more pesticides for monograph review — we’ll report more on that next week.