how to get rid of moles
IARC-WHO and glyphosate
26 juli 2017
Are Corporate Ties Influencing Reuters Science Coverage?
By Stacy Malkan
Ever since they classified the world's most widely used herbicide as ''probably carcinogenic to humans,'' a team of international scientists at the World Health Organization's (WHO) cancer research group have been under withering attack by the agrichemical industry and its surrogates.
In a front-page series, The Monsanto Papers, the French newspaper Le Monde described the attacks as ''the pesticide giant's war on science,'' and reported, ''to save glyphosate, the firm Monsanto undertook to harm the United Nations agency against cancer by all means.''
One key weapon in industry's arsenal has been the reporting of Kate Kelland, a veteran Reuters reporter based in London.
With two industry-fed scoops and a special report, reinforced by her regular beat reporting, Kelland has aimed a torrent of critical reporting at the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), portraying the group and its scientists as out of touch and unethical, and leveling accusations about conflicts of interest and suppressed information in their decision-making.
The IARC working group of scientists did not conduct new research, but reviewed years of published and peer-reviewed research before concluding that there was limited evidence of cancer in humans from real-world exposures to glyphosate and ''sufficient'' evidence of cancer in studies on animals. IARC also concluded there was strong evidence of genotoxicity for glyphosate alone, as well as glyphosate used in formulations such as Monsanto's Roundup brand of herbicide, whose use has increased dramatically as Monsanto has marketed crop strains genetically modified to be ''Roundup Ready.''
But in writing about the IARC decision, Kelland has ignored much of the published research backing the classification, and focused on industry talking points and criticisms of the scientists in seeking to diminish their analysis. Her reporting has relied heavily on pro-industry sources, while failing to disclose their industry connections; contained errors that Reuters has refused to correct; and presented cherry-picked information out of context from documents she did not provide to her readers.
Voor het verdere lange artikel en de vele verwijzingen (links) daarin zie de links bovenaan. Dit hebben we hier geplaatst vanwege de tamelijk ver gaande analogie met de beïnvloeding van IARC-WHO, via de ICNIRP, wat betreft de classificatie van EMV van draadloze communicatie, nu ook in klasse 2B: mogelijk kankerverwekkend.
Ga terug naar het hoofdmenu