7 hours ago
https://quillette.com/2026/04/08/a-costl...formation/
EXCERPTS: It is important to realise that there would be no tort litigation around this issue had the IARC not determined that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen” in 2015. Before that finding was announced in the British journal Lancet Oncology, there was little concern about the safety of this chemical. It has been in use for over fifty years and it is the most popular weedkiller worldwide.
But unlike other regulatory agencies, the IARC does not assess risk, it assesses hazard—the possibility that a substance or agent might cause cancer. This means that IARC considers carcinogenicity in the abstract, divorced from consideration of the ways in which humans are exposed to carcinogens in the real world.
[...] If this were all there is to be said about the IARC determination regarding glyphosate, the agency’s assessment could just be dismissed as an idiosyncratic judgement. Other regulatory agencies—like the US EPA, Health Canada, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency, and over a dozen other national and international agencies—all found glyphosate to be safe and not carcinogenic. However, evidence has emerged suggesting that IARC’s glyphosate determination is deeply flawed.
[...] Kate Kelland, an award-winning reporter, formerly of Reuters, obtained an early draft of the chapter of the IARC’s glyphosate report dealing with the rodent evidence. She found that, after the working group met, changes were made that strengthened the interpretation of what were previously weak findings.
Confronted with these irregularities, the IARC criticised Kelland on its website, but refused to rebut the scientific critique of its rodent deliberations. Unfortunately, dozens of articles pointing out these abuses have done little to diminish the IARC’s stature or the trust accorded to its glyphosate determination... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: It is important to realise that there would be no tort litigation around this issue had the IARC not determined that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen” in 2015. Before that finding was announced in the British journal Lancet Oncology, there was little concern about the safety of this chemical. It has been in use for over fifty years and it is the most popular weedkiller worldwide.
But unlike other regulatory agencies, the IARC does not assess risk, it assesses hazard—the possibility that a substance or agent might cause cancer. This means that IARC considers carcinogenicity in the abstract, divorced from consideration of the ways in which humans are exposed to carcinogens in the real world.
[...] If this were all there is to be said about the IARC determination regarding glyphosate, the agency’s assessment could just be dismissed as an idiosyncratic judgement. Other regulatory agencies—like the US EPA, Health Canada, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency, and over a dozen other national and international agencies—all found glyphosate to be safe and not carcinogenic. However, evidence has emerged suggesting that IARC’s glyphosate determination is deeply flawed.
[...] Kate Kelland, an award-winning reporter, formerly of Reuters, obtained an early draft of the chapter of the IARC’s glyphosate report dealing with the rodent evidence. She found that, after the working group met, changes were made that strengthened the interpretation of what were previously weak findings.
Confronted with these irregularities, the IARC criticised Kelland on its website, but refused to rebut the scientific critique of its rodent deliberations. Unfortunately, dozens of articles pointing out these abuses have done little to diminish the IARC’s stature or the trust accorded to its glyphosate determination... (MORE - missing details)