Glyphosate: a good decision

More a problem for IARC  than for glyphosate ?

By extending the authority of glyphosate for a limited period, until the European Chemicals Agency publishes its opinion, no later than at the end of 2017, the European Commission has not really reached a decision but took a solution of rational expectation. But the debate took a worrisome turn with the intense campaign calling for the withdrawal of glyphosate (the active principle of Round-up^TM). For months, some environmentalists have argued that it is carcinogenic, based on a report by the IARC (International Agency for research on Cancer,), organization linked WHO (World Health Organization), which has classified it as "probably carcinogenic". However, this classification seems more questioning IARC, its methods, its ethics and its irresponsibility than glyphosate itself.

First,  no other agencies share the analysis of the CIRC. The international Program on Chemical Safety, the Guidelines for drinking water quality, the Core assessment group of the World Health Organization are in disagreement with the CIRC. As well as all other  safety agencies in the world, in particular the European Agency.

-In glyphosate evaluation, IARC has taken as only one external expert a certain Christopher Portier, statistician and non toxicologist, working for an association for the defence of the environment and leading for a long time a campaign against glyphosate. This commitment was not reported among the potential conflicts of interest in the report of the CIRC. The IARC and Portier then conducted an intense campaign to the European authorities, policies and media to discredit all the experts and reports that would not agree with their conclusions (i.e. all of them).

These methods, which are not the methods of debate in good faith and even make impossible any scientific debate, have rightly angered the German Federal Institute for risk assessment (BfR) - the rapporteur of the EU for glyphosate:

"The BfR has compiled the most comprehensive toxicological database probably in the world for glyphosate. This database includes hundreds of studies that have been made by many manufacturers of glyphosate or for their account, and thousands of references of the open literature. This huge amount of data shows that glyphosate is almost unique among the active substances of plant protection products. BfR believes that any database must be taken into account for the toxicological evaluation and evaluation risks of a substance, and not only a more or less arbitrary selection of studies. [...] The new classification of IARC of glyphosate as a carcinogen based on "limited evidence" in humans. This risk results from three epidemiological studies in the United States, the Canada and Sweden and is based on a statistical correlation between exposure to glyphosate and an increased risk of lymphoma non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. However, this assessment has not been confirmed in the very large cohort of the "Agricultural Health Study", also cited, nor in other studies. »

Following a second mandate from the Commission European to review the findings of the International Agency for research on cancer (IARC) regards the carcinogenicity potential of glyphosate or plant protection products containing glyphosate in review peer being the active ingredient, EFSA concluded that it is unlikely that glyphosate has a human carcinogen danger and that evidence do not support the classification of point view of its carcinogenic potential according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. »

People who have not contributed to the work, which probably have not seen the evidence, which did not have the time to go into the details, which are not involved in the process, have signed a letter of support.

I'm sorry to say, but for me, with this letter, you leave the realm of science, you enter the field of lobbying and campaigns ('campaigning'), and this is not how EFSA works. For me, this is the sign that we are entering the Facebook science age. You have a scientific evaluation, you put it on Facebook and you count how many people 'like'. For us, this is not a progress. We, we produce a scientific opinion, we defend it, but we do not have to take into account if it is liked or not. »

The condemnation of the methods and practices of the IARC is devoid of ambiguity. However, EFSA position would be more solid, much more solid, if it came at what asked the European Commissioner health and have refused, on behalf of the industrial secret, manufacturers, supported by a decision of the European Union (ask you why we like Europe!): the publication of industrial studies which has, among other things, supported the EFSA decision. It is a position that is no longer tenable, and in health and environmental matters, manufacturers should be required to publish studies that justify their allegations, as pharmaceutical companies have come to accept to publish data from all clinical trials, positive or not. It is true that glyphosate industrials have agreed that these studies will be available in a given location, without the possibility to save or copy documents. It is obviously insufficient, and they cannot regain a credibility that in publishing and submitting their data freely to the criticism of all the experts.

IARC, an agency with evaporating credibility

Behind this is the scientific recognition of IARC, which is the only one among all the agencies to not rely on estimates of risks including the intrinsic risk and exposure. Thus the IARC also classified red meat and hot drinks as carcinogenic potential, like glyphosate and sausages  as carcinogenic – then more dangerous than glyphosate. The IARC precised it did not mean that it was necessary to forbid sausages, but simply need to have a balanced diet! If one follows the same reasoning, this means that it should not ban glyphosate, but use it in a balanced way. And there, we could agree.

In fact, the IARC seems to specialize in provocative and sensational statements which in fact, prove to be harmful. Its opinion on the carcinogenic nature of hot drinks earned him a stern warning from his tutelage (WHO): "the esophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer in the world and one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. He invites the IARC to focus on "the factors for which there is evidence of established their causal role in cancer of the esophagus and other locations."

Health and especially the evaluation of the carcinogenic character of the compounds of our environment deserve indeed to be taken seriously, as well as issues that may result - in the case of glyphosate, effects on agriculture, and also on farmers if they replace it with more toxic herbicides. Glyphosate may seems to remain one of the most effective and one of the least toxic herbicides. An evaluation of  methods and ethics at the IARC seems necessary for this WHO agency to retain credibility.

The center of biological studies of Chize

To end on a more positive note, there are, and in France, little-known organizations that do a wonderful job in the assessment of agricultural practices. Thus, the center of biological studies of Chize (CNRS/Université de la Rochelle) can conduct studies closely involving researchers and farmers on an area of more than 450 km 2 and has more than 400 farms, 15,000 plots with practices very various. These experiments in real conditions in the field, provide the sometimes quite different results from those conducted in isolated patches. Thus, it seems that the quantities of nitrogen fertilizers and herbicides can be reduced by two without decreasing yields. The reason: it's a balance between the fertilizer, benefiting even weeds while herbicides in high doses destroy more rare and little annoying weeds than the most common, most damaging for crops; an effect difficult to show on isolated fields. So can be  set up an$ reasoned agriculture, based on scientific studies and the collaboration of farmers which, without renouncing the herbicides,  will decrease their disadvantages.