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-upTM). 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.
