NCGA DENOUNCES IARC GLYPHOSATE RECLASSIFICATION, URGES PROMPT RECONSIDERATION

MARCH 2015

Share

(Posted Mon. Mar 23rd, 2015)

The National Corn Growers Association President Chip Bowling issued the following statement in response to the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s recent movement to reclassify glyphosate:

 

“The movement to reclassify glyphosate as a class 2A probable carcinogen ignores the findings of more than four decades of credible scientific research. In doing so, this decision creates unnecessary fear and confusion over the proven safety record of this important agricultural tool.

 

“It is irresponsible to reclassify glyphosate in such a capricious manner as this decision both creates panic and has the potential to impact access to one of farmers’ main methods of combatting weeds. While glyphosate is one of the most studied, trusted crop protection products available today, it is under political attack currently, and it is possible this impacted IARC’s decision.

 

“We urge IARC to release the scientific evidence upon which they claim to have based this decision as well as to reconsider the overwhelming scientific studies supporting the product’s safety.”

 

IARC, which coordinates and conducts both epidemiological and laboratory research into the causes of human cancer, makes its conclusion on a limited data review during a meeting that lasts only one week. This stands in stark contrast to the regulatory review process for products such as glyphosate which take a comprehensive look at all available data over an extended period of time.

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the regulatory body with authority over glyphosate approval in the United States, has extensively reviewed this product and continues to reassess the data on a regular basis. Following this more thorough process, EPA assigns glyphosate to the lowest category E, indicating glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans.

Notably, although IARC is part of the World Health Organization, it appears that the WHO does not always endorse IARC’s decisions. Thus, it would be presumptive to conclude that the WHO would do so in this situation.