Question
Why is Monsanto battling California on classifying GLYPHOSATE as CARCINOGENIC? Under Prop 65 we have the right to that information. Why does Monsanto maintain that Glyphosate is not a possible carcinogen? It seems that they are withholding valuable information that negates the public health information from a public health agency the EPA. Is Monsanto using draconian tactics to defend its products? httpm.sputniknews.comus201510221028902483monsantocaliforniacancerroundup.html
Submitted by: Steve
Answer
Expert response from GMOAnswers Admin_1
Wednesday, 20/01/2016 20:59
Under the law, Proposition 65 requires the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to maintain a list of “chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer.” Glyphosate should not be listed under Prop 65 because it does not cause cancer. Based on the overwhelming weight of evidence from hundreds of scientific studies, no regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate to be a carcinogen. Indeed, in the past, OEHHA itself determined glyphosate does not cause cancer. Let me take a moment to share some important details and background information.
It is important to understand that the sole basis for the proposal to list glyphosate under Prop 65 is the classification of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The IARC classification was based on selectively included and interpreted data. During the IARC review, relevant scientific data were dismissed as not contributing to reach the conclusion, and the classification followed non-standard toxicological principles. No link between glyphosate and an increase in cancer is identified when the full data set is included in a rigorous review.
Unlike IARC, robust assessments by agencies such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. EPA are based on all relevant data and are conducted according to internationally recognized toxicological principles. Most recently, in October 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reaffirmed its conclusion that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential.” The EFSA conclusion builds upon the science-based proposed re-evaluation decision by the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency from April 2015, which concluded that “the overall weight of evidence indicates that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a human cancer risk.” Numerous other global Regulatory agencies and scientific bodies have also reviewed the safety of glyphosate and found it to be non-carcinogenic. Their statements can be found at the following webpage: http://www.monsanto.com/iarc-roundup/pages/default.aspx
Unfortunately, OEHHA interprets Prop 65 to allow it simply to accept the flawed IARC classification without further scrutiny or review. OEHHA does not evaluate the weight or quality of the evidence considered by IARC or the conclusions of regulatory agencies around the world. Even more, OEHHA is proposing to overlook its own science-based assessment of glyphosate simply based on the inconsistent IARC classification. To explain, back in 2007, OEHHA conducted a robust risk assessment of glyphosate for purposes of setting safe tolerances in drinking water. As part of that assessment, OEHHA evaluated the carcinogenicity of glyphosate using the “best available toxicological data in the scientific literature” and concluded, “Based on the weight of evidence, glyphosate is judged unlikely to pose a cancer hazard to humans.” But now, OEHHA proposes to overlook its own assessment and the rigorous assessments of regulatory agencies around the world.
Glyphosate has a 40-year history of safe use, and it is one of the most important tools available to farmers and others for effective weed control. We strongly disagree with OEHHA’s intention to list glyphosate under Prop 65. As consumers ourselves, safety is our top priority. And we are confident in glyphosate’s long history of safe and effective use.
Resources:
- http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/admin_listing/intent_to_list/090415LCset27.html#comments
- http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/admin_listing/intent_to_list/pdf_zip/Nov15comments/AgCouncilCaliforniaFarm.pdf
- http://www.glyphosate.eu/database
- http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/GlyPHG062907.pdf
- Monsanto.com/glyphosate
Answer
Expert response from GMOAnswers Admin_1
Wednesday, 20/01/2016 20:59
Under the law, Proposition 65 requires the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to maintain a list of “chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer.” Glyphosate should not be listed under Prop 65 because it does not cause cancer. Based on the overwhelming weight of evidence from hundreds of scientific studies, no regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate to be a carcinogen. Indeed, in the past, OEHHA itself determined glyphosate does not cause cancer. Let me take a moment to share some important details and background information.
It is important to understand that the sole basis for the proposal to list glyphosate under Prop 65 is the classification of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The IARC classification was based on selectively included and interpreted data. During the IARC review, relevant scientific data were dismissed as not contributing to reach the conclusion, and the classification followed non-standard toxicological principles. No link between glyphosate and an increase in cancer is identified when the full data set is included in a rigorous review.
Unlike IARC, robust assessments by agencies such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. EPA are based on all relevant data and are conducted according to internationally recognized toxicological principles. Most recently, in October 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reaffirmed its conclusion that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential.” The EFSA conclusion builds upon the science-based proposed re-evaluation decision by the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency from April 2015, which concluded that “the overall weight of evidence indicates that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a human cancer risk.” Numerous other global Regulatory agencies and scientific bodies have also reviewed the safety of glyphosate and found it to be non-carcinogenic. Their statements can be found at the following webpage: http://www.monsanto.com/iarc-roundup/pages/default.aspx
Unfortunately, OEHHA interprets Prop 65 to allow it simply to accept the flawed IARC classification without further scrutiny or review. OEHHA does not evaluate the weight or quality of the evidence considered by IARC or the conclusions of regulatory agencies around the world. Even more, OEHHA is proposing to overlook its own science-based assessment of glyphosate simply based on the inconsistent IARC classification. To explain, back in 2007, OEHHA conducted a robust risk assessment of glyphosate for purposes of setting safe tolerances in drinking water. As part of that assessment, OEHHA evaluated the carcinogenicity of glyphosate using the “best available toxicological data in the scientific literature” and concluded, “Based on the weight of evidence, glyphosate is judged unlikely to pose a cancer hazard to humans.” But now, OEHHA proposes to overlook its own assessment and the rigorous assessments of regulatory agencies around the world.
Glyphosate has a 40-year history of safe use, and it is one of the most important tools available to farmers and others for effective weed control. We strongly disagree with OEHHA’s intention to list glyphosate under Prop 65. As consumers ourselves, safety is our top priority. And we are confident in glyphosate’s long history of safe and effective use.
Resources:
- http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/admin_listing/intent_to_list/090415LCset27.html#comments
- http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/admin_listing/intent_to_list/pdf_zip/Nov15comments/AgCouncilCaliforniaFarm.pdf
- http://www.glyphosate.eu/database
- http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/GlyPHG062907.pdf
- Monsanto.com/glyphosate
Video: GMO Answers at SXSW