The Murder of a Molecule

The activist forces are marching against the molecule glyphosate.
This one in a hundred year herbicide has done more to revolutionize sustainable farming than ANY other chemistry to date (and maybe all others combined).
Yet, everyday activist organizations campaign for its de-registration.

Consumers are being fed BS.

It all stems from a review panel called IARC that said glyphosate is a “possible” carcinogen.
This finding flies in the face of every other major scientific review before IARC or after.
Yet, just like the French retracted Seralini rat study, it turns out there was major deception and mis-representation by several of the IARC members that were supposedly unbiased but were anything but.
Is is now known that IARC committee member, Aaron Blair KNEW of large, recent studies supporting the safety of glyphosate yet knowingly withheld the information from the review panel as reported here.
It has now been revealed, under legal deposition, that another IARC committee member, Christopher Portier did not disclose his involvement as an advocate for the Environmental Defense Fund AND…now it turns out he was receiving retainers of up to $160,000 USD by a law firm to act as an expert witness against glyphosate.

This story broke yesterday by “The Risk Monger” who documents these goings on using transcripts from the legal proceedings.

The Risk-Monger article.

1Image credit to

The activists groups have grabbed the IARC findings with both hands screaming no GMO and no glyphosate!
Now…in come the ambulance chasing law firms advertising for customers for class action law suits against the manufacturers of glyphosate.
Politicians, capitulating to activist fear, plan for the de-registration of one of the most valuable and safest products ever used in agriculture.
Farmers, (as in France, Italy and Sri Lanka) who are meanwhile too busy working in the field will wake up one day and ask “WTH happened to one of the most important tools in our toolbox?”

2 Comments Add yours

  1. Mike says:

    First, it is spelled Seralini.

    Second, the major complaint against the paper is they did not have enough rats. Rather than following the scientific process and debunk the study by showing data against it using a larger number of rats, they simply called it unscientific. Nobody has yet produced a long term study to counter the claim that twice as many female rats developed cancer when .7 parts per billion of roundup is in their drinking water.

    This is the problem with science today. Instead of looking at this and saying there were some flaws, but the data is still troubling, they instead throw mud at a researcher.

    Furthermore since the publisher’s retraction, the paper has been republished, citing the court case that found Seralini did not commit any fraud.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s