Conflict of interest? Members of UN panel on glyphosate have Monsanto ties

18 May, 2016

© Charles Platiau

© Charles Platiau / Reuters

Two people on the UN panel that just ruled the herbicide glyphosate “unlikely” to cause cancer in humans have ties to groups that have accepted over $1 million from Monsanto and another industry group representing agrochemical giants.

The people in question are Professor Alan Boobis, chairman of the UN panel investigating glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup and other similar products – and Professor Angelo Moretto, the panel’s co-chair, the Guardian reported.

Boobis is the vice president of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI Europe). Moretto, meanwhile, is a board member of ILSI’s Health and Environmental Sciences Institute and of its Risk21 steering group. Notably, Boobis is a co-chair of Risk21.

ILSI Europe accepted a donation of $500,000 from Monsanto back in 2012, according to a document released by the US Right to Know campaign. The group also accepted donations from CropLife – which represents agriculture companies such as Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and Syngenta – totaling more than $528,000.

On Tuesday, the UN panel tasked with ruling on glyphosate – a joint effort between the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization – said the herbicide is not likely to cause cancer in humans.

“In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet,” the panel said, as quoted by Reuters.

Revelations of industry ties have drawn strong criticism from many environmental and anti-genetically modified organism (GMO) groups, who have said the connections between the UN panel and ISLI place the entire study into doubt.

“There is a clear conflict of interest if the review of the safety of glyphosate is carried out by scientists who directly take money from industry and openly lobby for industry interests,” said Vito Buonsante of the environmental group ClientEarth.

The non-governmental environmental organization Greenpeace also questioned the UN panel ruling in a statement, saying ISLI and its Health and Environmental gets most of its funding from private companies, including glyphosate producers.

Greenpeace also said that most of the scientists involved in a European Food Safety Authority study on glyphosate refused to be named. The EFSA is soon expected to vote on whether to re-license glyphosate, and anti-pesticide groups argue that the timing of the UN panel report is suspicious.

“The agencies contradicting the WHO cancer warning seem to either rely on officials who prefer not to be named, or lack a watertight policy to protect their impartiality,” Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg said.

Read more

Screenshot from YouTube user netman88

“Any decision affecting millions of people should be based on fully transparent and independent science that isn’t tied to corporate interests. It would be irresponsible to ignore the warnings on glyphosate and to re-licence this pesticide without any restrictions to protect the public and the environment.”

Groups such as Greenpeace have also come out strongly against the glyphosate ruling because of a previous report from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which said the chemical can “probably” cause cancer in humans. The WHO has denied that the studies contradict each other, arguing that the first one analyzed glyphosate as a potential hazard while the second looked at it as a risk.

“IARC reviews published studies to identify potential cancer hazards,” the WHO said, according to Reuters. “It does not estimate the level of risk to the population associated with exposure to the hazard.”

Meanwhile, Boobis has dismissed allegations of a conflict of interest.

“My role in ILSI (and two of its branches) is as a public sector member and chair of their boards of trustees, positions which are not remunerated,” he told the Guardian. “The boards of trustees are responsible for oversight of the organisations and their scientific programmes.”

Moretto has not commented on the issue.

 

Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/343485-un-who-glyphosate-cancer-risks/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

6 Responses to “Conflict of interest? Members of UN panel on glyphosate have Monsanto ties”

  1. ferryt says:

    Dear Tap,

    Are you experiencing technical problems?

    I have tried numerous times to respond to the last comment and every time I submit the page reloads without my comment.

    I have also tried to create a new account but to no avail; I get stuck in a log in loop without knowing or being able to set a password.

    Just an fyi.

    Cheers

    • Nicky says:

      I had a similar experiecne on an previous article on Monsanto and glyphosate. I tried 3 or 4 times, Concerned the site was maybe busy and the comments would all load on later I stopped trying, Was able to comment on other articles straight after and went back to the Glyphosate article to try again as it is an pressing issue.

      Thank you Tap and all contributors whom do post articles, Especially on the dangers of Monsanto, having had some rather dark experiences concerning them and those they trick and/or employ to do their dirty works.

      • ferryt says:

        OK thanks Nicky.

        I tried numerous times to drop the comment in, specifically on a comment I wanted to reply on. I could comment on this article at the same time. Just not that one. Must have tried at least 10 times. Struck me as odd, and with all the crap going on in the world one does start to wonder if one is being ‘played with’ so to speak…

        I haven’t got time right now but will maybe try later. Thanks for the reply anyway.

  2. ferryt says:

    EDIT specifically I am trying to reply to ‘Deuteronomy 33.22’. I have tried once more and nothing happens. I can obviously post as I am posting here, what’s going on? Ta

    • Deuteronomy 33.22 says:

      Hi Ferryt
      I am not great at discerning which people such as secureteam10 or whoever else are trustworthy. I know theres a lot of hoaxes out there. And as far as Billy Meiers Pleidian crafts go, those photos are an insult, theyre bin lids with ball bearings round and even the focus and depth of field is a giveaway.
      ——————-
      So yes theres lots of hoaxes out there. I do not feel that means the entire topic needs to be thrown out, about the technology the billionaires have held back since 1940s at least.

      Since this is such a huge rabbithole, I agree and think Aliens are best not believed in full stop. That simplifies matters a lot.
      Its the suppressed free energy and other etheric technologies im interested in the elites have kept back.

      Also Dr Rosin was interesting and im aware the project Bluebeam plan for a fake alien invasion. This is well understood its something to be on guard about. Also on another planet X post last night I mentioned how paul Hellyer, who speaks extensively about aliens, and is a Privy Councillor, also fits in with what you we are talking about here. So I lump the entire alien meme, for simplicity, into the disinfo bin. Even though theres an outside chance other civilisations might exist elsewhere. There are trillions of other cells in the human body. Why not other planets with life on them too?
      ———————-
      I have been very drawn in thinking about whether it really is a Firmament Dome above us, and there actually is no such thing as space. but am withdrawing from that. The planets up there are real. Astrology is a very real science. Are Hubble images a lie? I used to wonder. Now I am starting to think again the Cosmos is what we see in hubble, in the electric plasma universe
      ————————-
      To give a parallel example. Look at how the Al Gore hockey stick thing has been a red herring psyop to discredit climate change completely, to make MMGW accusations, and greed and tyranny, all make people switch off. When in fact, warming and changes really do seem to be happening.

      By the same token. I am wondering maybe the fake aline invasion is the Al Gore type psyop that the PTB want discredited and known about as a false flag.

      But could it be once humanitys guard is down realising a false flag fake alien invasion has been thwarted via awareness…….A fake benevolent alien presence instead could be the EAL psyop false flag?
      ——————————-
      But that wasn’t the point I wanted to make.
      I didn’t realise the secureteam10 Mirror thing today could be all made up, or trying to say its aliens, or whatever. id expect the Mail and the Mirror and Huff Post to say aliens and promote fear etc.

      But I didn’t get excited about any of that for reasons ive explained above
      I got excited because, I think the superfast free energy antigravity technology is very very real, and humanity needs it , it will be a great equaliser and helper.

      So Aliens don’t enter my thinking at all in my desire for truth and abundance and happiness for all.

      This is a bit long 1hr 18 mins but Laviolette explains very well the suppressed electrogravitic Townsend brown technology that made my jaw drop and still does. There are no aliens here.

      So I thought that the Mirror article today could at least be another step forwards to SSP disclosure

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.