IARC Glyphosate Report: A Closer Look At ‘Probably Carcinogenic’ Needed

By now, you’ve probably run across a story or two (probably closer to 100) detailing the ongoing controversy over the recent World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report classifying the popular herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” In all likelihood, if you are like me, this crush of scientific information, user points/counterpoints and special interest opponents high-fiving one another online has probably given you a headache (or two). Heck, you’re probably confused what to believe.

Fear not. This column will probably help you in this instance. Of course, it might not help at all, probably.

Cutting through all the other nuances of this story, the key takeaway here is probably the word “probably.” The IARC report never said glyphosate “definitely” causes cancer in humans (which would have landed it on the agency’s Group 1 list of dangerous substances such as sunshine, alcoholic beverages and wood dust).

Top Articles
Crop Fertility Reminders: Replenish What Has Been Removed for a Head Start on Your Next Crop

Instead, it “probably” does — at least based upon the handful of animal/human studies regarding glyphosate safety IARC used to compile its report. The group found enough evidence to classify glyphosate as a Group 2A product, which “probably” is carcinogenic. Just for context, other items that IARC classifies as “probably” carcinogenic to humans include wood smoke, working night shifts (because these disrupt circadian rhythms) and a South American drink called mate (made by mixing dried yerba mate leaves with hot water).

As many commentators have pointed out, the use of the word “probably” is important for everyone now looking more critically at glyphosate to remember. “It’s like saying a rock can kill you,” said one IARC report critic, “but it probably needs to be dropped from a great height to do so.”

Still, you can tell from reading comments on the Internet from long-time glyphosate/biotech crop opponents that “probably” in the IARC report might as well say “definitely.” But here’s an interesting fact: Another item IARC lists as a probable carcinogenic is acrylamide, which shows up in things such as potatoes and coffee beans when they are cooked at high temperatures.

If the name acrylamide looks familiar, it should. A few months back, J.R. Simplot received federal approval for a new biotech potato that produces half the amount of acrylamide as traditional potatoes when cooked. Despite this clear health benefit for consumers, biotech opponents decried this new potato, prompting fast food giant McDonald’s to shun its use.

So should society reject one IARC-classified probable carcinogenic (glyphosate) while accepting another (acrylamide) that has a safer alternative? This kind of cherry-picking is probably not a good idea. Actually, it will probably just lead to more issues in the future. Probably …

0

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Jim Gray Jim Gray says:

The ‘headaches’ are sure to continue in this discussion. In the preambles to IARC Monographs, IARC writes, ” Monographs emphasized hazard identification.” and later, “Monographs are used by national and international authorities to make risk assessments. These evaluations represent only one part of the body of information on which public health decisions may be based.”

As long as the pressure groups continue to portray exposure as equating to harm, those of us in production agriculture will continue to have to defend the GLP science used in the robust evaluations conducted by the expert scientists in Regulatory Agencies. The public should understand that many risks in life may be mitigated for safe use…think driving a car at 100 mph in traffic versus a speed limit of 45 mph. The hazard is just the first part of the assessment of any risk.

[…] back to the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) ruling that the herbicide was “a possible cancer causing agent in humans” almost two years […]

[…] out glyphosate use within their borders. Much of this opposition stems from the infamous International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report which labeled the popular herbicide as a “probable carcinogenic” that was originally […]

Advertisement
Advertisement