|
 In a letter and an email seen by Reuters, officials from the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) cautioned
scientists who worked on a review in 2015 of the weedkiller
glyphosate against releasing requested material.
The review, published in March 2015, concluded glyphosate is
"probably carcinogenic," putting IARC at odds with regulators around
the world. Critics say they want the documents to find out more
about how IARC reached its conclusion.
"IARC is the sole owner of such materials," IARC told the experts. "IARC
requests you and your institute not to release any (such)
documents."
Asked about its actions, the agency told Reuters on Tuesday it was
seeking to protect its work from external interference and defending
its panels' freedom to debate evidence openly and critically.
In recent years IARC, a semi-autonomous unit of the WHO based in
Lyon, France, has caused controversy over whether such things as
coffee, mobile phones, red and processed meat, and chemicals like
glyphosate cause cancer.
Its critics, including in industry, say the way IARC evaluates
whether substances might be carcinogenic can cause unnecessary
health scares. IARC assesses the risk of a substance being
carcinogenic without taking account of typical human exposure to it.
Glyphosate is a key ingredient of the herbicide Roundup, sold by
Monsanto. According to data published by IARC, glyphosate was
registered in over 130 countries as of 2010 and is one of the most
heavily used weedkillers in the world.
Pressure has been growing on the experts who worked on IARC's
glyphosate review in part because other regulators, including in the
United States, Europe, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, say the
weedkiller is unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans.
The conflicting scientific assessments have delayed a decision on
whether glyphosate should be relicensed for sale in Europe, and
prompted senior U.S. lawmakers to question whether IARC should
receive funding from U.S. taxpayers.
IARC defends its methods as scientifically sound and says its
monographs - the name it gives to its classifications of carcinogens
- are "widely respected for their scientific rigor, standardized and
transparent process and . . . freedom from conflicts of interest."
IARC's advice to experts not to release documents came in April
after IARC said it learned that members of the scientific panel that
reviewed glyphosate in 2015 had been issued with legal requests for
information relating to their work.
Multiple subsequent freedom of information requests by the U.S.
conservative advocacy group the Energy and Environment Legal
Institute (E and E Legal) have since been turned down by agencies
and universities citing IARC's reasoning that it owns the documents.
David Schnare, General Counsel of E and E Legal, told Reuters his
group is now pursuing a legal challenge over whether the documents
belong to IARC, or are the property of the U.S. federal and state
institutions where the panel experts work.
He said E and E wants access to the documents and emails because it
wants to know more about the way IARC reviews the scientific
evidence, and about its relationship with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
[to top of second column] |
"PRIVATE EMAILS"
An email dated April 1 was addressed to six members of the working
group for monograph 112, which considered glyphosate, including
experts at universities in Texas and Mississippi as well as
scientists attached to the EPA.
Signed and sent by Kathryn (Kate) Guyton, the IARC staffer
responsible for the glyphosate review, the email said IARC "does not
encourage participants to retain working drafts or documents after
the monograph has been published."
Monsanto's vice president of strategy, Scott Partridge, told Reuters
he considered IARC's actions "ridiculous."
"The public deserves a process that is guided by sound science, not
IARC's secret agendas," he said.
Responding to Reuters' questions about the letter and email, IARC
said it had been previously informed by experts on the panel who
"had been approached by interested parties, including lawyers
representing Monsanto . . . and asked to release private emails as
well as draft scientific documents."
It said that as international agencies, both IARC and the WHO "have
policies to protect their work, and the contributions of their
expert Working Groups, from external interference."
In a statement to Reuters, IARC said the letter and email were
sanctioned by the agency's director, Chris Wild. It added: "IARC
staff did not instruct anyone not to comply with records requests
made under national or local law."
It said it is vital that scientists in its working groups "are able
to openly and critically debate the scientific evidence."
"IARC considers any measures that would discourage scientists from
participating in Monographs or would detract from open scientific
debate to be contrary to the best interests of international public
health," it added.
Ivan Rusyn, one of the recipients of the IARC's April letter and
email and a professor at Texas A and M University who worked on the
glyphosate review, said he was glad to have IARC's advice regarding
whether documents should be released.
"I don't see anything inappropriate here," he told Reuters. "It's
very appropriate for IARC to advise its working group members as to
what the procedures are."
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
