“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.” – Galileo Galilei
For the second time in over two months, evidence has surfaced that further demonstrates the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and hidden agenda.
On August 17, Politico revealed that Charles Williams Jameson, a member of IARC’s working group on glyphosate (Monograph 112 program) and retired National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) scientist, testified under oath that he “did not possess the full picture” on glyphosate prior to the group’s March 2015 conclusion that the herbicide is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Once again, IARC scientists withheld critical data from studies that concluded glyphosate does not pose a cancer threat.
ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) agrees to maintain the current harmonised classification of glyphosate as a substance causing serious eye damage and being toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects. RAC concluded that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction.
Helsinki, 15 March 2017 – RAC assessed glyphosate’s hazardousness against the criteria in the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation. They considered extensive scientific data in coming to their opinion.
The committee concluded that the scientific evidence available at the moment warrants the following classifications for glyphosate according to the CLP Regulation:
- Eye Damage 1; H318 (Causes serious eye damage)
- Aquatic Chronic 2; H411 (Toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects)
Isn’t this how Pam Charbonneau started off promoting misinformation at the University of Guelph – Lets help destroy the lawn care industry Resource Center. Sponsored by Landscape Ontario
Charlottetown Deputy Mayor Mike Duffy said it’s key to get the information out now
He said the city is working on developing a video to educate people about alternative products they can use.
“You can only do that — convince some people — by showing them plots where nothing has been used, very safe [pesticides] have been used very lethal [pesticides] have been used and there’s no difference,” he said.
“They proof is in the pudding so to speak and we hope to do that by showing them.”
By MARTHA WICKETT – Sic [Salmon Arms BC – Hometown to Warren Bell]
December 7, 2016 ·
If you would like to weigh in on the city’s plan to give a one-time application of pesticides to the weeds that are breaking up hard surfaces like sidewalks and curbs, you might get a chance.
Coun. Tim Lavery gave notice at the Nov. 28 council meeting that he will be making a motion at the next meeting suggesting council receive further input on its pesticide spraying program.
“I do feel it’s an important topic, and I don’t feel the budget process was the time to have the discussion,” he said, suggesting that it include a chance for an “input session from interested people.”
During budget deliberations staff said the city would be using an exemption in the cosmetic pesticides bylaw in 2017 which allows pesticides when other methods have been tried unsuccessfully. City staff reported a one-time $10,000 application of pesticides will likely be used on the islands in the Trans-Canada Highway and on sidewalks downtown, moving farther afield as funding permits.
Industry and government must adjust to new findings, but policies should not
be based on the latest Internet trend
By Cam Dahl
Published: January 25, 2016
What does “science based” mean? For both government policy and industry best practice, science based should mean that practices are based on rigorous scientific studies. Policies and regulations that veer off the science-based path put at risk the tools that make modern agriculture possible. So do production practices that do not rigorously follow scientifically developed guidelines.
But scientific review can sometimes be messy. Scientific consensus can shift and the “right” answer can change over time as new information becomes available. New research can disprove past points of view that were once thought to be valid.
What does this mean for policy-makers and the development of industry best management practices? Practically, this means that both industry and government must be willing to adjust practices and policies when new evidence comes to light.
For example, frequent summerfallow was once the common practice on the North American prairies. This practice has adjusted as new research and agriculture tools became available. The willingness of farmers to adapt has benefited the environment and improved economic returns.