Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter For Some Safety Reviews (bloomberg.com)

Reader schwit1 writes: Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported independent review of Roundups health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen (PDF). That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure. Monsanto disclosed that it paid Intertek Group Plc consulting unit to develop the review supplement, entitled An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate. But that was the extent of Monsantos involvement, the main article said. The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company, according to the reviews Declaration of Interest statement. Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panels manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.

Comments

What if they put their name on it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Devils Advocate, don't get all mad at me. What if Monsanto had submitted the paper under its own name? Would it stand a chance at being published? Would anyone actual take it seriously? It sounds nefarious, but what if they actually wanted what they view as legitimate information to be actually read by someone?

With that said, doing crap like that only further damages trust.

Re:What if they put their name on it?

[Mr D from 63]

It would be great if there were an independent review, from credible and qualified individuals, of the conflicting studies to perform some sort of validation and also to point out the potential flaws or margins of error. But who would choose and fund that review? It would be ideal if the two opposing entities funded it together, but that's not gonna happen.

My biggest concern with these 'causes cancer' studies is that its always a matter of levels of exposure, and there often is a big hole when it comes to what level of exposure a typical user would encounter, and what risk that presents, and how that compares with other risks. In my opinion, any study that puts forth an association of cancer to a product is incomplete, and sometimes even negligent, when they stop without attempting to answer that questions whilst leaving the public to assume the worst. But to be fair to those performing the studies, often its the media that simply takes the study and mis-characterizes its findings for either clicks or agenda.