On 25/03/16 11:07, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

Scientific evidence? I know "junk science" when I see it, and I know
what effects pressure groups can have on "scientific" opinion.

The IARC is a branch of the UN's World Health Organisation.
It seems to me unlikely that it promotes "junk science".

No?
http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/i...ltiple-fronts/

FWIW, three other programs under WHO auspices are on record as
concluding the opposite to what IARC are saying.

Its aim is to determine if substances in general use
are carcinogenic, or likely to be carcinogenic.
It has looked at many different substances.
It places glyphosate in class 2A,
"likely to be carcinogenic, but not proven to be".

That is the nub of the matter - incorrect positioning based on bad science.

Once the Greens have removed glyphosate, do you think it will end there?
There won't be a chemical left on the market, and food production will
soon fall foul of every insect and fungal pest under the sun. If you
don't believe that, you need only look at the Irish Potato Famine,
caused by Phytophthora infestans. And if you want modern examples of
disease wiping out plants, you need only look at Dutch Elm Disease, Ash
Dieback, and the Emerald Ash Borer. Neither tree is of sufficient
economic interest for the chemical companies to develop a treatment;
within a few years the English elm went almost completely, and it looks
like the ash will follow. Follow the analogy to food, and the future is
bleak.

Dutch Elm Disease, etc, is completely irrelevant to the question
whether glyphosate is or is not carcinogenic.

To the specific question, yes. But it's a slippery slope when you start
ignoring facts. What next will go after glyphosate is removed, and will
it have negative ramifications for crop production?

--

Jeff