/image%2F1506338%2F20191023%2Fob_84fc07_ogm-environnement-et-sante.jpg)
/image%2F1506338%2F20230418%2Fob_f70698_m-kuntz.JPG)
/image%2F1506338%2F20230418%2Fob_96a97e_1-couv-wokisme-big.jpg)
/image%2F1506338%2F20201206%2Fob_10403e_191-kuntz-glyphosate-fr-couv-hd.jpg)
Updated Dec. 2020
The decision to ban glyphosate in some countries was based solely on its classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a "probable carcinogen" in March 2015. IARC is an World Health Organization (WHO) agency, but this classification is not the official position of the WHO, nor is it in accordance with the opinions of other international health agencies such as the European agencies (Efsa, Echa) or the French health evaluation agency (ANSES).
Read “What do global regulatory and research agencies conclude about the health impact of glyphosate?”
Several organizations opposed to glyphosate and politicians have criticized the opinions and the functioning of ANSES or EFSA. However, it is IARC that is fully marginalized.
In this context, we should examine more closely the functioning of IARC and the conditions under which its classification of glyphosate was established.
The downloadable document below brings together the factual elements currently available.
The pdf document below more specifically presents the evidence that a key figure in the IARC ranking, Christopher Portier, had significant financial ties ($160,000 and $144,990 respectively) with predator lawyer firms exploiting in lucrative lawsuits the IARC opinion on glyphosate.
