{"id":751,"date":"2017-10-26T17:40:31","date_gmt":"2017-10-26T16:40:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/?p=751"},"modified":"2017-10-26T17:40:31","modified_gmt":"2017-10-26T16:40:31","slug":"matt-ridley-war-against-chemicals-is-a-shame-on-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/2017\/10\/26\/matt-ridley-war-against-chemicals-is-a-shame-on-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Matt Ridley: “War against chemicals is a shame on science”"},"content":{"rendered":"

We encourage you to read this paper which deals with 3 very controversial issues: Reauthorization by EU of glyphosate-Round up; Insect abundance decay in Germany; Media, Green, NGOs and Science swindling and\/or corruption. Matt Ridley is one of the world top journalists for environmental scientific issues and author of many famous books among them \u201cThe Rational Optimist\u201d. As former science editor of \u201cThe Economist\u201d I guess we must consider what he writes in one of the most respected daily \u201cThe Times\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Max Falque<\/em><\/p>\n

MATT RIDLEY<\/p>\n

London TIMES, Opinion Article October 23 2017.<\/p>\n

War against chemicals is a shame on\u00a0science<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

A perfectly useful herbicide could be banned in Europe thanks to a tangled network of lobbyists, lawyers and activists<\/em><\/p>\n

Bad news is always more newsworthy than good. The widely reported finding that insect abundance is down by 75 per cent in Germany over 27 years was big news, while, for example, the finding in May that ocean acidification is a lesser threat to corals than had been thought caused barely a ripple. The study, published in the leading journal Nature, found that corals\u2019 ability to make skeletons is \u201clargely independent of changes in seawater carbonate chemistry, and hence ocean acidification\u201d. But good news is no news.<\/p>\n

And bad news is big news. The German insect study, in a pay-to-publish journal, may indeed be a cause for concern, but its findings should be treated with caution, my professional biologist friends tell me. It did not\u00a0actually compare the same sites over time. Indeed most locations were only sampled once, and the scientists used mathematical models to extract a tentative trend from the inconsistent sampling.<\/p>\n

Greens were quick to use the insect study to argue for a ban on the widely used herbicide glyphosate, also known as Roundup, despite no evidence for a connection. Glyphosate is made by Monsanto and sometimes used in conjunction with genetically modified crops.<\/p>\n

Their campaign comes to a head this Wednesday in Brussels, where an expert committee of the European Commission will decide whether to ban glyphosate. The European parliament has already voted to do so, though its vote carries no weight. The committee will probably defer a decision until December, amid signs that the commission is getting fed up with the way French politicians in particular demand a ban in public then argue against it in private.<\/p>\n

The entire case against glyphosate is one \u201cmonograph\u201d from an obscure World Health Organisation body called the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which concluded that glyphosate might cause cancer at very high doses. It admitted that by the same criteria, sausages and sawdust should also be classified as carcinogens.<\/p>\n

Indeed, pound for pound coffee is more carcinogenic than the herbicide, with the big difference that people pour coffee down their throats every day, which they don\u2019t glyphosate. Ben & Jerry\u2019s ice cream was recently found to contain glyphosate at a concentration of up to 1.23 parts per billion. At that rate a child would have to eat more than three tonnes of ice cream every day to reach the level at which any health effect could be measured.<\/p>\n

The IARC finding is contradicted by the European Food Safety Authority as well as the key state safety agencies in America, Australia and elsewhere. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment looked at more than 3,000 studies and found no evidence of any risk to human beings at realistic doses: carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or reproductive. Since glyphosate is a molecule that interferes with a metabolic process found in all plants but no animals, this is hardly surprising.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, glyphosate has huge environmental benefits for gardeners and farmers. In particular, it is an alternative to the destructive practice of ploughing to control weeds. It allows no-till agriculture, a burgeoning practice that preserves soil structure, moisture and carbon content, enabling worms and insects to flourish, improving drainage and biodiversity while allowing the high-yield farming that is essential if we are to feed humanity without cultivating more land. Organic farmers rely on frequent tillage.<\/p>\n

How did the IARC paper come to its alarmist conclusion? Well, we now know, thanks to Reuters, which reported that IARC prepared a draft which somebody altered in ten different places. \u201cIn each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumors was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one.\u201d<\/p>\n

Last week,\u00a0The Times\u00a0<\/em>reported how the scientist who advised the IARC to classify glyphosate as carcinogenic received $160,000 from law firms suing Monsanto on behalf of cancer victims. Christopher Portier began advising one of the firms about two months before IARC\u2019s decision on glyphosate. He said that he had been hired to advise on an unrelated matter and his contract to advise on glyphosate was dated nine days after the IARC announcement in 2015.<\/p>\n

Dr Portier has denied that his advice was influenced by financial interest. He told The Times that he \u201cprobably should have\u201d declared his links with the law firms in an open letter sent to the European health commissioner urging him to disregard the European Food Safety Authority\u2019s finding before he did so.<\/p>\n

The Corporate European Observatory, which claims that it is in the business of \u201cexposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU\u201d, rushed to the defence of
\nDr Portier. It argued that reports about the scientist should be seen as \u201coutright attempts at character assassination\u201d.<\/p>\n

Europe banning glyphosate would open up a litigation bonanza in the US. Bounty-hunting law firms are in cahoots with environmental NGOs, to bring them business putting companies under pressure based on the theory that barely detectable doses of chemicals might do harm. Johnson & Johnson faces claims over the alleged carcinogenicity of talcum powder, for instance.<\/p>\n

The technique, says David Zaruk of the Universit\u00e9 Saint-Louis, Brussels, is to \u201cmanipulate public perception, create fear or outrage by co-operating with activists, gurus and NGOs, find a corporate scapegoat and litigate the hell out of them\u201d. The glyphosate story is a scandal, of the kind that would be front-page news if it happened in industry, rather than a branch of WHO. But the BBC has not covered the Reuters story. WHO itself shows no sign of investigating, although the US Congress, a major funder of IARC, is starting to take an interest.<\/p>\n

The episode lifts the lid on a questionable network of activist scientists, NGOs, and financiers, not to mention useful-idiot politicians. Scientists raise a scare, lawyers sue on the back of it, bureaucrats give themselves work, all profit. Cancer victims are misled, consumers deceived, farmers\u2019 livelihoods destroyed and environmental benefits undone. But who cares if there is money to be made?<\/p>\n

Note: I have never been paid by Monsanto.<\/p>\n

Ridley was born to\u00a0Matthew White Ridley, 4th Viscount Ridley<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(1925\u20132012), and Lady Anne Katharine Gabrielle Lumley (1928\u20132006), daughter of\u00a0Lawrence Roger Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough<\/em><\/a>.[12]<\/sup><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

He attended\u00a0Eton College<\/em><\/a>\u00a0from 1970\u20131975 and then went on to\u00a0Magdalen College, Oxford<\/em><\/a>, to study zoology.[1]<\/sup><\/em><\/a>\u00a0He obtained a\u00a0Bachelor of Arts<\/em><\/a>\u00a0degree with\u00a0First Class Honours<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and continued with research on the\u00a0mating system<\/em><\/a>\u00a0of the\u00a0common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus)<\/em><\/a>\u00a0supervised by\u00a0Chris Perrins<\/em><\/a>\u00a0for his\u00a0DPhil<\/em><\/a>\u00a0in 1983.[4]<\/sup><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Ridley joined\u00a0The Economist<\/em><\/a>\u00a0in 1984, first working as a science editor until 1987, then as\u00a0Washington, D.C.<\/em><\/a>correspondent from 1987 to 1989 and as American editor from 1990 to 1992.[13]<\/sup><\/em><\/a>[14]<\/sup><\/em><\/a>\u00a0He was a columnist for Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph and an editor of The Best American Science Writing 2002.<\/p>\n

Source Wikipedia <\/sup><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We encourage you to read this paper which deals with 3 very controversial issues: Reauthorization by EU of glyphosate-Round up; Insect abundance decay in Germany; Media, Green, NGOs and Science swindling and\/or corruption. Matt Ridley is one of the world top journalists for environmental scientific issues and author of many famous books among them \u201cThe Read more about Matt Ridley: “War against chemicals is a shame on science”<\/span>[…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":752,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/751","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=751"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/751\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":753,"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/751\/revisions\/753"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/752"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icrei.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}