Last May at the same ‘intersessional’ climate talks in Bonn, a group of countries representing more than 70% of the world’s population insisted on adding a ‘conflict of interest’ provision in the negotiating text.

It almost made it – and would have done were it not for an underhand move by the European Union and the USA which saw it removed.

Pulling the strings behind such moves: the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.

Taken to its logical conclusion, addressing conflicts of interest would mean kicking out the same corporations whose profits are built on causing climate change.

Research shows that at least 80% of known fossil fuel reserves need to be kept in the ground to keep global warming below 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees. But a look at BP and Shell’s future energy projections allege that we can continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely.

Ending fossil fuels would put them out of business. This is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet getting it even discussed – let alone addressed – has been an uphill struggle.

However, persistence of those countries at the frontline of climate change – particularly Ecuador, which is seeing increasing water shortages and crop failures – as well as increasing public outrage and civil society’s call on the UN to ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ of climate policy, has ensured the issue has remained on the agenda.

Big fossil and Big Tobacco: two peas in a pod

This year’s two-week intersessional talks in Bonn saw an official workshop on the topic organised by the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Taking place on 9th May, the second day of the talks, the strongest intervention came from the secretariat of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

On the WHO’s behalf, Ms Johanna Gusman spoke about its struggle against a tobacco industry that had “the express intention of subverting the role of government and of the world health organisation in implementing public health policies that combat the tobacco epidemic.”

The WHO found that as long as tobacco lobbyists were allowed access to the negotiating process, ambition remained low.

The fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the tobacco industry and public health policy meant the firewall the WHO eventually erected between policy makers and lobbyists (known as Article 5.3) was the only way to protect the negotiations against vested commercial interests.

Importantly, the firewall also applies to national policy-making within all 180 countries that have ratified the convention. Gusman urged the UNFCCC to “heed the [WHO’s] remarkable example” in tackling vested interests.

The claim: fossil fuel giants are climate change leaders!

Rather than heeded, her advice was angrily dismissed. First by the Australian negotiator, who claimed that Shell and ExxonMobil were leading the way in tackling the climate crisis. Then by employers’ association BusinessEurope and the International Chamber of Commerce, which count both oil majors as members.

The very notion of exclusion goes against decades of industry’s privileged access, both in the UN talks and at national level. A case in point is the European Union’s Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, who used to be president of not one but two oil companies while a Member of Parliament in Spain, and is leading the EU at the climate talks.

Research from CEO shows how Big Oil and Gas enjoyed privileged access with the Commissioner since taking office, particularly those in Spain. And in the UK, an investigation last year showed more than a dozen former civil servants now lobby for the oil and gas sector, highlighting the revolving door between government and industry.

The ensuing negotiations following last week’s Bonn workshop proved equally volatile, with the US, EU and Australia trying once more to stop any attempt to address conflicts of interest. While their efforts did not entirely succeed, it will be yet another year until the issue is officially back onto the agenda.

Countries have until January to submit concrete proposals on how to “enhance effective engagement” of stakeholders, which is a stand in for ‘conflicts of interest’ as there was no agreement on mentioning it by name. This will then be discussed in May 2018: same time, same place, another year down the road.

Time is short: why wait another year?

Given the gravity of the crisis, the utter lack of ambition and the reality that time is not on our side, can we wait that long?

Fiji – an island threatened by rising sea levels – is the official President of COP23, also taking place in Bonn. Fiji and other Pacific Islands have already called for a moratorium on new coal mines. But taking down the fossil fuel industry means starving them of influence.

The World Health Organisation’s Johanna Gusman spelled it out: ambitious targets cannot and will not be agreed with industry representatives at the negotiating table. Banning fossil fuel lobbyists from COP23 in November would represent a giant step forward in getting there.

Pascoe Sabido is Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.

This article was originally published here on Desmog.uk.

Last May at the same ‘intersessional’ climate talks in Bonn, a group of countries representing more than 70% of the world’s population insisted on adding a ‘conflict of interest’ provision in the negotiating text.

It almost made it – and would have done were it not for an underhand move by the European Union and the USA which saw it removed.

Pulling the strings behind such moves: the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.

Taken to its logical conclusion, addressing conflicts of interest would mean kicking out the same corporations whose profits are built on causing climate change.

Research shows that at least 80% of known fossil fuel reserves need to be kept in the ground to keep global warming below 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees. But a look at BP and Shell’s future energy projections allege that we can continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely.

Ending fossil fuels would put them out of business. This is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet getting it even discussed – let alone addressed – has been an uphill struggle.

However, persistence of those countries at the frontline of climate change – particularly Ecuador, which is seeing increasing water shortages and crop failures – as well as increasing public outrage and civil society’s call on the UN to ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ of climate policy, has ensured the issue has remained on the agenda.

Big fossil and Big Tobacco: two peas in a pod

This year’s two-week intersessional talks in Bonn saw an official workshop on the topic organised by the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Taking place on 9th May, the second day of the talks, the strongest intervention came from the secretariat of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

On the WHO’s behalf, Ms Johanna Gusman spoke about its struggle against a tobacco industry that had “the express intention of subverting the role of government and of the world health organisation in implementing public health policies that combat the tobacco epidemic.”

The WHO found that as long as tobacco lobbyists were allowed access to the negotiating process, ambition remained low.

The fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the tobacco industry and public health policy meant the firewall the WHO eventually erected between policy makers and lobbyists (known as Article 5.3) was the only way to protect the negotiations against vested commercial interests.

Importantly, the firewall also applies to national policy-making within all 180 countries that have ratified the convention. Gusman urged the UNFCCC to “heed the [WHO’s] remarkable example” in tackling vested interests.

The claim: fossil fuel giants are climate change leaders!

Rather than heeded, her advice was angrily dismissed. First by the Australian negotiator, who claimed that Shell and ExxonMobil were leading the way in tackling the climate crisis. Then by employers’ association BusinessEurope and the International Chamber of Commerce, which count both oil majors as members.

The very notion of exclusion goes against decades of industry’s privileged access, both in the UN talks and at national level. A case in point is the European Union’s Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, who used to be president of not one but two oil companies while a Member of Parliament in Spain, and is leading the EU at the climate talks.

Research from CEO shows how Big Oil and Gas enjoyed privileged access with the Commissioner since taking office, particularly those in Spain. And in the UK, an investigation last year showed more than a dozen former civil servants now lobby for the oil and gas sector, highlighting the revolving door between government and industry.

The ensuing negotiations following last week’s Bonn workshop proved equally volatile, with the US, EU and Australia trying once more to stop any attempt to address conflicts of interest. While their efforts did not entirely succeed, it will be yet another year until the issue is officially back onto the agenda.

Countries have until January to submit concrete proposals on how to “enhance effective engagement” of stakeholders, which is a stand in for ‘conflicts of interest’ as there was no agreement on mentioning it by name. This will then be discussed in May 2018: same time, same place, another year down the road.

Time is short: why wait another year?

Given the gravity of the crisis, the utter lack of ambition and the reality that time is not on our side, can we wait that long?

Fiji – an island threatened by rising sea levels – is the official President of COP23, also taking place in Bonn. Fiji and other Pacific Islands have already called for a moratorium on new coal mines. But taking down the fossil fuel industry means starving them of influence.

The World Health Organisation’s Johanna Gusman spelled it out: ambitious targets cannot and will not be agreed with industry representatives at the negotiating table. Banning fossil fuel lobbyists from COP23 in November would represent a giant step forward in getting there.

Pascoe Sabido is Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.

This article was originally published here on Desmog.uk.

Last May at the same ‘intersessional’ climate talks in Bonn, a group of countries representing more than 70% of the world’s population insisted on adding a ‘conflict of interest’ provision in the negotiating text.

It almost made it – and would have done were it not for an underhand move by the European Union and the USA which saw it removed.

Pulling the strings behind such moves: the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.

Taken to its logical conclusion, addressing conflicts of interest would mean kicking out the same corporations whose profits are built on causing climate change.

Research shows that at least 80% of known fossil fuel reserves need to be kept in the ground to keep global warming below 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees. But a look at BP and Shell’s future energy projections allege that we can continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely.

Ending fossil fuels would put them out of business. This is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet getting it even discussed – let alone addressed – has been an uphill struggle.

However, persistence of those countries at the frontline of climate change – particularly Ecuador, which is seeing increasing water shortages and crop failures – as well as increasing public outrage and civil society’s call on the UN to ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ of climate policy, has ensured the issue has remained on the agenda.

Big fossil and Big Tobacco: two peas in a pod

This year’s two-week intersessional talks in Bonn saw an official workshop on the topic organised by the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Taking place on 9th May, the second day of the talks, the strongest intervention came from the secretariat of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

On the WHO’s behalf, Ms Johanna Gusman spoke about its struggle against a tobacco industry that had “the express intention of subverting the role of government and of the world health organisation in implementing public health policies that combat the tobacco epidemic.”

The WHO found that as long as tobacco lobbyists were allowed access to the negotiating process, ambition remained low.

The fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the tobacco industry and public health policy meant the firewall the WHO eventually erected between policy makers and lobbyists (known as Article 5.3) was the only way to protect the negotiations against vested commercial interests.

Importantly, the firewall also applies to national policy-making within all 180 countries that have ratified the convention. Gusman urged the UNFCCC to “heed the [WHO’s] remarkable example” in tackling vested interests.

The claim: fossil fuel giants are climate change leaders!

Rather than heeded, her advice was angrily dismissed. First by the Australian negotiator, who claimed that Shell and ExxonMobil were leading the way in tackling the climate crisis. Then by employers’ association BusinessEurope and the International Chamber of Commerce, which count both oil majors as members.

The very notion of exclusion goes against decades of industry’s privileged access, both in the UN talks and at national level. A case in point is the European Union’s Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, who used to be president of not one but two oil companies while a Member of Parliament in Spain, and is leading the EU at the climate talks.

Research from CEO shows how Big Oil and Gas enjoyed privileged access with the Commissioner since taking office, particularly those in Spain. And in the UK, an investigation last year showed more than a dozen former civil servants now lobby for the oil and gas sector, highlighting the revolving door between government and industry.

The ensuing negotiations following last week’s Bonn workshop proved equally volatile, with the US, EU and Australia trying once more to stop any attempt to address conflicts of interest. While their efforts did not entirely succeed, it will be yet another year until the issue is officially back onto the agenda.

Countries have until January to submit concrete proposals on how to “enhance effective engagement” of stakeholders, which is a stand in for ‘conflicts of interest’ as there was no agreement on mentioning it by name. This will then be discussed in May 2018: same time, same place, another year down the road.

Time is short: why wait another year?

Given the gravity of the crisis, the utter lack of ambition and the reality that time is not on our side, can we wait that long?

Fiji – an island threatened by rising sea levels – is the official President of COP23, also taking place in Bonn. Fiji and other Pacific Islands have already called for a moratorium on new coal mines. But taking down the fossil fuel industry means starving them of influence.

The World Health Organisation’s Johanna Gusman spelled it out: ambitious targets cannot and will not be agreed with industry representatives at the negotiating table. Banning fossil fuel lobbyists from COP23 in November would represent a giant step forward in getting there.

Pascoe Sabido is Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.

This article was originally published here on Desmog.uk.

Last May at the same ‘intersessional’ climate talks in Bonn, a group of countries representing more than 70% of the world’s population insisted on adding a ‘conflict of interest’ provision in the negotiating text.

It almost made it – and would have done were it not for an underhand move by the European Union and the USA which saw it removed.

Pulling the strings behind such moves: the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.

Taken to its logical conclusion, addressing conflicts of interest would mean kicking out the same corporations whose profits are built on causing climate change.

Research shows that at least 80% of known fossil fuel reserves need to be kept in the ground to keep global warming below 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees. But a look at BP and Shell’s future energy projections allege that we can continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely.

Ending fossil fuels would put them out of business. This is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet getting it even discussed – let alone addressed – has been an uphill struggle.

However, persistence of those countries at the frontline of climate change – particularly Ecuador, which is seeing increasing water shortages and crop failures – as well as increasing public outrage and civil society’s call on the UN to ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ of climate policy, has ensured the issue has remained on the agenda.

Big fossil and Big Tobacco: two peas in a pod

This year’s two-week intersessional talks in Bonn saw an official workshop on the topic organised by the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Taking place on 9th May, the second day of the talks, the strongest intervention came from the secretariat of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

On the WHO’s behalf, Ms Johanna Gusman spoke about its struggle against a tobacco industry that had “the express intention of subverting the role of government and of the world health organisation in implementing public health policies that combat the tobacco epidemic.”

The WHO found that as long as tobacco lobbyists were allowed access to the negotiating process, ambition remained low.

The fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the tobacco industry and public health policy meant the firewall the WHO eventually erected between policy makers and lobbyists (known as Article 5.3) was the only way to protect the negotiations against vested commercial interests.

Importantly, the firewall also applies to national policy-making within all 180 countries that have ratified the convention. Gusman urged the UNFCCC to “heed the [WHO’s] remarkable example” in tackling vested interests.

The claim: fossil fuel giants are climate change leaders!

Rather than heeded, her advice was angrily dismissed. First by the Australian negotiator, who claimed that Shell and ExxonMobil were leading the way in tackling the climate crisis. Then by employers’ association BusinessEurope and the International Chamber of Commerce, which count both oil majors as members.

The very notion of exclusion goes against decades of industry’s privileged access, both in the UN talks and at national level. A case in point is the European Union’s Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, who used to be president of not one but two oil companies while a Member of Parliament in Spain, and is leading the EU at the climate talks.

Research from CEO shows how Big Oil and Gas enjoyed privileged access with the Commissioner since taking office, particularly those in Spain. And in the UK, an investigation last year showed more than a dozen former civil servants now lobby for the oil and gas sector, highlighting the revolving door between government and industry.

The ensuing negotiations following last week’s Bonn workshop proved equally volatile, with the US, EU and Australia trying once more to stop any attempt to address conflicts of interest. While their efforts did not entirely succeed, it will be yet another year until the issue is officially back onto the agenda.

Countries have until January to submit concrete proposals on how to “enhance effective engagement” of stakeholders, which is a stand in for ‘conflicts of interest’ as there was no agreement on mentioning it by name. This will then be discussed in May 2018: same time, same place, another year down the road.

Time is short: why wait another year?

Given the gravity of the crisis, the utter lack of ambition and the reality that time is not on our side, can we wait that long?

Fiji – an island threatened by rising sea levels – is the official President of COP23, also taking place in Bonn. Fiji and other Pacific Islands have already called for a moratorium on new coal mines. But taking down the fossil fuel industry means starving them of influence.

The World Health Organisation’s Johanna Gusman spelled it out: ambitious targets cannot and will not be agreed with industry representatives at the negotiating table. Banning fossil fuel lobbyists from COP23 in November would represent a giant step forward in getting there.

Pascoe Sabido is Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.

This article was originally published here on Desmog.uk.

We are fast becoming an urban sprawl and as development takes over our green and pleasant land, we’re having to come up with better landscaping solutions to cling on our tranquil oases and prevent ourselves being stifled by concrete and sky-rise tower blocks.

Walking around the beautiful green spaces at this year’s Chelsea flower show it was easy to forget that I’d just fought my way through traffic and pounded the concrete for what seemed like miles trying not to breathe in the pollution that hung low in the air on an incredibly hot and heavy Monday.

One of the most talked about gardens this year, the RHS Greening Grey Britain garden designed by Nigel Dunnett, focused on meeting the challenges of climate change. Set to a backdrop of a high-rise flats and apartment-block cut-outs, it features pollution-soaking plants, a water-sensitive design and claims to inspire urban development. The show garden certainly met its brief – it was beautiful and sensitive to its surroundings, but I was acutely aware of how many of Chelsea’s displays used the garden to re-green an otherwise desolate landscape. It felt like the garden was secondary to the office blocks and man-made structures. Perhaps these days it is.

The ideas of course are inspiring – low-input, high impact planting is used, with multi-tiered habitats known as creature towers, recycling and composting facilities and edible planting – but it showed how far we have moved away from gardens in their own right. Most of us now have little space or time for gardens, and areas of green are highly prized – so much so that Indoor Garden Design, in co-creation with IKEA, was showcasing how best to bring plants into the home. (Three walk-through rooms highlight the scientifically-proven health benefits associated with having plants indoors.)

Experts understand that plants act as pollution sponges, absorbing carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds released from man-made products, and the science behind horticulture is a big focus at Chelsea again this year. Its Discovery Zone features the power of plants and their cancer-busting properties, the psychological benefits being around plants delivers and of course, the environment.

Sustainable growing technology is demonstrated by AutoPot Global Ltd, with a piece that explored the possibility of putting up greenhouses within or near to refugee camps to help people grow their own food despite those hostile environments. Bioscience International’s CABI exhibit explores the natural solutions to the problem of invasive plants, and Kew spotlights the exciting plant discoveries and the importance of promoting their conservation and sustainable use.

The STEM Surrounds US exhibit from The Animal and Plant Health Agency demonstrated how Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics are now being used by Government, businesses and individuals to protect the country from ongoing threats to tree and plant health.

The show garden that really stood out for me was a reflection of where we are all heading in terms of development. The Chengdu Silk Road Garden, by Laurie Chetwood and Patrick Collins demonstrated how the Chengdu Government in China has responded to enormous population growth over the past 20 years.

The Green Walls of China involves the design and build of 20 massive gardens circling the city. Linked by a green linear park, the green wall acts as amenity space for residents and also carries out an important environmental role. As Chengdu is located in a sub-tropical area at the height of summer conditions get humid but by harnessing the prevailing easterly wind and funnelling it through the ‘fins’ of the gardens(see our main image) to the east of the city, wind can be initially cooled as it crosses man-made lakes. The wind speed is increased as it is forced between these narrow ‘fins’ and this helps to clear the air, before it is expelled from the city. This phenomenal concept shows what lengths are needed to clean our cities and how much we need to reconnect with the natural resources we have left.

What concerns me is that we seem less interested in conserving the natural areas we already have, and more focused on recreating new green spaces in our cities and urban areas.

If I’d my pick, I’d have taken home the Poetry Lover’s Garden, by Fiona Cadwallader Designs, inspired by Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s romantic poem This Lime Tree Bower My Prison. No sign of sky-rise flats, not a hint at over-development, instead a piece of wilderness harnessing nature to create a meditative space. The bees loved this garden as much as I did; bean flowers, lime trees, bearded iris and geranium mixed with muted greys and greens made this garden feel for me like the most natural of all.

And hardly surprising then that on leaving the calm, green grounds of the Royal Hospital Chelsea in London I found myself hurled headlong back into the centre another metropolitan sprawl whilst trying to come up with ideas on how to bring green spaces into my own urban landscape.

This Author

Laura Briggs is a regular contributor to the Ecologist. Follow her here @WordsbyBriggs

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been accused of excluding from its glyphosate assessment a key study only because of a negative comment by a former US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) official.

The former US EPA official, Jess Rowland, is under investigation in a US court case brought by cancer sufferers, who believe that exposure to Roundup triggered their disease. Based on internal Monsanto documents disclosed in the lawsuit, Rowland is accused of colluding with Monsanto to defend glyphosate’s health record.

The accusation against EFSA was made by the toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing, representing Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany, at a scientific conference on glyphosate’s health risks, held in the EU Parliament on 10 May. The conference was hosted by the Czech Socialist MEP Pavel Poc. 

Dr Clausing said that he had met the head of EFSA’s pesticides unit, Jose Tarazona, the previous week. They had discussed a key study (Kumar 2001) showing that glyphosate caused malignant lymphoma in mice.

Alleged ‘viral infections’ in study animals

Dr Clausing said that Dr Tarazona was not able able to give any other concrete reasons why the study was excluded from EFSA’s assessment than that a US EPA observer had said the US EPA had not accepted it due to viral infections in the animals.

According to a report in EU Food Policy [1], EFSA and PAN agree that the US EPA observer was Jess Rowland, who made the remark about infections during a teleconference about glyphosate organised by EFSA in 2015.

However, EFSA told EU Food Policy that “it and member states had already picked up on weaknesses with the study and that the majority of member states had agreed there was a high background of malignant lymphomas in the mice used for the study.”

The EU Food Policy article goes on to quote Dr Tarazona as saying that Rowland informed EFSA “about potential flaws in the Kumar study (2001) related to viral infections that could influence survival as well as tumour incidence.”

Dr Tarazona told EU Food Policy that EFSA didn’t just take Rowland’s word for it: “After the teleconference, EFSA experts checked the Kumar (2001) study themselves and found additional indications that confirmed deficiencies in the health status of animals, which supported the plausibility of a viral infection.”

Dr Tarazona told EU Food Policy that Dr Clausing’s remarks “give rise to concerns about the integrity of EFSA’s glyphosate assessment”, but that this is “not borne out by the facts”.

Where’s the evidence for the alleged ‘viral infections’?

So what were these “additional indications that confirmed deficiencies in the health status of animals, which supported the plausibility of a viral infection”? The EFSA has had plenty of chances to describe them. 

First, in its ‘Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate‘, published in 2015, EFSA declared the Kumar study as “not acceptable due to viral infections that could influence survival as well as tumour incidence – especially lymphomas.”

And second, in a peer-reviewed paper of the same year explaining why EFSA had come to a different conclusion on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity from the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency IARC (which classed it as a probable carcinogen), Dr Tarazona and his co-authors from EFSA and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) say that the Kumar study “was excluded due to a likely viral infection in the experimental population.”

But in neither document does EFSA give any supporting evidence for viral infections.

And in neither document does EFSA describe any “additional indications that confirmed deficiencies in the health status of animals, which supported the plausibility of a viral infection”, such as Tarazona claimed were present in the Kumar study.

But there is evidence the laboratory animals were healthy

In fact there is an irrefutable (by the EU authorities, at least) source that states that there is no evidence whatsoever that the animals in this experiment suffered from a viral infection or that their health was deficient as a result of such an infection.

That source is none other than the CLH (harmonised classification and labelling) report on glyphosate, based on industry data and submitted by the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The CLH report states:

“During a teleconference (TC 117) on carcinogenicity of glyphosate hold [sic.] by EFSA … it was mentioned by an US EPA observer that the Kumar (2001, ASB2012-11491) study had been excluded from US EPA evaluation due to the occurrence of viral infection that could influence survival as well as tumour incidences, especially those of lymphomas. However, in the study report itself, there was no evidence of health deterioration due to suspected viral infection and, thus, the actual basis of EPA’s decision is not known.” [Page 72.]

Nevertheless, ECHA continued to use the narrative of a virus infection in spite of its admission that there was no evidence for such an infection. In its Opinion, ECHA cautions against “a possible role of oncogenic viruses” – which it apparently deemed as sufficient reason to exclude this important study from the overall assessment. 

Unsurprisingly, having disposed of Kumar using an apparently evidence-free argument, ECHA followed EFSA in concluding that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

Dr Tarazona’s identification of the “US EPA observer” as Jess Rowland raises questions about the influence on the EFSA glyphosate assessment exercised by this man – who allegedly boasted to a Monsanto executive that he deserved a medal if he could kill another agency’s investigation into the chemical’s health risks.

‘Viral infection’ claim first shows up in Monsanto-supported paper

It seems that Rowland himself did not come up with the narrative of the ‘viral infection’. It first appeared in a Monsanto- and Glyphosate Task Force-supported review, which concluded that glyphosate was non-carcinogenic.

The review was co-authored by Monsanto employee David Saltmiras and published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology, which has industry ties. However, even this review introduces the idea of a viral infection in tentative language, referring to a “possible viral infection” that “may have confounded interpretation of results”.

EFSA goes much further than this Monsanto-linked paper in its unqualified claim that the Kumar study was “not acceptable due to viral infections”.

Malignant lymphoma-prone mice?

But what about the other supposed weakness in the Kumar study, the “high background of malignant lymphomas in the mice used for the study” that EFSA mentioned to EU Food Policy?

That argument doesn’t stand up either, according to Dr Clausing. He told GMWatch that while a good number of control mice did get malignant lymphomas, the glyphosate-treated mice had a statistically significant increase in malignant lymphomas, in a clearly dose-dependent fashion.

Moreover, this statistically significant increase in malignant lymphoma was well above the range of historical control data (the ‘background’ incidence referred to by EFSA) – supporting the observation of a glyphosate-induced carcinogenicity. 

Dr Clausing said that these were valid historical control data as measured by OECD standards. This was important because there are a number of examples where EFSA used invalid historical control data to dismiss significant findings of carcinogenicity. 

GMWatch believes that for EFSA to claim that these increases were due to chance and not to glyphosate is to turn its back on the scientific method.

The study that had to be killed

Dr Clausing believes that the Kumar study, together with two other studies showing the same effect, presents difficult-to-refute evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.

Its particular significance within EFSA’s assessment is that the reasons used by EFSA to dismiss other studies showing glyphosate is carcinogenic do not apply to the Kumar study and a second study by Wood et al, (2009). In both studies the increase in malignant lymphoma in glyphosate-treated animals was both dose-dependent and significant, at doses that could not be dismissed as only a ‘high-dose phenomenon’.

In reality the Kumar study is far from being an outlier. Before EFSA produced its assessment, the German authority BfR, under pressure from the IARC verdict, had demonstrated statistically significant increases in cancer in seven rodent carcinogenicity studies with glyphosate.

But EFSA denied these results, using what Dr Clausing considers spurious arguments, and insisted that there was only one mouse study – Kumar – with statistical significance.

According to the European legislation, evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two separate studies is “sufficient evidence” to label a compound as carcinogenic (category 1B). That would mean an automatic ban. Thus in Dr Clausing’s view, the Kumar study “presented an obstacle” to EFSA’s apparent intention to declare glyphosate as non-carcinogenic:

“That’s why the exclusion of this particular study from further consideration was so important.”

Dr Clausing is not the only authority to believe that the Kumar study was particularly problematic for those who wish to argue that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic.

The BfR remarked in its assessment of glyphosate that this unpublished industry study “was apparently not available to IARC” – “otherwise, it would have been certainly used as the first place argument for carcinogenicity of glyphosate.” [Page 9.]

Flawed study included by EFSA

Dr Clausing argued in his presentation to the EU Parliament that the Kumar 2001 study should have been included by EFSA in its assessment and that a study by Atkinson (1993), which found no carcinogenic effect of glyphosate, should have been excluded.

The latter study was invalid, he explained, because only animals with signs of malignant lymphoma that were visible to the naked eye were examined more closely – a recipe for missing numerous cases. This flawed study was used as additional ‘proof’ that glyphosate did not cause malignant lymphoma.

If EFSA had included Kumar and excluded Atkinson, it would not have concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic, Dr Clausing told the meeting.

Did Rowlands mislead EFSA on glyphosate?

In light of Jess Rowland’s role in the assessment of carcinogenicity of glyphosate in the US as reflected by the internal Monsanto documents, there are serious concerns that he might have influenced the decision by providing wrong information.

Yet EFSA is not an ‘innocent victim’ in this case. It apparently failed to properly scrutinize Rowland’s claim.

To summarize, the only publicly available explanation for EFSA’s dismissal of the Kumar study due to a viral infection is Rowland’s claim – yet there is no factual evidence whatsoever to back up the claim.

Dr Clausing said he has examined the publicly available documents as well as the raw data of the Kumar study, which was made available to him by EFSA. He said:

“Scrutinizing all these documents did not provide any other evidence than the Rowland intervention. As a result, I have doubts about the integrity of EFSA’s assessment of glyphosate. Those doubts have been sown by EFSA itself.”

Claire Robinson is managing editor at GMWatch, a public news and information service on issues surrounding GM crops and foods.

This article was originally published here on GMWatch.

Notes

1. EU Food Policy. EFSA refutes claims it was improperly influenced on glyphosate. 15 May 2017. Subscription only (eufoodpolicy.com); no direct link.

Last month, Survival International was honored to help organize worldwide demonstrations led by Guarani tribal leader and activist Ladio Veron.

We marshalled supporters at the Brazilian embassy in London for a vocal show of support for the Guarani, broadcast live over social media (see video below).

There were further protests in São Paulo, San Francisco, Berlin, Madrid, Barcelona and Milan. We also handed letters of protest from Survival and the Guarani people themselves, in to representatives of Brazil’s government.

Ladio stood defiant in a tribal headdress and face paint. Though London on an April morning was rather colder than what he was used to in central Brazil, he nevertheless spoke passionately – both to the supporters who were there to see him, and to the embassy official who received his letter.

As the son of the murdered tribal leader Marcos Veron, Ladio has an understandable emotional investment in his people’s struggle. All of the Guarani feel a profound stake in it. The theft of their ancestral land by ranchers and agribusiness has been a trauma endured over decades.

They face violent harassment by gunmen when they try to reoccupy tiny patches of the land, most of which has been deforested and turned into plantations. Their water is polluted with pesticides, and they are partitioned off from the land by wire fencing. Some communities are living in makeshift camps on roadsides.

Paper laws, paper promises

The fact that the Guarani have to risk their very lives for their land is both tragic and baffling. It is rightfully theirs under both Brazilian and international law.

The fact that cases are on the books over Guarani land tenure in both Mato Grosso do Sul state, and the federal capital of Brasilia, is a tacit admission from the Brazilian establishment that the tribe at least has a claim.

It’s their land, yet they have been trapped in legal hell for decades, waiting for full demarcation and the proper enforcement of their rights.

Mato Grosso do Sul itself is so dominated by agribusiness that it is almost impossible for the Guarani to appeal to politicians and other authorities there, as they are emphatically on the side of the ranchers. Men like Jose Teixiera serve as state deputies while owning large ranches, and happily partner with big corporations profiting from sugarcane produced on Guarani land.

This footage from 2016 shows heavily-armed Brazilian police evicting a small group of Guarani from their land. The tribespeople are unarmed, they are peaceful – they make their case in strong words but present no threat whatsoever. Yet around 100 men were sent to clear them off a scrap of land so that their village could be bulldozed.

Exploited, low wage labourers on their own land

Incidents such as this clearly illustrate the situation. The Guarani have very few allies in Brazil – certainly not among the country’s rulers. They are forced to look elsewhere to bring global attention to their plight, and to exert pressure on the people who have the authority to transform their situation.

Survival International has been campaigning in partnership with the Guarani for over 30 years. The Guarani are the most populous indigenous people of this part of central Brazil, and they are slowly being destroyed.

In pursuit of profit, the over-mighty ruralista lobby has subjected them to poverty, violence, disease and destitution. Some live and work in towns and cities in Mato Grosso do Sul state, or further afield. Many more have no option but to work as wage laborers on the vast sugar cane plantations and cattle ranches, forced to scratch out a living in a society created on their own land without their consent which offers them next to nothing.

According to some studies, the tribe suffers the highest suicide rate in the world, a problem which is especially acute among younger people.

With international pressure, the Guarani can assert their legal rights

There is hope, however. International pressure has been proven to be effective in holding Brazil’s leaders to account and empowering indigenous people through recognition of their land rights.

In 1992 for example, after years of campaigning, the government relented and agreed to create the largest forested indigenous territory in the world: the Yanomami indigenous territory in the northern Amazon. It is an area the size of Switzerland that is now home to over 20,000 tribal people.

In 2014, concerted campaigning by Survival supporters pushed Brazilian authorities to carry out an unprecedented crackdown on illegal logging, drastically improving the situation facing the Awá people from the Amazon’s eastern fringe.

And last year, similar pressure pushed the Minister of Justice to sign a decree creating a protected territory for the hard-pressed Kawahiva people, a small uncontacted tribe and one of the most vulnerable peoples on the planet.

We’re devoted to giving tribal peoples a platform to speak to the world. As Ladio himself said: “We will resist at any price. All we have left to lose is our lives.”

His powerful speech at the Brazilian embassy, and the sight of him moved to tears as he addressed an embassy official were heartening for everyone who turned out in solidarity with his people.

More importantly, this sort of direct action could help to tip the balance in the Guarani’s favor. There is always hope.

Lewis Evans is an author and a campaigner at Survival International, the global movement for tribal peoples’ rights.

As the Conservative Manifesto portends a planning ‘free for all’ for shale gas, Talk Fracking launches its new report demonstrating the flaws in the Government’s case on fracking and climate change.

The Government’s case – detailed in the Mackay-Stone report – has been widely criticized in the past.

Research published over the last 18 months, outlined in Talk Fracking’s new report, questions the accuracy of the data used in the Mackay-Stone report. And as a result of this new information Whitehall’s climate case has arguably collapsed.

The issue here is about science and uncertainty. So first, What is ‘science’? It is a process for how we find, measure and then evaluate the real world in order to identify how it works.

The problem is, particularly for contentious debates in the media and politics, that we seldom hear about the degree of confidence attached to scientific findings, or the uncertainties that surround them. Rarely is the method by which those results were produced ever discussed.

In such an environment it is easy to use ‘results’ outside the context in which they were formed, extrpolating them to novel circumstances in a way that is scientifically invalid.

When we hear the fracking industry and academics argue over leakage figures, we might presume the issue is whether or not one or other set of figures are correct. In fact, the issue here is the method used to make those measurements, and whether or not that system of measurement produces a realistic result.

Fracking and Whitehall’s energy policy

The Government in Whitehall (distinct from those in Edinburgh or Cardiff, who currently have moratoriums in place on shale gas development) has promoted fracking as a means to meet climate change obligations.

As Energy Secretary Ed Davey claimed in 2013, shale gas is a “bridge“ to a low carbon economy. That claim rests on the results of one report, written by the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) Chief Scientist, David Mackay, and the economist, Timothy Stone.

The Mackay-Stone report, ‘Potential Greenhouse Gas  Emissions Associated with Shale Gas Extraction and Use‘, states:

“We have gathered available information on the carbon footprint of shale gas to inform our estimate of the potential impacts of shale gas exploration, extraction and use in the UK on UK climate change objectives … With the right safeguards in place, the net effect on UK GHG emissions from shale gas production in the UK will be relatively small.”

The point at issue today is whether that process of evaluation was valid, even when the report was first published in September 2013.

‘Bottom-up’ versus ‘top-down’

How we measure and evaluate the pollution emitted by industrial processes is a compromise between what is technically possible and realistically practicable. Reliably measuring gases emitted from equipment outdoors is difficult, so it require some flexibility.

These historic difficulties mean that regulators have relied on a ‘bottom-up’ or ‘inventory’ method to assess the leaks from oil and gas operations.

Small parts of the equipment are tested, either in a laboratory or specially constructed test rigs. The leaks are measured or estimated. Finally the figures are combined in an ‘inventory’ of the system being monitored to produce a total.

When the climate impacts of oil and gas production were first assessed in the 1990s the assumption was that the effects of leakage were ‘insignificant‘.

What has happened since is that the monitoring technology has improved. Today it is possible to equip aircraft or ground vehicles as mobile gas laboratories. These are flown or driven around oil and gas fields to sniff the air. From that sampling it is possible to produce a ‘top-down’ estimate of how much gas is leaking in order to create the measured concentrations in the air.

In an ideal world the top-down and bottom-up measurements would, within a reasonable boundary of uncertainty, match. The difficulty is that they do not.

What consistent studies carried out over the last decade or so have found is that real-world, ‘top-down’ monitoring exceed the estimated ‘bottom-up’ measurement of emissions by at least two to four times.

It’s this mismatch over measuring that is at the heart of the fracking and climate debate.

Howarth and the significance of methane

The research paper which highlighted the significance of this debate over measurement methods was produced by Howarth, Santoro and Ingraffea in June 2011, entitled ‘Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations‘.

The ‘Howarth paper’ gained prominence because it claimed to show that shale gas was not only worse than conventional gas. Under certain circumstances it could be even worse than coal-fired power generation.

The reason why the paper claimed such high climate impacts was due to two main factors:

• Firstly, because it was using ‘top-down’ assessments of leakage from natural gas systems. As noted above, these have consistently produced much higher levels of leakage than ‘bottom-up’ data.

• Secondly, it used a global warming potential (GWP) figure for methane reflecting its impact for the first 20 years after emission, rather than the 100-year figure used by Mackay-Stone. Because methane is a very powerful but relatively short-lived greenhouse gas, this gives a much higher figure, and one more relevant to the immediate climate crisis.

The 20-year issue is important as methane has gained prominence as a greenhouse gas. Again, new sampling techniques have been finding far higher concentrations in the environment than were expected.

As we approach climatic tipping points, the impact of fast-warming methane is becoming more significant to how we respond to climate change.

The Mackay-Stone review

In Britain, DECC commissioned Mackay and Stone to evaluate the climate impacts of shale gas – although if you read the report, it is clear that it is targeted squarely at invalidating the results of the Howarth study.

Very roughly, Mackay and Stone:

• Took a figure for how much gas leaks from a gas well and then calculated the climate impact of those leaks;

• They added the impacts of the gas being burnt;

• Then they divided the total figure for impacts by the amount of gas produced from each well to produce a figure for impacts per unit of energy produced;

• Then they compared that to other available figures for conventional gas, coal-fired power and imported liquefied natural gas (LNG).

That is a fair assessment procedure in order to test the impacts of shale gas against other sources of natural gas for power generation. But the problem with Mackay and Stone’s report is not the process, it is the data which they used in their calculations:

• Their figures for gas leakage were predominantly from ‘bottom-up’ studies – which on the basis of a range of research studies have traditionally underestimated emissions by two to four times;

• They deliberately excluded the figures in the Howarth study from their final calculations because they claimed they were a statistical ‘outlier’ which would skew their results; and

• The figures used for gas production per well were at least twice what is seen in US gas wells – and had no clear independent source. However they probably came from Cuadrilla, which had questionable links to DECC at that time.

Using a figure for leakage which was perhaps a half of what it should have been, and a figure for gas production which was twice what it should have been, the level of impacts which their analysis found is arguably a quarter of what it should be.

Mackay and Stone, while rejecting Howarth’s figures, also disregarded other studies produced around that time which had produced similar results to Howarth. Instead they promoted an as yet unpublished study, by Allen et al., which claimed that leakage rates could be minimized using what was called ‘reduced emissions completions’ (REC).

The Allen study

The 2013 study by Allen et al. was part-funded by the campaign group, the Environmental Defense Fund. It is a ‘bottom-up’ analysis of leakage from oil and gas operations, and claimed levels of leakage far lower than similar studies.

However, the study ran into problems from the start:

• The publishing journal, PNAS, had to issue a correction because the authors had failed to declare their conflicting industry affiliations.

• More significantly, the study does not disclose which, and what type of sites were being tested, so it was difficult to relate the results to the industry as a whole.

• Most seriously though, the sites were not randomly selected for testing – as acknowledged in the supporting information published alongside the paper. Their industry partners selected which sites they were to test, and so there’s no evidence the sample of sites measured were representative of the industry as a whole.

The real problems for the Allen study emerged in 2015:

• First, research by Howard et al. highlighted that one of the most widely used sensors to measure methane concentrations – which had been used in the Allen study – routinely malfunctioned, under-reporting methane concentrations.

• Next, the US Argonne National Laboratory, which co-ordinates the reporting of US carbon emissions, noted that the sensor might be under-reporting methane levels by three to five times.

• Finally, in 2016, the Environmental Defense Fund, who had part-funded the Allen study, rejected its results.

Misleading Parliament and the public

From the date of its publication the Mackay-Stone report has been flawed, due to the approach taken to calculate the impacts of shale gas, and in particular due to the selection of data.

DECC and its authors defended this by referencing the Allen study as proof that emissions could be reduced to levels where the impacts would be ‘small’. Now that the Allen study has been shown to be flawed, the Mackay-Stone report has been definitively invalidated too.

However, that has not stopped ministers and Parliamentarians quoting it to support the Government’s policies on oil and gas extraction.

DECC itself was disbanded in 2016, but in January 2017 the new department – the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) – issued revised guidance on shale gas. Once again it echoed the results of the Mackay-Stone report.

Distorting the evidence

In March 2016, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) produced a report on onshore oil and gas production. BEIS did not release it for four months, until Parliament had almost finished for the Summer Recess.

When Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom announced the report to Parliament she claimed that the CCC said that onshore oil and gas was compatible with the UK’s climate targets. This was misleading, as this is not within the context of the CCC’s conclusions.

As stated in the recent House of Commons Library briefing on Shale Gas and Fracking, the CCC concluded that fracking must pass three tests to be acceptable. The third of those requires that we reduce emissions elsewhere in the economy to accommodate the emissions from onshore oil and gas.

That could be extremely difficult – and might not be possible. As Climate Change Secretary Nick Hurd stated in evidence to a Select Committee in January 2017, finding even the 50% of savings that have yet to be identified to meet the UK’s climate targets will be “hard”.

Whitehall’s fracking policies are completely flawed

The Mackay-Stone report was flawed on the day of its publication. Today it is wholly discredited. No minister can quote its conclusions with any certainty without demonstrably misleading MPs and the public as to the current state of the science.

In fact, like the Mackay-Stone report, large parts of the two other reports which the Government rely upon to justify fracking – the Royal Society report from 2012, and the Public Health England report from 2014 – can be similarly invalidated if we look at the weight of evidence now available.

The Mackay-Stone report must be withdrawn, and a moratorium implemented on all fracking operations until we can state their impacts with certainty.

At the same time Whitehall and government ministers must admit to the mistakes in their previous claims, and commit to an open and transparent review of the evidence now available.

Download the Talk Fracking report, ‘Whitehall’s ‘Fracking’ Science Failure‘, written & researched by Paul Mobbs.

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental researcher and freelance author. He is also the creator of the Free Range Activism Website, FRAW

A fully referenced version of this article is available on FRAW.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been accused of excluding from its glyphosate assessment a key study only because of a negative comment by a former US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) official.

The former US EPA official, Jess Rowland, is under investigation in a US court case brought by cancer sufferers, who believe that exposure to Roundup triggered their disease. Based on internal Monsanto documents disclosed in the lawsuit, Rowland is accused of colluding with Monsanto to defend glyphosate’s health record.

The accusation against EFSA was made by the toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing, representing Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany, at a scientific conference on glyphosate’s health risks, held in the EU Parliament on 10 May. The conference was hosted by the Czech Socialist MEP Pavel Poc. 

Dr Clausing said that he had met the head of EFSA’s pesticides unit, Jose Tarazona, the previous week. They had discussed a key study (Kumar 2001) showing that glyphosate caused malignant lymphoma in mice.

Alleged ‘viral infections’ in study animals

Dr Clausing said that Dr Tarazona was not able able to give any other concrete reasons why the study was excluded from EFSA’s assessment than that a US EPA observer had said the US EPA had not accepted it due to viral infections in the animals.

According to a report in EU Food Policy [1], EFSA and PAN agree that the US EPA observer was Jess Rowland, who made the remark about infections during a teleconference about glyphosate organised by EFSA in 2015.

However, EFSA told EU Food Policy that “it and member states had already picked up on weaknesses with the study and that the majority of member states had agreed there was a high background of malignant lymphomas in the mice used for the study.”

The EU Food Policy article goes on to quote Dr Tarazona as saying that Rowland informed EFSA “about potential flaws in the Kumar study (2001) related to viral infections that could influence survival as well as tumour incidence.”

Dr Tarazona told EU Food Policy that EFSA didn’t just take Rowland’s word for it: “After the teleconference, EFSA experts checked the Kumar (2001) study themselves and found additional indications that confirmed deficiencies in the health status of animals, which supported the plausibility of a viral infection.”

Dr Tarazona told EU Food Policy that Dr Clausing’s remarks “give rise to concerns about the integrity of EFSA’s glyphosate assessment”, but that this is “not borne out by the facts”.

Where’s the evidence for the alleged ‘viral infections’?

So what were these “additional indications that confirmed deficiencies in the health status of animals, which supported the plausibility of a viral infection”? The EFSA has had plenty of chances to describe them. 

First, in its ‘Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate‘, published in 2015, EFSA declared the Kumar study as “not acceptable due to viral infections that could influence survival as well as tumour incidence – especially lymphomas.”

And second, in a peer-reviewed paper of the same year explaining why EFSA had come to a different conclusion on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity from the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency IARC (which classed it as a probable carcinogen), Dr Tarazona and his co-authors from EFSA and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) say that the Kumar study “was excluded due to a likely viral infection in the experimental population.”

But in neither document does EFSA give any supporting evidence for viral infections.

And in neither document does EFSA describe any “additional indications that confirmed deficiencies in the health status of animals, which supported the plausibility of a viral infection”, such as Tarazona claimed were present in the Kumar study.

But there is evidence the laboratory animals were healthy

In fact there is an irrefutable (by the EU authorities, at least) source that states that there is no evidence whatsoever that the animals in this experiment suffered from a viral infection or that their health was deficient as a result of such an infection.

That source is none other than the CLH (harmonised classification and labelling) report on glyphosate, based on industry data and submitted by the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The CLH report states:

“During a teleconference (TC 117) on carcinogenicity of glyphosate hold [sic.] by EFSA … it was mentioned by an US EPA observer that the Kumar (2001, ASB2012-11491) study had been excluded from US EPA evaluation due to the occurrence of viral infection that could influence survival as well as tumour incidences, especially those of lymphomas. However, in the study report itself, there was no evidence of health deterioration due to suspected viral infection and, thus, the actual basis of EPA’s decision is not known.” [Page 72.]

Nevertheless, ECHA continued to use the narrative of a virus infection in spite of its admission that there was no evidence for such an infection. In its Opinion, ECHA cautions against “a possible role of oncogenic viruses” – which it apparently deemed as sufficient reason to exclude this important study from the overall assessment. 

Unsurprisingly, having disposed of Kumar using an apparently evidence-free argument, ECHA followed EFSA in concluding that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

Dr Tarazona’s identification of the “US EPA observer” as Jess Rowland raises questions about the influence on the EFSA glyphosate assessment exercised by this man – who allegedly boasted to a Monsanto executive that he deserved a medal if he could kill another agency’s investigation into the chemical’s health risks.

‘Viral infection’ claim first shows up in Monsanto-supported paper

It seems that Rowland himself did not come up with the narrative of the ‘viral infection’. It first appeared in a Monsanto- and Glyphosate Task Force-supported review, which concluded that glyphosate was non-carcinogenic.

The review was co-authored by Monsanto employee David Saltmiras and published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology, which has industry ties. However, even this review introduces the idea of a viral infection in tentative language, referring to a “possible viral infection” that “may have confounded interpretation of results”.

EFSA goes much further than this Monsanto-linked paper in its unqualified claim that the Kumar study was “not acceptable due to viral infections”.

Malignant lymphoma-prone mice?

But what about the other supposed weakness in the Kumar study, the “high background of malignant lymphomas in the mice used for the study” that EFSA mentioned to EU Food Policy?

That argument doesn’t stand up either, according to Dr Clausing. He told GMWatch that while a good number of control mice did get malignant lymphomas, the glyphosate-treated mice had a statistically significant increase in malignant lymphomas, in a clearly dose-dependent fashion.

Moreover, this statistically significant increase in malignant lymphoma was well above the range of historical control data (the ‘background’ incidence referred to by EFSA) – supporting the observation of a glyphosate-induced carcinogenicity. 

Dr Clausing said that these were valid historical control data as measured by OECD standards. This was important because there are a number of examples where EFSA used invalid historical control data to dismiss significant findings of carcinogenicity. 

GMWatch believes that for EFSA to claim that these increases were due to chance and not to glyphosate is to turn its back on the scientific method.

The study that had to be killed

Dr Clausing believes that the Kumar study, together with two other studies showing the same effect, presents difficult-to-refute evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.

Its particular significance within EFSA’s assessment is that the reasons used by EFSA to dismiss other studies showing glyphosate is carcinogenic do not apply to the Kumar study and a second study by Wood et al, (2009). In both studies the increase in malignant lymphoma in glyphosate-treated animals was both dose-dependent and significant, at doses that could not be dismissed as only a ‘high-dose phenomenon’.

In reality the Kumar study is far from being an outlier. Before EFSA produced its assessment, the German authority BfR, under pressure from the IARC verdict, had demonstrated statistically significant increases in cancer in seven rodent carcinogenicity studies with glyphosate.

But EFSA denied these results, using what Dr Clausing considers spurious arguments, and insisted that there was only one mouse study – Kumar – with statistical significance.

According to the European legislation, evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two separate studies is “sufficient evidence” to label a compound as carcinogenic (category 1B). That would mean an automatic ban. Thus in Dr Clausing’s view, the Kumar study “presented an obstacle” to EFSA’s apparent intention to declare glyphosate as non-carcinogenic:

“That’s why the exclusion of this particular study from further consideration was so important.”

Dr Clausing is not the only authority to believe that the Kumar study was particularly problematic for those who wish to argue that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic.

The BfR remarked in its assessment of glyphosate that this unpublished industry study “was apparently not available to IARC” – “otherwise, it would have been certainly used as the first place argument for carcinogenicity of glyphosate.” [Page 9.]

Flawed study included by EFSA

Dr Clausing argued in his presentation to the EU Parliament that the Kumar 2001 study should have been included by EFSA in its assessment and that a study by Atkinson (1993), which found no carcinogenic effect of glyphosate, should have been excluded.

The latter study was invalid, he explained, because only animals with signs of malignant lymphoma that were visible to the naked eye were examined more closely – a recipe for missing numerous cases. This flawed study was used as additional ‘proof’ that glyphosate did not cause malignant lymphoma.

If EFSA had included Kumar and excluded Atkinson, it would not have concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic, Dr Clausing told the meeting.

Did Rowlands mislead EFSA on glyphosate?

In light of Jess Rowland’s role in the assessment of carcinogenicity of glyphosate in the US as reflected by the internal Monsanto documents, there are serious concerns that he might have influenced the decision by providing wrong information.

Yet EFSA is not an ‘innocent victim’ in this case. It apparently failed to properly scrutinize Rowland’s claim.

To summarize, the only publicly available explanation for EFSA’s dismissal of the Kumar study due to a viral infection is Rowland’s claim – yet there is no factual evidence whatsoever to back up the claim.

Dr Clausing said he has examined the publicly available documents as well as the raw data of the Kumar study, which was made available to him by EFSA. He said:

“Scrutinizing all these documents did not provide any other evidence than the Rowland intervention. As a result, I have doubts about the integrity of EFSA’s assessment of glyphosate. Those doubts have been sown by EFSA itself.”

Claire Robinson is managing editor at GMWatch, a public news and information service on issues surrounding GM crops and foods.

This article was originally published here on GMWatch.

Notes

1. EU Food Policy. EFSA refutes claims it was improperly influenced on glyphosate. 15 May 2017. Subscription only (eufoodpolicy.com); no direct link.

Last month, Survival International was honored to help organize worldwide demonstrations led by Guarani tribal leader and activist Ladio Veron.

We marshalled supporters at the Brazilian embassy in London for a vocal show of support for the Guarani, broadcast live over social media (see video below).

There were further protests in São Paulo, San Francisco, Berlin, Madrid, Barcelona and Milan. We also handed letters of protest from Survival and the Guarani people themselves, in to representatives of Brazil’s government.

Ladio stood defiant in a tribal headdress and face paint. Though London on an April morning was rather colder than what he was used to in central Brazil, he nevertheless spoke passionately – both to the supporters who were there to see him, and to the embassy official who received his letter.

As the son of the murdered tribal leader Marcos Veron, Ladio has an understandable emotional investment in his people’s struggle. All of the Guarani feel a profound stake in it. The theft of their ancestral land by ranchers and agribusiness has been a trauma endured over decades.

They face violent harassment by gunmen when they try to reoccupy tiny patches of the land, most of which has been deforested and turned into plantations. Their water is polluted with pesticides, and they are partitioned off from the land by wire fencing. Some communities are living in makeshift camps on roadsides.

Paper laws, paper promises

The fact that the Guarani have to risk their very lives for their land is both tragic and baffling. It is rightfully theirs under both Brazilian and international law.

The fact that cases are on the books over Guarani land tenure in both Mato Grosso do Sul state, and the federal capital of Brasilia, is a tacit admission from the Brazilian establishment that the tribe at least has a claim.

It’s their land, yet they have been trapped in legal hell for decades, waiting for full demarcation and the proper enforcement of their rights.

Mato Grosso do Sul itself is so dominated by agribusiness that it is almost impossible for the Guarani to appeal to politicians and other authorities there, as they are emphatically on the side of the ranchers. Men like Jose Teixiera serve as state deputies while owning large ranches, and happily partner with big corporations profiting from sugarcane produced on Guarani land.

This footage from 2016 shows heavily-armed Brazilian police evicting a small group of Guarani from their land. The tribespeople are unarmed, they are peaceful – they make their case in strong words but present no threat whatsoever. Yet around 100 men were sent to clear them off a scrap of land so that their village could be bulldozed.

Exploited, low wage labourers on their own land

Incidents such as this clearly illustrate the situation. The Guarani have very few allies in Brazil – certainly not among the country’s rulers. They are forced to look elsewhere to bring global attention to their plight, and to exert pressure on the people who have the authority to transform their situation.

Survival International has been campaigning in partnership with the Guarani for over 30 years. The Guarani are the most populous indigenous people of this part of central Brazil, and they are slowly being destroyed.

In pursuit of profit, the over-mighty ruralista lobby has subjected them to poverty, violence, disease and destitution. Some live and work in towns and cities in Mato Grosso do Sul state, or further afield. Many more have no option but to work as wage laborers on the vast sugar cane plantations and cattle ranches, forced to scratch out a living in a society created on their own land without their consent which offers them next to nothing.

According to some studies, the tribe suffers the highest suicide rate in the world, a problem which is especially acute among younger people.

With international pressure, the Guarani can assert their legal rights

There is hope, however. International pressure has been proven to be effective in holding Brazil’s leaders to account and empowering indigenous people through recognition of their land rights.

In 1992 for example, after years of campaigning, the government relented and agreed to create the largest forested indigenous territory in the world: the Yanomami indigenous territory in the northern Amazon. It is an area the size of Switzerland that is now home to over 20,000 tribal people.

In 2014, concerted campaigning by Survival supporters pushed Brazilian authorities to carry out an unprecedented crackdown on illegal logging, drastically improving the situation facing the Awá people from the Amazon’s eastern fringe.

And last year, similar pressure pushed the Minister of Justice to sign a decree creating a protected territory for the hard-pressed Kawahiva people, a small uncontacted tribe and one of the most vulnerable peoples on the planet.

We’re devoted to giving tribal peoples a platform to speak to the world. As Ladio himself said: “We will resist at any price. All we have left to lose is our lives.”

His powerful speech at the Brazilian embassy, and the sight of him moved to tears as he addressed an embassy official were heartening for everyone who turned out in solidarity with his people.

More importantly, this sort of direct action could help to tip the balance in the Guarani’s favor. There is always hope.

Lewis Evans is an author and a campaigner at Survival International, the global movement for tribal peoples’ rights.