title: monopoly banks then media now voting machine companies
text: who cancer agency under fire for withholding carcinogenic glyphosate documents iarc urged its scientists not to publish research documents on its  weedkiller glyphosate review rtcom  october   comments 
  the international agency for research on cancer iarc facing criticism over its classification of carcinogens has reportedly been advising its scientific experts not to publish internal research data on its  report on probably carcinogenic glyphosate 
  the iarc urged its scientists not to publish research documents on its  weedkiller glyphosate review according to reuters the agency told reuters on tuesday that it tried to protect the study from external interference as well as protect its intellectual rights since it was the sole owner of such materials 
  the scientists had been asked earlier to release all the documentation on the  report under us freedom of information laws 
  the groundbreaking review published in march  by the iarc  a semiautonomous agency of the world health organization who  labeled the glyphosate herbicide as probably carcinogenic to humans glyphosate is a key ingredient of monsantos flagship weedkiller wellknown under the trade name roundup it is one of the most heavily used herbicides in the world and is designed to go along with geneticallymodified roundup ready crops also produced by monsanto 
  the iarcs report caused problems for both the notorious agrochemical giant and the agency itself 
  the report sparked a heated debate around the use of roundup and caused several eu countries  including france sweden and the netherlands  to object to the renewal of the glyphosates eu license the vote on prolonging the glyphosate license for  years failed several times in june  but the license was temporarily extended for  months during last hours before its expiration 
  the controversial report has seemingly made the iarc a target for attacks from multiple directions and raised scientific legal and financial questions 
  various critics including those in the chemical industry said the iarcs evaluations are fuel for unnecessary health scares since the iarc allegedly studies the potentially harmful substance itself and not a typical human exposure to it it remained unclear whether the critics urged a who body to test the potentially carcinogenic chemical on humans 
  the critics also brought up other controversial statements from the iarc over whether such things as mobile phones coffee red meat and processed meat could cause cancer 
  the agency defended its methods as scientifically sound and widely respected for their scientific rigor standardized and transparent process andfreedom from conflicts of interest numerous freedom of information requests by the energy  environment legal institute ee legal a us conservative advocacy group have since been turned down with this reasoning 
  ee legal told reuters that it is pushing a legal challenge over whether the documents in question belong to the iarc or to the us federal and state institutions where some of the experts work basically its being decided whether the iarc as part of the who is truly independent and free from conflicts of interest 
  according to reuters officials from the us national institutes of health nih will be questioned by a congressional committee about why american taxpayers fund the cancer agency which faces much criticism over its allegedly faulty classification of carcinogens 
  iarcs standards and determinations for classifying substances as carcinogenic and therefore cancercausing appear inconsistent with other scientific research and have generated much controversy and alarm a letter from us oversight committee chairman jason chaffetz to nih director francis collins states as quoted by reuters 
  the oversight committee demanded a full disclosure of nih funding of the iarc and even money spent in relation to the cancer agencys activities 
  iarc opponents from scientific circles vowed to provide their data on the matter the european food safety authority efsa which believes glyphosate is unlikely pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans promised to release its raw data on the subject as part of its commitment to open risk assessment the food safety watchdog made this statement in late september and still has to deliver the promised information newsletter sign up get the latest breaking news  specials from alex jones and the infowars crew related articles