Understanding Conflicting Reports in Roundup® Litigation

After reading through recent articles concerning the safety of Monsanto's Roundup products published by Reuters and the Huffington Post, many people are understandably confused. The Reuters article seemingly discredited findings by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and, in particular, the credibility of Dr. Aaron Blair, a leading cancer researcher. However, the Huffington Post report pointed out a number of flaws and factual inaccuracies in the Reuters story, as well as identifying relationships and potential conflicts-of-interest that were undisclosed in the original article. 

Taking the original article at face value, it seems as though the IARC and Dr. Blair were intentionally concealing exculpatory evidence concerning glyphosate and cancer. However, as the Huffington Post article points out, the Reuters story was only presenting selective information that may have originated from Monsanto, and that the reporter had previously had ties to the agrichemical industry. 

The Reuters story seems to question the IARC's practice of only using published data as part of their evaluations, but this is common among scientific studies. The findings from studies must be published and verifiable to be considered credible. The Reuters article also presents selective arguments about one unpublished study, but fails to mention the numerous other studies that did find a link between glyphosate and cancer that were discussed in the deposition. This type of obvious bias in reporting should make readers question where the information is coming from.