Glyphosate and confirmation bias

If one believe Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Commission-must-prepare-glyphosate-exit-plan/): "The World Health Organisation’s cancer experts (IARC) found in March 2015 that glyphosate is a probable cause of cancer. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) contradicted IARC in November 2015, saying glyphosate was unlikely to cause cancer. EFSA partly based its assessment on confidential studies commissioned by glyphosate producers, while the IARC assessment was only based on publicly available scientific evidence."

But again, typically for Greenpeace, information bias is their main weapon to indoctrinate their opinions.

Please, obtain trustful information starting with this two letters:

1.) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Prof_Portier_letter.pdf

2.) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EFSA_response_Prof_Portier.pdf

The main point: "The arguments expressed in the open letter reflect a misunderstanding of the evidence used for the EFSA evaluation. The biological relevance of each study and the overall evidence on animal carcinogenicity was properly assessed during the EFSA evaluation. In contrast, the IARC assessment focused on finding statistically significant “trends”in specific studies, but presented no information on how it considered the biological relevance and in particular the inconsistencies and effects only observed at doses at or exceeding the MTD, even when it is clear that the trend was significant only due to the incidences observed at the highest dose at which significant weight reduction and other indications of excessive toxicity had been observed. In fact the statistical trend, without assessing the biological relevance of the results, seems to be the only justification in the IARC monograph for deviating from the previous evaluation of the same animal studies by the WHO/FAO JMPR expert group, which concluded that glyphosate does not have carcinogenic potential (JMPR, 2004)."

Interestingly, "Over four decades, a WHO research agency (IARC) has assessed 989 substances and activities, ranging from arsenic to hairdressing, and found only one was “probably not” likely to cause cancer in humans. It was an ingredient in nylon used in stretchy yoga pants and toothbrush bristles."

(http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/).

I can only repeat myself: "The major question of glyphosate is not whether it is a carcinogenic chemical, but if the amount of glyphosate intake per day is low enough to avoid any harm." (DOI: 10.21276/ijlssr.2016.2.5.22). The LD50 of caffeine and table salt is much lower than for glyphosate. Thus, do you stop to drink coffee or avoid salt?

I hope that my audience possess critical literacy and avoid confirmation bias.

Stay informed!

Without a doubt, if we find a suitable alternative, with similar efficiency but lower toxicity, we should replace glyphosate. However, this is the same for coffee:(