The Washington Free Beacon discusses the International Agency for Research on Cancer with Angela Logomasini.
A long-simmering partisan feud over the role of science in government research, regulatory decisions, and funding will come to the forefront again when the House Science Committee meets Tuesday for a hearing on the most widely used herbicide in the world.
The hearing, titled "In Defense of Scientific Integrity: Examining the IARC Monograph Programme and Glyphosate Review," could have extended impacts on how the federal government funds scientific research and how that research is used.
"[IARC's methods are] not really useful for drawing conclusions, and it's also been very politically driven. So we're getting some assessments that are really junk science, and they're taking things off the market as a result," said Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Logomasini says IARC uses a system that assesses hazard instead of risk, which she asserts, "is not really useful in drawing conclusions."
Read the full article at The Washington Free Beacon.