Sanjeev Sabhlok's blog

Thoughts on economics and liberty

Continue Reading

No, the WHO has NOT banned glyphosate! And the EPA says the weed killer is safe and noncarcinogenic.

FIRST OF ALL, NO, THE WHO HAS NOT BANNED Glyphosate. In any case, WHO does not ban things.

This hullabaloo is about a report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s classification of of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen`

What is this agency?

It is a part of the WHO. But it has NOT banned glyphosate.

What did it say?

Basically it identified glyphosate as a PROBABLE carcinogen. Here’s the 2015 press release  Also: IARC response to criticisms of the Monographs and the glyphosate evaluation

They note that hazard identification is not equivalent to risk assessment. They need to undertake that. They note: “There is clear value in IARC and WHO liaising closely in future exercises of hazard identification and risk assessment and as mentioned in Section II of this document, discussion is in progress.”

Basically they have not PROVEN that it causes cancer. Just that it could be associated with some cancers. That’s reason for caution but not for alarm.

Note that even coffee is a probable carcinogen. And red meat. Most people carry on with their life knowing that ultimately everyone has to die and a few minor matters will not harm. People who use it daily must not inhale or put it on their skin.

What about the court case?

What regulators are saying

Roundup of Cancer Evidence – The EPA says the weed killer is safe and noncarcinogenic, Wall Street Journal, 14 May 2019

“the European Food Safety Authority holds a contrarian view.” [Source]

What the science says

“It is shown that the classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen was the result of a flawed and incomplete summary of the experimental evidence evaluated by the Working Group.” [PubMed paper]



Continue Reading

The distinguished voices against climate panic – and there are many of them

There are lot of distinguished scientists on the side of climate panic. But there are also many distinguished voices against it. I’ll be writing another post on this issue in the coming days on my TOI blog but thought I’d better study the topic a bit more.

Those who oppose the panic are among the MOST reputed scientists of the world. They are no light weights or pushovers. There are young “brats” on the scene like Michael Mann whom I severely discount, placing a lot more weight on the deep wisdom of these elderly scientists who have studied the topic for 40 or more years.

One of the key things you’ll note is that those who study the earth and atmosphere are CLEAREST about this NOT being a problem. It is those who have never studied the earth and atmosphere who are most vocal about CO2 being a problem.

Ian Plimer

Wikipedia: Professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne. No third rate university, this. Ian Plimer is best known for his work on the Encyclopedia of Geology – the most authoritative document on geology. Clearly one of the best students of the Earth’s history in the entire history of mankind, no side kick.

John Christy

Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) [Source]

Richard Lindzen

Wikipedia: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology till 2013. Now, you don’t get to be a professor at MIT unless you are rock solid in your discipline.

Judith Curry

Wikipedia: Former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

Don Easterbrook

Emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University

Robert M. Carter (1942–2016)

Former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook Universit

OTHER voices against climate panic

Continue Reading

Dossier on Vandana Shiva – a foreign-funded violence-supporting saboteur who can’t identify a rice plant

I had heard about Vandana Shiva in the past but thought she is just plain stupid – intellectually feeble, being incapable of understanding science and economics. In recent days I’ve come across a really dark side to her approach and am starting this a public dossier. This post will evolve as more information comes in.

Report on her foreign funded activism by Intelligence Bureau

See: What the IB said about FOREIGN FUNDED Vandana Shiva and Kavitha Kuruganti

I raised some of these issues here: What’s behind the science denial of anti-GM activists?

“Eco-Warrior” Vandana Shiva, at $40,000 a Speech, Rejoins Hawaii Anti-GMO Crusade, But Truth Is the Victim

Anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva earns $40,000 per speech advocating policies harming poor – Forbes 2014

Complete ignorance about plants

Strong support for extreme violence

More on the Eco-Arsonist Sentenced to Nearly 22 Years

Vandana Shiva Endorses Murder of Biotech Supporters

Blatant lies regarding “genocide” (farmer suicide)

“Suicides have intensified after the introduction of GMO Bt cotton [in India],” she has written again and again [Source]

“Yes, Indian farmer suicide is a real phenomenon, but genetically engineered crops are not the cause of this incredibly complex national tragedy. Around one Indian farmer takes his own life every half hour, but the suicide rate has remained relatively steady despite the growing acreage of genetically engineered crops.” [Source]

there’s Shiva’s most widespread claim: That farmers are killing themselves because GMO seeds mire them in debt. If this were the case, we’d expect to see an increase in the number of suicides as GMOs were introduced and became widespread. But the suicide rate among farmers in India remained level (here’s where I looked at this before). Check out this graph from Nature: [Source]

Farmer Suicides

Chronic BIG TIME liar

Shiva said last year that Bt-[genetically engineered] cotton-seed costs had risen by eight thousand per cent in India since 2002. In fact, the prices of modified seeds, which are regulated by the government, have fallen steadily. [Source]

Shiva also says that Monsanto’s patents prevent poor people from saving seeds. That is not the case in India. The Farmers’ Rights Act of 2001 guarantees every person the right to “save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share, or sell’’ his seeds. [Source]


She argues that “that the introduction of modern agricultural techniques in India – the ‘green revolution’ – has led to a state where: “The rich diversity and sustainable systems of food production are being destroyed in the name of increasing food production.”


“Today, India produces 204 million tons of grain a year. To produce that quantity with 1960s techniques would require three times as much land under cultivation. If India had stuck to traditional methods, by now it would be seeing millions of deaths from starvation every year – and it would have ploughed all the wild land.” [Source]

Continue Reading