DEAR SIR:
Now that the German minister has breached his party’s existing policy on glyphosate, coinciding with Bayer’s bid for Monsanto and the glyphosate debate no longer rages, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the unwarranted and unsubstantiated attack on my competence and judgment by Liam Dunne (IFJ 18 Nov), chair of the IFA Grain Committee.
Mr Dunne chooses to attack the messenger rather than the message which, in itself, displays weakness in his argument. So, what was my crime in order to be accused of putting forward “pathetic excuses” and “showing no leadership”. Having quoted all three relevant scientific reports to support my argument I used a common phrase, that I “felt” the need to use the precautionary principle in casting my vote. This was deliberately twisted by Mr Dunne to suggest in three places in his letter that I based my decision on “feelings”, a complete distortion of the facts. Mr Dunne chose to play the man and not the ball – or in this case, the woman.
He states without any evidence that I didn’t inform myself fully on the issue before voting. On this he is wrong, wrong, wrong. It’s somewhat ironic that after his false accusation he then goes on to misquote the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) WHO Report. He states that the IARC WHO Report did not find any basis to say glyphosate was probably carcinogenic because it reported that just one adjuvant used in one formulation called Roundup Gold was probably carcinogenic. This is incorrect. The IARC WHO Report assessed both the active substance glyphosate as well as a number of formulations and its findings, decided by 17 experts from 11 countries, said glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic” – no ifs, buts or maybes.
Unlike Mr Dunne, I am willing to deal with the substance of his letter and I agree on one point he makes regarding the issue of imports into the EU. This point was well articulated in an article by Andy Doyle (IFJ 18 Nov). I agree, EU politicians must have a coherent policy on the standards of imported goods such as GM maize, soya, etc. If we impose a hazard-based process on our registration systems we should impose the same system when it comes to imports.
Finally, Mr Dunne, on the issue of leadership, what is leadership? Leadership is about asking the hard questions and not just assuming that the status quo holds. It is also about looking at the bigger picture – in this case human health as well as agricultural production. Is there a family in Ireland that has not, in some way, been affected by cancer? It is also, in this case, about being straightforward with people and answering the question – am I 100% sure? No I’m not, but the weight of evidence is sufficient for me to make this decision. That’s the type of leadership I espouse and yes, I still feel I made the best decision.
Read more
Read more
Letter: Harkin's glyphosate letter a pathetic excuse
DEAR SIR:
Now that the German minister has breached his party’s existing policy on glyphosate, coinciding with Bayer’s bid for Monsanto and the glyphosate debate no longer rages, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the unwarranted and unsubstantiated attack on my competence and judgment by Liam Dunne (IFJ 18 Nov), chair of the IFA Grain Committee.
Mr Dunne chooses to attack the messenger rather than the message which, in itself, displays weakness in his argument. So, what was my crime in order to be accused of putting forward “pathetic excuses” and “showing no leadership”. Having quoted all three relevant scientific reports to support my argument I used a common phrase, that I “felt” the need to use the precautionary principle in casting my vote. This was deliberately twisted by Mr Dunne to suggest in three places in his letter that I based my decision on “feelings”, a complete distortion of the facts. Mr Dunne chose to play the man and not the ball – or in this case, the woman.
He states without any evidence that I didn’t inform myself fully on the issue before voting. On this he is wrong, wrong, wrong. It’s somewhat ironic that after his false accusation he then goes on to misquote the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) WHO Report. He states that the IARC WHO Report did not find any basis to say glyphosate was probably carcinogenic because it reported that just one adjuvant used in one formulation called Roundup Gold was probably carcinogenic. This is incorrect. The IARC WHO Report assessed both the active substance glyphosate as well as a number of formulations and its findings, decided by 17 experts from 11 countries, said glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic” – no ifs, buts or maybes.
Unlike Mr Dunne, I am willing to deal with the substance of his letter and I agree on one point he makes regarding the issue of imports into the EU. This point was well articulated in an article by Andy Doyle (IFJ 18 Nov). I agree, EU politicians must have a coherent policy on the standards of imported goods such as GM maize, soya, etc. If we impose a hazard-based process on our registration systems we should impose the same system when it comes to imports.
Finally, Mr Dunne, on the issue of leadership, what is leadership? Leadership is about asking the hard questions and not just assuming that the status quo holds. It is also about looking at the bigger picture – in this case human health as well as agricultural production. Is there a family in Ireland that has not, in some way, been affected by cancer? It is also, in this case, about being straightforward with people and answering the question – am I 100% sure? No I’m not, but the weight of evidence is sufficient for me to make this decision. That’s the type of leadership I espouse and yes, I still feel I made the best decision.
Read more
Read more
Letter: Harkin's glyphosate letter a pathetic excuse
SHARING OPTIONS