In an otherwise balanced article, “Waterford snips popular weedkiller Roundup,” (April 7), on glyphosate, the second prominent headline “Roundup ‘probably carcinogenic’ says research group” does not represent scientific consensus. The headline should have read “Glyphosate consistently determined to be safe.”

In addition to the one study cited, every regulatory agency around the world (yes, even in Europe) has also concluded that glyphosate is safe. That includes two studies performed by the WHO, of which the IARC is part of. Readers should be aware that Reuters and the Times of London uncovered that IARC members reviewing glyphosate studies concealed important scientific data and edited out the conclusions of key studies. Similarly, California’s Prop 65, which regards caffeine and amusement parks as a carcinogenic, should be treated with equal skepticism. Glyphosate is among the safest herbicides and has improved crop yields, no-till farming (reducing top soil loss) and helped in other ways. Claims that it causes cancer are frivolous.

Scientific consensus is used to understand climate change and argue for action. It is hypocritical when science is ignored in discussions of other environmental concerns. A better understanding of science would help dispel the misinformation that has spread for many of these issues.

Fred Behringer

Old Lyme