The edits identified by Reuters occurred in the chapter of IARC’s review focusing on animal studies. This chapter was important in IARC’s assessment of glyphosate, since it was in animal studies that IARC decided there was “sufficient” evidence of carcinogenicity.
One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of multiple scientists' conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals.
As we now know, the BBC has now withdrawn claims in their original report last month, based on the above IPPR paper, that
The BBC has also added this update:
This does raise the intriguing question who blinked first, the BBC or IPPR.
But let’s see just how the IPPR have changed their report:
This is how the Summary compares:
And in the detailed section, on P13:
Despite the much greater elaboration in the new version, the difference between the two is quite stunning.
The original gave an almost cataclysmic account of how climate change was wrecking the environment. The new effectively states no more than these facts:
1) That summers are a bit hotter, (but unmentioned is that winters, springs and autumns are less cold, probably a good thing on balance)
2) Droughts are less pervasive in North America than they used to be.
There are, and will always be, regional variations in climate. But there is no evidence that the ones we have seen in recent decades have anything to do with global warming at all.
In short, the original paper claimed climate change as one of its main causes of “environmental breakdown”, the others being extinctions and topsoil loss.
That argument has now been destroyed.
Laughably they now describe the whole basis for their absurd extreme weather claims as “a quick survey”.
If they have really based a large chunk of their paper on a “quick survey”, it hardly inspires much confidence in the rest of it!