[andybak]

I'm not too sure I buy your use of the word "obviously" here.

My normal spider-sense of "follow the money" seems to find no obvious path. Internal activists is a fairly novel concept - at least activists with the power to make changes like this. I'd like to know who benefits and why...

[Yetanfou]

> Internal activists is a fairly novel concept - at least activists with the power to make changes like this.

There's nothing novel about activism in organisations like the WHO, nor in the media which report on the activities of these organisations. It is actually quite hard to find truly objective studies which are not tainted by people-with-a-cause (political or otherwise) on the one side, people-with-financial-interests on the other.

[jcranmer]

People at large generally have a set of blinders on where the monetary incentives of large companies are clear and undeniable, but the monetary incentives of concerned organizations are passed over. An anti-vaccine group is going to pay good money to a researcher who can find links between vaccine and $EVIL, and indeed, this is already known to have happened (see Wakefield, Andrew).

In the case of being against agrichemicals, there is a readily identifiable commercial industry: organic agriculture. (And, again, don't discount the size of an industry just because it's the "little guy" working against "the man"--the health supplement industry is an example where the "little guy" is actually guilty of everything they accuse of "the man" of, and much worse). In addition, there is a pretty staunch anti-GMO activism running around in Europe as a whole which provides ready funding fuel here.

The entire glyphosate controversy, to me at least, has long been a case of "[the people against it] know it's somehow evil, because big agriculture, we're just trying to figure out something that will actually show it."

[zo1]

Most non-profit organizations are in some way biased toward maintaining their own existence alongside their actual goal. I would reckon that would be a good place to start looking for "follow the money".

I'm sure I could come up with one, though without thinking too deeply, it'd probably end up being a little too contrived, far-fetched or conspiratorial. Not as a way to boast, but more to illustrate that if we accept that money is a huge factor in the things that revolve around us, then we can start seeing patterns previously hidden because we had a bit of a "rosy" world-view.

E.g.:

WHO helps Glyphosate to be banned -> Less food production due to ineffective pesticide alternatives -> More people in the 3rd world countries starving -> More funding for "world Health" due to "poor starving people" -> WHO gets more funding and ensures its survival.

In contrast with:

WHO drives an amazing worldwide initiative to get 50 billion USD in funding -> WHO funds and deploys employees and equipment in starving areas to generate free food -> Solves 3rd world hunger -> Existing WHO mandate no longer exists -> The (Happy) End.

[glofish]

Some might call this a jaded and a cynical view but is one that I have also observed and concluded that is more realistic than we care to admit.

It is not a conspiracy, it is not a predetermined plan, it just happens that certain kinds of people get promoted to leadership positions in these organizations. It is a survival phenomenon, an evolutionary principle at work. The organization does its best to ensure the future of the organization.

[perl4ever]

I don't disagree in principle, but this sort of "realist" commentary tends to be advanced whenever people get too out of sorts about a for-profit company to whom the same logic applies.

There's a reason big companies defend hundreds of lawsuits at any given time, and it's simply because they do a lot of bad stuff and society doesn't shut them down for it. I've worked in litigation support, and you know what? Non-profits were not the ones paying us $$$. It may be that the sort of companies (banks, drug companies, chemical companies) people love to hate are still a net benefit to society. But they don't have the all the slings and arrows aimed at them because of a conspiracy of plaintiffs' lawyers and whatnot, but because they do harm on a daily basis.

[dmix]

I’m sure there are plenty of environmental people who want to get rid of glyphosate and other massively popular chemicals used in industrial farming. But you’re right it could be some competitor or monetary influence - besides maybe the incentives within WHO and IARC themselves getting a whole lot of attention and influence from presenting a very damaging report instead of a mixed one.

Maybe it allowed some of them to become “expert witnesses” at major multi million dollar trials and compensated well by the law firms, who knows.

Or it could be as insignificant as some people trying to make their job seemingly important and justified sort of thing. An inconclusive report doesn’t get headlines.

Either way the organization owes the world a better explanation.