EPA Says Glyphosate Is Not Harmful To Humans

The herbicide glyphosate is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer. This product has been used for more than 40 years on farms, residential lawns, and on golf courses. Environmentalists have been conducting a scaremongering campaign asking for a world-wide ban.

Glyphosate was classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2015, based on very sketchy evidence. However, in November 2015, the European Food Safety Authority determined that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans. In May 2016, the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization meeting on pesticide residues (another subdivision of the WHO), concluded that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.

A new study published December 12, 2017 by the Environmental Protection Agency concludes that glyphosate and its metabolites are not likely to be harmful to humans, neither as a carcinogen, nor harmful in other ways. You can read the entire 216-page report here.

The EPA reviewed thousands of studies relating to glyphosate effects on humans and other animals. The EPA’s main conclusion: “In summary, considering the entire range of information for the weight-of-evidence, the evidence outlined above to potentially support the ‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential’ descriptor are contradicted by other studies of equal or higher quality and, therefore, the data do not support this cancer classification descriptor.” The strongest support is for “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

This story has been largely ignored by the mainstream media. I did find mention by Reuters which noted that the EPA reported that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and found “no other meaningful risks to human health” when glyphosate, the world’s biggest-selling weed killer, is used according to its label instructions.

There was also mention in the LATimes which pointed out that the EPA finding contradicted “California regulators, who have included the chemical on the Proposition 65 list of probable carcinogens.”

As Steve Milloy pointed out in a June 19, 2017, Washington Times article, it’s time to dismantle the chemical scaremongering industry.

See also my ADI articles:

Note to readers:

If you like murder mysteries, type the name Lonni Lees (my wife) into Amazon or Barnes & Noble sites to see her novels, a book of short stories, and reviews. For synopses and more reviews of her books see: https://wryheat.wordpress.com/lonnis-murder-mysteries/


    • Those studies mean nothing unless you’re interested in reduced sperm count of rats after repeated, massive dosages.

      I repeat – you have 0 evidence that the aerial spraying by Saguaro National Park you cite caused any ill health effects to humans or pets. You made it up. You lied. You hate capitalism so much you have created your own universe of hate where your brain resides.

  1. Aerial spraying of glyphosate by Saguaro National Park in the Panther Peak area, and by Tucson Water in the Avra Valley, has sickened nearby neighbors — and their pets. A long-term and ongoing agricultural study in Iowa and North Carolina has found increased incidences of non-Hodgkins lymphoma where glyphosate is used. “Not likely,” like the IARC’s “probable,” means “we really don’t know for sure yet,” and not that glyphosate is absolutely safe or absolutely carcinogenic. Kind of like they used to say about cigarettes….

    • You have no evidence that the spraying sickened anybody or any pet. Otherwise, present it. Just more propaganda to spread the misery of communism by stifling innovation, technology and American economic prosperity.

      • Sickened for how long? Momentarily, a day, a month, longer? Spraying and breathing any pesticide, herbicide, or even an household cleaning product can cause some (many) to feel nauseated. Some are more chemically sensitive than others but we should all reduce exposure to chemical volatiles. Herbicides and pesticides ideally wouuldn’t be sprayed on a windy day owing to waste of money and reduced targeting ability. Those who work with these chemicals on a long-term basis need to take proper attention to PPE.

    • I think the word is oncogen – increasing the potential for cancer to happen, if you are prone, have those gene slices in place you are susceptible to mutation and with some level of exposure you have cancer – then there’s the grandma that smoked for 90 years and she died of old age, while the kid perhaps never smoked and died at age 44 of a lung tumor.. all in the gene potential and the exposure combination… is glyphosate good for you… maybe not so much

Comments are closed.