Glyphosate is harmful to humans, animals, and the environment
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Scientific opinion on glyphosate is sharply divided: multiple recent animal and review studies report cancer, neurotoxicity, reproductive and microbiome harms from glyphosate or glyphosate‑based herbicides (GBHs) [1] [2] [3], while major regulatory agencies including the U.S. EPA and several national bodies continue to conclude labeled uses do not pose a likely carcinogenic risk [4] [5]. Independent long‑term animal work such as the Ramazzini Global Glyphosate Study found low‑dose exposures caused multiple cancers in rats at doses the EU treats as safe [1] [6].
1. Two scientific tracks: regulatory safety vs. independent alarm
Regulators such as the U.S. EPA, EFSA‑aligned bodies and several national agencies have reviewed proprietary and public data and concluded glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic when used per label, noting benefits like reduced tillage and erosion control [4] [7]. Independent academic and NGO‑linked reviews report rising evidence of chronic harms — carcinogenicity in rodents, liver disease, neuroinflammation, microbiome disruption and reproductive effects — especially when whole commercial formulations (GBHs) or co‑formulants are examined [1] [8] [9] [10].
2. New long‑term animal evidence shifted the debate
A comprehensive prenatal‑to‑lifetime rat study led by the Ramazzini Institute found carcinogenic effects from glyphosate and representative formulations at doses corresponding to EU ADI/NOAEL values, prompting calls for re‑evaluation in Europe and beyond [1] [11]. George Mason University and partner coverage framed the study as the most comprehensive toxicology effort to date and consistent with IARC’s 2015 classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” [6] [1].
3. Formulations and co‑formulants change the toxicity picture
Multiple reviews and cell studies emphasize that GBHs (glyphosate plus surfactants and other formulants) can be more toxic than glyphosate alone; some toxic effects in vitro and in animals are driven by formulants such as POEA rather than the pure active ingredient [10] [12] [13]. Regulators often base risk calculations on glyphosate technical data, while independent researchers highlight mixture effects not fully captured in standard single‑substance testing [3] [12].
4. Human epidemiology is mixed and methodologically challenged
Epidemiological associations — for example between glyphosate and non‑Hodgkin lymphoma or perinatal outcomes — appear in some studies and reviews, but larger regulatory reviews and some cohort work find weak or no causal signal; methodological differences, exposure measurement limits and conflicts over which studies to weight heavily fuel disagreement [14] [15] [16]. A 2025 PNAS study linking glyphosate to lower birthweight and gestation in some U.S. rural populations is cited by critics calling for more scrutiny [8].
5. Environmental and biodiversity harms documented
Ecological literature finds glyphosate residues widespread in soil, water and foodstuffs and documents impacts on freshwater plankton, soil and gut microbiota, and biodiversity loss tied to heavy GBH use and glyphosate‑resistant weed management practices [17] [18] [19]. Reviews argue that biodegradation and single‑species tests underestimate system‑level impacts, and NGOs call for precautionary reassessments [19] [20].
6. Regulatory trust and transparency controversies
Recent retractions and lawsuits have intensified scrutiny of industry‑linked research that regulators historically relied upon; reporting of undisclosed authorship and influence has prompted questions about the integrity of some foundational safety studies [21] [22]. Beyond Pesticides and major press outlets noted retractions and legal documents raising concerns about past industry involvement in key papers [21] [22].
7. What the evidence does and does not say — limitations to keep in mind
Available sources show robust animal and mechanistic signals especially for GBHs and some long‑term studies, but human causal inference remains unsettled because of exposure measurement, differing endpoints, and regulatory vs. independent study selection differences [1] [16] [4]. Sources do not provide a definitive, universally accepted quantitative estimate of human cancer risk across populations; available sources do not mention a single global consensus overturning regulatory positions (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for policy and individuals
If policymakers prioritize precaution in light of new long‑term animal and mixture‑toxicity evidence, re‑evaluation of approvals, tighter monitoring of residues and restrictions on certain co‑formulants follow logically [1] [3]. If regulators prioritize current risk‑assessment weightings and agricultural utility, they will stress labeled‑use safety and economic tradeoffs of alternatives [4] [23]. Both stances are represented in the literature and reflect differing implicit agendas: public‑health‑oriented groups press for stricter controls, while regulatory and industry‑linked sources emphasize established safety frameworks and agricultural costs [11] [23].
Sources cited above: Ramazzini Global Glyphosate Study and related reporting [1] [6], reviews of human and environmental effects [2] [9] [3] [17], regulatory summaries and positions [4] [5], and investigative reporting on study retractions and industry influence [21] [22].