Did personal biases at EPA influence IARC glyphosate review? US lawmakers want to know

Screen Shot at PM
Photo by Mike Mozart/Flickr

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

U.S. lawmakers are investigating whether [EPA] staff influenced the World Health Organization’s review of glyphosate and its finding that the herbicide probably causes cancer, according to a letter sent to the agency on [June 7].

The letter from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology is part of an ongoing investigation into the agency after the EPA posted and withdrew an internal report that said glyphosate was not cancer causing.

One question that lawmakers are trying to answer. . . is whether EPA staff allowed personal bias to color the agency’s scientific review of glyphosate. . .

Some EPA staff participated in both the U.S. review and the WHO review. While the committee’s line of investigation was not clear, lawmakers cited the contradictory findings of the two reviews.

. . . .

According to the letter, lawmakers want congressional staff to interview four top EPA officials who were involved in one or both reviews of glyphosate.

An EPA spokeswoman said [June 7] the agency had received the letter, was reviewing it and would respond.

Read full, original post: U.S. lawmakers probe EPA staff over possible bias in herbicide review

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Jul-8-2026-12_32_48-PM
Viewpoint: SCOTUS strikes a blow against junk science in Bayer glyphosate case. Will it deter mass tort litigators?
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-07-08-at-9.36.03-AM
Viewpoint: Long-contained diseases are on the rise in the U.S. Are Trump cuts to blame?
afb-a-b
As the EU loosens restrictions on agricultural gene editing, it remains years behind the rest of the world on equally-safe GMO foods
Viewpoint: Consensus as truth? How ‘misinformation police’ control policy narratives
Which among war, weather and cyber attacks is the biggest world threat? None of the above. It’s misinformation, and here’s why.
c9f0a584-46e9-4dd8-9a77-f5f5a7a51a84
Across Eastern Europe, science disinformation has spread far beyond COVID and vaccine denialism. Here’s the grim list.
Screenshot 2026-07-11 100209
Viewpoint: Supplements to clean your liver? Not a good idea.
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-7-2026-01_57_55-PM
Viewpoint: Europe’s rejection of air conditioning is the poster child for misunderstanding how to mitigate the impact of climate change
Gemini_Generated_Image_gabo48gabo48gabo
Viewpoint: A plastic surgeon on why banning gender-transition surgery without further research is wrong and harmful
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-1-2026-03_33_49-PM
‘Alternative’ cancer treatments that could kill you
Screenshot-2026-07-10-at-3.10.50-PM
Snake-oil cures throughout history
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-1-2026-12_37_08-PM
Viewpoint: Trump poised to politicize all U.S.-supported science research
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.