Glyphosate found ‘not carcinogenic’: Key European safety agency joins consensus view on herbicide’s safety


The European Union regulatory agency considered the “last word” on whether glyphosate, the key ingredient in the world’s most popular weedkiller,  causes cancer has reviewed the research and concluded the herbicide is not carcinogenic.

The agency said “the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction”.

“This conclusion was based both on the human evidence and the weight of the evidence of all the animal studies reviewed,” Tim Bowmer, the chairman of the European Chemicals Agency’s Committee for Risk Assessment.

Glyphosate has been the subject of a relicensing battle which has split governments, regulators and scientists, with one arm of the World Health Organization saying in a ‘hazard assessment’ that the herbicide could post a cancer risk to workers, while other WHO groups, including WHO itself, and multiple agencies around the world, concluding it poses no harm to workers or to our food supply.

The ECHA announcement likely means it will be permitted for European Union use for at least the next 15 years, although a final decision will likely not come before the end of the year.

[For more background on glyphosate, read the GLP’s: Glyphosate: Dangerous chemical or anti-GMO bogeyman?]


Even before the decision, ECHA came under attack from anti-GMO and anti-chemical activists. Greenpeace accused it of conflicts of interests, claiming several of its members had either undertaken consultancy work for chemical firms or worked for institutes that had.

Following the report’s release, Greenpeace EU’s food policy director, Franziska Achterberg, said:

ECHA has gone to great lengths to sweep all evidence that glyphosate can cause cancer under the carpet. The data vastly exceeds what’s legally necessary for the EU to ban glyphosate, but ECHA has looked the other way.

Statements about ECHA’s decision have come in from various groups. The Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research (CAPHR) issued the following statement:

“ECHA’s confirmation that glyphosate is not a carcinogen underscores the serious flaws in IARC’s evaluation of carcinogens. IARC consistently fails to base its reviews on a full consideration of the available scientific evidence, which explains why regulatory bodies around the globe disagree with its determination that glyphosate is a ‘probable human carcinogen.’ Until IARC reforms its unscientific monograph process, its evaluations will continue to be out-of-step with the rest of the public health and regulatory community.”

The website Sustainable Pulse, funded by organic industry supporters who also maintain websites for controversial anti-GMO activist scientists including Gilles-Éric Séralini, blasted the decision:

Following in the footsteps of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has dismissed scientific evidence showing that the controversial weedkiller glyphosate could cause cancer. The ECHA assessment, released Wednesday, could pave the way for a new 15-year EU licence for the world’s most heavily used weedkiller, which the World Health Organisation’s cancer research agency (IARC) has classified as a “probable” cause of cancer. To reach its conclusion, ECHA rejected glaring scientific evidence of cancers in laboratory animals, ignored warnings by more than 90 independent scientists, and relied on unpublished studies commissioned by glyphosate producers.

The decision is in accord with findings from the European Food Safety Authority, US Environmental Protection Agency, the German Risk Association, Health Canada and every known regulatory body that has reviewed the data. [See GLP’s GMO FAQ “Is glyphosate (Roundup) dangerous?“]

“Science prevailed,” said Graeme Taylor, of the European Crop Protection Agency. “Glyphosate is not carcinogenic. We expect the European commission to move swiftly with the registration process for the substance in the EU and grant a 15-year approval.”

Why the controversy?

Glyphosate has emerged as today’s most discussed agricultural chemical, a modern DDT. Opponents of genetic modifications of crops often use it as a symbol of the potential harm — including cancer — supposedly caused by its use with “Roundup Ready” corn, soybeans and cotton, which have been designed to resist the world’s most popular weedkiller. On the other hand, farmers swear by its effectiveness and scientists have proven its overall safety.

The regulation of glyphosate had been in a storm over the past two years. The situation became particularly volatile in 2015 after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — the hazard assessment arm of the World Health Organization — issued a report declaring glyphosate a “2a: probably carcinogenic” substance. The decision, based on a review of scientific evidence for a hazard (as opposed to an environmental risk), was met with cheers from anti-GMO groups like Moms Against Monsanto and Friends of the Earth. But it was heavily criticized by scientists and regulators, including those at the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), who at one time accused IARC of conducting “Facebook science.”

The assessment was challenged by a number of other safety regulators, including EFSA, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Germany’s Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority and the World Health Organization, which all rejected IARC’s methodology and conclusions, declaring that glyphosate was not a carcinogen.

Still, the IARC decision persuaded the European Union to only extend the license to use the herbicide in the EU for 18 months, instead of a standard six years. Early last year, European Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis declared that “the last word (on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity) belongs to the ECHA.”

That last word has now been spoken.

Next steps

The ECHA said it reviewed the same scientific reports that IARC did, but also expanded its range of studies. In a video accompanying the announcement, the agency’s chief scientific officer, Ari Karjalainen, explained that while methodology was essentially identical to IARC’s, his agency’s criteria for determining cancer risk was different (his portion starts at about 1:55):

The ECHA determination means the European Union is more likely to fully extend the license for use of glyphosate in member nations — although there are still likely to be political battles ahead.  Whether this will have an impact outside of Europe remains to be seen. Certainly, the original IARC assessment had an impact. In California, for example, the state is considering labeling glyphosate as a carcinogen under its Proposition 65 law.

The ECHA did find two issues with glyphosate, which don’t directly impact its use as an agricultural herbicide. It found that direct exposure could cause serious eye damage, as well as long-term harm to aquatic environments. These were issues already known to regulators, users and manufacturers (which now extend beyond Monsanto now that the chemical’s patent has expired).

Now, the European Union will determine whether or not to approve use of the chemical for 15 years, based on rulings from several agencies but mainly upon the decision by ECHA.

Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. He is based in Camarillo, California. Follow @AMPorterfield on Twitter.

  • Eric Bjerregaard


    • Disco Balls

      Ok, how about the formula called Roundup. Lets face it Glyphosate has lost its ability to kill vegetation due to tolerance. So all those additives are “just as safe as table salt” as well? I heard through the grape vine that some government agency will be conducting toxicity tests on the formula we call Roundup. If and when this happens, it will be a step in right direction.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Let’s face it. Wacktivists exaggerate greatly the amount of resistance there is out there. If there is as much as you just claimed. Sales of glyphosate would be crashing. So, you are wrong there. Also, there already have been Gov’t and other independent studies done. I won’t be bothering to look up any because you won’t read them anyways. Plus the 43 year long safety record and lack of a causative mechanism for any damage means they really aren’t all that relevant anymore. As for the complete formulation testing it will turn out to be a nonissue except for the longshot possibility of an issue for applicators as the surfactants remain on the surface of the plant and consumers would have to get out there and eat soybean hulls and corn husks in order to ingest much of them. I haven’t seen many do that recently. Have you?

        • Signify

          Given that you begin with “wacktivists,” your argument is guaranteed to fail with me. I guarantee that if scented laundry products – dryer sheets, especially, can leave residue on plants that does not wash off in heavy rains – and that is the case, and these residues are toxic, that Roundup and chemicals like it should be banned.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Actually, as you seem to be another wacktivist. I have little hope for you. That you treat your plants with dryer sheets shows a certain lack of logic. Please find a better method of pest control. Scented laundry products are not effective.

          • Signify

            I don’t use scented laundry products – I refer to my direct experience with plants, and air affected to the detriment, from their use. You are so determined to fight back that you are not reading what is written?

      • Alokin

        The surfactants in Roundup do injure naked cells, you know, just like dish soap and many other cleaners you have under your sink would. As Eric said, there have been studies and none have found that the surfactants in Roundup are found as harmful residues on food. Roundup’s surfactants are an occupational health issue, which is why the label states that eye protection should be worn when handling or applying Roundup.

      • Jason

        The “additives” you’re speaking of a adjuvants. Essentially soap. They help the weed control get beyond the waxy outer layer of the leaf. Yes… depending on what adjuvants are used they can be slightly more toxic than glyphosate itself. But that is of little concern to consumers because adjuvants aren’t absorbed by the plants.

      • Roy Williams

        As a retired farmer, I guarantee you if a product failed to work one time on my farm, I did not buy it again. Roundup remains a great product that is highly effective on many weeds. Yes, some weeds tolerate it pretty well, but Roundup is still #1. Farmers (and home gardeners) buy it because it is very effective, and is one of the safest and easiest herbicides to handle, often the least expensive. Go talk to a farmer who crops thousands of acres in the grain belt of the U.S. You will learn that treating one acre with Roundup or an equivalent glyphosate herbicide costs over $10. If you have 3,000 acres of soybean, that is over $30,000. If the stuff doesn’t work, you just threw $30 grand down the drain. You better believe that Roundup works, or no farmer (who stays in business) would buy it. When you really want to know how farming is done, go talk to someone who does large-scale commercial farming, not some political activist in an office in some big city. As usual, the political activist has lied to you about both the effectiveness of Roundup, and government testing. If you really want information on what the EPA is doing, you can read all their entries in the Federal Register, as well as subscribe to the EPA’s numerous e-newsletters. Be informed, not foolish..

        • Signify

          I have studied the issue rather extensively in scientific literature. Ultimately, and I am not going into the scientific rationale here, I’d pay you not to use Roundup or anything like it, and I’ll go without the food produced with it.

          • Roy Williams

            Well, I think you need to not read the pseudo-research results so commonly pointed to by anti-GMO, anti-modern-farming activist websites. What are your academic credentials that would persuade me that you have the training to separate properly conducted research from sloppy or sham “research”?
            If I were farming, I absolutely would use Roundup because: less tillage, so less fuel costs, less greenhouse gas emissions, less cost to me, less soil erosion, less time in the field, better crop yield – and the safety of glyphosate has been studied more than any other herbicide. Using herbicides instead of tilling the soil is always a win for the environment.
            Why glyphosate is non-reactive in mammals is simple biochemistry; why it might be harmful at very high concentrations is also pretty easy biochemistry. And, we have plenty of publicly available data from the AHS that provides epidemiological evidence of safety in long-term exposure. So, absolutely I would use Roundup if it was appropriate for my field situation.
            Most reasonable, educated people do not put themselves in a position of looking foolish by so blatantly claiming that the collective opinion of many scientists who have studied a question are wrong. So I am curious if you perhaps being paid by the OCA, or some Big Organic company??