Large long-term farm study finds no statistically significant cancer link to glyphosate herbicide

| | November 9, 2017

A large long-term study on the use of the big-selling weedkiller glyphosate by agricultural workers in the United States has found no firm link between exposure to the pesticide and cancer, scientists said on Thursday [Nov. 9].

Published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI), the study found there was “no association between glyphosate”, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s popular herbicide RoundUp, “and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including non-Hogkin Lymphoma (NHL) and its subtypes.”

It said there was “some evidence of increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) among the highest exposed group”, but added “this association was not statistically significant” and would require more research to be confirmed.

Related article:  Four expert panels say data don't support IARC's classification of glyphosate as carcinogenic

The findings are likely to impact legal proceedings taking place in the United States against Monsanto, in which more than 180 plaintiffs are claiming exposure to RoundUp gave them cancer – allegations that Monsanto denies.

“Glyphosate was not statistically significantly associated with cancer at any site,” the conclusion said.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: U.S. farm study finds no firm cancer link to Monsanto weedkiller

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.

34 thoughts on “Large long-term farm study finds no statistically significant cancer link to glyphosate herbicide”

  1. It’s good to see this study finally published, detailing the lack of a significant carcinogenic effect among farmworkers who used glyphosate. I wonder whether IARC will convene a committee to reevaluate its decision to consider glyphosate a probable human carcinogen, based partly on an earlier report on the same study. Until or unless it does that, California can’t rescind it’s listing of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, based on that IARC ruling.

    • Something tells me CA and the EU for that matter won’t pay any attention to this study. It’s all about politics for them, not science. This has been going on for nearly 30 years now and this study does not surprise me a bit.

      • The most recent statement regarding glyphosate on the IARC website is 24 Oct., 2017, before the publication of the updated study, and contains no comments regarding re-review. In any regard, scheduling of reviews is a multi-year process.

        • A statement made to Reuters in June:

          “In an email to Reuters, IARC declined to say whether Blair informed IARC staff about the unpublished data, whether he should have, and whether that data might have changed IARC’s evaluation of glyphosate had it been published in time. The agency said it had no plans to reconsider its assessment of the chemical.[my bold]

          http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/

          If re-review really is a multi-year process, for the sake of honesty and transparency, the IARC should have delayed its opinion until the new, unpublished, human cancer data was published.

    • Soooo… you’re saying that the farmers who work IN THE FIELDS that are being sprayed don’t show any significant correlation but the people who just live somwhere nearby are going to be cancer ridden?? That’s what you believe?

      And then on top of that, you’re citing the IARC monograph which was busted for changing the conclusions of 10 studies cited so that they could get the conclusion they wanted.

      https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/

          • The IARC scientific panel, in an open deliberate session, discussed the draft chapters and evaluations, and settled on the final wording, which differed from the draft wording prepared by a subset of panelists. That’s the way a committee process is supposed to work.

          • Yes.. I understand that. But were this just “open deliberation” then you would expect to see changes to a variety of conclusions. Not only those that found no link to cancer. Particularly when the conclusions presented differ from those of the studies authors.

    • The IARC conclusion was based on a more limited data set from the same study you’re appearing to call hogwash. If the expanded study is hogwash, then a good part of the rationale for calling glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen” disappears.

        • Mid West, the link you provided is to the IARC, which relied on the study you’re now apparently calling hogwash, despite the fact that this NCI study is the largest and best study ever done of farmworker health.

          • I see all of the dozens of links…and all of the data…just slipped past your Monsanto Troll eyes, huh? There is no more evil of a company than Monsanto and the only ones supporting them are the evil scum being paid to. Go back to work, Monsanto Troll.

          • The discussion here is about the Agricultural Health Study. And it may have escaped your attention that glyphosate is no longer an exclusive Monsanto product. The patent has expired, and it is being produced by several companies. China appears to be the biggest producer and consumer of glyphosate.

  2. This will largely be ignored by the true believers. Several news articles already just could not bring themselves to say No Evidence, always a weasel word in there. And even this huge, long study will be dismissed as not “Proving” benignity. So much time, money & energy which could be spent on something that really makes a difference….

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend