Viewpoint: Misconstruing risk—Anti-glyphosate hyperbole sows unwarranted public anxiety and confusion

Roundup

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was passed in 1996 and established new safety standards (i.e., tolerances) for pesticides. The act mandated determination of levels for “reasonable certainty of no harm,” emphasizing protection of vulnerable populations (infants and children). And as part of that process, FQPA established pesticide-specific reference doses (RfD): the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health.

Dr. Allan Felsot at Washington State University shared … his work regarding glyphosate …. He points out that under the FQPA mandate, EPA also determines risk of aggregate exposure beyond just dietary consumption. For glyphosate, that means including risk assessment for residential (e.g., treating a lawn) and incidental exposure, too.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Felsot explained that “even under worst-case assumptions, aggregate exposure to glyphosate [from all three sources] is well below the RfD.” And he aptly points out that the “presence of residues is not the same as risk.”

Unfortunately, the hyperbole only serves to fuel unwarranted anxiety and undermines any meaningful conversation. No wonder there’s so much confusion out there.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.noReviewsLabel }}
{{ 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-22-2026-09_13_07-AM
Viewpoint—The Strategic Litigation boom: Understanding the tightening coalition among NGOs, foundations, journalists, and tort lawyers
How to Include More Strawberries in Your Diet
Strawberries are berries—and 35 other surprising food and drink myths
close up arabica coffee farmer s hands picking beans plant his farm colombia
Viewpoint: Why do so many ‘mainstream’ and ‘respected’ media outlets exaggerate climate change threats?
diversity
We are entering a new era of personalized medicine—if you’re white
Screenshot-2026-07-07-at-12.55.44-PM
Viewpoint: Yes, we can adapt to a changing climate without devastating the environment and the economy
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-May-22-2026-10_26_09-AM
Trump-RFK, Jr. National Science Board firings: Accountability vs. partisan meddling
organic scaled
Facts & Fallacies podcast: Organic food cuts pesticide exposure? A response to Dr. Rhonda Patrick
Screenshot 2026-07-22 at 10.25
Science brain drain escalates as Trump purge extends to USDA
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-6-2026-02_25_26-PM
40 million Americans take glucosamine. If you have memory loss, it could accelerate cognitive decline.
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
using genetics to reverse aging
Is the longevity obsession a new form of ageism?
Screenshot-2026-07-01-at-2.49.48-PM
Dr. TikTok and male fertility: Viral claims tout GLP-1 drugs as fertility boosters. What does the science say?

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

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