The Glyphosate Reckoning: What Now for the World’s Most Used Herbicide? By Bob Farmer, Dairy Farmer and Brian Simpson

The long-awaited release of the Ramazzini Institute's "Carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure from prenatal life to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides in Sprague–Dawley rats" in the journal Environmental Health marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate surrounding glyphosate. This comprehensive, independent study provides robust, dose-related evidence of multiple tumor types in rats exposed to glyphosate and its formulations at levels currently considered "safe" by regulatory bodies like the EU ADI and NOAEL. For the world's most widely used herbicide, these findings are not just significant; they demand an urgent re-evaluation of its widespread application and raise critical questions about our public health priorities.

The study's design is noteworthy for its rigour and scope. By exposing Sprague–Dawley rats to glyphosate and two prominent glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), Roundup Bioflow and RangerPro, from gestational day six through 104 weeks of age, the researchers simulated chronic, real-world exposure scenarios, including the critical period of prenatal development. The chosen doses, mirroring regulatory "safe" levels, make the findings especially pertinent to human health risk assessment.

The major findings are stark and deeply concerning:

1.Systemic Carcinogenicity: The study observed statistically significant, dose-dependent increases in benign and malignant tumours across a wide array of anatomical sites. From leukemia to tumours in the skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, bone, pancreas, adrenals, uterus, and spleen, the evidence points to a broad carcinogenic potential of glyphosate and its formulations.

2.Early-Onset Leukemia: Perhaps one of the most alarming findings is the incidence of early-onset leukemia, with 40% of cases in treated animals occurring before one year of age, compared to zero in control animals and a historical incidence of less than 1%. This suggests a particularly insidious effect during early development.

3.Elevation of Rare Tumours: The significant increase in multiple tumours historically rare in Sprague–Dawley rats, such as malignant Schwannomas and granular cell brain tumours, further underscores the unique and concerning impact of glyphosate exposure.

4.Consistency Across Formulations: The fact that both pure glyphosate and its commercial formulations, including the U.S. version (RangerPro) with POEA surfactants, demonstrated increased tumour incidence, often with stronger trends for RangerPro, indicates that the problematic effects are not limited to the active ingredient alone, but potentially amplified by the co-formulants.

These animal data are not isolated. They provide compelling experimental support for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)'s 2015 classification of glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen." Furthermore, they are consistent with human epidemiological evidence, notably the 2019 meta-analysis by Zhang et al., which reported a 41% increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in individuals with the highest glyphosate exposure. The convergence of animal and human data strengthens the case for glyphosate's carcinogenic potential, moving beyond mere association to robust evidence.

But the concerns don't stop at cancer. The essay also highlights emerging research, such as that from Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, linking glyphosate to neurodevelopmental disorders and autism. While further research is often needed to establish definitive causal links, the accumulation of evidence across multiple health domains paints a troubling picture of glyphosate's broad impact on human health, especially for the most vulnerable populations, including developing foetuses and young children.

What Now?

The implications of this study are profound and demand immediate action from regulators, policymakers, and society at large.

1.Urgent Re-evaluation of Regulatory Standards: The Ramazzini Institute's findings challenge the very foundation of current "safe" exposure levels for glyphosate. Regulatory bodies worldwide, including those in the EU, Australia and the U.S., must critically re-evaluate their acceptable daily intake (ADI) and no-observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) in light of this new, robust data. To ignore this evidence would be a dereliction of their duty to protect public health.

2.Phased Elimination and Alternative Development: The collective evidence strongly suggests an "urgent need to eliminate its use entirely and replace it with demonstrably non-carcinogenic alternatives." This will require a concerted effort to support research and development into sustainable, non-toxic weed control methods. Farmers and agricultural industries will need comprehensive support and incentives to transition away from glyphosate reliance.

3.Enhanced Public Awareness and Education: The public needs to be fully informed about these risks, particularly concerning everyday exposure through food, water, and air. Education campaigns can empower individuals to make informed choices about their diets and exposure to pesticides.

4.Prioritising Independent Research: The Global Glyphosate Study, independently funded and conducted, underscores the critical importance of research free from industry influence. Future health and environmental risk assessments must prioritise independent scientific inquiry to ensure unbiased and transparent findings.

5.Strengthening Precautionary Principle: In the face of mounting evidence of harm, governments should adopt a stronger precautionary principle, where substances with probable health risks are restricted or banned until proven safe, rather than waiting for irrefutable proof of harm after widespread exposure has occurred.

The publication of the Ramazzini Institute's study is a siren call. It is a stark reminder that what is considered "safe" today may prove to be profoundly damaging tomorrow.

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/worlds-top-pesticide-linked-to-over