Toxicologist pans UN glyphosate report

A Canadian toxicologist says the World Health Organization made a critical scientific error in its decision to classify glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.

A panel of experts with the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer released a report March 20 on five pesticides, including glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world.

After reviewing the scientific literature, the experts classified glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Roundup, as Group 2A: probably carcinogenic to humans.

In a brief statement explaining the new designation, the scientists cited a number of research papers, such as a study on rural Colombians who were exposed to a spray of Roundup.

IARC said the study demonstrated that glyphosate can cause genotoxicity, or DNA damage, and cause cellular mutations that may result in cancer.

“One study (of) community residents reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby,” the report said.

Keith Solomon, a University of Guelph professor emeritus and a globally recognized authority on pesticides, said the conclusion is “totally wrong.”

Solomon should know because he wrote the Colombian study.

“They stated there was evidence of genotoxicity and they quoted one paper to support that statement,” Solomon said.

“There’s no evidence that glyphosate is genotoxic.”

Solomon and an international team of scientists conducted a study on glyphosate in Colombia in the early 2000s as part of a Colombian government program to destroy illegal coca fields in the countryside.

Coca is used to produce cocaine.

Solomon and his colleagues were asked to do a risk assessment of the human health and environmental risks associated with the coca eradication program.

The scientists took blood samples from Colombian volunteers who were exposed to glyphosate when government planes sprayed coca fields.

To assess the likelihood of DNA damage, they tested for the presence of “genotoxicity biomarkers” in the volunteers’ blood, known as micronuclei.

“All we were interested in was, does the spraying of the coca cause increased micronuclei,” Solomon said.

The scientists took blood samples four months later because that’s approximately how long it would take to replace the white blood cells exposed to glyphosate. Solomon and his team then compared the results to a group of rural residents who weren’t exposed to the airplane spray.

“When we looked at the differences in the micronuclei between those two groups, we found no difference,” he said.

“They (IARC) got this totally wrong. They said the study showed there was a relationship…. It’s certainly a different conclusion than the one we came to.”

Solomon isn’t the only scientist to speak out against the IARC decision. A number of toxicologists and pesticide experts have criticized the United Nations agency for a lack of balance.

They said the report ignored an abundance of papers showing that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. Instead, it focused on a few marginal studies showing that glyphosate promotes tumours in mice and epidemiological studies linking the herbicide to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute who led the IARC group of 17 experts, told Reuters that the classification is scientifically appropriate.

He said there might be hundreds of studies on glyphosate, but concern about the herbicide are mounting.

“We looked at, ‘is there evidence that glyphosate causes cancer?’ and the answer is ‘probably.’ That is different than yes.”

Solomon said the conclusion contradicts scientific consensus. National regulatory agencies around the globe have evaluated glyphosate and concluded the weed killer is not a human health risk. As an example, a recent German report concluded that glyphosate is probably not a carcinogen.

Solomon said he would reserve final judgment until IARC publishes a comprehensive report on its decision, which will be released in about a year.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies substances and agents into five groups according to cancer risk:

  • Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans.
  • Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans.
  • Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans.
  • Group 3: Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
  • Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans.

Examples of agents in Group 1 are asbestos, alcoholic beverages and working as a painter.

Examples of agents in Group 2A are working as a hair stylist and burning wood in a fireplace.
Source: IARC

Related story:

Chemical evaluation method used in glyphosate report ‘outdated,’ says expert


About the author


  • richard

    The irony is of course that we have willfully created a global food production system totally dependent on one ingredient. And no amount of self righteous indignation and sophistry from the perpetrators, their heelers and those addicted to use is going to change the fact that none of these people have a sniff on how to create an alternate system….. Glyphosate is finished…..Never mind toxicity, it has hit the brick wall of biological obsolescence… no…longer…works….. And an entire sector of the global economy drunk on its own excess of the holy wine for forty years, finds itself stumbling to rearrange the deck chairs……

    • First Officer

      Nah, If glyphosate were taken off the market, yields would drop back to about what they were about 15 years ago for RR crops, but not for Bt crops. A significant drop that will cause a big spike in food prices but agriculture will not collapse. For corn, Atrazine would step back in. After a few years, we’d have developed new biotech solutions.

      • richard

        So not only is glyphosate obsolete, so is Bt… Yep, as predicted the root worm has conquered the biotech poster child….in less than ten years…. Atrazine? Perhaps you might look at the litigation surrounding atrazine and other organophosphates…..the dirty dozen…out with the sixties pal….You know the problem with ego based agriculture is that it offers mostly honest people the false belief that they will be the first one granted an end run around natural law…..Biological reality is the sum total of evolution and it will always take your quick fix bio-chem marketing fantasies to the mat……Furthermore the public is rapidly evolving to the point where it is no longer willing to subsidize an agricultural paradigm of environmental intoxication…….

        • Ripshed

          Obsolete? Hardly. A lot of hyperbole and no evidence.

          • richard

            oops!…..fourteen weeds on sixty million acres of US farmland….resistant to glyphosate…..ouch!

        • Paul Anderson

          Bt is NOT obsolete. It still controls the European Corn Borer very well and there is no reason to think that will change anytime soon. The Bt for rootworm and the Bt for cornborer are quite different events. The cornborer one has been around a lot longer, is a lot stronger and is better matched to the physiology of the insect.
          You really ought to be glad the cornborer Bt continues to work, it has kept a lot of organo-phosphates out of the environment.

          • richard

            I ought to be glad? Sorry Ive got ten to twelve year rotations on my farm…. I dont create a pathway for these kind of outbreaks …..But I get the distinct impression that you should be thankful for Bt…. Sadly any basic web search on Bt resistance in corn borer is happening all over the planet….

          • Paul Anderson

            Richard, you might want to read some of those links that come up in your web search. AFAIK, there have never been any cases of Bt resistant corn borer in the wild. I know there have been efforts to create them in the lab, but I don’t know if that’s been successful or not. I did find some articles that confused corn borer and corn rootworm, but that’s it.
            Resistance management is very important for Bt, because we don’t want to lose it. But there’s no evidence so far that we are losing it for corn borer. And lower commodity prices have increased the amount of non-Bt corn planted in this country, which will help preserve the technology.

          • AnotherLover

            Well said. But, there is reason to believe Bt will continue to decrease in effectiveness –it’s overuse. Same thing with antibiotics. It’s a scary notion to see insects genetically evolve themselves to resist Bt. It’s a freakin’ nightmare. Insects that resist Bt will be unstoppable by natural methods. We push this far enough and organic farming will be impossible, conventional will be impossible, and all that will be left is patented seeds that can resist the environmental — what do you call this? Insects that survive an ancient and effective insecticide plants have used forever, and plants evolving to survive herbicide — call it wierdness. Then, growers that wanted nothing to do with Monsanto or GMO crops will have to face these problems GMO farming techniques created. Just a thought.

        • First Officer

          Nope not at all. For one thing, Glyphosate kills hundreds of weeds. Only a few have developed resistance and ceratinly not all individual members of those species have that trait. For Bt, the particular Bt only works for the particular insect or two. And, again, resistance has been reported but most fields are not experiencing wholesale resistance. We can continue to tweak the Bt proteins too.

          • richard

            Of course it kills hundreds of weeds…..that its never used on??? And the ones that have developed resistance are the dirty ones that punching back at monocultural thinking….. kochia, wild oats, thistles, bindweed, grasses…..why else have they resurrected another obsolete toxin 2-4D, to bail out the sinking ship glyphosate…..And as suggested earlier the enlightened global public is no longer prepared to have the local biosphere contaminated to feed the 9B 2050 export delusion…..Who do you think is behind the UN finally speaking??? As for tweaking Bt, how many coats of lip stick to you plan to put on this pig…. war with nature is like war on terror….can’t be won….its like pushing rope…..sorry. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over….?

          • Craig

            Richard you should likely do a little research into 2-4D. It never did kill wild oats or grassy weeds and it is one of many herbicides that would actually kill most GMO crops.What makes you think it would ever be resurrected to save weed resistance in GMO crops?
            Plant engineering and breeding is responsible for the massive increase in production of food off a limited acreage base and will continue to be an essential part of agriculture if this planets population continues to expand.
            War with nature starts with humans trying to do what no other animal has been able to do successfully…..out grow the available supply of food. Control diseases with drugs, extend life expectancy with drugs….what we are doing as a race goes against everything that would otherwise be natural so to isolate agriculture and the attempts to feed the people of this planet by suggesting it is at war with nature is just wrong.

          • richard

            …..Kill a virus, kill a bacteria, kill a fungus, kill an insect, kill a weed…. carpet bombing nature…….sounds like war to me…….The intoxification of the foodstream is unlikely to lead to health and vitality in citizens of the planet…..which is why you are so infatuated with pharmaceuticals…….and we call this progress…..Are we living on the planet of the apes???

        • Jason

          Rootworm resistance to Bt is relatively isolated. It’s not a widespread issue. It also only has effected 1 rootworm Bt event. There are currently at east 3, if not more on the market. In most cases, multiple events are now stacked in one corn hybrid to better protect against resistance Developement.

    • Mike

      Hi Richard- Glyphosate works very well on my 21 acre farm, and I see it working on lots of farms around me. Weed esistance is not a problem other than mares tail, but our cover crop takes care of that. The alternatives to Glyphsate are increased tillage which damages soil structure and increases greenhouse gases and uses more fossil fuels.

      • Rob Bright

        There are MOST CERTAINLY other options than using questionable and highly toxic chemicals in our food supply system.

        • Christian Abel

          Which ones?

        • Robert Clagett

          Name one that does not require two billion people to die off to have enough food?

    • Wackes Seppi

      Isn’t it strange that people who are
      well fed and enjoy a good living standard thanks to low food prices
      are spitting on the technological solutions which are in part at the
      root of their wellbeing and comfort, and even applauding a demise of
      those solutions?

      A demise that, in actual fact, is very unlikely.

      • richard

        Thank you….I am applauding the demise of a broken food system….As for the rest….sorry….grow my own food, always have, always will… no agrotoxins, no war on nature, no blind faith in technology….

      • Rob Bright

        Likely the concerns are that people are being tested AFTER the fact (after they’ve been sprayed with glyphosate, in this case) which is highly unethical from ANY scientific standard of human safety. These untested, unproven products were given the green light illegally…

        • Laura Cordova-James

          No, they tested it in VITRO in a lab and tested it on MICE first. The reason why they tested the people in the field after the fact, is because they were destroying Coca fields to stop illegal drug production. So, they saw it as an opportunity to test them. Read the article again.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Roundup/glyphosate has been found to cause breast cancer at part per trillion concentrations in vitro.

            The World Health Organization has declared it a probable human carcinogen.

            All one needs to do is google glyphosate studies. The proof becomes more overwhelming every week.

            Roundup/gyphosate is a biocide. It is a slow acting poison that very slowly degrades living systems until the weakest system breaks down and we get disease in that system. Think lymphoma, Alzheimer and a multitude of other untraceable manifestations.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Baloney, Show the proof of that claim.

      • ed

        It is not unlikely but with much certainty that dangerous products will go extinct once found out. They will get pushed out by products quite simply stated as newer and safer than the ones that they are replacing. They will be made by the same chemical companies in a similar way with a jazzier brochure and great assurances to share holders of long term high profits. The trick is to maximize the usage levels for maximum market penetration that drives all competition out of the market. When generics are allowed, these main stream companies will introduce 10 generic brands for every one real one at lower prices to drive out the upstart competition and have farmers return to the original recipe at the same time. Brilliant financially strategy, but not partially built on product safety or much concern for farmer applicators or consumers.

    • Thomson1

      … [This] type of anti-science incompetence is a danger to society as well as global food supply. The UN continues to demonstrate why it is losing credibility and integrity on the world stage, and it is because of self-righteous progressive clowns more interested in furthering political agendas than the scientific method.

      • richard

        Yeah I know… glyphosate, a lot of people still think smoking is sexy. The danger to society sir, is ignorance, and the perpetrators are those holding up science as a proxy for technological myths. Why have fourteen weed species been found resistant to glyphosate on sixty million acres in the USA? Why are weed, disease, pest and antibiotic resistance accelerating beyond control in industrial agriculture? Why has the high clearance sprayer become the most important piece of equipment on a modern farm?….. Thats right….because producers have been led to believe that a war on nature is essential to the survival of both themselves and the human race…..What an absurd cult of mythology has been created…..And all your projections, indignation….your flight from complexity are not going to change the cold hard facts……

        • Denise

          Thank you for speaking the truth, Richard. You have got to hand it to the perpetrators of the “technological myths”, they have done an amazing job of recruiting believers.

          • Neil Daniel

            Greed lubricates their initiatives.

        • Craig

          The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies substances and agents into five groups according to cancer risk:

          Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans.

          Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans.

          Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans.

          Group 3: Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.

          Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans.

          Examples of agents in Group 1 are asbestos, alcoholic beverages and working as a painter.

          Examples of agents in Group 2A are working as a hair stylist and burning wood in a fireplace.
          Source: IARC

      • TZ
      • TZ

        NEW STUDY: Glyphosate toxic to fresh water snails. Genotoxicity causes DNA damage. Per the study… “Thus, the present result indicated that the genotoxicity products at low concentration and for long time treatment showed the hazard of herbiciAbstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental addiction on man’s life.” GMO farming is a herbicide addiction.

      • TZ
        16 November 2013, Vol.313(2):122–128, doi:10.1016/j.tox.2012.09.006
        ToxMix 2011: International Toxicology of Mixtures Conference. A selection of papers.
        Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity
        R. MesnageB. BernayG.-E. Séralini
        Show more
        Check for full text accessPurchase $35.95Get Full Text Elsewhere
        Pesticides are always used in formulations as mixtures of an active principle with adjuvants. Glyphosate, the active ingredient of the major pesticide in the world, is an herbicide supposed to be specific on plant metabolism. Its adjuvants are generally considered as inert diluents. Since side effects for all these compounds have been claimed, we studied potential active principles for toxicity on human cells for 9 glyphosate-based formulations. For this we detailed their compositions and toxicities, and as controls we used a major adjuvant (the polyethoxylated tallowamine POE-15), glyphosate alone, and a total formulation without glyphosate. This was performed after 24 h exposures on hepatic (HepG2), embryonic (HEK293) and placental (JEG3) cell lines. We measured mitochondrial activities, membrane degradations, and caspases 3/7 activities. The compositions in adjuvants were analyzed by mass spectrometry. Here we demonstrate that all formulations are more toxic than glyphosate, and we separated experimentally three groups of formulations differentially toxic according to their concentrations in ethoxylated adjuvants. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle against human cells, even if others are not excluded. It begins to be active with negative dose-dependent effects on cellular respiration and membrane integrity between 1 and 3 ppm, at environmental/occupational doses. We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells. Altogether, these results challenge the establishment of guidance values such as the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, when these are mostly based on a long term in vivo test of glyphosate alone. Since pesticides are always used with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, the necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious. This challenges the concept of active principle of pesticides for non-target species.

      • TZ

        Food and Chemical Toxicology
        September 2013, Vol.59:129–136, doi:10.1016/j.fct.2013.05.057
        Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors
        Siriporn ThongprakaisangApinya ThiantanawatNuchanart RangkadilokTawit SuriyoJutamaad Satayavivad
        Glyphosate at 10−12 to 10−6 M promoted growth of T47D cells via estrogen receptors.

        Glyphosate produced the activation of ERE which can be blocked by ICI 182780.

        Glyphosate altered estrogen receptors by increasing expression ratio of ERα and ERβ.

        Glyphosate had an additive effect with genistein on ERE activation and cell growth.
        Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides. However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor. This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors (ERs) mediated transcriptional activity and their expressions. Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone-independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10−12 to 10−6 M in estrogen withdrawal condition. The proliferative concentrations of glyphosate that induced the activation of estrogen response element (ERE) transcription activity were 5-13 fold of control in T47D-KBluc cells and this activation was inhibited by an estrogen antagonist, ICI 182780, indicating that the estrogenic activity of glyphosate was mediated via ERs. Furthermore, glyphosate also altered both ERα and β expression. These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity. Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used for soybean cultivation, and our results also found that there was an additive estrogenic effect between glyphosate and genistein, a phytoestrogen in soybeans. However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans need further animal study.

      • TZ

        Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology
        July 2014, Vol.113:25–30, doi:10.1016/j.pestbp.2014.06.005
        Glyphosate affects the spontaneous motoric activity of intestine at very low doses – In vitro study
        Magdalena ChłopeckaMarta MendelNatalia DziekanWojciech Karlik
        The effect of glyphosate on isolated intestine strips.

        Glyphosate affects jejunum smooth muscle activity at very low concentrations.

        The reaction of glyphosate at physiological pH is biphasic.

        The reaction induced by glyphosate consists of miorelaxation and contraction.

        Glyphosate-evoked motoric alterations are reversible.
        Glyphosate is an active substance of the most popular herbicides worldwide. Its common use results from the belief that it affects exclusively plants. However, studies on glyphosate and its trade formulations reveal that it causes numerous morphological, physiological and biochemical disturbances in cells and organisms of animals, including mammals. Due to the fact that shortly after oral exposure glyphosate is detected in the highest amount in small intestine, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of this compound on the spontaneous motoric activity of intestine under in vitro conditions. The experiments were conducted on rat jejunum strips under isotonic conditions. The strips were incubated in buffered (pH 7.35) and non-buffered (pH 5.2) glyphosate solutions ranged from 0.003 to 1.7 g/L. The results indicate that glyphosate applied in buffered solution affects significantly the spontaneous motoric activity of rat isolated jejunum strips. The muscle response is biphasic (miorelaxation accompanied by contraction). The contraction is observed already at a dose of 0.003 g/L and the first significant biphasic reaction at a dose of 0.014 g/L. The incubation of jejunum strips with glyphosate in non-buffered solution (pH 5.2) results in a different reaction. The smooth muscle undergoes only persistent relaxation, which is stronger than the response to glyphosate solution in pH 7.35. Motility disturbances are also observed after glyphosate removal from the incubation solution. The gathered data suggests that glyphosate impairs gastrointestinal strips’ motility at concentration that are noticed in human exposed to non-toxic doses of glyphosate.

      • TZ

        Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most widely used across the world; they are commercialized in different formulations. Their residues are frequent pollutants in the environment. In addition, these herbicides are spread on most eaten transgenic plants, modified to tolerate high levels of these compounds in their cells. Up to 400 ppm of their residues are accepted in some feed. We exposed human liver HepG2 cells, a well-known model to study xenobiotic toxicity, to four different formulations and to glyphosate, which is usually tested alone in chronic in vivo regulatory studies. We measured cytotoxicity with three assays (Alamar Blue®, MTT, ToxiLight®), plus genotoxicity (comet assay), anti-estrogenic (on ERα, ERβ) and anti-androgenic effects (on AR) using gene reporter tests. We also checked androgen to estrogen conversion by aromatase activity and mRNA. All parameters were disrupted at sub-agricultural doses with all formulations within 24 h. These effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration. First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm. A real cell impact of glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed or in the environment has thus to be considered, and their classifications as carcinogens/mutagens/reprotoxics is discussed.

      • TZ

        Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology
        July 2014, Vol.38(1):131–140, doi:10.1016/j.etap.2014.05.007
        An acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide alters aromatase levels in testis and sperm nuclear quality
        Estelle Cassault-MeyerSteeve GressGilles-Éric SéraliniIsabelle Galeraud-Denis
        We investigated the effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide after an 8-day exposure of adult rats.

        We have shown a significant and differential expression of aromatase in testis.

        We have observed a diminution of mRNA expression of nuclear markers in spermatozoa.

        These results suggest changes in androgen/estrogen balance and in sperm nuclear quality.

        The repetition of exposures of this herbicide could alter the mammalian reproduction.
        Roundup is the major pesticide used in agriculture worldwide; it is a glyphosate-based herbicide. Its molecular effects are studied following an acute exposure (0.5%) of fifteen 60-day-old male rats during an 8-day period. Endocrine (aromatase, estrogen and androgen receptors, Gper1 in testicular and sperm mRNAs) and testicular functions (organ weights, sperm parameters and expression of the blood–testis barrier markers) were monitored at days 68, 87, and 122 after treatment, spermiogenesis and spermatogenesis. The major disruption is an increase of aromatase mRNA levels at least by 50% in treated rats at all times, as well as the aromatase protein. We have also shown a similar increase of Gper1 expression at day 122 and a light modification of BTB markers. A rise of abnormal sperm morphology and a decrease of the expression of protamine 1 and histone 1 testicular in epididymal sperm are observed despite a normal sperm concentration and motility.

      • TZ

        A deregulation of programmed cell death mechanisms in human epidermis leads to skin pathologies. We previously showed that glyphosate, an extensively used herbicide, provoked cytotoxic effects on cultured human keratinocytes, affecting their antioxidant capacities and impairing morphological and functional cell characteristics. The aim of the present study, carried out on the human epidermal cell line HaCaT, was to examine the part of apoptosis plays in the cytotoxic effects of glyphosate and the intracellular mechanisms involved in the apoptotic events. We have conducted different incubation periods to reveal the specific events in glyphosate-induced cell death. We observed an increase in the number of early apoptotic cells at a low cytotoxicity level (15%), and then, a decrease, in favor of late apoptotic and necrotic cell rates for more severe cytotoxicity conditions. At the same time, we showed that the glyphosate-induced mitochondrial membrane potential disruption could be a cause of apoptosis in keratinocyte cultures.

      • TZ

        Toxicology in Vitro
        March 2012, Vol.26(2):269–279, doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2011.12.009
        A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels
        Émilie ClairRobin MesnageCarine TravertGilles-Éric Séralini
        The major herbicide used worldwide, Roundup, is a glyphosate-based pesticide with adjuvants. Glyphosate, its active ingredient in plants and its main metabolite (AMPA) are among the first contaminants of surface waters. Roundup is being used increasingly in particular on genetically modified plants grown for food and feed that contain its residues. Here we tested glyphosate and its formulation on mature rat fresh testicular cells from 1 to 10000 ppm, thus from the range in some human urine and in environment to agricultural levels. We show that from 1 to 48 h of Roundup exposure Leydig cells are damaged. Within 24–48 h this formulation is also toxic on the other cells, mainly by necrosis, by contrast to glyphosate alone which is essentially toxic on Sertoli cells. Later, it also induces apoptosis at higher doses in germ cells and in Sertoli/germ cells co-cultures. At lower non toxic concentrations of Roundup and glyphosate (1 ppm), the main endocrine disruption is a testosterone decrease by 35%. The pesticide has thus an endocrine impact at very low environmental doses, but only a high contamination appears to provoke an acute rat testicular toxicity. This does not anticipate the chronic toxicity which is insufficiently tested, and only with glyphosate in regulatory tests.

      • TZ

        Glyphosate is a widely used broad spectrum herbicide, reported to induce various toxic effects in non-target species, but its carcinogenic potential is still unknown. Here we showed the carcinogenic effects of glyphosate using 2-stage mouse skin carcinogenesis model and proteomic analysis. Carcinogenicity study revealed that glyphosate has tumor promoting activity. Proteomic analysis using 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry showed that 22 spots were differentially expressed (> 2 fold) on glyphosate, 7, 12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA) and 12-O-tetradecanoyl-phorbol-13-acetate (TPA) application over untreated control. Among them, 9 proteins (translation elongation factor eEF-1 alpha chain, carbonic anhydrase III, annexin II, calcyclin, fab fragment anti-VEGF antibody, peroxiredoxin-2, superoxide dismutase [Cu–Zn], stefin A3, and calgranulin-B) were common and showed similar expression pattern in glyphosate and TPA-treated mouse skin. These proteins are known to be involved in several key processes like apoptosis and growth-inhibition, anti-oxidant responses, etc. The up-regulation of calcyclin, calgranulin-B and down-regulation of superoxide dismutase [Cu–Zn] was further confirmed by immunoblotting, indicating that these proteins can be good candidate biomarkers for skin carcinogenesis induced by glyphosate. Altogether, these results suggested that glyphosate has tumor promoting potential in skin carcinogenesis and its mechanism seems to be similar to TPA.

      • TZ

        5 June 2014, Vol.320:34–45, doi:10.1016/j.tox.2014.03.001
        Mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in immature rat hippocampus: Involvement of glutamate excitotoxicity
        Daiane CattaniVera Lúcia de Liz Oliveira CavalliCarla Elise Heinz RiegJuliana Tonietto DominguesTharine Dal-CimCarla Inês TascaFátima Regina Mena Barreto SilvaAriane Zamoner

        Roundup® induces Ca2+ influx through L-VDCC and NMDA receptor activation.

        The mechanisms underlying Roundup® neurotoxicity involve glutamatergic excitotoxicity.

        Kinase pathways participate in Roundup®-induced neural toxicity.

        Roundup® alters glutamate uptake, release and metabolism in hippocampal cells.
        Previous studies demonstrate that glyphosate exposure is associated with oxidative damage and neurotoxicity. Therefore, the mechanism of glyphosate-induced neurotoxic effects needs to be determined. The aim of this study was to investigate whether Roundup® (a glyphosate-based herbicide) leads to neurotoxicity in hippocampus of immature rats following acute (30 min) and chronic (pregnancy and lactation) pesticide exposure. Maternal exposure to pesticide was undertaken by treating dams orally with 1% Roundup® (0.38% glyphosate) during pregnancy and lactation (till 15-day-old). Hippocampal slices from 15 day old rats were acutely exposed to Roundup® (0.00005–0.1%) during 30 min and experiments were carried out to determine whether glyphosate affects 45Ca2+ influx and cell viability. Moreover, we investigated the pesticide effects on oxidative stress parameters, 14C-α-methyl-amino-isobutyric acid (14C-MeAIB) accumulation, as well as glutamate uptake, release and metabolism. Results showed that acute exposure to Roundup® (30 min) increases 45Ca2+ influx by activating NMDA receptors and voltage-dependent Ca2+ channels, leading to oxidative stress and neural cell death. The mechanisms underlying Roundup®-induced neurotoxicity also involve the activation of CaMKII and ERK. Moreover, acute exposure to Roundup® increased 3H-glutamate released into the synaptic cleft, decreased GSH content and increased the lipoperoxidation, characterizing excitotoxicity and oxidative damage. We also observed that both acute and chronic exposure to Roundup® decreased 3H-glutamate uptake and metabolism, while induced 45Ca2+ uptake and 14C-MeAIB accumulation in immature rat hippocampus. Taken together, these results demonstrated that Roundup® might lead to excessive extracellular glutamate levels and consequently to glutamate excitotoxicity and oxidative stress in rat hippocampus.

      • TZ

        January 2015, Vol.46:79–91, doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2014.12.001
        The herbicide glyphosate causes behavioral changes and alterations in dopaminergic markers in male Sprague-Dawley rat
        Isela Hernández-PlataMagda GiordanoMauricio Díaz-MuñozVerónica M. Rodríguez

        Repeated glyphosate exposure causes hypoactivity.

        Repeated glyphosate exposure decreases accumbal D1-dopamine receptors.

        Acute glyphosate exposure decreases striatal extracellular DA levels and DA release.
        Glyphosate (Glyph) is the active ingredient of several herbicide formulations. Reports of Glyph exposure in humans and animal models suggest that it may be neurotoxic. To evaluate the effects of Glyph on the nervous system, male Sprague-Dawley rats were given six intraperitoneal injections of 50, 100, or 150 mg Glyph/kg BW over 2 weeks (three injections/week). We assessed dopaminergic markers and their association with locomotor activity. Repeated exposure to Glyph caused hypoactivity immediately after each injection, and it was also apparent 2 days after the last injection in rats exposed to the highest dose. Glyph did not decrease monoamines, tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), or mesencephalic TH+ cells when measured 2 or 16 days after the last Glyph injection. In contrast, Glyph decreased specific binding to D1 dopamine (DA) receptors in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) when measured 2 days after the last Glyph injection. Microdialysis experiments showed that a systemic injection of 150 mg Glyph/kg BW decreased basal extracellular DA levels and high-potassium-induced DA release in striatum. Glyph did not affect the extracellular concentrations of 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid or homovanillic acid. These results indicate that repeated Glyph exposure results in hypoactivity accompanied by decreases in specific binding to D1-DA receptors in the NAcc, and that acute exposure to Glyph has evident effects on striatal DA levels. Additional experiments are necessary in order to unveil the specific targets of Glyph on dopaminergic system, and whether Glyph could be affecting other neurotransmitter systems involved in motor control.

      • TZ

        Journal of Structural Biology
        April 2012, Vol.178(1):1–7, doi:10.1016/j.jsb.2012.02.007
        Glyphosate-induced stiffening of HaCaT keratinocytes, a Peak Force Tapping study on living cells
        Celine HeuAlexandre BerquandCeline Elie-CailleLaurence Nicod
        The skin is the first physiological barrier, with a complex constitution, that provides defensive functions against multiple physical and chemical aggressions. Glyphosate is an extensively used herbicide that has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Moreover there is increasing evidence suggesting that the mechanical phenotype plays an important role in malignant transformation. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) has emerged within the last decade as a powerful tool for providing a nanometer-scale resolution imaging of biological samples. Peak Force Tapping (PFT) is a newly released AFM-based investigation technique allowing extraction of chemical and mechanical properties from a wide range of samples at a relatively high speed and a high resolution. The present work uses the PFT technology to investigate HaCaT keratinocytes, a human epidermal cell line, and offers an original approach to study chemically-induced changes in the cellular mechanical properties under near-physiological conditions. These experiments indicate glyphosate induces cell membrane stiffening, and the appearance of cytoskeleton structures at a subcellular level, for low cytotoxic concentrations whereas cells exposed to IC50 (inhibitory concentration 50%) treatment exhibit control-like mechanical behavior despite obvious membrane damages. Quercetin, a well-known antioxidant, reverses the glyphosate-induced mechanical phenotype.

      • TZ

        GMOs cannot be GRAS (generally recognized as safe) the proper testing was not done and the testing that was showed GMOs caused harm to humans and animals! The FDA is a FRAUD!
        Please watch video clip….the fact IS GMOs are on the market ILLEGALLY! They cannot be considered GRAS!

        Please pass this info around…. The FDA IGNORED their own scientists warnings….they did NOT test GMOs properly…GMOs are on the market illegally!

        This is a must watch… Steven Druker says every GMO food is on the market illegally

        The Des Moines Register presented a free panel discussion Tuesday afternoon on the pros and cons of genetically modified crops

        • Thomson1

          … I suppose you support banning GMO insulin, because using pigs is so efficient? …Millions of people have been helped through GMO insulin and you continue to spout this ignorance …

          • richard

            Perhaps we might trace the evolution of Type 2 diabetes sir………Junk science> junk technology> junk food> obesity> sedentary lifestyle> type 2 diabetes> chronic care patient for life> massive drain on health care budgets…….and we call this progress?

          • TZ

            Yes…until we know more…yes!!!!

            True story of GM insulin for diabetics [ecoglobe is not sure who wrote the introduction to the below articles. But we think the material is worth reading and we thank the people mentioned at the bottom who posted it.]It is vital that the word is spread about the true effects of this stuff (including sudden and unexpected deaths) on many diabetics. It is vital too that pro-GM scientists in America are NOT allowed to get away with making out that GM insulin has been this great GM success story. It is far from being so. I don’t recall a single instance where a diabetic has felt better on the GM insulin than the animal; I’d be glad to hear from any.Those who want to know more can go to Diabetics World Website at for the full disastrous story from diabetics’ own mouths.See also for reports from Swiss diabetics on the same issue.Note that the Diabetics World site states that although the companies pushing GM insulin are telling worried doctors and patients that the traditional animal insulin will still be available for those who have problems with the GM “human” sort, some diabetics are already finding it impossible to source the animal insulin as the companies have withdrawn it from sale. Similar story with the farmers unable to source non-GM seed. So much for consumer choice.The diabetics site also suggests, interestingly, that the companies who make this GM insulin are now spreading rumors about the possible risk of transmission of BSE from cow-derived insulin, in order to propel doctors and patients into favoring the GM insulin. While this may be a valid point (though no evidence currently exists to support it), it hardly helps those whose bodies simply react badly to the GM insulin yet who tolerate the animal insulin. If BSE is an issue, according to evidence on the Diabetics World site, pig insulin seems to be slightly less well tolerated than the cow insulin but is still MUCH better tolerated than the GM human type.1. Transcript of article on Page 8 of The Sunday Times 26 March, 1995 by Lois Rogers, Medical Correspondent.Diabetics call for inquiry on insulin deaths.Diabetics have demanded an urgent inquiry over concerns that a synthetic version of insulin may lie behind a spate of deaths.Studies have raised fears that the use of the new insulin introduced over the past decade, increases the danger of slipping rapidly into a coma caused by low blood sugar levels. Several diabetics have died soon after switching to the genetically engineered hormone.The findings are of grave concern to Britain’s 300,000 insulin-dependent diabetics. They need frequent injections of insulin because the disease stops the pancreas making its own hormone, which regulates the body’s energy supply.Deborah Burbridge, from Northampton, woke up last year to find Zoe, her eight year old diabetic daughter, had died in her sleep. She is convinced the new product was to blame. “I was horrified to find there were other families in the same position. The whole thing needs to be taken much more seriously and there needs to be much more research,” she said.Doctors have encouraged the move from natural insulin, extracted from pigs and cows, to the new version. However, an investigation by Sheffield doctors that monitored 20 diabetics for three months, found significant lower night time blood sugar levels when the patients used synthetic insulin, which could increase the risk of entering a coma without time to ingest life-saving sugar.Laurence Davies, 19, who had overcome the condition to start training as a doctor at Guy’s Hospital, London, died at night two months after switching to synthetic insulin. The attack happened so quickly he was unable to drink the Lucozade he kept by his side.”Little did we know when we took him down there, he wouldn’t be coming home again,” said Dorothy Davies, his mother. “It was only afterwards that we discovered a side effect of the new treatment is loss of warning of hypoglycemic attacks.”The Sheffield study, which will be presented this week to the British Diabetic Association’s medical and scientific meeting in Warwick, is the first in Britain to suggest manufactured insulin may be dangerous.Critics of the new preparation, launched in 1982, said it was promoted on the assumption it would mimic the body’s own insulin and be safer than existing products. But they claim it masks the tingling and sweating that warn diabetics of critical “hypo” attacks.A separate investigation uncovered eight deaths, including those of children and teenagers, that could be attributed to patients’ moving to synthetic insulin. The unpublished study by the Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust also found patients complaining of more frequent blackouts, personality changes and losses of memory.Dr. Matthew Kiln, a Kent GP, is collecting data from 1,000 diabetics. He said existing studies were inadequate and there was an urgent need to find out how many diabetics had died on the new treatment.”I don’t think it is bad for everyone, but I estimate that about 20% of diabetics are worse off on human insulin,” said Kiln. “Some have died because of it.”Although there is no evidence that the more expensive synthetic insulin is superior to the chemical from animals, the National Health Service spends an extra Sixteen million pounds in prescribing it. The Department of Health said insulin producers were “tending to favor the use of human insulin, as is the whole medical profession”.Jenny Hirst, a former vice chairman of the executive council of the British Diabetic Association believes doctors favor the new insulin because of its heavy promotion by drug companies. “One has to say more money is made out of human insulin,” says Hirst, whose husband and daughter, both diabetic, suffered severe side effects when they used it.Novo Nordisk, the country’s biggest supplier, said yesterday it was committed to continue animal insulin production. Tony Bragg, its medical director, said lack of sensitivity to impending hypoglycemia attacks was a natural progression of diabetes. “We are concerned about these reports, but its impossible to substantiate a link with a particular type of insulin,” he said.The company is funding a three-year study of hypo-glycemic attacks in young diabetic children while they are asleep. It is hoped this will yield more clues about the mechanisms involved.2. The following article by Paul Brown is from The Guardian March 9, 1999. The article gives an interesting insight into how scientific evidence casting doubt on the safety of GM insulin was suppressed. Though it does not mention that the “human” insulin is GE, it is

          • Rick Lau

            I wouldn’t worry about her fanaticism. I think she needs to entertain herself with these fantasies of her superior knowledge. I guess when you’re a gold digger that is married to a manager of a Golden Corral you need to entertain yourself. It must be a non gmo golden corral! Lol.

    • Laura Cordova-James

      Isn’t it glaringly obvious that Monsanto’s strategy reduced the need for carcinogenic pesticide use? Why is that overlooked on a constant basis?

      • ed

        Switching one known carcinogen for a lesser known carcinogen has been one of the less talked about strategies used by these companies to lower the heat when their feet occasionally are put to the fire. Why is that constantly overlooked is a good question.

  • Richard

    Too bad the UN went on a witch hunt at the cost of it’s credibility. Only adds to growing disillusionment that it is increasingly irrelevant.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Well, I wouldn’t blame all of the UN for this. The IARC is a specific department of the UN and a small one at that. They are the ones to blame, not the UN as a whole.

      • PortageMain

        Then the UN should distance themselves from it. Until they do, they wear it too

      • Wackes Seppi

        And on top of that, the decision was
        taken by a group of experts who have no affiliation to IARC, except
        to serve on one of its working groups.

    • AnotherLover

      They did nothing of the sort. They conducted an investigation and reached a conclusion. Without the charged political atmosphere surrounding this, you would have never heard about it in terms of “credibility.”

  • RobertWager

    The BfR has finalised its draft report for the re-evaluation of glyphosate more
    than 150 new toxicological studies were evaluated for the first time
    In addition, all available toxicological studies (nearly 300) were re-assessed
    about 900 publications from scientific journals have been considered in the draft report and more than 200 publications data were reviewed in detail do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.

    • nick quinlan
      • First Officer

        And, yet, the only hint of any cancer activity for glyphosate and its adjuvants is a slight increase in NHL among frequent handlers of the stuff. Even there, the same studies show decrease in other cancers among that group, both results muddled by the fact that the handlers are exposed to several of the usual suspects and the signal of cancer is so weak that it cant be teased out as to what’s causing it.

      • Wackes Seppi

        Nice references!

        « Glyphosate induces human breast
        cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors » says one team.
        And IARC, in its decision that is applauded by the world of pesticide
        and GMO haters, has not retained it…

        Then Robin Mesnage, Nicolas Defarge,
        Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, and Gilles-Eric Séralini… the
        discredited Seralini team…

  • Charley33

    Health Canada’s (2010 updated) “supporting document” for Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality says “Some concern has been expressed over the possibility that glyphosate could react with nitrite in the diet to form N-nitrosophosphonomethyl glycine (NPMG), a putative carcinogen.” That suggests Health Canada at least thinks glyphosate should be classified 2B.

    • rick

      I’d be interested in the cite to the document where that quote was taken from. I do note that the quoted statement suggests somebody somewhere has raised the the concern you mention. I’d like to read what follows. Did Health Canada go om to assess that theory, perhaps discussing research that supports it and perhaps research that does not. I note the quote is, “some concern has been expressed . . .”. I presume if the quote had been ” It has been well established that glysophate can react with nitrate . . ” you would have chosen that quote instead.

      The quote could be just as easily interpreted that Health Canada acknowledges that there is speculation that : . . But that is a far cry from the assertion you made that “Health Canada at least thinks glyphosate should be classified 2B.” Perhaps there is more to follow the quote you selected which does make the case for the position of Health Canada, but that quote does not support that conclusion at all.

      • Charley33

        Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps… perhaps you could use the internet as it was intended. I gave you my source, but if you need a pointer:

        The quote was taken from the pharmacokinetics header in the health effects section. In the following header, in the summary of lab experiments, the lifetime feeding trial is an unpublished, and so likely un-peer-reviewed, Monsanto study. There is no mention of Seralini and his co-worker’s various peer-reviewed studies. Regardless of what you feel the truth is in all of that, it is further evidence that HC is biased.

        As for my opinion about HC seeming to find it as 2B, go look in the story above for what 2B is and then re-read my quote. I fail to see how you can argue with me there. Aside, that is, from not doing any of your own research and merely speculating about what context I may have left out while doing mine…

      • rick

        Charley — Thanks for that. I came off as more snarky than I intended and your response was fairly measured. And you’re right, I probably could have found the HC document you referred to on my own with the references you had given. Thanks for providing it anyway.

        I still do respectfully dispute that the excerpt you quoted supports the assertion HC agrees with the IARC’s probable carcinogen designation. It doesn’t say HC accepts the premise of the interaction with nitrite, but by including it, it appears to suggest that HC doesn’t dismiss at this point either. Even so, even if HC accepts that nitrite interaction is a plausible mechanism, that is still a long way from HC saying it is a proven mechanism or realistically a mechanism contributing to cancer incidence based on how glyphosate is used and realistic assumptions of exposure.

        What I get frustrated about is the politicization. The answer everybody wants to the question “Does glyphosate cause cancer” is a political answer which may have little to do with whether glyphosate actually causes cancer. It reminds me of when OJ was on trial, you just got the sense that whether people thought OJ actually committed the crime was a separate question, and largely irrelevant, to whether or not people thought he should be found guilty of it.

        I personally don’t dispute IARC’s classification, and in fact, I am probably pretty convinced that glyphosate and a whole host of things, even things we accept as benign, could induce cancer under the right circumstances. I am more concerned with the gray literature representation of what the IARC designation means. If you are at all interested, I thought Andrew Kniss at Control Freaks did a pretty good review of evidence IARC looked at to arrive at its conclusion I’m not representing it as an infallible review, and if you are unfamiliar with him, I would classify Mr. Kniss as supportive of the use of genetic engineering and herbicides as an element of weed control. But he lays out research looking into possible links of glyphosate to various cancers, some suggesting a possible link, some not, in a logical way and his methods and analysis are transparent. In fact, even here, he does not dismiss a possible link between glyphosate exposure and non-hodgekins lymphoma.

        I will admit that I see a valuable role for glyphosate and personally believe it would be a mistake to politicize it out of existence. I am pretty convinced that its use offers numerous resource stewardship advantages, and less environmental and human health concerns, compared to other chemical and tillage alternatives, But, I agree it is overused. While glyphosate can be a useful element of responsible weed and resource stewardship, I think chemical makers and farmers have promoted and actually used it too much as a substitute for responsible stewardship. I am not as concerned with glyphosate itself, but because its overuse could force us to go back to older alternatives that are worse.

  • Cletus DeBunkerman

    It is not surprising to see someone attempting to talk the FACT that The World Health Organization has declared Roundup/glyphosate a probable human carcinogenic.

    Monsanto has a well earned reputation for attempting to surpress any real science that conflicts with their corrupt GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science agenda.

    They even have a group who actively works to suppress this valid science when it doesn’t support their agenda.

    Monsanto’s Dr. William “Bill” Moar recently was asked a question at a public meeting. When One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the “bad
    science” around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a
    public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had “an entire
    department” dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with
    theirs. As far as I know this is the first time that a Monsanto
    functionary has publically admitted that they have such an entity which
    brings their immense political and financial weight to bear on
    scientists who dare to publish against them. The Discredit Bureau will
    not be found on their official website.

    So we can see that the corruption of science and the scientific process is just another day at the office for the disinformation tools at Monsanto.

    • Debbie Owen

      Thank you for the link Cletus, that is very interesting. It is no surprise to me the lengths Monsanto will go to protect their profits.

    • Wackes Seppi

      « Monsanto has a well earned
      reputation… »

      Making a reputation for Monsanto is a
      lucrative business.

      Your Dailykos – no doubt an authority
      in terms of news and analysis – contributor – no doubt… (bis) –
      wrote : « Monsanto’s vice president of global regulatory
      affairs Philip Miller said the following in interview: “We
      question the quality of the assessment. The WHO has something to
      explain.” »

      That is a perfectly valid, decent and
      acceptable statement. For the information currently at hand,
      essentially the article in the Lancet and a piece from IARC, are

      If the statement had been made by
      another company leader, no conspiration theorist would have cared.
      But it is Monsanto…

      And « debunking » means
      « debunking ». Period.

      • Cletus DeBunkerman

        Like I said. Well earned reputation.

  • Debbie Owen

    Now we will watch as Monsanto’s Discredit Bureau attempts to “discredit” this report. Attacking scientists whose studies don’t support the biotech agenda, infiltrating government agencies and/or scientific journals, it is all routine for them. Fortunately the public is becoming more and more aware of Monsanto’s unethical business practices. Besides common sense tells us that glyphosate isn’t safe, this is the beginning of the end for that poison.

  • Wackes Seppi

    Prof. Solomon forgot to say that his
    study pertained to the herbicide, i.e. the active ingredient and the
    co-formulants, and that any positive signal (there was none) cannot
    be attributed without further ado to the a.i.

  • Rob Bright

    Not surprising a Uof Guelph prof is defending Monsanto. Uof Guelph is a research university heavily funded by the biotechs to create genetically modified plants.

    Also of note, why would they be testing people AFTER the fact if glyphosate was carcinogenic? That would be incredibly unethical from any scientific point of view. You’re supposed to test these chemicals BEFORE you spray them on populations, not AFTER. (Very suspicious indeed…)

  • Amelia Jordan

    When the author of a study comes out and says that the conclusions drawn by the IARC on one of his studies is completely wrong, then you have to pay attention to what else the IARC may have gotten wrong as well. I eagerly await their publication reasoning the move of glyphosate to class 2A.

    • Dayton

      So your saying Science does get it wrong? Guess it depends who you ask…

      • Amelia Jordan

        Science is a process, it doesn’t get things wrong. It is people who get things wrong.

  • SageThinker

    I look at the IARC monograph. I don’t find Solomon’s paper being used as this article claims I see it used only for levels of glyphosate in water after spraying.

    Is this story for real or is it not fact-checked regarding claims?

  • Peter Olins

    For people wanting to dig deeper into Solomon’s work on glyphosate genotoxicity, this is the study that her refers to:

    Biomonitoring of Genotoxic Risk in Agricultural Workers from Five Colombian Regions: Association to Occupational Exposure to Glyphosate


Stories from our other publications