Assessing the Safety of Glyphosate

Abstract

TPS 641: Policies, interventions, communication, Exhibition Hall, Ground floor, August 28, 2019, 3:00 PM - 4:30 PM Background: Glyphosate is the most applied pesticide worldwide. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s 2015 report on the chemical determined it a “probable carcinogen.” The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), however, deemed foods sprayed with glyphosate unproblematic for consumption, similar to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Because glyphosate has more potential harms than causing cancer, and those applying the chemical may bioaccumulate much higher doses through dermal and respiratory contact, the metrics as well as the types of documents used to determine health harms are decisive. We conducted research to compare and determine how different agencies assessed harm. We compared the differences and similarities in the methods, protocols and practices agencies followed and, in this context, evaluated the role played by industry-funded or independent studies. Methods: Using Monsanto industry documents located in the Chemical Industry Documents Library at UCSF (https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/chemical/), we sorted through 341 documents related to glyphosate and policy. From these, we found 47 relevant documents to the IARC, EFSA, and EPA reports. We triangulated these documents with news articles and public information from Monsanto and these regulatory bodies, as well as with interviews with toxicologists regarding the classification and risk assessments of glyphosate. Results: In the industry documents, we found that members of the EFSA and the EPA panel were in contact with Monsanto representatives, and included Monsanto-funded studies in their analysis, while IARC did not include industry-funded studies and deterred assessment committee members from private communication with chemical industry representatives. Conclusions: Concentrating on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, as EFSA and EPA do, does not adequately capture the scope of this chemical’s harms to humans and the environment. Industry-influence in risk assessments possibly played a role in regulatory agency assessments. Independent science, rather than industry-funded science, offers more credible evidence for safety evaluations of glyphosate.