Is Glyphosate Safe?

This is a question that has become very controversial recently. Before we get into the safety of glyphosate, you may be wondering what glyphosate is. Glyphosate is the active ingredient used in many herbicides that kill weeds and plants. There are many different products (different manufacturers and product names) that contain this active ingredient.  

Recently, there was a court case that involved glyphosate and more importantly, the use and safety of the product.  So, we would like to share with our current and potential clients some of the recent information AEC has found interesting in our professional newsletters.  The Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation (AERF) recently posted the following article which we have added to:

Is Glyphosate Still a Reasonable Option for Aquatic Weed Management?

There is significant debate these days about glyphosate and whether it can or should be used as a part of an integrated pest management program. There are many concerns over this molecule and they are caused by the science of health risks and public perception. We seem to be standing at a point where a constant barrage of news from social media outlets has painted a very dark picture of the herbicide we have deemed safe for decades. Therefore, let’s briefly consider where we are with science and see if we can find a path forward. 

Glyphosate Reclassification

The concerns with glyphosate started in 2015 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified this molecule from “Possible Carcinogen” to “Probable Carcinogen”. This change in classification sent shockwaves across the world since we have been told for decades that glyphosate was essentially benign to humans or the environment. This reclassification was a significant move and has since prompted many countries to re-review the data on glyphosate and determine if additional changes in categorization are required. 

Disagreement with IARC Findings

Subsequent independent re-reviews conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Chemicals Agency (EHCA), Health Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan, Brazil, Australia, and South Korea have all come to conclusions that disagree with the IARC assessment. In short, none of these other agencies have concluded from the review of hundreds of studies that glyphosate poses a significant health risk. 

Why Does Everyone Seem To Disagree With IARC? 

If you are interested in a deep dive into this issue, read this study for a full explanation of why the European Union disagrees with the IARC. However, here are some very important nuances of this reclassification. 

• Questioning the Legitimacy: We need to set the conspiracy theories aside. The IARC did not make this decision because they are activists that want to penalize pesticides. The IARC is a group of very talented researchers with high ethical standards and a long track record of evaluating a very broad range of substances and activities that may cause cancer. The timing of their reassessment was legitimate and this does not seem to be a political move. 
• Differences in Interpretation: According to the study linked above, Tarazona et al. (2017), the assessment of all the data shows that the IARC and EFSA were actually in very close agreement on most points. However, they differed in their interpretation of specific data that could provide evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In the end, the IARC concluded it was enough to reclassify glyphosate while the EU concluded the data were too weak and inconsistent to warrant reclassification. 
• Limited Evidence: What does “Probable Carcinogen” actually mean? It means that there is limited evidence that a substance or activity causes cancer in humans, but sufficient evidence in model species (mice and rats). If the IARC is correct that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, that would move it into the same classification that contains consumption of red meat, consumption of beverages heated to >65C, and workplace exposure to haircare products. It is important to recognize that the IARC did not move glyphosate to its category of known carcinogens. This fact has been completely ignored or missed by most media outlets. Known carcinogens like sunlight and tobacco are in a completely different classification than glyphosate and those stating that glyphosate is now a known carcinogen are doing so without scientific basis. The IARC is not saying that glyphosate causes cancer, but that it may be possible for glyphosate to cause cancer, just like consuming very hot beverages.
  But again, it is important to remember that just because IARC has made this designation doesn’t make it so. Pesticide regulatory agencies around the world currently disagree with this assessment and the IARC continues to stand alone.
• Science vs. Human Psychology: The outcomes of the recent lawsuits filed against Monsanto on current public opinion cannot be overstated. In all three cases, juries have found in favor of the plaintiffs against the company. These jury outcomes would certainly seem to suggest glyphosate causes cancer. We cannot comment on what evidence that glyphosate causes cancer was presented or excluded from the trials. However, the jury decisions do not necessarily line up with the independent scientific assessments of every pesticide regulatory authority around the world that has re-reviewed glyphosate. This leaves us in a very difficult place where science and human psychology in the courtroom have moved in very different directions. 

Where do we go from here? 

Should we abandon glyphosate as a useful tool in integrated pest management (IPM) programs? We would suggest that until additional and more absolute data is generated in rigorous studies and published, glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic to humans and can probably be safely used in integrated pest management.

However, those of us in the agricultural and environmental industries must remain willing to change this opinion if the data indicates otherwise. We would also suggest that we dedicate ourselves and our employees to education on this issue and strongly adhere to all glyphosate product label directions. Finally, committing ourselves to the dispassionate scientific evidence and being careful not to be swayed by emotion will also help us navigate this important topic. At Aquatic Environment Consultants (AEC), we are dedicated to our clients first and foremost. As science and research progress, we will remain vigilant and are committed to following the regulations set forth by the EPA, AERF, and other trusted regulatory agencies. 

Have more questions about glyphosate and its effects on your pond or lake? Contact the experts at AEC today to learn more!