Jake Leguee

Glyphosate isn’t controversial because it’s understudied. It’s controversial because the evidence is ignored. Fact 1. This chemical is exhaustively studied: •40+ years of data. •Thousands of studies. •Reviewed repeatedly across continents. Fact 2. Global regulators agree: Every major regulatory authority that assesses real-world exposure reaches the same conclusion: •US EPA •EFSA •ECHA •Health Canada 👉 Not carcinogenic at human exposure levels. 👉 Not genotoxic. 👉 No unacceptable health risk when used as directed. This is not one agency. This is not a global conspiracy. Fact 3: The largest human study says no. •54,000+ pesticide applicators. •Followed since 1993. •No link to overall cancer. •No consistent link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. If glyphosate caused cancer, this study should have found it. It didn’t. Fact 4: Food residues are not the issue. •Residues are far below safety limits. •Dietary exposure does not pose a cancer risk. •Drinking water exposure is not a health hazard. “Toxic” without dose is not toxicology. Fact 5: Worker exposure is also low. •Measured exposures are far below NOAELs. •Regulators repeatedly conclude: not of concern. So where does the scare come from? One outlier → IARC IARC did a hazard classification, not a risk assessment. They put glyphosate in the same category as: •Red meat. •Hot beverages. •Being a barber. IARC explicitly ignores exposure. Regulators do not. This is the entire conflict: Hazard-only classification vs Risk-based regulation. Confuse the two - and fear wins. Bottom line: No pesticide regulator on Earth currently considers glyphosate a cancer risk at real-world exposure levels. The science is boring. It’s to put a stop to the misinformation.