Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment

  • Gary M. Williams
  • , Marilyn Aardema
  • , John Acquavella
  • , Sir Colin Berry
  • , David Brusick
  • , Michele M. Burns
  • , Joao Lauro Viana de Camargo
  • , David Garabrant
  • , Helmut A. Greim
  • , Larry D. Kier
  • , David J. Kirkland
  • , Gary Marsh
  • , Keith R. Solomon
  • , Tom Sorahan
  • , Ashley Roberts
  • , Douglas L. Weed
  • New York Medical College
  • Marilyn Aardema Consulting LLC
  • Aarhus University
  • Queen Mary University of London
  • Toxicology Consultant
  • Boston Children's Hospital
  • São Paulo State University
  • University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • Private Consultant
  • Kirkland Consulting
  • University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health
  • University of Guelph
  • University of Birmingham
  • Intertek Regulatory & Scientific Consultancy
  • University of New Mexico School of Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

110 Scopus citations

Abstract

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a monograph in 2015 concluding that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals. It was also concluded that there was strong evidence of genotoxicity and oxidative stress. Four Expert Panels have been convened for the purpose of conducting a detailed critique of the evidence in light of IARC’s assessment and to review all relevant information pertaining to glyphosate exposure, animal carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and epidemiologic studies. Two of the Panels (animal bioassay and genetic toxicology) also provided a critique of the IARC position with respect to conclusions made in these areas. The incidences of neoplasms in the animal bioassays were found not to be associated with glyphosate exposure on the basis that they lacked statistical strength, were inconsistent across studies, lacked dose-response relationships, were not associated with preneoplasia, and/or were not plausible from a mechanistic perspective. The overall weight of evidence from the genetic toxicology data supports a conclusion that glyphosate (including GBFs and AMPA) does not pose a genotoxic hazard and therefore, should not be considered support for the classification of glyphosate as a genotoxic carcinogen. The assessment of the epidemiological data found that the data do not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma while the data were judged to be too sparse to assess a potential relationship between glyphosate exposure and multiple myeloma. As a result, following the review of the totality of the evidence, the Panels concluded that the data do not support IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” and, consistent with previous regulatory assessments, further concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3-20
Number of pages18
JournalCritical Reviews in Toxicology
Volume46
DOIs
StatePublished - 30 Sep 2016

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Glyphosate
  • Roundup
  • aminomethylphosphoric acid
  • cancer
  • genotoxicity
  • herbicide

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this