I believe the hysteria around glyphosate (the main ingredient which is of concern) is grossly misplaced.
The topic is well discussed in this article.
https://quillette.substack.com/p/a-costly-misconception
(note - you may have to sign up for the full article, so I'll summarize below)
I HIGHLY encourage all to read the full article.
Here are the main points:
- only 1 entity (IARC) has declared glyphosate a "probable human carcinogen"; the declaration does not assess risk, only potential hazard. The category of PHC was only created as a means to identify elements/compounds which would require further study; it's not intended as an end-all-be-all statement of final resolution
- this document within the article addresses the regulatory agencies which consider glyphosate safe when used as directed, and the chemical presents little to no danger to humans; the assessments come from the US EPA, Health Canada, European Chemicals Agency, European Food Safety Authority, Food Safety Commission of Japan, World Health Organization, and others ...
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/...phosate_Infographic_GLP.pdf?ref=quillette.com
- the IARC "study" was modified from its original statement of intent prior to publication; bolstering the otherwise initial findings of weak correlation in rodent testing; there was major disagreement among the study scientists - many felt the final version of the statement over-extended and there was a call for retraction which went unheeded
- glyphosate has less acute toxicity than ... salt, vinegar, acetaminophen, and caffeine (caffeine has 40x more acute toxicity ... think about that as you drink your morning coffee and worry about Roundup ...)
- the method in which glyphosate works is systemic; it inhibits the shikimate pathway of growth in vegetation (a pathway which does not exist in animals)
- the chemical is rapidly eliminated from the human body (we process it out quickly and it does not accumulate in humans)
Perhaps one of the most illustrative pieces of evidence against the claims of concern is the topic of volumetric use and incidence of cancer; specially, non-Hodgkins lymphoma (the claimed effect in these lawsuits). In a detailed study, the use of glyphosate was reviewed from 1992 to 2012 (20 years). During that time, agricultural and residential use of the chemical went up 28 fold. Yet during that same period of time, the incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma increased by ... nothing. The diagnosis rate of the disease stayed flat.
When you use 28x more of something, but the considered result does not go up proportionally (or at all), then it's HIGHLY LIKELY the input has no effect on the output. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world by a large margin, and its use continues to increase every year. And yet cancers specifically "linked" to the chemical did not change over two decades. I'll drag out my favorite phrase from my days as a statistical process quality engineer ...
WITHOUT CORRELATION, THERE CAN BE NO CAUSATION.
My opinion ... it's a nothing burger. YMMV.
