EPA’s public comment period on glyphosate closes today. This is the final chance to demand that the agency consider independent science on cancer, reproductive, metabolic, and developmental risks before it updates its human health assessment. Action Alert!
THE TOLINE
- EPA is seeking input on the scientific literature that will inform its updated glyphosate health assessment, following a court’s rejection of its earlier human-health review.
- Animal studies and human observational research raise concerns about cancer, reproductive health, and metabolic effects that warrant rigorous evaluation.
- Submit comments by September 24 urging EPA to consider relevant independent studies, explain exclusions, and transparently evaluate uncertainties and conflicts of interest.
How much evidence of potential harm should accumulate before regulators rethink their assurances about a widely used weedkiller?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input on its search of scientific literature about glyphosate, the herbicide associated with Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. The search will inform an updated human health risk assessment targeted for late 2026. EPA is asking the public to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies missing from its evidence list. We must weight in: an assessment cannot adequately protect the public if important evidence never makes it into the analysis.
EPA’s Earlier Assessment Failed in Court
As ANH previously reported, farmworker and environmental advocates successfully challenged EPA’s handling of glyphosate. In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit vacated the human-health portion of EPA’s 2020 interim review decision and ordered further analysis and explanation. The court also found that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act.
The ruling established that EPA’s human-health reasoning was seriously flawed.
It’s important to note that this isn’t out of character for this agency. EPA’s pesticide oversight has a deeply troubled record (see, for example, here, here, here, here, and here.)
We’ve reported previously on court documents showing that a top EPA official, Jess Rowland, promised Monsanto he would quash an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review of glyphosate. He was successful—the HHS review never happened. A letter from a former EPA employee dying of cancer accused Rowland of having intimidated staff, compelling them to change reports to make them favorable to Monsanto.
While EPA claims to be impartially assessing the science, the track record is one where top officials put their thumbs on the scale to favor industry.
Cancer Concerns Have Not Gone Away
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Its assessment cited limited evidence in humans, sufficient evidence in experimental animals, and strong evidence of DNA-damaging effects.
A 2025 study led by the Ramazzini Institute adds important evidence. Researchers exposed rats to glyphosate or two commercial glyphosate-based herbicides beginning before birth and continuing for two years. They reported increased tumor incidence or dose-related trends at multiple sites, including leukemia. The lowest tested dose corresponded to the EU’s acceptable daily intake.
A 2019 meta-analysis combining six epidemiological studies estimated a 41 percent higher relative risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma among people in the highest glyphosate-based-herbicide exposure groups.
The Questions Extend Beyond Cancer
ANH has also highlighted research following children from farmworker families into young adulthood. The 2023 CHAMACOS study linked exposure measures involving glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA with indicators of liver inflammation and metabolic syndrome at age 18.
A 2025 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found reductions in average birthweight and gestational length in regions with higher glyphosate exposure. A 2024 study of 128 men attending a French infertility clinic detected glyphosate in seminal plasma and found that its concentration was approximately four times higher than in blood plasma. Men with detectable glyphosate also had higher measures of oxidative stress, including a marker of oxidative DNA damage.
Our own ground-breaking testing of common breakfast items in 2016 set off a cascade of similar testing that has shown how extensively our food is contaminated with glyphosate. These include many foods that are marketed towards children.
For ANH, preventing chronic disease means examining chemical exposures alongside nutrition and lifestyle. Families should not have to shoulder the entire burden of navigating unresolved pesticide risks.
What EPA Needs to Hear
EPA should comprehensively evaluate independent research on cancer and noncancer outcomes and address vulnerable stages of development. It should explain study exclusions, evaluate funding and conflicts of interest consistently, and make clear how uncertainty affects its conclusions.
Action Alert! Leave a comment on the EPA official docket to include relevant studies on the dangers of glyphosate to human health.
