Glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer, says EFSA

By Niamh Michail

- Last updated on GMT

Glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer, says EFSA

Related tags European union Carcinogen Glyphosate

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has concluded that glyphosate, a herbicide used on food crops, is unlikely to cause cancer and recommends raising safety levels.

The conclusion​ flies in the face of the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC), which earlier this year deemed glyphosate to be probably carcinogenic, leading to calls for the EU to legislate to ban the herbicide.

In the conclusion, EFSA suggests raising the acceptable acute reference dose for consumers to 0.5 mg/kg body weight per day, up from 0.3 mg. This is the amount that can be ingested in a short period of time, such as during a meal, without posing a health risk.

This means that a man weighing 80 kg could safely eat food containing up to 40 mg of glyphosate residue on it – the equivalent of eating 400 kg of fruit and vegetables a day, Monsanto is reported as saying.

According to Jose Tarazona, head of EFSA’s pesticides: “By introducing an acute reference dose we are further tightening the way potential risks from glyphosate will be assessed in the future. Regarding carcinogenicity, it is unlikely that this substance is carcinogenic,” ​he said.

Experts from all member states but one - Sweden - concluded that there was no evidence for causality between glyphosate exposure and cancer in humans.

Toxicologist and scientific advisor to the Swedish Chemicals Agency, Sten Flodstrom, who sat on EFSA's panel told FoodNavigator: "We believed there was a lot of sense in the IARC conclusion and that the EU's criteria for carcinogenic effects were met to the degree we considered glyphosate to be possibly carcinogenic in humans - probably in my opinion."

But Flodstrom nonetheless said that the increase from 0.3 mg to 0.5 mg was marginal and would probably not have an impact on public health.

Converging conclusions

EFSA attributed the difference in conclusion with IARC to the fact that it reviewed a number of studies not assessed by the WHO agency, a well as the fact that EFSA looked at glyphosate alone while IARC assessed its use in combination with other chemicals in glyphosate-based formulations.

Peter Melchett, policy director at UK organic group the Soil Association, said EFSA’s finding came as no surprise because of this.


“Although glyphosate is always used in combination with a range of other often toxic chemicals, and [these mixes] can be 1000 times more toxic than glyphosate acting on its own, the EFSA insists on looking at the impact of glyphosate alone. It is blindingly obvious that the WHO approach is right from the perspective of public safety, and that the EFSA approach simply serves the interests of the pesticide companies.

Meanwhile chemical officer of the Pesticide Action Network (PAN Europe), Hans Muilerman said that the opinion violates Europe’s precautionary principle by giving the advantage of doubt to industry instead of priority to protecting human health and the environment.

But the decision was welcomed by the Glyphosate Task Force which represents Monsanto and other users. Chairman Richard Garnett said the conclusion confirms previous evaluations by regulatory authorities around the world. “[These] have consistently concluded that the application of glyphosate poses no unacceptable risk to human health, animals or the environment”.

The findings will be used by the Commission to decide whether or not glyphosate should remain on the list of approved active substances. Member states will then be able to decide whether its use in pesticides should be authorised.

EFSA will use the new toxicological values in a review of maximum residue levels authorised in food which will be carried out with member states in 2016.

The European Chemicals Agency (EHCA) will also produce a report and could come to a different conclusion to EFSA.

Earlier this year​ the Soil Association launched a campaign ‘Not in Our Bread’ after tests carried out by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (DEFRA) revealed traces of glyphosate present in one third of samples.

Gordon Polson, director of the Federation of Bakers, told FoodNavigator at the time that the traces present in bread were so minuscule they would have no effect on human health.

Related news

Show more

Related products

show more

Replace Synthetic Preservatives

Replace Synthetic Preservatives

Content provided by Corbion | 08-Apr-2024 | Insight Guide

With 36% of European consumers wary of food additives, particularly preservatives 1, offering a clean label is crucial. Corbion provides a better way...

Download the Blue Food Innovation Summit Brochure

Download the Blue Food Innovation Summit Brochure

Content provided by Rethink Events Ltd | 28-Mar-2024 | Application Note

The Blue Food Innovation Summit brings together leaders at the forefront of investing in and developing solutions for nature-positive, resilient aquaculture...

 Four actionable steps to reduce allergen recalls

Four actionable steps to reduce allergen recalls

Content provided by FoodChain ID | 10-Oct-2023 | White Paper

Failing to mitigate allergen risks has serious consequences - not just for consumer safety, poor allergen procedures can also cause financial losses and...

Is your brand reputation at risk?

Is your brand reputation at risk?

Content provided by FoodChain ID | 21-Sep-2023 | White Paper

FoodChain ID has developed a new white paper, “Current Food Supply Chain Threats - Is Your Company's Brand Reputation at Risk?” examining recent regulatory...


Other modes of action need to be studied.

Posted by sage,

There's a difference between being genotoxic and having other modes of action that can affect health outcomes negatively, such as affecting the gut microbiota. It's not been studied, and it's a reasonably likely hypothesis. This is a concern. We recently learned that PCBs cause hypertension with a low dose effect, and that people are exposed by breathing the volatile compounds in the air, such as long the Hudson River. This is something like 30 years after they were banned, and yet the new modes of action continue to be discovered. So let's have some integrity and get on the ball, and study the molecule's interaction with the human body, not just sit here and promote propaganda with wishful thinking. Let's turn over the stones and see what's underneath them.

Report abuse

Glyphosate and cancer

Posted by Anthony,

These findings are industry biased. Monsanto's own documents confirm Glyphosate causes many types cancer. Glyphosate attacks all glands and organs causing their destruction and dysfunction.

See this article where you can download the paper: Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases IV: cancer and related pathologies

Report abuse

Follow us


View more