The report states:
“There was no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and solid tumors. There was also no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and leukemia, or HL. This conclusion is consistent with those recently conducted by IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and JMPR (Joint Meeting Pesticide Residues) who also concluded there is no evidence of an association for these tumors at this time. The data should be considered limited, though, with only one or two studies available for almost all of the cancer types investigated.”
The paper was released in preparation for the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel’s review next month.
In March 2015, IARC (a subdivision of the World Health Organization or WHO) determined glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. As a result of this decision, some countries (e.g., France and Sweden) moved to ban glyphosate. In May 2016, Joint Food and Agriculture Organization and WHO met and concluded that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a “carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through diet.” The new EPA report says that while oral exposure is the primary route of concern for glyphosate, oral absorption has been shown “to be relatively low for glyphosate with negligible accumulation in tissues and rapid excretion. ...” The report states the agency considered all anticipated exposure pathways as part of their evaluation for human health.
Specifically, the report states, “For cancer descriptors, the available data and weight-of-evidence clearly do not support the descriptors ‘carcinogenic to humans,’ ‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans’ or ‘inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential.’ For the ‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential’ descriptor, considerations could be looked at in isolation; however, following a thorough integrative weight-of-evidence evaluation of the available data, the database would not support this cancer descriptor. The strongest support is for ‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’ at doses relevant to human health risk assessment.” 
-
Lynn Jaynes
- Editor
- Progressive Forage
- Email Lynn Jaynes
