In FY 2017, the agency analyzed 119 corn, soybean, milk, and egg samples for glyphosate and glufosinate. No glyphosate or glufosinate residues were detected in any of the milk and egg samples, or 82.1 % of the corn and 60.0 % of the soybean samples. In the samples where residues were detected, all were below the tolerance levels set by the EPA.

We used to till the ground, then plant, then go back and plow at least twice, and then spray a chemical. Now we’re not tilling at all.”

In my eyes, it’s one of the least harmful chemicals we use, and we will continue to use it.”

If we lost Roundup, it certainly would make no-till more difficult. I worry about public outcry overshadowing real science.”

The agency’s cancer conclusion is consistent with other regulatory authorities and international organizations, including the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency, the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues, the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, and the Food Safety Commission of Japan.”

NAWG is pleased with and welcomes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent statement reaffirming glyphosate as a noncarcinogen, and that there are no risks to public health when used in accordance with its current label. Glyphosate has been a breakthrough for agriculture, and this includes wheat production. Not only do glyphosate products control weeds, but they also help farmers farm the land sustainably.”

The 10,000 family farmers in eleven states that produce the majority of America’s sugar have safely used glyphosate for more than a decade, providing many environmental benefits and meeting impressive sustainability objectives. We thank Administrator Wheeler for taking action to prevent misleading and inaccurate labels on glyphosate.”

The advent of glyphosate was a game-changer. Not only did it effectively kill the weeds that were threatening and taking away maximum crop production, there was a quality-of-life issue.”

Scientific-based risk is one thing, if it’s public perception, that’s another. It does rankle some people in the field because it’s a useful tool and it’s being taken away for reasons they don’t really feel holds water with science.”

In the case of glyphosate, EFSA is satisfied that the evidence EU experts had access to was sufficient to allow for a thorough, independent evaluation of the toxicity of the substance and of the possible risks regarding intended uses. Furthermore, the process was comprehensive (lasting three years and covering hundreds of scientific references), consistent (applied in the same way as for previous assessments), and transparent (with detailed information published on EFSA’s website about how every study was appraised).”

IARC does not evaluate risk in the way other health agencies do, taking into account actual exposure to a substance or agent in the real world, in terms of intensity and duration of the exposure. Rather, IARC chooses to evaluate ‘hazard’—that is, whether a substance or agent could possibly cause cancer under some conditions, no matter how far removed from everyday experience.”

People might be interested to know that there are over 70 other things IARC also classifies as ‘probably carcinogenic’, including night shifts. In the highest category of known carcinogens are ‘alcoholic beverages’ and ‘solar radiation’ (sunlight) – along with plutonium.”

We must have balance. Common sense and balance. What is better? To use glyphosate or another pesticide that comes to replace it or let erosion drag and take everything.”

I think much of the productivity increases you’ve seen over the last 25 years, since these types of crop protection chemicals have been out, have been almost exponential in that way. If we are going to feed 9 to 10 billion people by 2050, we’re going to need all of the tools at our disposal.”

EPA’s cancer evaluation is more robust than IARC’s evaluation. IARC’s evaluation only considers data that have been published or accepted for publication in the openly available scientific literature.”

There are over 60 genotoxicity studies on glyphosate with none showing results that should cause alarm relating to any likely human exposure. For human epidemiological studies there are 7 cohort and 14 case control studies, none of which support carcinogenicity.”

Chemistry Australia gave evidence that glyphosate…has led to more sustainable agriculture, particularly the practices of minimum till. Minimum till reduces agricultural CO2 emissions and it aids in the retention of soil moisture. Without advances like this from chemistry, we might well be sitting here today discussing the loss of Australia’s prime agricultural land due to soil erosion.”

If we don’t have glyphosate available, we’ll either have to switch to newer herbicides that are much more expensive, which means less acres controlled, or we’ll have to go with chemicals that are more concerning from a toxicological standpoint.”

Glyphosate has been looked at by a number of countries, it’s been looked at by a number of organizations, and the cancer claims have not been substantiated by a lot of other bodies that have looked at glyphosate.”

Without glyphosate there would be additional carbon emissions arising from increased fuel usage and decreased soil carbon sequestration, equal to the equivalent of adding 11.77 million cars to the roads.”

Only glyphosate provides farmers the unique combination of efficacy and environmental friendliness needed to tackle world hunger. The mechanical tillage that farmers would be required to implement without glyphosate would result in higher costs, environmental and soil degradation, and likely a less safe herbicide applied in the first place.”