Leaked emails, scientific dissent, and a troubling history of dismissal. If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored warning signs, can we trust our regulators to do better?
In 2024, Environmental Health News revealed something few regulators want you to know: scientists inside the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised serious concerns about glyphosate’s link to cancer—and were ignored.
Leaked documents and internal emails showed EPA staff clashing over the evidence, disagreeing on how to classify the risk, and in some cases, appearing to downplay or omit concerning data. All while millions of people continued to be exposed to a chemical now at the heart of thousands of cancer lawsuits.
So why should New Zealanders care about a scandal inside the U.S. EPA?
Because the exact same chemical—glyphosate—is used here. On our food. In our parks. Around our schools. And we’re being told it’s safe.
But if regulators as influential as the EPA can get it wrong, what makes us think our agencies are immune to the same pressures? And someone should be asking harder questions.
The Cancer Link the EPA Didn’t Want to See
Back in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization—classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” Their finding was based on strong evidence of genotoxicity (DNA damage) and a growing body of animal and epidemiological studies linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Rather than follow IARC’s lead, the U.S. EPA doubled down. They reassured the public that glyphosate wasn’t likely to cause cancer in humans.
But behind the scenes, the story wasn’t so tidy.
According to internal records, several EPA scientists were alarmed by the strength of the data connecting glyphosate to lymphoma. One risk assessor described the agency’s draft conclusion as “contradictory” and “not consistent with the science.” Others were disturbed by the omission of key toxicology studies from Monsanto’s own files—studies that showed cancer risk.
What followed was a years-long back-and-forth, culminating in an official EPA position that largely ignored these red flags.
The result? A green light for glyphosate that many now believe was politically motivated and scientifically unsound.
If It Can Happen There, It Can Happen Here
New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) continues to insist glyphosate residues in our food are safe. They reference international standards, cite selective past testing efforts, and lean heavily on regulatory assessments—like those from the U.S. EPA.
But that’s the problem.
If the EPA’s conclusions were shaped more by internal politics than independent science, and those conclusions are echoed by MPI here, then we’re inheriting not just their policies—but their mistakes.
Worse still, New Zealand is now considering raising the allowable glyphosate residue limits (MRLs) on dozens of food crops, including staple grains and everyday foods like bread, cereals, and legumes. All at a time when other countries are moving in the opposite direction.
And here’s the kicker: MPI hasn’t conducted any comprehensive glyphosate residue testing in nearly a decade. The last publicly available survey of wheat crops was in 2015/16—and it found glyphosate in over 40% of samples, with one-third exceeding the legal limit at the time. Since then? Silence.
Are we about to walk straight into the same trap?
Why It Matters: Trust, Transparency, and the Public Right to Know
Regulators are supposed to be the line of defense between the public and corporate overreach. But when internal emails show dissenting voices are ignored, studies are cherry-picked, and conclusions are pre-written, that line begins to erode.
The EPA’s internal turmoil may have happened across the ocean—but it’s a cautionary tale for every country still relying on their conclusions.
Here in New Zealand, public trust in glyphosate safety has already taken a hit. Communities are pushing back. Councils are phasing it out. Parents are asking schools to stop spraying it near children.
But behind the scenes, glyphosate’s grip is tightening—through quiet regulatory changes, political pressure, and industry influence.
We Need a National Reckoning
We don’t need another health scandal 20 years from now, with headlines asking, “Why didn’t we act sooner?” We need transparency now.
We need:
- Independent reviews of glyphosate safety that don’t rely solely on international assessments.
- A pause on any increase to glyphosate residue limits.
- Full public access to the studies and data MPI uses to justify its decisions.
- Stronger protection for whistleblowers—both here and abroad.
The EPA story should shake us awake. Because what happened there is not an exception. It’s a warning.
Final Thought
We’ve been told for years to trust the science. But what if the science isn’t the problem—what if the problem is who gets to decide which science counts?
The story of the EPA and glyphosate isn’t about one agency. It’s about all of us. About what happens when public health is pitted against private interests. And about whether our regulators are strong enough—and honest enough—to resist.
Because if they’re not, then it’s up to us to make the noise they’d rather ignore.
Resources & References
Leaked Emails Reveal EPA’s Glyphosate Problem
Environmental Health News (2024)
An in-depth look at internal EPA communications, scientific dissent, and how political pressure shaped glyphosate policy in the U.S.
https://www.ehn.org/glyphosate-cancer-epa
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): Glyphosate Monograph
In 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) after a comprehensive review of available scientific evidence.
IARC Monograph on Glyphosate
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI): Proposal to Amend Maximum Residue Levels
MPI’s 2025 proposal suggests increasing glyphosate residue limits in certain crops, including wheat, barley, oats, and dried peas.
Read, print, or download MPI’s proposal here
Emails Reveal Monsanto’s Tactics To Defend Glyphosate Against Cancer Fears
This article discusses Monsanto’s internal strategies to influence public perception and regulatory assessments regarding glyphosate’s safety.
Beyond Pesticides
OEHHA Statement on EPA’s Glyphosate Classification
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment critiques the EPA’s dismissal of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential, emphasizing the importance of IARC’s findings.
Proposition 65 Warnings Website
A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment
This scientific review contrasts various assessments of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity, highlighting differences in evaluation methodologies and conclusions.
Read this study here
How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?
This article explores the differing conclusions of the EPA and IARC regarding glyphosate’s genotoxicity, analyzing the underlying reasons for their divergent assessments.
Read the full article here
Ninth Circuit Orders EPA to Revisit Conclusion That Glyphosate is Not Likely to Cause Cancer
This legal analysis details a court ruling requiring the EPA to reevaluate its stance on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity due to insufficient evidence supporting its previous conclusion. National Agricultural Law Center
Glyphosate: WHO cancer agency edited out ‘non-carcinogenic’ findings from report
This investigative report discusses allegations that IARC omitted certain findings in its glyphosate assessment, sparking controversy over the integrity of its classification.
Read the Reuters article here
Book
Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science by Carey Gillam
A deeply researched book exposing Monsanto’s influence over regulators and the media, and the scientific cover-up around glyphosate.
Whitewash [our review]
Image Source & Attribution
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by valio84sl. You can find more of their work here: https://www.123rf.com/profile_valio84sl.
