If glyphosate has been sprayed on our farms, footpaths, orchards, sports fields, and school grounds for decades, you’d think we’d have a clear answer by now:
Does it cause cancer or not?
But we don’t.
Instead, we have a messy, uncomfortable debate that just won’t go away — and for many people, that alone is a red flag.
How can a chemical sold as “safe when used as directed” also be the centre of thousands of lawsuits?
Why do juries keep siding with the people who got sick?
And why do regulators seem so sure everything’s fine?
This isn’t just a scientific issue.
It’s a trust issue.
The Split That Started It All: IARC vs Everyone Else
Everything changed in 2015 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — the cancer branch of the WHO — reviewed the evidence and said glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
They based that on:
- human studies
- animal studies
- biological mechanisms consistent with cancer development
It was measured. It was cautious. It was transparent.
And then the counterattacks began.
Regulators like the U.S. EPA pushed back hard, insisting glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer when used correctly. Other national regulators echoed the same line.
Same evidence.
Different interpretations.
Huge consequences.
If that leaves you wondering how two respected bodies can look at the same data and walk away with opposite conclusions… you’re not alone. We’ve unpacked the core question — does glyphosate cause cancer — in a dedicated explainer if you want the deeper dive.
What the Research Actually Shows (and Why It’s So Messy)
Ask a scientist whether glyphosate causes cancer and you’ll usually get a long pause before the answer. Not because the question is silly — but because the research landscape is a bit of a swamp.
A few examples:
- The Agricultural Health Study
Regulators love citing it as proof of safety.
But it has big gaps, including long delays between exposure assessments and the challenge of farmers using multiple pesticides at once. - Independent meta-analyses
A 2019 one found a 41% higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the most heavily exposed glyphosate users. - Animal studies
Some show tumours. Others don’t. It often depends who funded the research.
And that’s really the heart of the problem.
A lot of the “no risk” studies are industry-funded. Many of the “potential risk” studies are independent.
Is that proof of wrongdoing?
Not necessarily.
Does it make people wary?
Absolutely.
Why Courts Keep Ruling Against Bayer
This is the part regulators hate talking about.
If glyphosate is so safe, why do juries keep awarding enormous damages to people who developed cancer after long-term Roundup exposure?
Because courts don’t need 100% certainty. They only need to decide whether the chemical more likely than not contributed to the illness.
And juries keep hearing things like:
- internal Monsanto emails
- attempts to influence regulatory reviews
- ghostwritten scientific papers
- experts explaining how glyphosate could contribute to cancer biologically
Again and again, the pattern repeats:
ordinary people look at the evidence and find it compelling.
That alone says something.
Why Public Trust Keeps Falling
For most people, the problem isn’t a single study.
It’s the pattern.
The secrecy.
The spin.
The coordinated PR messaging.
The industry-funded science.
The regulators who seem far too comfortable accepting assurances instead of asking hard questions.
Here in New Zealand, the gaps in chemical oversight — from delayed reassessments to limited long-term monitoring — don’t exactly inspire confidence either.
And when it comes to cancer?
“Trust us” has never been a reassuring strategy.
Where This Leaves Us
The glyphosate–cancer debate isn’t confusing because people are uninformed.
It’s confusing because the evidence is contested, the stakes are high, and the system around these decisions isn’t as neutral as we’d like to believe.
So maybe the real question isn’t:
Does glyphosate cause cancer?
Maybe it’s:
- Who gets to decide what counts as proof?
- Why don’t regulators agree with independent scientists?
- What evidence is being left out — and by whom?
- And when safer options exist, why gamble?
When the science is messy, caution isn’t alarmist.
It’s responsible.
If you’d like to stay updated as we continue testing products, analysing the evidence, and asking the questions that should have been asked years ago, join our mailing list and stay informed.
Resources and References
To better understand the debate surrounding glyphosate and cancer, consider exploring the following credible sources and studies that have shaped public and scientific opinion on the issue.
The Guardian – Does glyphosate cause cancer? Australia’s Roundup case against Monsanto will offer a fresh legal answer
Coverage of the ongoing legal debates and implications of glyphosate-related cancer claims.
Link to: The Guardian Article
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – Glyphosate Monograph Classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (2015).
Link to: IARC Monograph
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Glyphosate Review
EPA’s stance on glyphosate safety and the assessment of carcinogenic potential.
Link to: EPA Review
Meta-Analysis on Glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Study suggesting a 41% increased risk of NHL among high-exposure glyphosate users.
Link to: This study
Agricultural Health Study (AHS)
Long-term study of farm workers examining cancer incidence and glyphosate exposure.
Link to: AHS Study
Staying informed about ongoing research and legal outcomes is essential to understanding the broader implications of glyphosate use on public health.
Image Source & Attribution
The feature image on this page incorporates a photo by balinska, which was then combined into a custom graphic using Canva. Explore their full portfolio here: https://www.123rf.com/profile_balinska.
