“When they put glyphosate in the same category as red meat and hot drinks, it lost credibility.” South Auckland farmer, 2025
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a Group 2A probable human carcinogen. It should have been headline news. It should have raised alarm bells for every council spraying it on roadside verges, every worker tasked with applying it, and every parent whose child plays on school fields treated with it.
Instead? It barely registered.
And for many farmers and industry users, it was almost a punchline.
“Probable carcinogen? Like steak and hot drinks? Give me a break.”
This reaction didn’t come from ignorance — it came from context. Because the way the message was communicated allowed glyphosate’s risk to be absorbed into a familiar cultural narrative: everything causes cancer these days, so why worry about this one?
Let’s unpack what the IARC really said — and why its warning was so easy to dismiss.
What the IARC Actually Said
The IARC classification system doesn’t tell us how dangerous a substance is in practical terms. Instead, it tells us how strong the scientific evidence is that a substance can cause cancer in humans under some conditions.
In 2015, IARC placed glyphosate in Group 2A — defined as:
“Probably carcinogenic to humans – limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, sufficient evidence in animals.”
Other substances in this same category include:
- Red meat (particularly processed or grilled)
- Very hot beverages (above 65°C)
- Emissions from frying food
- Night shift work
- DDT (a banned pesticide)
- Insecticides like malathion and diazinon
Suddenly, glyphosate found itself in familiar company. And to many, that made it feel less threatening — not more.
The Risk Comparison Trap
Almost immediately, media and industry PR teams jumped on the opportunity to downplay the warning:
“It’s no different than eating a steak or drinking hot tea.”
“Even shift work is a probable carcinogen — are we going to ban night shifts now?”
These comparisons are technically accurate. But they are also deeply misleading.
They flatten the nuance. They conflate voluntary lifestyle choices with involuntary chemical exposures. And they obscure the real issue: We’re not just talking about what’s carcinogenic, but how, how often, how much, and through what route.
Why the Comparison Doesn’t Hold
Let’s break it down.
1. Route of Exposure
You eat red meat. You drink coffee.
Glyphosate? It’s sprayed on crops, absorbed through skin, inhaled during application, and residues remain on food and in water.
One is a personal choice. The other is a chemical intrusion — one many people aren’t even aware of.
2. Regulation and Transparency
Red meat comes with public awareness campaigns, dietary guidelines, and sometimes cancer warnings.
Glyphosate?
- No residue label on the food you buy.
- No public notice when it’s sprayed at your child’s school.
- No transparency from councils or contractors about timing or frequency of use.
- And in New Zealand, no routine testing for glyphosate residues in food or water.
3. Cumulative and Involuntary Exposure
You can reduce meat intake or switch to plant-based alternatives.
You can’t control what was sprayed on your oats, or what’s lingering in the park soil, or what’s leaching into your waterways.
It’s not a fair comparison — because one is informed and voluntary, and the other is ambient, chronic, and invisible.
4. Synergistic Effects and Formulations
When IARC classified glyphosate, they focused on the active ingredient. But in the real world, glyphosate is used in commercial formulations like Roundup®, which contain surfactants and adjuvants — some of which are even more toxic than glyphosate itself.
No one’s spraying emulsified bacon grease onto playgrounds.
A Public Health Messaging Failure
Instead of using the IARC classification to raise awareness, New Zealand’s public health agencies and regulators remained silent.
There was no glyphosate-specific warning label.
No public information campaign to explain the risk.
No biomonitoring or follow-up for exposed workers.
And without local context or official guidance, the global narrative — comparing glyphosate to red meat and hot drinks — filled the gap.
The message was clear: Don’t worry about it.
In fact, when we asked WorkSafe NZ for any health complaints, toxicology reports, or guidance documents about glyphosate exposure in occupational settings, their response was clear:
“No records held.”
The only guidance cited was a general agrichemical safety page — last updated (as of this writing) in 2016, more than a year after the IARC classification was published.
Yet it still doesn’t mention glyphosate.
It doesn’t mention cancer.
Just gloves, labels, and safe storage.
What Are We Waiting For?
The IARC’s 2A classification wasn’t a fringe finding. It was based on robust data from multiple studies in both animals and exposed populations — especially agricultural workers with repeated exposure.
Since then, glyphosate has:
- Been found in NZ honey, Weet-Bix, and breakfast cereals
- Been detected in human urine in multiple international studies
- Been the subject of over 100,000 lawsuits in the U.S. alone, many citing non-Hodgkin lymphoma
- Been banned or restricted in over 30 countries and jurisdictions
And yet, in New Zealand, the most that’s been done is a proposal to raise the allowable residue levels on food by 9900%.
Not All Carcinogens Are Equal
That South Auckland farmer wasn’t wrong — the IARC’s comparison did dilute the message.
When you place glyphosate next to steak, hot drinks, and night shifts, it stops sounding like a chemical problem and starts sounding like another modern lifestyle choice.
But it’s not.
Glyphosate isn’t a meal. It’s not a craving. It’s not a habit we choose.
It’s a probable human carcinogen sprayed on our food, parks, and roadsides — often without our knowledge or consent.
If that doesn’t warrant clearer communication, stricter regulation, and routine testing — what does?
For a broader look at why glyphosate’s risks go beyond the spray can, see: Why Glyphosate Isn’t Just a Weed Killer — It’s a Public Health Issue.
Resources & References
Want to dig a little deeper?
The links below won’t give you all the answers — but they’ll show you where the official story started, what’s been said since, and what’s still being left out.
IARC Monograph Volume 112
The 2015 report by the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm that classified glyphosate as a Group 2A probable human carcinogen.
WHO Q&A on Glyphosate
A summary from WHO addressing public concerns about glyphosate following the IARC classification, including clarification on exposure and risk.
WorkSafe NZ – Working Safely with Chemicals and Fuels on Farms (2016)
General safety guidance for farmers using agrichemicals and fuels. Glyphosate is not named, and there is no discussion of cancer risk.
The Detox Project – Glyphosate in Food and Water
A collection of independent glyphosate residue tests conducted on popular food brands, highlighting the extent of contamination and the gaps in regulatory oversight.
Public health depends on more than just scientific classifications — it depends on how those findings are communicated, interpreted, and acted on. These sources reveal just how wide the gap can be between what’s known and what’s acknowledged.
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 shiraraz.
