In summary; this was a far less rigorous review than IARC which found the opposite. In arriving at its conclusion, EFSA relied heavily on the glyphosate assess

In summary; this was a far less rigorous review than IARC which found the opposite. In arriving at its conclusion, EFSA relied heavily on the glyphosate assessment conducted by German pesticide regulators, which was based on egregious violations of accepted standards for interpreting studies. For instance, faulty statistical methods were used to reject clear evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in experimental animals. Second, EFSA only considered studies on the active ingredient, glyphosate, whereas IARC also considered studies that were done with various formulations of the herbicide, in which glyphosate is mixed with other substances that can be toxic in their own right, or make glyphosate more toxic. Such formulations are what farmers and consumers actually use. Third, EFSA assessed some studies provided by the pesticide industry that IARC rejected because they lacked critical information required for proper interpretation, and/or were not publically available.