3 ms·

There is no doubt that it's a carcinogen, just some questions about how strongly and at what kinds of exposure. IARC has an easier decision than most national

There is no doubt that it's a carcinogen, just some questions about how strongly and at what kinds of exposure. IARC has an easier decision than most national regulators as they only look at the science. National regulators have to balance the science with the political/economic reality that glyphosate plays. Some countries have nonetheless chosen to prohibit it's use, others not. So the question is not at all whether it's a carcinogen, rather it's this: Should we prohibit it's use or certain especially dangerous use cases, given that much of Western agriculture has become dependent on it?

zaarn 7y ago
On the flipside, the WHO, FAOJC and ECHA (as well as the canadian, australian and german safety bodies) didn't find there to be sufficient evidence that Glyphosate is a carcinogen or dangerous in the dosages you'll be exposed to. The IARC is actually the only international scientific organization that has actually classed glyphosate as carcinogen (based on including a few studies that the other bodies do not include to avoid bias). Of course, eating Glyphosate isn't exactly healthy, it's a pesticide after all and not quite exactly designed to be consumed by anything but it's all about the dosage.