Glyphosate, an organophosphorus compound, is the most widely used herbicide in the world.1 in New Zealand, glyphosate is found in approximately 90 products, of which the best known is Monsanto’s…
Subscriber content
The full contents of this page is only available to subscribers.
To view this content please login or subscribe
Summary
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”. The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZEPA) rejected this and commissioned a new report, concluding that glyphosate was unlikely to be genotoxic or carcinogenic to humans. We conclude that the NZEPA process for evaluating the carcinogenicity of glyphosate was flawed and urge that: the NZEPA report be withdrawn; the NZEPA respond to the concerns raised and for a reassessment to be conducted; and clearer process and better understanding of science be used to inform any future review of hazardous substances in New Zealand.
Abstract
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”. The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZEPA) rejected this and commissioned a new report, concluding that glyphosate was unlikely to be genotoxic or carcinogenic to humans. The NZEPA has argued that the difference arose because IARC is a “hazard-identification authority”, whereas NZEPA is a “regulatory body that needs to cast the net more widely”. We conclude that the NZEPA process for evaluating the carcinogenicity of glyphosate was flawed and the post hoc justification invalid: there is no mention of risk assessment or “net-benefit approach” in the NZEPA report; and there is no discussion of current New Zealand glyphosate exposures. Further, the NZEPA report quotes heavily from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report, which is itself markedly flawed, and like the NZEPA report, relies heavily on industry-funded and industry-manipulated reviews. Given the scientific flaws in both reports we urge that: the NZEPA report be withdrawn; the NZEPA respond to the concerns raised and for a reassessment to be conducted; and clearer process and better understanding of science be used to inform any future review of hazardous substances in New Zealand.
Author Information
Jeroen Douwes, Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington; Andrea ‘t Mannetje, Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington; Dave McLean, Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington; Neil Pearce, Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom; Alistair Woodward, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Auckland University, Auckland; John D Potter, Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington.
Correspondence
Professor Jeroen Douwes, Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington.
Correspondence Email
j.douwes@massey.ac.nz
Competing Interests
JD is a member of the steering committee of the International Agricultural Cohort Consortium. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2007–present; A’tM was a member of the IARC working group on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk to humans, Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides (which included glyphosate); DMcL was a member of the IARC working group on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk to humans, Volume 117: evaluation of the carcinogenicity of pentachlorophenol and some related compounds; AW was on the panel that reviewed the Environment and Radiation Section of IARC in 2017; NP has participated in several IARC Monograph Working Groups, and was Visiting Scientist at IARC in 1993. JDP was the US Representative, Science Council, IARC, 2001–2006; Vice-Chair, Science Council, IARC, 2004; and Chair, Science Council, IARC, 2005–2006. He was awarded the IARC Medal of Honour in 2012.