Talk:Glyphosate

Opinion articles are not "sources"

a lot of the references cited are opinion articles and think tank papers. It bring into question the credibility of this entire Wikipedia entry, as it has clearly been edited by corporate agriculture interests ~2026-25605-75 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

While I have little doubt that Monsanto has influenced the contents of this article, you need to provide more specific criticism for it to be actionable. What references are you talking about? Nosferattus (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I see no evidence to back up that statement, after checking the references. Not going to check them all, but of all the ones I just checked, nothing appears wrong, either in the wiki statements for the references, or the references themselves. You really need to be more specific. Even a single example would be enough... Mandlerex (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Just have to note that such statements as also prohibited here as WP:ASPERSIONS, especially when unsubstantiated like you noticed. That kind of stuff is why the topic has been under Contentious Topic restrictions for about 10 years now. KoA (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

"An aspersion is an attack on someone's reputation or character, similar to defamation"

You're talking to the op with that I assume? Cuz if it's me, you're reading a lot more into what I wrote, than I actually did.... Mandlerex (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I was referring to comments before yours that you also highlighted as unsubstantiated, not that you were engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS yourself. Basically I was agreeing with your description.

I mentioned the aspersions issue though because people sometimes think it's ok to say things like "Monsanto must be pleased" where insinuations like that are prohibited specific to CT designation for this topic in that aspersions wikilink I gave. That was more of a heads up/reminder though. This an article talk page though, so if you or anyone is interested in the background of that restriction, happy to discuss on usertalk instead. KoA (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I, myself, have in the past been accused of editing on behalf of Monsanto, when that was demonstrably not the case. And it's not pleasant to be accused of that. One can always point out ways that a POV problem needs to be fixed, by focusing on the content itself, but without speculating on why another editor might see things differently than someone else does. I was the filing party in the ArbCom GMO case many years ago, and I clearly remember how unpleasant that was. KoA was there too, and the restriction he's talking about came from that case. I feel like providing that brief background here is useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

EPSP synthase naming

The 'Genetically modified crops' section of this article contains the sentence "Some micro-organisms have a version of 5-enolpyruvoyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthetase (EPSPS)" where the enzyme name is a redlink. The EPSP synthase article suggests that this may be an alternative name for 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSP), which in the lede is linked to EPSP synthase. Can other editors confirm that these are the same? If so, we should use consistent naming across the article, and change the link to EPSP synthase.Dialectric (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct about that, thanks. The current wording incorrectly uses the word "synthetase", but I've double-checked, and this enzyme is a synthase, not a synthetase. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I have updated the Genetically modified crops section to use 'synthase' and match the lede.Dialectric (talk)

Under-represented sources

It was recently brought to my attention that these sources are not represented in this article:

1. McHenry, Leemon B. (2018). "The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well". International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. 29: 193–205. doi:10.3233/jrs-180028. PMID 29843257.
2. Davoren, Michael J; Schiestl, Robert H (2018). "Glyphosate-based herbicides and cancer risk: a post-IARC decision review of potential mechanisms, policy and avenues of research". Carcinogenesis. 39: 1207–1215. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgy105. PMID 30060078.
3. Zhang, Luoping; Rana, Iemaan; Shaffer, Rachel M.; Taioli, Emanuela; Sheppard, Lianne (2019). "Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence". Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. 781: 186–206. doi:10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.02.001. PMID 31342895.
4. Weisenburger, Dennis D. (2021). "A Review and Update with Perspective of Evidence that the Herbicide Glyphosate (Roundup) is a Cause of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma". Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia. 21: 621–630. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2021.04.009. PMID 34052177.

~2026-33679-83 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Please stop spamming singular articles and make true suggestions, especially #3, #4 are superceeded by far better meta reviews showing no association. In that form this is pointless. --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Several of these are pubmed-indexed review articles and as such should be given a thorough consideration, not dismissed as 'spamming'. I don't see that the Weisenburger paper has been discussed previously on this talk page. The Zhang et all paper published in Mutation Research was discussed in May 2019 - Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_16#Question re sourcing.Dialectric (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I want us to be very open to considering new sources, as they appear, about the issue of whether or not it is associated with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. It seems to me that the Weisenburger paper, from 2021, is the most recent source that has been brought to this talk page, and it's a review article that passes WP:MEDRS. It's fair to assess its WP:DUE weight in relation to the meta reviews that Julius refers to. Looking at the source, it reviews animal and laboratory studies, and concludes that what is new is the development of a mechanistic model involving "upregulation of the B-cell genome mutator enzyme activation-induced cytidine deaminase". That strikes me as a basic science idea that is probably premature for us to cite in terms of "whether or not glyphosate is carcinogenic in humans". On the other hand, the author also concludes that: "The epidemiologic studies provide ample evidence for an association between exposure to GBFs and an increased risk of NHL." I'm receptive to the possibility that we should include that quote, with attribution. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No, for instance Weisenburger has been superceeded by EFSA from 2023, a metareview of metareviews (doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8164: "The currently available human epidemiological studies do not provide conclusive evidence that glyphosate exposure is associated with any cancer‐related health effect", also see Peer Review Report part 3, p. 59-78). So 2023 more data to compare in contrast to 2021.

And no, we won't drop now single papers and do a journal club for every of it. --Julius Senegal (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

At least for me when I glanced through this one, it was the COI in Weisenburger that disqualified it before I considered anything else in the Disclosure section, The author has been paid as an expert in glyphosate litigation. It's the same for the McHenry and Davoren articles. It's not the first time some of those articles have come up in these discussions uncritically. There are quite a few paid or affiliated sources like this in the literature to be careful about now. KoA (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I totally missed that COI thing, so thanks for pointing it out. The two of you have convinced me to change my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

What does "It's the same for the McHenry and Davoren articles." mean? I don't see any COI / disclosure statement on the Davoren article, or any evidence that Michael Davoren or Robert Schiestl were paid consultants or expert witnesses in any glyphosate lawsuits. Their article does not appear to have been discussed before on this talk page.Dialectric (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Updated Reference URLs

References 180 and 181 in the references section appear to be 404ing.

1. "Monsanto Papers: Secret Documents". Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC. Retrieved October 31, 2019.
2. "Glyphosate: IARC (Monsanto shared document)" (PDF). Baum Hedlund Law. February 23, 2015. Retrieved June 3, 2018.

The correct URLs for those documents are below if it is possible to have that updated:

https://www.wisnerbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Goals-After-IARC-Report.pdf

https://www.wisnerbaum.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-papers/ ~2026-38055-93 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done: . Thanks for your help in this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Mention of the 2025 Ramazzini/Global Glyphosate Study carcinogenicity results

Hello, I've read this wikipedia article and its talk page and noticed no mention of the 2025 Global Glyphosate Study carcinogenicity results (Panzacchi et al., Environmental Health (link). It's been covered fairly widely in the press, but has also drawn published criticism (e.g. a statistical rebuttal disputing the control-group data and methodology). Given WP:MEDRS's preference for secondary sources on health claims, should it be mentioned in the article (even briefly, noting both the findings and criticism), or is it better to wait for independent reviews before including it?

Thank you Rayutto san (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Given the connections with Seralini and authors on the retracted study along with Ramazzini itself being a red flag, it likely wouldn't be mentioned here unless other sources outline it as a major problematic source (as opposed to an under the radar one or dismissed one which it currently seems to be). I know the BfR had a comment on the study basically saying that due to study design, this study can't override more rigorous and long-term existing studies. This particular study wouldn't really have a home here in that context, but it could be used with care (and other sources) maybe in a controversy article. KoA (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

There is simply no point to highlight one single study, even it is from the infamous Ramazzini insitute known for publishing "questinable" papers.

I would simply wait until EFSA has completed their evaluation, and then cite EFSA. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all, indeed I will wait for EFSA evaluation and reopen this talk.

Thank you again for your time and advice. Rayutto san (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors. Barring exceptional circumstances, we should limit the use of primary research results in Wikipedia articles. Katzrockso (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)