Talk:Glyphosate

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 {{doi}}: unflagged free DOI (link): "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)

Missing (and misleading) information regarding toxicity to amphibians

In the section Toxicity -> Glyphosate alone -> Aquatic and marine animals

The section is not up-to-date and too simplified, in fact misrepresenting the little it has to reach an opposite conclusion. The only mention of widely studied toxicity to amphibians, and tadpoles in particular, reads as: "determined that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides effects on animals were generally sublethal, with relatively larger effects in aquatic and marine species, though it also found widespread publication bias that may inflate the reported magnitude of these effects". First, this is missing the most recent meta-analysis which demonstrates unequivocal toxicity to amphibians (Pfeffer, S. E., Flach, H., Weiß, H., & Kühl, S. J. 2026. Effects of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides on amphibian development from early cleavage to metamorphosis: a systematic review of laboratory evidence. Environmental Research, 124548.). Second, "were generally sublethal" and overemphasis of bias concerns over meta-analysis results (and the dozens of lab studies it is based on) is seriously downplaying the actual conclusions of the cited meta-analysis (Evalen et al. 2024), which are, I quote: "... widespread publication bias in our data set. Nonetheless, we conservatively demonstrate that GLY/GBH can be sub-lethally toxic for animals, particularly for animals in aquatic or marine habitats. Our analyses did not indicate that toxicity varied due to dose (concentration) of GLY/GBH suggesting that simply reducing the amount of GLY/GBH per application may not limit its toxic effects on animals." This is a small difference in wording but a huge difference in meaning, which seems a little in bad faith to the cited references. The current wording reverses the importance of toxicity for its sub-lethality, and of the results' robustness to bias for the bias itself.

Same (or worse) in Toxicity -> Glyphosate-based formulations -> Aquatic fauna

GBHs are well-known, including in the studies above (Evalen et al. 2024, which here is ignored), to be much more toxic than glyphosate alone, yet all it says here on amphibians (regarding the Wagner et al. 2013 meta-analysis) is: "According to the authors, the use of glyphosate-based pesticides cannot be considered the major cause of amphibian decline". Why is this the information we choose to give to the readers? This section is not about "the" major cause for the amphibian decline of the 80s. This section is (or at least needs to be) about toxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides, which if you read even the Abstracts are clearly toxic to tadpoles, sometimes by orders of magnitude more than glyphosate alone (see again Pfeffer et al. 2026 meta-analysis). The citation of Wagner et al. is missing ALL of its actual conclusions regarding toxicity, which were (I remind you that the paper is 13 years old) not enough is known to determine toxicity, but larval development seems to be the best endpoint to test. A lot of research was done in the interim, testing exactly the knowledge gap highlighted by Wagner et al., and finding consistent effects including endocrine disruption and oxidative damage, changes in growth, morphology, and gene expression, damage to the nervous, cardiovascular, and skeletomuscular systems, and more.

To be blunt, this section currently reads like it received some editing assistance from someone in Roundup® legal team, and needs to be updated ASAP. Let me know if I can help any further. Shahar Dubiner (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll dig into these papers more when I get a bit more time later in the week, but I do have to point out that your current last paragraph is prohibited here in terms of WP:ASPERSIONS. This is considered a Controversial Topic on Wikipedia, so there's a higher expectation for decorum. Leaving the rest for usertalk on that as this isn't the place to discuss that further.

When it comes to WP:FOC, my initial caution here is you're highlighting a review of laboratory studies, so we're generally having to be cautious about language with early-stage evidence compared to field studies or more ecologically relevant lab studies. I know there was some careful navigating done with regard to the paper currently cited in text, though I'd have to hunt down the talk conversation on that. A common issue in the literature is that someone might find effects in a lab dish (or tank), but it doesn't translate up to effects really seen in the field unless under highly specific scenarios vs. a common occurrence. Some of that is reflected in the Wagner paper too. KoA (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I concur with KoA, that there is a clear difference between laboratory developmental toxicity (with an "interesting" range of concentrations so to say) and demonstrated population-level effects in the field.

Claiming that someone from the "Roundup® legal team" has written the abstract is a stupid claim. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand. Apologies. Had no idea this was controversioal.

Anyway, I think the same "careful navigating" that must be done to avoid overstating the results of lab studies, should be applied to avoid overstating the possible lack of clear harm at ecologically relevant concentrations. At the very least, a comparable phrasing to that of the original articles (which is already sufficiently hedged) can be used. There's barely 1 sentence, maybe you can expand it to describing the known effects in the lab while still stating that it is unclear what the ecological effect is?

Also note that "ecologically relevant concentrations" can be much higher than in most of those lab studies, even in protected areas - I've seen values up to 2,460 µg/L (Silva et al. 2011). Shahar Dubiner (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

PS: Pfeffer et al. 2026 is a systematic review of laboratory evidence, not a (quantitative) meta-review. The autors acknowledge substantial heterogeneity in formulations, exposure conditions and endpoints, which argues for cautious interpretation when generalizing beyond controlled laboratory settings. --Julius Senegal (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)