If PFAS is the 'forever' chemical, then Glyphosate has to be the chemical that keeps on giving, because just when you think things have settled, then out of the blue comes another curveball. This time, the issue is not about the safety of Glyphosate (Roundup), but around two issues.
The first is a legal matter currently before the Supreme Court of the US, in which Bayer is seeking relief, given that the US EPA has apparently indicated that the labels (approved by the US EPA) did not require cancer warnings, despite state law having different requirements. Bayer seems to be looking to try to manage the massive litigation costs. Then we have a US Administration that is less than neutral in this matter. This is not the first time the US Administration has gone to the SCOTUS regarding Bayer and glyphosate. The problem here is that, depending on which side of politics you sit, it decides whether the Administration support the chemical manufacturers or holds chemical manufacturers accountable. In other words, no longer is this matter in the hands of chemists, regulators and safety professionals, but now in the hands of the legal profession.
The second comes in the form of a Retraction notice issued by the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Journal relating to an article published in 2000 entitled "Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans" [Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 31 (2000) 117–165] According to the retraction notice, the reason for the decision was due to "Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of the misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors".
So, where does that leave us regarding the safety of glyphosate? It raises more questions than it answers ...
Lisa
------------------------------
LisaStevens
Principal OHS Consultant
Lisa J Stevens And Associates
------------------------------