00:30 - Stephanie highlights the work that Bayer (formerly Monsanto) and the EPA have done to prove that glyphosate is safe for use in agriculture and commercial settings, which can be easily traced.

• Bayer states that glyphosate has a “50-year history of safe use” (source and poses “no risks of concern to human health when used according to label directions” (source.
• The U.S. EPA affirms that “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” and that no public health risks exist from current uses.
  • [EPA Draft Assessment](https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-draft-risk-assessments-glyphosate?)
  • [EPA Statement](https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-takes-next-step-review-process-herbicide-glyphosate-reaffirms-no-risk-public-health?)
  • [EPA Glyphosate Page](https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate?)
• Regulatory authorities in Japan, Australia, Korea, Canada, New Zealand, and elsewhere have also reaffirmed that glyphosate-based products can be used safely as directed.

While Bayer and regulatory agencies maintain documents asserting glyphosate’s safety, numerous independent investigations and court records have confirmed that data was selectively presented or manipulated to downplay risks—a documented fact supported across scientific literature and echoed by multiple experts featured in this podcast.

• The Monsanto Papers are a collection of internal Monsanto documents which outline how the company hid or interfered with research about glyphosate.
  • Internal emails showed Monsanto ghostwrote studies, paid external scientists to use their names, and pressured researchers who found harmful effects from its use. The company also forbade its own scientists from publishing results showing DNA damage and made them sign secrecy agreements (source).
  • One of the most cited examples—a paper by Williams et al.—has been repeatedly used to claim that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic, even though behind-the-scenes Monsanto helped write it (source).
• An independent panel of scientists convened by the EPA (called a Scientific Advisory Panel) reviewed the agency’s glyphosate safety assessment and found serious flaws—saying the EPA failed to follow its own safety guidelines, overlooked evidence linking glyphosate to cancer, and appeared influenced by industry interests (source.
• In 2022, a U.S. federal appeals court (the Ninth Circuit Court) ruled that the EPA’s conclusion that glyphosate is “not likely” to cause cancer was not supported by solid evidence and ordered the agency to redo its assessment (source. In response, the EPA withdrew its interim review but maintained its stance, promising to clarify its analysis and continue the review process (source.
• Peer-reviewed articles argue that regulatory assessments from the European Union and Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. have relied heavily on industry-sponsored studies, sometimes ignoring internal evidence of tumor formation in animal research (source.

02:10:  Stephanie underscores a striking contradiction: governments worldwide acknowledge that glyphosate is widespread in the food supply, yet continue to insist it poses no health risk. Regulatory agencies openly confirm dietary exposure while maintaining that residues fall within “safe” limits—a position increasingly challenged by independent science.

In the U.S., FDA testing in 2016–2017 found glyphosate in nearly 60% of corn and soybean samples (source. Despite this, the agency concluded residues were below federal safety thresholds and “not a risk” to consumers. Similarly, the European Food Safety Authority’s 2023 review stated glyphosate “does not pose a risk to human health,” even as it confirmed pervasive exposure across the EU (source. Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and Australia’s Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) reached comparable conclusions, reinforcing a global pattern of acknowledging contamination while dismissing its significance (source, source.

Yet this conclusion is built on shaky ground. Many of these safety limits rely on outdated toxicology data (source, with acceptable daily intake (ADI) thresholds differing sharply between countries—1.75 mg/kg/day in the U.S. versus 0.5 mg/kg/day in the EU, 3.5 times lower (source, source). Children are exposed to more glyphosate relative to their body weight, yet the same ADI is applied to both adults and children.

Compounding the issue, the ADIs are derived from tests on glyphosate alone, not on full herbicide formulations like Roundup, which studies show can be up to 125x more toxic (source.

Regardless, new research undermines these safety assurances with a 2025 study finding that even exposures equivalent to the EU’s “safe” ADI led to significant increases in both non-cancerous and cancerous tumors in lab animals—suggesting that the very benchmarks regulators use to define safety may be anything but (source).

As already mentioned, independent reviews have also documented systemic bias in regulatory processes, including revolving doors between agencies and industry, reliance on unpublished company research, and the dismissal of peer-reviewed independent studies (source.

Meanwhile, public messaging has reinforced the idea that glyphosate is harmless. Surveys show that even though pesticide use ranks among Americans’ top food concerns, nearly 30% still believe the benefits of conventional produce outweigh the risks—reflecting continued trust in government and industry assurances that increasingly conflict with emerging evidence (source.