Glyphosate sits at the center of a genuine scientific disagreement. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, while the U.S. EPA concluded it is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Both agencies reviewed overlapping but different sets of evidence, and the answer you get depends largely on which body you ask and what level of exposure you’re talking about.
Why Two Agencies Reached Opposite Conclusions
IARC, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization, placed glyphosate in its Group 2A category in March 2015. That classification was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (primarily among agricultural workers) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in laboratory animals exposed to pure glyphosate. Several epidemiological studies reviewed by IARC showed increased rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among workers exposed to glyphosate herbicides across different formulations, regions, and time periods.
The EPA pushed back. It reviewed what it described as a significantly more extensive dataset, including 15 animal carcinogenicity studies compared to the eight IARC considered. The EPA’s database included unpublished studies submitted by manufacturers to support product registration, data that IARC did not use. Based on that broader pool, the EPA concluded glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans. That position is shared by the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency, Health Canada, and food safety agencies in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.
The split largely comes down to which studies each agency included, how much weight they gave to human epidemiological data versus animal studies, and whether they evaluated glyphosate alone or as part of commercial herbicide formulations. IARC focused on whether glyphosate could cause cancer under any circumstances. Regulatory agencies like the EPA focused more on whether it poses a cancer risk at typical real-world exposure levels.
The Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Link
The cancer most consistently associated with glyphosate exposure is non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a group of blood cancers affecting the immune system. A 2019 meta-analysis published in the journal Mutation Research pooled data from multiple studies and found that people with the highest levels of glyphosate exposure had a 41% increased risk of developing NHL compared to unexposed individuals. When researchers ran the analysis using an earlier dataset, that figure rose to 45%.
These elevated risks were seen primarily in occupational settings: farmers, farmworkers, and commercial pesticide applicators who handled glyphosate-based herbicides repeatedly over years. The distinction matters. Someone spraying crops for a decade faces a very different exposure profile than someone eating bread that contains trace glyphosate residues. Most regulatory agencies that have cleared glyphosate have done so specifically for non-occupational, dietary-level exposures.
How Glyphosate Could Damage Cells
The proposed biological pathway centers on oxidative stress. When cells are exposed to glyphosate, it can trigger an overproduction of reactive oxygen species, which are unstable molecules that damage cellular structures. Normally, your body’s antioxidant defenses neutralize these molecules. When production outpaces those defenses, the imbalance can lead to DNA strand breaks, damage to the building blocks of genetic code, and destruction of cell membranes.
Laboratory studies have documented DNA damage, oxidation of genetic material, and increased formation of micronuclei (small fragments of damaged chromosomes) in cells and animals exposed to glyphosate formulations. These types of genetic damage are recognized steps in the process that can eventually lead to cancer, though the presence of DNA damage alone doesn’t guarantee a tumor will develop.
Glyphosate in Food
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and residues show up in a wide range of grain-based foods. In testing of breakfast cereals and snack products, 100% of samples contained detectable glyphosate residues. Breakfast cereals had a median concentration of about 44 parts per billion (ppb), while snack foods came in around 36 ppb. Bread products tended to be on the higher end, with some types exceeding 60 ppb. In the United States, 100% of oat-based products tested positive, with some concentrations exceeding 1,100 ppb.
All of these levels fell below the maximum residue limits set by food safety regulators. The gap between what’s found in food and what caused cancer in animal studies is enormous, spanning several orders of magnitude. This is a key reason most regulatory bodies have not flagged dietary exposure as a concern, even as occupational exposure data raises questions.
Global Restrictions
No major agricultural nation has fully banned glyphosate, but its use has been restricted in meaningful ways. All 27 European Union member states have prohibited using glyphosate as a pre-harvest drying agent on food crops, a practice that tends to leave higher residue levels. Several Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman, have adopted the same restriction. These bans target a specific agricultural practice rather than eliminating glyphosate entirely.
Some countries and municipalities have gone further with partial restrictions. The trend has been toward limiting glyphosate use in residential and public spaces while keeping it available for agricultural use, where alternatives are more costly and less effective at scale.
The Legal Fallout
Whatever the regulatory consensus says, the legal system has treated the cancer question differently. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto (the original maker of Roundup) in 2018, has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits from people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using glyphosate-based herbicides. In February 2026, Bayer announced a class settlement agreement worth up to $7.25 billion, with declining annual payments stretching over 21 years. The company’s total glyphosate-related litigation costs and provisions have reached approximately 9.6 billion euros.
The settlement covers anyone who alleges exposure to Roundup before February 2026 and has received or will receive a diagnosis of NHL within a 16-year window. Juries in several individual trials found that Roundup was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ cancers, though Bayer continues to maintain the product is safe and that the scientific evidence does not support a causal link.
What This Means in Practice
The honest answer is that glyphosate occupies a gray zone. If you’re a consumer eating normal amounts of grain-based foods, the residue levels you encounter are far below thresholds that regulatory agencies consider dangerous. If you’re someone who has spent years applying glyphosate professionally, the epidemiological evidence points to a meaningful increase in NHL risk, particularly at higher cumulative exposures.
The disagreement between IARC and regulatory agencies is real, but it’s partly a disagreement about the question being asked. “Can glyphosate cause cancer?” and “Does glyphosate cause cancer at the levels people typically encounter?” are different questions with potentially different answers. For occupational users, protective equipment and reduced application frequency lower exposure. For everyone else, the residues in food remain well within limits that every major regulatory body currently considers safe.