The Carcinogenity of Glyphosate … from the Lancet Oncology

It was announced recently, that WHO has concluded that glyphosate ‘probably causes cancer’ …. they have classed it 2A. It is surely well past the time for NZ authorities to reconsider its approval of this widely used herbicide. There comes a point we have to consider prevention and not closing the gate when the horse has already bolted. The damage is already done given this product is now found widely in blood, urine and breast milk, and cancer statistics are one in three. People need to read this research, study it carefully and take action. France’s highest court ruled around six years ago that the product is carcinogenic following the research of Professor Seralini. If you are from the Rangitikei, live in the Rangitikei or have connections with the region, please sign our petition at this link:

Here is a link to the report published in the Lancet Oncology, Volume 16, No. 5, p 490-491, May 2015.

“In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate (table)…”

If you follow the link, to download the pdf file you’re required to register (it’s free).

Or, here is a link to the pdf:

2 thoughts on “The Carcinogenity of Glyphosate … from the Lancet Oncology”

  1. did you realize that the rats pictured above are specifically bred to naturally have cancerous tumors or at least a very very high likelyhood of acquiring them more for studies of cancer , not what causes cancer.

    Secondly alcohol in all its forms is worse on the WHO’s spectrum as something that definitely contributes to cancer. If you are going to be consistent you need to work for the banning of all alcoholic beverages as they are far worse for you.


    1. Professor Seralini used the same strain of rat that Monsanto used when they initially tested their product before release onto the market. They only tested for the required 90 or so days, not long enough for tumours to develop. Prof Seralini’s research took a full 2 years. The cancer risk alone is enough as far as I’m concerned, for us to err on the side of caution, except there is also a raft of other health risks documented that link to glyphosate, including birth defects. Why on earth would we not eliminate all environmental risks with cancer stats at one in three now? A no brainer really.


Comments are closed.