Proposed Rule: Glyphosate Open Literature Search to Inform Human Health Risk Assessment Regulations.gov Document ID: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-14449" target="_self"><ins>EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-14449</ins></a> Comment Period: August 25, 2026 to November 23, 2026 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
View the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/user-notice" target="_self"><ins>terms of participation</ins></a> and <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice" target="_self"><ins>privacy notice</ins></a> for Regulations.gov. All comments made on <a href="http://regulations.gov" target="_self"><ins>regulations.gov</ins></a> action centers will be public comments, so we encourage action-takers not to include personally identifiable information in their messages.
STOP THE EPA FROM USING CORPORATE JUNK SCIENCE TO RE-APPROVE GLYPHOSATE
The EPA must consider ALL INDUSTRY-INDEPENDENT peer-reviewed studies showing the health harms of glyphosate rather than relying on studies funded, conducted, or ghost-written by Monsanto or other biased companies that profit from its sale.
The EPA is working to finalize its registration review of glyphosate, which is due to conclude in October 2026. The agency has opened a public comment docket and stated, “This open literature search is intended to inform the hazard assessment for the upcoming updated glyphosate human health risk assessment. EPA is soliciting comments on the completeness of the Agency's open literature search results, and this notice opens a comment period on the open literature search.”
For decades, the EPA has relied largely on a handful of industry-funded studies claiming glyphosate is safe to justify repeatedly re-approving its use.
One cornerstone study published in 2000 in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology was retracted by the journal at the end of 2025. The study “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans,” was found to be ghostwritten by Monsanto and “the study's conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate are based solely on unpublished studies from Monsanto,” according to the journal’s editor.
The EPA relied on a fraudulent study to justify re-registering glyphosate—putting industry interests ahead of public health.
The retraction of that study underscores the need for the EPA to take a hard look at the overwhelming body of independent, peer-reviewed science linking glyphosate to serious health harms. The agency must consider the full weight of the evidence—not cherry-pick industry-friendly studies to justify keeping this toxic chemical on the market.
<a href="http://gmoresearch.org" target="_self"><ins>GMOResearch.org</ins></a>, a project of GMO/Toxin Free USA, is the most comprehensive database of peer-reviewed research on genetically modified organisms and related pesticides used on GMO crops, such as glyphosate. <a href="https://gmoresearch.org/?s=glyphosate%2Bhealth&asp_active=1&p_asid=3&p_asp_data=1&asp_gen[]=content&asp_gen[]=title&aspf[author__4]=&aspf[publisher_name__3]=&customset[]=gmo_article&device=1&filters_initial=1&filters_changed=0&qtranslate_lang=0&current_page_id=14432" target="_self"><ins>The database contains over 500 health-related glyphosate studies.</ins></a>
There are many modes of action by which glyphosate causes health harms. The EPA must review every health-related study and take those studies into consideration as the agency continues its review of glyphosate. If this EPA is following “Gold Standard Science” as its administrator Lee Zeldin claims, ad nauseam, then the agency must consider each and every health-related study in the database.
Make your voice heard! Tell the EPA to stop cherry-picking corporate science and review ALL independent, peer-reviewed studies in the database. Submit your comment today and demand the science-based action the American people deserve.
TAKE ACTION TODAY. Submit a comment to the EPA. Use the pre-written comment, and if you have a minute, edit the comment text to make it your own.

Tell the EPA: Review ALL the Science on Glyphosate!

EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-14449 Glyphosate Open Literature Search to Inform Human Health Risk Assessment

Comment for Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-14449

The EPA must stop putting corporate profits ahead of public health. As the agency moves toward finalizing its registration review of glyphosate, it must consider the full body of independent, peer-reviewed science—not cherry-pick industry-funded studies that claim this toxic chemical is safe.

For decades, the EPA has relied heavily on a small number of industry-funded studies to justify repeatedly re-approving glyphosate. One of those cornerstone studies, published in 2000 in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, was retracted at the end of 2025 after the journal’s editor determined that it had been ghostwritten by Monsanto. The editor also stated that the study’s conclusions regarding glyphosate’s carcinogenicity were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies.

This is not “Gold Standard Science.” It is a glaring example of why corporate-funded research must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny—and why the EPA must stop treating industry assurances as scientific truth.

The EPA cannot claim to follow the science while ignoring the science that threatens industry profits.

GMOResearch.org, a project of GMO/Toxin Free USA, contains more than 1,300 industry-independent, peer-reviewed glyphosate studies, including over 500 health-related studies. This research represents a substantial body of evidence that deserves the agency’s full and careful consideration.

Glyphosate—and full-formula herbicides containing it—has been linked to a long list of cancers at exposure levels well below the EPA’s daily consumption tolerance levels. Reported cancers include leukemia and cancers of the skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine, pancreas, uterus, and spleen, with increased incidences observed in both sexes. But cancer is only part of the story. Glyphosate is also a patented antibiotic and chelator and has been found to be genotoxic, neurotoxic, an endocrine disruptor, and a developmental toxin. The evidence demands that the EPA take these risks seriously and put public health before corporate interests.

I urge the EPA to:
1. Review every relevant independent, peer-reviewed study on glyphosate’s potential health effects. Glyphosate health studies here: tinyurl.com/GlyphosateHealthStudies
2. Consider the full weight of the scientific evidence, including studies linking glyphosate to cancer and other serious health harms.
3. Identify and disclose all industry-funded, industry-conducted, and industry-ghostwritten studies relied upon in the risk assessment.
4. Exclude fraudulent or scientifically compromised studies from serving as the foundation for regulatory decisions.
5. Explain how the agency evaluates conflicting evidence and ensures that industry influence does not override independent science.
6. Refuse to re-register glyphosate—the full body of credible evidence demonstrates unacceptable risks to human health.

The EPA’s open literature search must be genuinely comprehensive. It must not become another exercise in selecting the studies that support a predetermined conclusion.

If the EPA truly stands for “Gold Standard Science,” then prove it. Review the evidence. Follow the science. Protect the public—not the pesticide industry.

Glyphosate’s future must be determined by credible science, not corporate junk science. Glyphosate must be banned based on the overwhelming scientific evidence of harm to human health.

Action REG Federal EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-14449 Glyphosate Literature

GMO/Toxin Free USA

Comment for Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-14449

I am writing to demand that the EPA conduct a thorough, transparent, and scientifically rigorous review of glyphosate that considers the full body of independent, peer-reviewed research—not just the industry-funded studies that have long been used to justify its continued registration.

For decades, the EPA has relied heavily on a handful of industry-funded studies claiming glyphosate is safe. The retraction of a cornerstone study, “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans,” raises serious questions about the integrity of the science underlying the agency’s past decisions. According to the journal’s editor, the study was ghostwritten by Monsanto, and its conclusions regarding glyphosate’s carcinogenicity relied solely on unpublished Monsanto studies.

The EPA must not allow corporate junk science to determine the future of public health.

A credible risk assessment cannot cherry-pick industry-friendly research while ignoring studies that raise serious concerns about glyphosate’s effects on human health.

GMOResearch.org, a project of GMO/Toxin Free USA, contains more than 1,300 industry-independent, peer-reviewed glyphosate studies, including over 500 health-related studies. This extensive body of research deserves the EPA’s careful and comprehensive consideration.

Glyphosate—as well as full formula herbicides that contain it—has been linked to a long list of cancers at exposure levels well below EPA’s daily consumption tolerance levels. Linked cancers include leukemia, skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine, pancreas, uterus and spleen with increased incidences in both sexes. Not just carcinogenic, glyphosate is a patented antibiotic and chelator and has been found to be genotoxic, neurotoxic, an endocrine disruptor and developmental toxin.

I urge the EPA to:
1. Review every relevant independent, peer-reviewed study concerning glyphosate’s potential effects on human health, including the health-related studies compiled in GMOResearch.org. Glyphosate health studies here: tinyurl.com/GlyphosateHealthStudies
2. Exclude reliance on fraudulent, ghostwritten, or otherwise compromised studies in determining glyphosate’s safety.
3. Disclose all studies and evidence used in the updated human health risk assessment, including the sources of funding, authorship, and any industry involvement.
4. Give appropriate weight to independent scientific research documenting glyphosate’s potential carcinogenic, reproductive, developmental, neurological, and other health harms.
5. Put public health ahead of corporate profits and ensure that glyphosate’s registration is not renewed because the full body of credible scientific evidence demonstrates that it cannot be used without unacceptable risks to human health.

The EPA has stated that its open literature search is intended to inform the updated glyphosate human health risk assessment. This is an opportunity for the agency to demonstrate that its commitment to “Gold Standard Science” means considering all relevant evidence—not simply the studies most convenient for industry.

The public deserves a glyphosate review based on science, transparency, and integrity. EPA must ensure that every relevant independent, peer-reviewed study is considered.

Do not let corporate junk science dictate public health policy. The EPA must do the right thing and put human health before corporate profits. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence linking glyphosate to serious health harms demands decisive action. The time for industry influence, regulatory loopholes, and business as usual is over. Ban glyphosate now and protect the health and safety of the American people.

Demand a Complete, Independent, and Science-Based Review of Glyphosate

Stop Using Corporate Junk Science to Re-Approve Glyphosate

Comment for Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-14449

I am submitting this comment to urge the EPA to conduct a complete, transparent, and scientifically rigorous review of glyphosate before finalizing its registration review in October 2026.

The agency’s updated human health risk assessment must include the full breadth of relevant independent, peer-reviewed scientific literature. It must not rely disproportionately on industry-funded studies while overlooking research documenting potential health harms.

The retraction of the 2000 study, “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans,” underscores the importance of this issue. According to the journal’s editor, the study was ghostwritten by Monsanto, and its conclusions regarding glyphosate’s carcinogenicity were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies.

A study’s publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not guarantee that its methods, authorship, or conclusions are free from corporate influence. The EPA must examine the integrity of the evidence it relies upon, particularly when that evidence is used to justify continued exposure to a widely used pesticide.

GMOResearch.org, a project of GMO/Toxin Free USA, contains more than 1,300 industry-independent, peer-reviewed glyphosate studies, including over 500 health-related studies. The EPA must ensure that relevant studies in this body of research are identified, evaluated, and considered in its updated risk assessment.

The dangers of glyphosate go far beyond cancer. Glyphosate—and the full-formula herbicides that contain it—has been linked to cancers affecting numerous organs, including leukemia and cancers of the skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas, uterus, and spleen. Increased incidences have been observed in both sexes, at exposure levels well below the EPA’s daily consumption tolerance levels. Glyphosate is also a patented antibiotic and chelator and has been found to be genotoxic, neurotoxic, an endocrine disruptor, and a developmental toxin. When the science points to this many serious health risks, the EPA must stop looking the other way and act to protect the public. 

I respectfully request that the EPA:
1. Conduct a comprehensive review of all relevant independent, peer-reviewed studies concerning glyphosate and human health. Glyphosate health studies here: tinyurl.com/GlyphosateHealthStudies
2. Clearly identify the funding sources, authorship, and industry involvement associated with studies used in the risk assessment.
3. Reassess the weight given to industry-funded studies in light of evidence of ghostwriting and compromised scientific integrity.
4. Consider the full range of potential health effects, including carcinogenicity, reproductive harm, developmental effects, and neurological impacts.
5. Publish a transparent explanation of how the agency evaluates conflicting scientific evidence.
6. Ensure that the final registration decision reflects the complete body of credible science and protects public health.

The EPA has stated that its open literature search is intended to inform the updated glyphosate human health risk assessment. The agency must fulfill that responsibility with rigor and transparency.
The public deserves confidence that pesticide registration decisions are based on sound science—not corporate influence. There is overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating that glyphosate causes significant human health harms. Glyphosate must be banned to protect human health.