Although its chemical approval process is presented by the European Union (EU) as being science-led and independent, journalists uncovered that the pesticide manufacturers themselves – organized in the so-called ‘Glyphosate Renewal Group’ (GRG) – were responsible for compiling and filtering the scientific literature. As a result, from more than 12,000 glyphosate studies initially identified, over 98 percent were excluded, leaving just 191 studies deemed to supposedly be relevant and reliable.
The journalists revealed that independent, peer-reviewed glyphosate studies indicating environmental harm, cancer risk, DNA damage, or adverse birth outcomes caused by the weedkiller were repeatedly dismissed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on technical grounds. In contrast, industry-funded studies and industry-drafted language were often incorporated directly into official assessment reports. European regulators also focused narrowly on glyphosate as a single chemical, excluding studies of real-world commercial formulations – despite evidence these mixtures may be more toxic – thus allowing potentially serious risks to be downplayed.
To learn the shocking truth about the EU’s historical origins, read our book, The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’.
Vitamin C Shields Lung Cells from Common Air-Pollution Damage
December 12, 2025Meta-Analysis Supports Vitamin K2s Bone Health Benefits
December 12, 2025How the Chemical Industry Doctored a New European Union Approval of a Contested Pesticide
News
There is growing evidence that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used weedkiller, carries serious risks for human health and the environment. Even so, in December 2023, the European Union (EU) re-approved its use for another ten years. An international team of journalists found that the chemical industry shapes the very documents on which regulators rely.
[Source: investigativedesk.com]
[Image source: Freepik]
Comment
Although its chemical approval process is presented by the European Union (EU) as being science-led and independent, journalists uncovered that the pesticide manufacturers themselves – organized in the so-called ‘Glyphosate Renewal Group’ (GRG) – were responsible for compiling and filtering the scientific literature. As a result, from more than 12,000 glyphosate studies initially identified, over 98 percent were excluded, leaving just 191 studies deemed to supposedly be relevant and reliable.
The journalists revealed that independent, peer-reviewed glyphosate studies indicating environmental harm, cancer risk, DNA damage, or adverse birth outcomes caused by the weedkiller were repeatedly dismissed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on technical grounds. In contrast, industry-funded studies and industry-drafted language were often incorporated directly into official assessment reports. European regulators also focused narrowly on glyphosate as a single chemical, excluding studies of real-world commercial formulations – despite evidence these mixtures may be more toxic – thus allowing potentially serious risks to be downplayed.
To learn the shocking truth about the EU’s historical origins, read our book, The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’.
Dr. Rath Health Foundation
Related posts
The Grand Canyon’s Water is Supposed to be Pristine. Scientists Just Found Pharmaceuticals in It
Read more