Is this Italian/US rodent trial the knock-out blow for glyphosate permissions on staple food crops?
Glyphosate remains on staple food crops due to the wilful blindness of regulatory agencies. Another study adds to evidence that this is immoral and unethical.
“In particular, tumor increases observed in our study are consistent with previous studies in SD rats for skin, liver, thyroid, sex cord-gonadal stroma, adrenal gland, kidney, and endocrine pancreas. Notably, in most cases the tumor increases were not only consistent in terms of target organ, but also in terms of sex.”
Data keeps piling up, and regulators dismiss and ignore them, because the studies aren't ‘guideline’. Therefore, even if there is a weight of evidence in the literature, and from the discovery process in court cases, the data isn't 'guideline'.
A jointly funded Italian and U.S. study was released in June 2025, and it closely adheres to regulatory guidelines:
Panzacchi, S., Tibaldi, E., De Angelis, L. et al. Carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure from prenatal life to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides in Sprague–Dawley rats. Environ Health 24, 36 (2025). Doi: 10.1186/s12940-025-01187-2
Sprague-Dawley rats fed three doses: the EU acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.5 mg/kg body weight/day, 5 mg/kg body weight/day and the EU no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 50 mg/kg body weight/day.
Control group plus 3 different test substances. The three concentrations selected for each test substance were 5, 50 and 500 mg/L of glyphosate in drinking water: the target exposure levels, based on mean water consumption (40 ml) and a mean body weight (400 g), corresponded to 0.5, 5 and 50 mg/kg bw/day.
3 different glyphosate test substances: The active ingredient (pure glyphosate), commercial GBH formulation Roundup Bio-flow and commercial formulation RangerPro.
Two-year carcinogenicity study: Commencement of dosing to parent females (F0) from gestational day 6. Offspring (F1) continued to be exposed after weaning until study termination at 104 weeks of age.
Total number of animals were 1020 (510 males and 510 females). F0 generation, 51 males and 51 females each for control, pure glyphosate and the two different glyphosate formulations. Each F1 experimental group was composed of 51 males and 51 females, belonging to the same treatment group as their exposed dams.
THE RESULTS ARE EYE-OPENING
Panzacchi et al (2025) observed effects at doses equal or lower than the dose levels used in old trials that were used to arrive at the current European acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.5mg/kg bodyweight per day
of multiple benign and malignant tumors of blood, skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas and circulatory system.
The increases were in tumours that are rare in Sprague Dawley rats, the rodents selected for the trial. Early onset of harm was another finding:
We also observed early onset and early mortality for a number of rare malignant tumors, including leukemia, liver, ovary and nervous system tumors. Notably, approximately half of the deaths from leukemia seen in the glyphosate and GBHs treatment groups occurred at less than one year of age.
What did Panzacchi et al (2025) do that is so explosive?
They followed guideline protocols.
They did not exclude rodents from analysis who died at lowest levels of exposure.
They did not dismiss or downplay lesions and evidence of carcinogenicity by claiming that they were not treatment related or rare.
They compared against controls, rather than using historical range jargon to dismiss adverse effects.
They did not downplay or make it difficult to understand different impacts by sex.
They did not downplay effects due to a lack of a dose-response relationship.
They expanded the evidence on hormone-level effects from glyphosate exposures.
Quoting Panzacchi et al (2025):
Results: In all 3 treatment groups, statistically significant dose-related increased trends or increased incidences of benign and malignant tumors at multiple anatomic sites were observed compared to historical and concurrent controls. These tumors arose in haemolymphoreticular tissues (leukemia), skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas, uterus and spleen (hemangiosarcoma). Increased incidences occurred in both sexes. Most of these involved tumors that are rare in SD rats (background incidence < 1%) with 40% of leukemias deaths in the treated groups occurring before 52 weeks of age and increased early deaths were also observed for other solid tumors.
Conclusions: Glyphosate and GBHs at exposure levels corresponding to the EU ADI and the EU NOAEL caused dose-related increases in incidence of multiple benign and malignant tumors in SD rats of both sexes. Early-life onset and mortality were observed for multiple tumors. These results provide robust evidence supporting IARC’s conclusion that there is “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity [of glyphosate] in experimental animals”. Furthermore, our data are consistent with epidemiological evidence on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and GBHs.
To compare, let’s look at one example of what industry have done with their data for years:
This is the Atkinson study (page 138/466) that is the basis for the WHO ADI (acceptable daily intake) which forms the justification for current levels on staple crops:
At study termination, all surviving animals (and the premature decedents, if possible) were sacrificed and necropsied. Fifteen organs were removed and weighed and some 35 tissues were evaluated histologically from all surviving animals in the control group and at the highest dose, premature decedents being also examined in this way.
Do you see it?
Panzacchi are drawing attention to the high rate of deaths prior to 52 weeks. They’re studying all mortality at every dosing level.
This is just one example of how older glyphosate studies have historically dismissed and undermined effects that demonstrate the cancer potential of glyphosate.
Other notes:
The paper acknowledges limitations in the study design:
they could not separate out the impact from the co-formulants (adjuvants) used in the Roundup Bioflow and RangerPro products.
The toxicological relevance of increased incidences of rare tumors is difficult to evaluate.
‘Our data do not provide direct information on glyphosate tumorigenic mechanisms and mode(s) of action; however, by examining the available literature, we hypothesize that genotoxicity and endocrine disruption might be involved, but others mechanisms like defective DNA repair or tumor suppressor genes cannot be excluded.’
Why was the 2015 WHO IARC (Lyon based) finding of a probable carcinogen so explosive?
IARC looked at published data and white papers (see the Preamble) beyond just the guideline studies used by regulatory agencies.
IARC looked at studies reviewing the toxicity of the active ingredient glyphosate, and the full formulation.
If studies were secret, IARC did not consider them.
IARC did not dismiss evidence of tumour risk using lots of different reasons.
THE INDUSTRY SHELL-GAME - KEEPING OLD DATA RELEVANT
Industry-based scientists who have studied glyphosate have been aware of glyphosate's cancer risk for at least 35 years as the rodent studies would consistently show cancer risks. Because these are industry paid and contracted studies, the underlying data could remain hidden. These early studies in the 1980s and 1990s were undertaken before glyphosate was sprayed on staple food crops. Yet these studies stayed 'locked in' as key studies because they fitted with guidelines and protocols, such as dosing a particular number for a particular time and then looking for evidence of tumours.
The problem is - these studies get locked in as ‘divining’ the globally safe levels.
Glyphosate industry funded contractors, Kier and Kirkland supplied data that the US EPA relied heavily on, even though the underlying data appeared to be unavailable.
As the US EPA October 1, 2015 GLYPHOSATE: Report of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee noted, the IARC didn’t use their data. This is because it was hidden. However the US EPA did lean on this study for evidence.:
The CARC evaluated a total of 54 mutagenicity/genotoxicity studies which included studies submitted to the agency, as well as studies reported in the two review articles (Williams et al., 2000, and Kier and Kirkland, 2013). A number of studies reported in the review article by Kier and Kirkland (2013) were not considered by IARC. The CARC, based on a weight-of-evidence of the in vitro and in vivo studies, concluded that there is no concern for genotoxicity or mutagenicity.
Using unpublished 20-year-old data, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Drinking Water Guidelines 2017 claim that no formal guideline value is necessary and assert that exposures of glyphosate up to 0.9mg/L (or 900 μg/L) is safe, and maintaining that such a high level is unlikely to be detected.
The Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand have adopted the WHO’s perspective where 0.3mg/kg bodyweight a day is based on a 1981 Monsanto study set in 1985, and the dietary ADI level of 1mg/kg bodyweight is based on a 1993 Cheminova study and was set in 2006. That ADI level informs the global 'it's OK to spray glyphosate on staple food crops' logic - which are most clearly viewed on the Codex Alimentarius website.
Bio/Dynamics Inc. (1981a) A lifetime feeding study of glyphosate (Roundup technical) in rats. Unpublished report prepared by Bio/Dynamics Inc., Division of Biology and Safety Evaluation, East Millstone, NJ. Submitted to WHO by Monsanto Ltd. (Project No. 410/77; BDN-77-416). Also known as Lankas (1981)
Atkinson, C., Strutt, A.V., Henderson, W., Finch, J. & Hudson, P. (1993b) Glyphosate: 104 week combined chronic feeding/oncogenicity study in rats with 52 week interim kill (results after 104 weeks.). Unpublished report No. 7867, IRI project No. 438623, dated 7 April 1993, from Inveresk Research International, Tranent, Scotland. Submitted to WHO by Cheminova A/S, Lemvig, Denmark.
The public can look through these old studies to find the 1981 and 1993 studies, and see the game that has been played for years:
WHO/FAO JMPR (Geneva based) - Pesticide residues in food - 2004 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues. Glyphosate 158 pages 95-170.
US EPA - 1993 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED); Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs September 12, 2016
European Data - Available on Earth Open Source (includes links to data showing malformations in early glyphosate studies).
Simona Panzacchi and colleagues, we salute you and the hard work of the study and preparing the information for acceptance for publication!
AS LONG AS BAYER (BLACKROCK) IS PART OF THE GLOBALISTS IT WON'T STOP BECAUSE THIS PIOSON WAS INTENDED TO KILL PEOPLE AND THE GLOBALISTS THAT ARE IN CONTROL OF GOVTS, ESPECIALY THE WHO, ARE FULLY AWARE OF WHAT IS GOING ON ARE DEMANDING THAT GOVTS ALLOW GREATER AMOUNTS OF IT TO BE USED ON OUR FOODS.
Great study and great summary!