Roundup and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (2026): A Comprehensive Evidence-Based Authority Report

Executive Overview

Few environmental health controversies have generated as much scientific, legal, and public debate as the relationship between Roundup (a glyphosate-based herbicide) and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Regulatory agencies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reached different conclusions. Meanwhile, juries awarded billions in damages against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer.

This report evaluates:

  • The epidemiologic data

  • Regulatory risk assessments

  • Mechanistic toxicology

  • Litigation outcomes

  • Absolute vs relative risk

  • Occupational vs consumer exposure

  • Systems-level environmental carcinogenesis

All major claims below are linked to primary or authoritative sources.

1. What Is Glyphosate and Why Is It So Widely Used?

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Introduced in 1974, it became dominant because:

  • It targets the plant shikimate pathway (absent in humans)

  • It is broad-spectrum

  • It is cost-effective

  • It integrates well with genetically modified crops

After patent expiration in 2000, global production expanded dramatically.

However, Roundup formulations include surfactants and adjuvants. Toxicology studies sometimes show greater biological effects from full formulations than from glyphosate alone.

Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT, published a book, "Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate Is Destroying Our Health and the Environment" (Available on Amazon)

2. Understanding Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) includes cancers of B-cells, T-cells, and NK cells. Major subtypes include:

  • Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

  • Follicular lymphoma

  • Mantle cell lymphoma

  • T-cell lymphomas

Known risk factors include:

  • Immunosuppression

  • Autoimmune disorders

  • Viral infections (EBV, HIV)

  • Certain chemical exposures

The incidence rise from the 1970s onward prompted investigation into pesticide exposures.


3. The 2015 IARC Classification

In 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as:

Group 2A — Probably carcinogenic to humans

IARC’s evaluation can be accessed here:
https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/

What IARC Found

  • Limited evidence in humans (mainly NHL case-control studies)

  • Sufficient evidence in animals

  • Mechanistic evidence (genotoxicity, oxidative stress)

Important: IARC assesses hazard, not exposure-specific risk.


4. Regulatory Agency Risk Assessments

4.1 U.S. EPA

The EPA’s 2020 Interim Registration Review concluded glyphosate is:

“Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at labeled exposure levels.

Full EPA human health risk assessment PDF:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/glyphosate_issue_paper_evaluation_of_carcincogenic_potential.pdf

EPA emphasizes:

  • Dose-response modeling

  • Lack of consistent tumor patterns

  • Cohort study evidence

4.2 Europe: EFSA & ECHA

EFSA and ECHA concluded available data do not support classifying glyphosate as carcinogenic under EU regulatory standards.

EFSA assessment overview:
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/glyphosate

ECHA classification decision:
https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/glyphosate


5. Epidemiologic Evidence: What Do Human Studies Show?

5.1 The 2019 Meta-Analysis

A widely cited meta-analysis found up to a 41% increased risk of NHL in highest exposure groups.

PubMed link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31342895/

Full text summary:
https://gmoresearch.org/gmo_article/exposure-to-glyphosate-based-herbicides-and-risk-for-non-hodgkin-lymphoma-a-meta-analysis-and-supporting-evidence/

Key nuance:

  • Association strongest in highest cumulative exposure groups

  • Lower exposure groups showed weaker or no association

  • Relative risk increase ≠ large absolute risk increase


5.2 Updated Review (2025)

A more recent comprehensive review evaluating updated epidemiologic and mechanistic data:

PubMed link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41318253/

Earlier foundational review (2021):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34052177/

These reviews argue that cumulative evidence supports a causal interpretation, particularly in occupational exposure contexts.


5.3 Agricultural Health Study (AHS)

The Agricultural Health Study followed ~54,000 pesticide applicators.

Study homepage:
https://aghealth.nih.gov/

Key findings:

  • No statistically significant association with overall NHL

  • Some suggestive subtype-specific signals

Strengths:

  • Prospective design

  • Reduced recall bias

Criticisms:

  • Exposure misclassification possible

  • Limited power for rare subtypes


6. Mechanistic Evidence

6.1 Oxidative Stress

Laboratory models suggest glyphosate exposure may increase reactive oxygen species, potentially contributing to DNA damage.

6.2 Genotoxicity

Some in vitro assays show DNA strand breaks; however, in vivo replication has been inconsistent.

6.3 Immune Modulation

Because NHL arises from immune cells, immune dysregulation is biologically plausible. Chronic low-grade immune activation is a known carcinogenic driver in lymphomas.


7. Litigation: Scientific vs Legal Standards

Major verdicts include:

Recent example (Associated Press coverage):
https://apnews.com/article/7f903acb350dd6f6ce09b102914eabc1

Juries awarded billions based on:

  • Internal corporate documents

  • Failure-to-warn arguments

  • Expert testimony

Legal causation ≠ scientific consensus.


8. Scientific Integrity Controversies

In 2025, reporting highlighted ethical concerns and retraction issues surrounding certain glyphosate-related publications.

Guardian report:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/05/monsanto-roundup-safety-study-retracted

This further fueled public distrust and amplified debate.


9. Absolute vs Relative Risk Explained

If baseline lifetime NHL risk ≈ 2%:

A 40% relative increase → ~2.8% lifetime risk.

For occupational workers, this increase may be meaningful.

For typical consumer exposure, estimated risk increase appears much smaller.

Risk magnitude matters in policy and communication.


10. Occupational vs Consumer Exposure

High-Exposure Groups

  • Licensed pesticide applicators

  • Agricultural workers

  • Groundskeepers

General Population

  • Intermittent residential users

  • Dietary residue exposure within regulatory tolerance

Biomonitoring studies show detectable urinary glyphosate in many populations, but typically at low levels with rapid excretion.


11. Why the Scientific Divide Persists

Several drivers:

  • Hazard vs risk framework differences

  • Formulation vs active ingredient debate

  • Variability in exposure measurement

  • Litigation-driven polarization

  • Institutional trust erosion

This debate reflects broader tensions in environmental health science.


12. Systems-Level Environmental Carcinogenesis

Cancer rarely arises from a single exposure.

Interacting variables include:

  • Chronic inflammation

  • Immune dysregulation

  • Metabolic health

  • Genetic susceptibility

  • Chemical co-exposures

Glyphosate, if causal, likely represents one factor in a multifactorial network.


13. Global Policy Landscape (2026)

Some jurisdictions have:

  • Restricted public use

  • Implemented buffer zones

  • Reassessed registration approvals

However, glyphosate remains widely approved globally.


14. What Would Definitive Proof Require?

To establish causation conclusively:

  • Clear dose-response gradient

  • Consistent subtype-specific association

  • Replicable mechanistic validation

  • Strong temporal consistency

Current evidence remains suggestive but not definitive.


15. Practical Risk Mitigation

Occupational

  • Personal protective equipment

  • Minimize aerosolization

  • Strict adherence to label instructions

  • Consider integrated weed management alternatives

Consumers

  • Wash produce

  • Diversify diet

  • Avoid unnecessary residential spraying


16. Evidence-Weighted Conclusion (2026)

Based on the totality of evidence:

  1. Mechanistic plausibility exists at sufficient exposure levels.

  2. Epidemiologic evidence suggests possible increased NHL risk in heavily exposed occupational groups.

  3. Large cohort studies do not demonstrate a strong overall association.

  4. Regulatory agencies conclude typical exposure levels are unlikely to pose significant cancer risk.

  5. Litigation outcomes reflect jury evaluation of evidence and corporate conduct, not definitive scientific consensus.

Balanced synthesis:

The strongest evidence supports cautious occupational exposure management while not supporting widespread panic regarding consumer-level exposure.


Final Perspective

The Roundup–lymphoma debate represents a case study in:

  • Scientific uncertainty

  • Regulatory philosophy differences

  • Corporate accountability

  • Risk communication challenges

As of 2026:

  • Glyphosate remains widely used

  • Scientific debate continues

  • Regulatory frameworks vary

  • High-exposure contexts warrant careful monitoring

Future clarity will depend on:

  • Updated cohort data

  • Subtype-specific lymphoma research

  • Formulation-specific toxicology

  • Improved cumulative exposure quantification

Until then, the issue remains a dose-dependent probability question — not a binary certainty.

Comments

Labels

Show more

Archive

Show more

Popular posts from this blog

Ivermectin and Fenbendazole: Treating Turbo Cancer - Dr William Makis

Fenbendazole, Ivermectin and Mebendazole Cancer Success Stories: 567 Case Reports Compilation (February 2026 Edition)

Fenbendazole Joe Tippens Protocol: A Step-by-Step Guide (2025)

Ivermectin, Fenbendazole and Mebendazole Protocol in Cancer: Peer-Reviewed Protocol in Cancer

Dr William Makis Ivermectin Protocol 2026 – Complete Guide + Patient Outcomes

DMSO 101: Benefits, Uses, Dosage and Side Effects (2026)

Best Ivermectin Dosage for Humans with Cancer or Different Cancer Types (2026)

Best Fenbendazole Dosage for Humans: Safety, Side Effects and Efficacy Examined (2026)

Fenbendazole and Ivermectin for Prostate Cancer? A Case Series of 64 Patients (February 2026 Edition)

Stage 4 Cancer Remissions with Fenbendazole, Ivermectin and Mebendazole: 318 Case Reports Compilation (February 2026 Edition)