Federal agencies to collaborate to ‘strengthen’ review of glyphosate • Iowa Capital Dispatch

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services intends to partner with other federal agencies on research as the Environmental Protection Agency assesses the human health risks associated with glyphosate, a widely utilized pesticide.

A memorandum of understanding was recently announced between the two departments. This development arrives as the EPA conducts a registration review for the pesticide, and follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision favoring the manufacturer of Roundup, a glyphosate-based product, in litigation regarding the necessity of cancer warning labels.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stated in a news release that his department is contributing scientific expertise to “answer unresolved questions, strengthen the evidence, and give EPA the data it needs to conduct a rigorous review.”

“Americans have a right to know what the best science tells us about the chemicals they encounter in their food, workplaces, and environment,” Kennedy said. “We will ask the hard questions, demand sound science, and follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

During his career as an environmental attorney, Kennedy challenged pesticide companies in cancer-related lawsuits, including Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, which is now owned by Bayer. More recently, however, Kennedy has supported White House initiatives aimed at increasing domestic glyphosate production. Environmental organizations have suggested that Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” report was lenient toward pesticides.

The HHS news release noted that the memorandum of understanding does not “predetermine or direct the outcome of EPA’s glyphosate registration review,” which is scheduled for completion in early 2027.

Experts from the EPA and various HHS divisions—including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Toxicology Program, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration—will establish a technical working group. This team will “identify priority scientific questions” and coordinate research efforts in alignment with the EPA’s review timeline.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated that his agency is mandated to evaluate pesticides “against the best available science” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA.

“This agreement with Secretary Kennedy and HHS gives our scientists access to research capacity at HHS that addresses potential gaps in the record,” Zeldin said. “EPA will weigh what that work produces the way we weigh any other scientific evidence. We will evaluate the relevant evidence, address important scientific questions, and show our work, providing insight into how the science informs our decisions, as we always do, to conduct the most transparent and thorough review possible.”

The EPA’s previous review of glyphosate occurred in 2017, at which time the agency concluded the ingredient did not present “risks of concern to human health from current uses” and determined it was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

The EPA registration holds significant weight because it largely determines product labeling requirements. Litigation involving Roundup has focused on failure-to-warn claims, with plaintiffs arguing the company neglected to inform consumers that the product could potentially cause cancer.

Bayer maintains, consistent with the EPA’s stance, that the product is not carcinogenic and therefore does not require a warning label. The company, alongside the agriculture coalition Modern Ag Alliance, has also lobbied at both state and federal levels for legislation that would shield manufacturers from such lawsuits if their pesticide labels comply with EPA guidelines.

According to the HHS news release, the working group will prioritize “key areas” such as the toxicology of glyphosate formulas and surfactants, occupational epidemiology, and human and dietary exposure to the product. The release stated that additional research in these areas “can strengthen the evidence base available to EPA.”

The working group also plans to pinpoint “consequential data gaps” that might require further investigation, “including emerging areas such as the microbiome.”

To reevaluate the product, the EPA is examining new scientific literature published since the last registration to ensure the chemical continues to meet statutory standards as scientific understanding advances. The literature compiled by the agency for the upcoming human health risk assessment is available for public comment through Nov. 23, according to the Federal Register docket.

Materials generated by the HHS and EPA working group will also be made accessible to the public