The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has completed several scientific assessments of glyphosate since it was first registered:
- Final regulatory position: Consideration of the evidence for a formal reconsideration of glyphosate – March 2017
- Proposed regulatory position report – September 2016
- Review of IARC Monograph 112 (Glyphosate): Tier 1 – September 2016
- Review of IARC Monograph 112 (Glyphosate): Tier 2 – September 2016
- 1996 Reconsideration of Glyphosate
The APVMA’s Regulatory Position Report – March 2017
The APVMA evaluated the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph 112 (Glyphosate) in 2016. We considered the IARC report and other up-to-date scientific publications to decide whether a formal reconsideration of glyphosate was required. The APVMA concluded that glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans and that there was no reason to commence a formal reconsideration.
We invited comments from the public about the proposed regulatory position on glyphosate and assessed the comments received on this report. No scientific evidence relating to the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate not already considered by the APVMA was submitted during the public consultation. You can read the full assessment in the Final regulatory position report.
Assessment of the 2016 IARC report by the APVMA
The APVMA conducted a weight-of-evidence1 evaluation, which included a review of the IARC monograph completed by the Australian Commonwealth Department of Health. The review by the Department of Health was conducted in 2 phases. The first phase (Tier 1) identified studies relied on by IARC, which should be reviewed in more detail. The second phase (Tier 2) involved a detailed assessment of those studies. The result of these assessments is described in the Final regulatory position report.
We keep a close watch on new scientific studies that may indicate whether this position should be revised. A full list of peer-reviewed scientific articles about glyphosate considered by the APVMA is available for download from our website.
1 In the weight-of-evidence assessment used by regulators, relevant observations are validated because different investigators reproduce them independently. A weight-of-evidence assessment considers both the number of studies reporting a particular conclusion and the quality of the study design and data analysis. A strength-of-evidence assessment can be based on a single study, even if the study protocol has limitations or does not comply with internationally accepted regulatory protocols, or if the results are not consistent with observations made in other well-designed studies. Regulators do not use strength-of-evidence assessments.