The Industry Misinformation and Deception on Pesticides, Food Additives, and Chemical Safety Testing

In the previous articles in this series, I showed that the official requirements set by regulatory authorities for specific testing of pesticide-induced diseases in children are nearly non-existent. The OECD guidelines state that “Young healthy adult animals of commonly used laboratory strains should be employed.” The fetus, infant, and pubertal animals (i.e., children) are not tested [1].

The developing fetus, young children, and adolescents going through puberty are three critical stages in human development that are completely overlooked in the guidelines for diseases, endocrine disruption, and cancer. There is no published scientific evidence-based testing demonstrating that any of the current chemicals and pesticides are safe for our children, as there is no requirement to specifically evaluate their safety.

By deliberately avoiding testing, the pesticide cartels and their captive regulators can claim that their studies show no evidence of harm. A classic example is glyphosate. Whenever a study presents evidence of harm, the pesticide cartels and regulators assert that their studies prove it is safe when used as directed. Consequently, they take no action.

A landmark study on glyphosate by Panzacchi et al. was published on June 10, 2025, examining total lifetime exposure to the so-called ‘safe’ levels to which most people are subjected [2].

In this long-term study, the first of its kind, pure glyphosate and two glyphosate-based herbicide formulations were administered to rats through drinking water starting from prenatal life (to the pregnant mothers) at doses of 0.5, 5, and 50 mg/kg body weight per day for a duration of two years. The lower doses in this study are currently considered safe by regulatory authorities.

0.5 mg/kg is four times lower than the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed ‘safe’ level of 2 mg/kg body weight per day [3].

The study found that the lowest dose of 0.5 mg/kg, along with all the other levels, led to increased rates of both benign and malignant tumors at various anatomic sites compared to the controls. These tumors were found in multiple tissues, including hemolymphoreticular tissues (leukemia), skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas, uterus, and spleen (hemangiosarcoma).

Increased incidences were observed in both sexes. Most of these involved tumors that are rare in Sprague Dawley rats (background incidence < 1%), with 40% of leukemia deaths in the treated groups occurring early in life. Increased early deaths were also noted for other solid tumors.

“We observed early onset and early mortality for a number of rare malignant cancers, 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, comparable to less than 35-40 years of age in humans. By contrast, no case of leukemia was observed in the first year of age in more than 1600 Sprague Dawley historical controls in carcinogenicity studies conducted by the Ramazzini Institute and the National Toxicology Program (NTP),” stated Dr. Daniele Mandrioli, Director of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the Ramazzini Institute and the Principal Investigator of the study [4].

This study confirms evidence from earlier research, including those by the IARC and Seralini et al., among many others. It also validates the accuracy of “Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America,” where Dr. Nancy Swanson, our co-authors, and I demonstrated how glyphosate and GMOs are linked to over 20 chronic diseases in the U.S.

In the chart below, we illustrate the strong correlation between the increase in glyphosate usage and the rise in thyroid cancer. Through standard statistical analysis, we demonstrated a 10,000-to-1 probability linking glyphosate use to the increase in thyroid cancer [5].

The Panzacchi et al. study has detected a greater variety of cancers because it is the first study to include the developing fetus, young children, and adolescents in the total lifetime exposure to small ‘safe’ amounts of glyphosate [2].

This study is among the few where both the treated and control animals were fed organic food. In most trials, animals are given non-organic food, exposing both treated and untreated groups to pesticide residues. This should invalidate any claims that pesticides do not cause harm. How can regulators claim there are no significant differences between the treated animals and the untreated controls when both groups are exposed to pesticides through their food?

This Study Raises Serious Issues about Pesticide Regulation

The results of Panzacchi et al. raise serious issues about why it has taken decades to conduct this type of study to uncover the massive extent of multiple cancers caused by glyphosate.

As an example, the EPA’s fact sheet on glyphosate states: “The EPA conducted a dietary risk assessment for glyphosate based on a worst-case risk scenario, that is, assuming that 100 percent of all possible commodities/acreage were treated, and assuming that tolerance-level residues remained in/on all treated commodities. The Agency concluded that the chronic dietary risk posed by glyphosate food uses is minimal.”

“A reference dose (RfD), or estimate of daily exposure that would not cause adverse effects throughout a lifetime, of 2 mg/kg/day has been proposed for glyphosate, based on the developmental toxicity studies described above.” [3]

So, how did the EPA’s risk assessment studies fail to find leukemia, skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas, uterus, and spleen cancers, yet conclude that the chronic dietary risk from glyphosate food uses is minimal?

The Deception of Pesticide Testing

The testing of pesticides is intentionally misleading, designed to overlook the vast majority of diseases that occur at their normal rates in people. The testing methodologies can only indicate whether a compound causes health problems; however, they lack the sensitivity to demonstrate safety for significant portions of the human population. A failure to identify adverse health events does not prove safety.

It is crucial to examine these guidelines to understand why.

The Best Practices Testing Guidelines Produce Misinformation

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals are regarded as best practices for testing animals for diseases caused by chemicals like pesticides and are comparable to most established good practice testing guidelines.

Guideline 451 of the OECD is used for testing chemicals, such as pesticides, suspected of causing cancer. It requires that “Each dose group and concurrent control group should therefore contain at least 50 animals of each sex.” This group consists of 100 animals, equally divided between males and females. The guidelines also state that “At least three dose levels and a concurrent control should be used” [1].

This means that there must be a control group of 100 animals that are not treated with the chemical. Additionally, there will be three other groups of 100 animals each that receive different dosages of the chemical at the highest, middle, and lowest levels. The number of cancers in each of the treated groups is compared to the number of cancers in the control group. If the cancer rates are the same between the treated and control groups, it is concluded that the cancers were not caused by the chemical. It is assumed that the cancers were due to another factor, since the control group has not been exposed to the chemical and therefore cannot be the cause of the cancers in that group.

The proponents of this methodology argue that the findings indicate a chemical or pesticide does not cause cancer.

However, this method has significant flaws. If one of the treated groups of animals shows one additional case of cancer compared to the control group, it leads to one cancer case for every 100 animals. This represents the lowest theoretical detection rate, indicating that cancer would only be identified if the pesticide caused more than 1,000 cases of cancer per 100,000 people. It would overlook lower cancer rates, which reflect the actual incidence of cancer in our society.

Disease rates are categorized by the number of individuals with the disease per 100,000 people. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the United States, the rates of common cancers include 57.5 cases of lung cancer per 100,000, 38 cases of colon and rectum cancers per 100,000, 18.4 cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma per 100,000, 13.2 cases of leukemias per 100,000, 12.8 cases of pancreatic cancer per 100,000, and 8.3 cases of liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancers per 100,000 [6].

Consequently, although no evidence of cancer was found in the dosed groups, the study may overlook a chemical that could cause the most common cancers. According to the CDC, in 2015, the rate of breast cancer was 124.8 per 100,000 women, prostate cancer was 99.1 per 100,000 men, ovarian cancer was 11 per 100,000 women, cervical cancer was 7.6 per 100.000 women, and testicular cancer was 5.6 per 100.000 men [6].

For cancer rates below 1,000 people per 100,000, there is no statistically valid way to determine whether the chemical in question can cause cancer in a group of 100 treated animals that showed no signs of cancer. All cancers currently found in our communities will be ignored. Consequently, they are disregarded in the vast majority of testing. This is why it is scientific fraud to pretend these studies show minimal risk.

The Cover-up of Diseases Other Than Cancer

Guideline 408 of the OECD is for toxicology testing related to diseases. It requires that “at least 20 animals (ten female and ten male) should be used at each dose level.” Similar to cancer guideline 451, guideline 408 states: “At least three dose levels and a concurrent control should be used.”

Under guideline 408, 1 in 20 animals with a disease indicates that the disease could only be detected at a minimum of 5,000 cases per 100,000 people. For sex-specific diseases, such as endometriosis and declines in fertility, the level of disease detection will increase to 10,000 cases per 100,000 people. This means that if the highest dose group finds no evidence of disease, it could easily overlook a chemical that might cause a disease epidemic [1].

Most importantly, the OECD guidelines cannot test for many diseases that affect our communities. For example, the CDC provides the following statistics for some major diseases in the United States: 1,600 people per 100,000 have liver disease, kidney disease affects 2,000 people per 100,000, and stroke impacts 3,000 people per 100,000. The current best practice guidelines overlook these diseases, as they can only detect ailments with a minimum of 5,000 cases per 100,000 people. The only way to achieve this statistically is to use at least 100,000 test animals [7].

Using 100,000 animals would be both costly and impractical. Animal testing raises serious concerns about inhumane cruelty. The reality is that current animal testing guidelines cannot detect diseases at levels that occur in human society, so they should be banned. In today’s world, there is no justification for the inhumane treatment of animals, especially when there are no proven benefits. Numerous other methodologies exist to identify the causes of diseases and ill health. These methods can be combined to consider the totality of evidence and build a strong case for the causes, rather than relying on animal testing [8].

There is No Scientific Proof of Safety for Pesticides, Additives, and Chemicals in our Food

There is no scientific proof supporting the safety of current pesticides, additives, and chemicals in our food, body care products, and household items. Aside from pesticides, most substances go untested, and when testing occurs, it is often designed to deliberately and deceptively ignore the vast majority of diseases as they typically manifest. The testing methodologies can only indicate whether a compound leads to health problems; however, they are not sensitive enough to demonstrate safety for significant portions of the human population. The absence of documented adverse health events does not equate to proof of safety.

References

1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, Health Effects, ISSN: 20745788 (online) https://doi.org/10.1787/20745788, accessed May 12, 2020.

2. 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). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-025-01187-2
3. EPA R.E.D. FACTS Glyphosate, https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/fs_PC-417300_1-Sep-93.pdf
4. Dr. Daniele Mandrioli, International Study Reveals Glyphosate Weed Killers Cause Multiple Types of Cancer, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute. https://glyphosatestudy.org/news/, June 10, 2025

5. Nancy L. Swanson, Andre Leu, Jon Abrahamson, and Bradley Wallet, Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America, Journal of Organic Systems, 9(2), 2014
6. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool, based on November 2017 submission data (1999–2015): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; www.cdc.gov/cancer/dataviz, June 2018.
7. Chronic Disease Data, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/data/statistics.htm, accessed Oct 31, 2019.
8. Leu, Andre, Poisoning our children, the parents’ guide to the myths of safe pesticides, Acres U.S.A. Greely, Colorado, USA 2018, ISBN 978-1-601-73140-1.