Skip to main content

Table 2 Long-term chronic dietary exposure toxicity and carcinogenicity studies of glyphosate excluded from this evaluation

From: A comprehensive analysis of the animal carcinogenicity data for glyphosate from chronic exposure rodent carcinogenicity studies

Study Reference

Duration (months)

Strain

Dietary exposure dose levels (mg/kg/day)

Animals per Group

Purity (%)

Reason for exclusion

Mouse

Rat

Reyna and Gordon (1973) [24]

18

SWMa

 

M: 0, 17,50

F: 0, 17,50

50

NPb

EPA [25] concluded this study was likely falsified

Pavkov and Turner (1987) [26]

24

CD-1

 

M: 0, 11.7, 118, 991

F: 0, 11.7, 118, 991

50

56.2

EPA [6] lists this study as completely negative for tumors but provides no tumor data. No tumor data is available for this study and the purity is low.

Reyna and Gordon (1974) [27]

24

 

SDc

Not available

70

13.8

EPA [25] concluded this study was likely falsified

Burnett et al. (1979) [28]

24

 

SDc

M: 0, 3.10.30

F: 0, 3,10,30

90

NPb

EPA initially reported this as a glyphosate study [29] but later removed it because it is a study of a contaminant of glyphosate [6].

Pavkov and Wyand (1987) [30]

24

 

SDc

M: 0, 4.2, 21.2, 41.8

F: 0, 5.4, 27, 55.7

80–90

56.2

EPA [6] lists this study as completely negative for tumors but provides very limited tumor data [31]. No tumor data is available for this study and the purity is low.

Excel (1997) [32]

24

 

SDc

M: 0, 150, 780, 1290

F: 0, 210, 1060, 1740

51

NPb

No tumor data available, regulatory agencies had concerns about the quality of the study and purity of the material being studied

Takahashi (1999b) [33]

24

 

Fd

M: 0, 25, 201, 1750

F: 0, 29.7, 239, 2000

50

NPb

This study is only mentioned by JMPR [7] and showed body weight changes at the highest exposure which probably exceeded the MTD. No tumor data were provided although JMPR concluded there is no increased carcinogenicity.

Chruscielska (2000) [34]

24

 

We

M: 1.9, 5.9, 17

F: 0, 2.2, 6.5, 19

85

GBHf

Uncertainty in the material used in the study and poor reporting in the study. Note: this study is in drinking water

  1. aSwiss white mouse; bPurity not provided; cSprague-Dawley rat; dFischer F344 rats; eWistar rats; fglyphosate-based herbicide (13.8% solution, probably Perzocyd according to Greim et al. [9])