Food Contaminants
glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma
In plain terms: Does glyphosate cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma?
Part of: 🔍 glyphosate
Not from food. For heavily exposed applicators the highest-exposure group does show elevated risk, though the biggest long-term study found none. A 2026 study suggests the other ingredients in the formulation, not glyphosate itself, may be what matters.
📅 Last reviewed: 2026-07-29 ⓘ
Evidence ladder
How far up the ladder this claim has climbed. A high consensus on a low rung means "consistent so far," not "proven in people."
Top evidence so far: All trials, pooled (Meta-analysis)
How the studies fall
What the evidence shows
The most contested claim in the hub, and the detail resolves the apparent deadlock better than the public fight does. Every major meta-analysis from 2016 onward shows the same shape: a clean or near-clean null for EVER having been exposed, with elevated risk of roughly 1.3 to 1.5 confined to the highest cumulative-exposure applicators.
The evidence (14)
| Source | Grade | Stance | Quality | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weisenburger DD. 2026 · study_type: observational | observational | supports | low | Narrative review (not a systematic pooling exercise), OCCUPATIONAL-exposure focus, arguing that recent epidemiologic, animal, and mechanistic studies (including a new rat carcinogenicity study and genotoxicity data) provide 'consistent, coh |
| Gagnier JJ et al 2026 · medRxiv | meta-analysis | mixed | moderate | OCCUPATIONAL/agricultural exposure meta-analysis (17 publications, 10 primary datasets: cohort + case-control + pooled analyses); ever-exposure OR=1.11 (95% CI 0.98-1.27, I2~53%) was null, but highest-exposure OR~1.38 (95% CI 1.00-1.90, I2~ |
| Donato F et al 2020 · La Medicina del lavoro | meta-analysis | mixed | moderate | OCCUPATIONAL exposure updated meta-analysis (18 publications; 7 non-overlapping NHL studies): overall meta-RR=1.03 (95% CI 0.86-1.21, clean null); highest-exposure category meta-RR=1.49 (95% CI 0.37-2.61, n.s., only 3 studies). Authors conc |
| Kabat GC et al 2021 · Cancer causes & control : CCC | meta-analysis | mixed | moderate | OCCUPATIONAL exposure reanalysis of the 6 studies underlying a prior NHL meta-analysis, testing sensitivity to exposure-definition and latency assumptions. Summary RR ranged from a null 1.05 (95% CI 0.87-1.28) for ever-exposure with no lag |
| Rana I et al 2023 · Chemosphere | mechanism | supports | moderate | Mechanism-tier systematic review (175 studies, >50,000 extracted data points) applying the 'key characteristics of carcinogens' framework to glyphosate/GBF in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro data (human and animal). Found strong evidence for ge |
| Panzacchi S et al 2025 · study_type: animal | animal | supports | moderate | EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL dosing (Sprague-Dawley rats, Ramazzini Institute Global Glyphosate Study; prenatal-onset exposure through 104 weeks) at the EU ADI (0.5 mg/kg/day), 5 mg/kg/day, and EU NOAEL (50 mg/kg/day) — doses framed as regulatory 's |
| Chang VC et al 2025 · study_type: observational | observational | supports | moderate | OCCUPATIONAL exposure (1,868 male pesticide applicators, buccal DNA, Agricultural Health Study — the same prospective cohort central to the NHL meta-analyses). High lifetime glyphosate use was associated with mosaic loss of chromosome Y, a |
| Tindle AN et al 2025 · study_type: animal | animal | supports | low | RESIDENTIAL/environmental exposure (pet dogs, Golden Retriever Lifetime Study, nested case-control); canine multicentric lymphoma is a classic comparative-oncology model invoked in the human NHL debate. DNA strand breaks were elevated at ly |
| Boffetta P et al 2021 · La Medicina del lavoro | meta-analysis | mixed | moderate | OCCUPATIONAL exposure updated meta-analysis (6 non-overlapping studies): ever-exposure meta-RR=1.05 (95% CI 0.90-1.24, I2=0%, clean null), highest-exposure meta-RR=1.15 (0.72-1.83, n.s.), but DLBCL-subtype meta-RR=1.29 (1.02-1.63, significa |
| Chang ET et al 2016 · Journal of environmental science and health. Part. B, Pesticides, food contaminants, and agricultural wastes | meta-analysis | mixed | low | OCCUPATIONAL exposure meta-analysis (6 studies for NHL): meta-RR=1.3 (95% CI 1.0-1.6), marginally significant with the CI lower bound sitting at the null; Hodgkin lymphoma and leukemia associations were null. Authors' own conclusion: eviden |
| Zhang L et al 2019 · Mutation research. Reviews in mutation research | meta-analysis | supports | moderate | OCCUPATIONAL exposure meta-analysis (5 case-control studies + the updated 2018 Agricultural Health Study cohort): meta-RR for highest cumulative GBH exposure = 1.41 (95% CI 1.13-1.75); using the earlier 2005 AHS update instead gave meta-RR= |
| MacLean J. 2026 · MetaArXiv | observational | supports | low | Non-peer-reviewed case-study/policy-analysis preprint (not epidemiological data) arguing Greim et al. 2015 — a Monsanto-ghostwritten article — misrepresented a rodent carcinogenicity study (Kumar 2001) and that regulators/courts subsequentl |
| Smith-Roe SL et al 2026 · study_type: in-vitro | in-vitro | mixed | moderate | In-vitro mechanistic study (human HaCaT keratinocyte and HepaRG hepatocyte lines, NIEHS Division of Translational Toxicology) designed explicitly to address the IARC-vs-EPA/EU discrepancy on genotoxicity. Pure glyphosate was 'weakly and inc |
| Meloni F et al 2021 · Environmental health : a global access science source | observational | mixed | moderate | OCCUPATIONAL exposure case-control (Italy, ItGxE study; 867 lymphoma cases, 774 controls); only 2.2% of subjects were ever-exposed to glyphosate. No association with NHL, B-cell lymphoma, or lymphoma overall, but follicular lymphoma (an NHL |
Disagree, or know a study we missed?
We grade by evidence, not opinions. The way to weigh in is to point us to a study we haven't cited (check the evidence table above first), or to flag a problem with one we have. Every submission is reviewed; if it holds up, the grade updates and shows in Science Changes Its Mind.
Opens a short form. You'll sign in with Google so submissions are tied to a real account — we don't display your identity, and we only accept a link we can verify (PubMed, DOI, ClinicalTrials.gov).
Educational only, not medical advice. Grades and scores reflect published evidence weighted by study design and quality; see the methodology.