ORIGINAL ABSTRACT

Some epidemiological experts feel there is sufficient proof that glyphosate use adversely affects human health, and glyphosate has been labeled as probably carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Federal law in the United States provides two major options under which health concerns about glyphosate use might be addressed. First, registrations of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) need to be cancelled if the costs are greater that its benefits. Since the cancellation of GBH registrations in the United States would lead to higher maize and soybean prices that would adversely affect food security, further analyses are needed. Second, US law requires consideration of the human dietary risk from pesticide residues, and tolerances of allowable amounts of glyphosate residues allowed to remain in or on food items have been established. Social cost curves depicting three options for regulating GBHs show preferred strategies dependent upon the magnitude of adverse effects on human health and food insecurity. Measures to reduce harm to humans can be identified to ameliorate health damages to allow some uses of GBHs to continue, but only if the evidence supports the conclusion that "no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue."