Glyphosate Safety Review: EPA Decision Expected in 2027

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Industry Briefing

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is undertaking a renewed human-health assessment of glyphosate after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the human-health portion of EPA’s 2020 Interim Registration Review Decision in June 2022, finding that the agency’s conclusion that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” was not supported by substantial evidence.
• On September 22, 2026, EPA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing a formal framework for scientific coordination, research-gap identification and expanded evidence gathering during the ongoing glyphosate registration review. EPA says its updated human-health risk assessment and evaluation of carcinogenic potential are expected to be completed in early 2027.
• EPA’s August 2026 literature-search document identifies the studies the agency intends to screen for relevance and quality as part of the updated assessment. The agency opened that document to a 30-day public-comment period ending September 24, 2026.
• The Center for Food Safety has raised concerns about how independent scientific literature is screened and about whether the review could place disproportionate weight on registrant-supported research. Those concerns represent an advocacy organization’s assessment and should be distinguished from EPA’s stated methodology and conclusions.
• Internationally, the regulatory picture remains differentiated. In the European Union, glyphosate remains approved through December 15, 2033, following the European regulatory assessment completed in 2023; ECHA concluded that the available evidence did not justify classifying glyphosate as carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic. EFSA is nevertheless evaluating newer evidence, including findings from the Global Glyphosate Study.

EPA Reopens a High-Profile Glyphosate Safety Assessment

Glyphosate remains one of the world’s most widely used herbicidal active substances and one of the most closely scrutinized chemicals in pesticide regulation. In the United States, the substance is registered for use across agricultural and non-agricultural settings, while its human-health profile has remained the subject of regulatory review, scientific disagreement and litigation.

The current U.S. review follows a June 2022 Ninth Circuit decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA. The court reviewed EPA’s 2020 Interim Registration Review Decision and held that the agency’s conclusion that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” was inconsistent with portions of EPA’s own analysis and with the agency’s Cancer Guidelines. The court therefore vacated the human-health portion of the decision and remanded it to EPA for further consideration and explanation.

EPA subsequently withdrew the remaining portions of the 2020 interim registration review decision in September 2022. The agency stated at the time that glyphosate products could continue to be marketed and used in accordance with their labels, while the registration-review process continued.

The legal history is important because the current assessment is not simply a routine renewal of an unchanged scientific conclusion. It is part of a continuing registration-review process in which EPA is updating the human-health evidence and specifically revisiting glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential.

EPA and HHS Establish a Formal Scientific Partnership

On September 22, 2026, EPA and HHS announced an interagency MOU designed to expand scientific coordination during the glyphosate review. EPA said the agreement will enable the agencies to exchange scientific information, identify outstanding research questions and coordinate additional research. EPA retains sole authority for pesticide registration decisions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the MOU does not predetermine the outcome of the glyphosate review.

“What this agreement adds is a formal framework for bringing HHS' scientific expertise and research capacity directly into EPA's glyphosate review.”

The new working group will include specialists from EPA and multiple HHS components, including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Toxicology Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Environmental Health, and the Food and Drug Administration. The group is also expected to examine consequential data gaps that could warrant additional research, testing or monitoring, including questions involving the microbiome.

EPA has said the updated human-health risk assessment and evaluation of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential are expected to be completed in early 2027. The agency has also indicated that appropriate working-group materials are intended to be made available through the relevant EPA docket as they are finalized, subject to protections for confidential business information and other protected material.

The Literature Review Is Becoming a Central Point of Dispute

The scientific-literature component of the reassessment is likely to be particularly consequential. In August 2026, EPA released the results of a comprehensive open-literature search covering publications since its previous open-literature review in 2017. The agency said the search is intended to identify peer-reviewed studies that can inform the forthcoming human-health risk assessment, including potential dietary risks associated with residues in food and water.

EPA’s stated approach is to screen literature for factors including relevance, quality and reproducibility. The agency has encouraged stakeholders submitting additional studies to provide the complete study and underlying data, or clear information on how the underlying information can be obtained.

The Center for Food Safety, however, has raised a different concern about the screening process. According to Bill Freese, the organization’s Science Director, EPA has identified more than 5,000 independent studies and has so far determined that approximately 78 percent do not qualify for consideration. Freese argues that criteria used to screen some studies may exclude evidence involving commercial glyphosate formulations and could therefore make the final evidence base less representative of real-world exposure conditions.

That criticism should be treated as an attributed stakeholder position rather than an established finding about the quality of EPA’s review. EPA’s own August literature-review document states that the agency is conducting a systematic screening process and that studies must meet its methodological and evidentiary criteria before they are incorporated into the risk assessment.

The distinction is material because glyphosate exposure in the marketplace does not necessarily involve pure active ingredient alone. Commercial products can contain glyphosate together with co-formulants and other chemicals. EFSA similarly notes that glyphosate-based products contain the active substance as well as co-formulants that can affect how products function.

Why the Scientific Record Remains Contested

Glyphosate’s cancer profile has generated divergent assessments among scientific and regulatory bodies. The Ninth Circuit’s 2022 ruling did not determine that glyphosate causes cancer. Instead, the court found that EPA had not adequately supported its particular conclusion that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” and required the agency to reconsider the human-health analysis.

The international regulatory record illustrates why the issue remains scientifically complex. ECHA’s 2022 hazard assessment concluded that glyphosate did not meet the scientific criteria for classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic. EFSA’s subsequent EU risk assessment found no critical areas of concern that would prevent renewal, and glyphosate is currently approved in the EU through December 15, 2033, subject to applicable conditions and national product authorizations.

At the same time, European authorities have not treated the scientific record as permanently closed. In June 2025, the European Commission requested that ECHA and EFSA evaluate new data concerning carcinogenic effects reported in the Global Glyphosate Study. EFSA and ECHA subsequently established a working process to assess whether those findings could affect the conclusions reached during the 2023 renewal assessment.

For industry observers, the distinction between hazard identification and risk assessment is particularly important. Hazard assessment examines whether a substance has an intrinsic capacity to cause a particular adverse effect, while risk assessment incorporates exposure and conditions of use. European authorities explicitly separate these functions between ECHA’s hazard assessment and EFSA’s exposure and risk assessment.

The 2027 Decision Could Carry Broader Regulatory Significance

The forthcoming EPA assessment is being conducted within a broader regulatory environment in which glyphosate is simultaneously subject to litigation, scientific reassessment and international regulatory review. EPA’s registration-review framework requires registered pesticides to be periodically reevaluated against the applicable FIFRA safety standard.

The timing of the current process also matters. EPA released its open-literature search results for public comment in August 2026, with comments due September 24, 2026. The agency expects to use the resulting evidence base in its updated human-health risk assessment, followed by additional opportunities for public scrutiny as the assessment moves forward.

The new EPA-HHS framework therefore adds an institutional layer to an assessment already shaped by judicial review and extensive scientific literature. Whether that additional coordination materially changes the evidence available to EPA will depend on which studies are ultimately deemed relevant and sufficiently reliable, what data gaps the working group identifies, and how the agency integrates new evidence into its statutory risk assessment.

GuideView Insight

GuideView’s assessment is that the most consequential issue in the next phase of the glyphosate debate will be the composition and transparency of the evidence base, rather than the announcement of the EPA-HHS partnership alone. The MOU creates a formal mechanism for additional scientific coordination, but EPA remains responsible for the registration decision and the agreement does not predetermine the regulatory outcome.

Three developments merit particular attention. First, the agency’s treatment of peer-reviewed literature will determine which portions of the expanding scientific record become part of the formal risk assessment. Second, the distinction between studies of technical glyphosate and studies of commercial formulations may remain an important methodological issue because actual product exposure can involve active ingredients together with co-formulants. Third, the transparency of the EPA-HHS working group will provide an important indicator of how newly identified research gaps are translated into the final regulatory record.

GuideView also notes that the international record does not currently point to a single uniform regulatory interpretation. The EU has retained glyphosate approval following a large-scale assessment, while European authorities are separately examining newer evidence. The U.S. process is likewise still underway, meaning that existing regulatory conclusions should not be presented as the final answer to the current reassessment.

For agricultural producers, pesticide manufacturers, food companies, investors and policymakers, the practical focus through early 2027 will therefore be on the evidence-selection methodology, the treatment of cancer and genotoxicity studies, exposure assumptions, formulation-specific evidence, identified data gaps and the degree to which EPA makes its scientific reasoning traceable in the public record. Those elements will provide the clearest basis for understanding how the U.S. regulatory position on glyphosate develops.