Talk:Glyphosate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Consensus"

The article states that there is scientific consensus that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, but that really doesn't seem to be the case to me. From what I've seen there seems to still be a lot of debate (not just public) about it and as another discussion post brought up, the EU has requested that new data is evaluated. There is only a single research paper cited for the claim that there is consensus, and while it is a good source, just one study really doesn't seem to me to be enough to claim there is a scientific consensus. And it's not like the counter claim is some fringe theory - IARC is one of, if not the leading organization on cancer research. I see no reason why the European study should be inherently valued more. Plus, its already well known that herbicide industry giants have meddled in research on the subject before.

Point is, I'm not trying to argue for or against whether glyphosate is carcinogenic, I just think this article makes it seem as if it is a settled matter when, to me, it does not seem to be.

Thoughts? OboTheHobo (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The counter claim IS some fringe theory. Don't mistake loudness or repetition for good science. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
There is no scientific consensus, and I haven't seen any reliable source claim there is, so that claim should be removed from the article. Vpab15 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
This too. For those arguing the article should stay the way it is, I ask a source is provided for the claim that there is scientific consensus on the subject and that it is referenced in the article. One single research paper is not enough to claim consensus - if that was the case, I could just as easily state that the consensus is that it *is* carcinogenic and cite the IARC report. Either more evidence needs to be cited or the claim should be removed. OboTheHobo (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
The article does not state what you claim it does, but rather: The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity. That's definitely not saying that there is a "scientific consensus", nor implying that the question is entirely settled. It is however, accurately summarising the current state of knowledge. SmartSE (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
The word "consensus" links to the page for "scientific consensus" so even if it isn't directly stating that it is the "scientific consensus" that is still the implication in the page. OboTheHobo (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I think you're running into issues with WP:GEVAL. Of course fringe groups are going to make it seem like the issue isn't settled and make it appear that way to the general public or an anonymous editor. You can see a similar parallel in climate change denial that us educators typically use as an example for students of how fringe science tries to portray things.
The issues with the IARC are also brought up in WP:DUE fashion here, and it's not exactly the leading organization on cancer research as you portray it. It's been heavily criticized in methodology overall, but especially in this particular case including conflict of interest with law firms pushing Roundup litigation. As reminder, other branches of the WHO (of which IARC is nested under) have come to very different conclusions as well. KoA (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
This is not remotely similar to climate change denial. Unless reliable sources are provided that explicitly mention a "consensus" of some kind, that claim should be removed from the article per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The source linked to support the claim ("Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement") makes no such claim. Vpab15 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is very similar. The claim that glyphosate cause4s cancer was conjured from whole cloth by plaintiffs' attorneys (including one Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and there is no good evidence that it is carcinogenic as used. If it were, we would see huge numbers of leisure gardeners with glyphosate-induced cancers, as they use it at far higher concentrations than in agriculture.
An anti-science claim created for profit and sold through FUD is exactly what climate change denial is. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, climate change is and has been settled scientifically for a long time. This is nothing like that. In fact, this article seems to somewhat contradict itself; it both states that there is consensus that there is "no evidence" of human carcinogenicity, and that the evidence "remains inconclusive." How can there be no evidence, but also inconclusive evidence? And again the article then states that there is "weak evidence" of cancer risk, which again is not "no evidence." The exact same section of the page both portrays the matter as a settled consensus and something that is inconclusive. OboTheHobo (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
You can apply everything you just said to climate change denial where educators frequently use examples of scientific language being used to split hairs to say there isn't consensus. You're basically illustrating the very reason why the consensus article was linked so readers can hopefully avoid some of the common pitfalls of meaning you just hit. To be clear, that's not ascribing anything nefarious here, but just a reminder of how public understanding of how science reaches consensus is very poor, and climate change is an often taught example of both that and how bad actors take advantage of that. The issue I'm getting at is the underlying arguments we see in denial on fringe topics across the board. I could have used the extremely strong consensus on GMO safety as an example instead, but people are usually just more familiar with arguments in climate change.
The link is there to remind folks that consensus does not mean unanimity in science. Even in something like the consensus on the safety of GMO crops, you're going to see groups still claiming they are unsafe. That's why it's usually good practice to link that article for more background since most readers likely haven't had a college-level science course that walks you through the concept. What you say in the text itself can vary in terms of WP:RS/AC, but the link has a very specific use for further reading. At the end of the day, this content is been pretty solidly discussed many times on the talk page already, heavily word-smithed, and sources are very clear on how widespread the viewpoint is to the point we need to be very wary of WP:FRINGE and GEVAL I mentioned earlier. KoA (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
You keep repeating that there exists a scientific consensus, but you haven't provided any reliable source to back that up. WP:RS/AC is quite clear in that respect. Unless a source is provided, the claim that there is a consensus needs to be removed. Vpab15 (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
At this point, the only response I can give to that is to re-read SmartSE's comment above.
Plenty of sources have some iteration of the first source that was used way back, IARC designation of glyphosate is in contradiction with an overwhelming consensus among the World's most robust and stringent pesticide regulatory agencies/authorities as well as many reputable international scientific and research organizations. Discussion developed from there, and that's what eventually developed into the in the whole paragraph. It's kind of a dead-horse subject at this point given how much this has been discussed and developed through talk page consensus. KoA (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
That study is not referenced in the article, maybe because of its dubious quality. Not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. Vpab15 (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Section break

That review relies heavily on the now-retracted Williams et al. 2000 paper. It is the 2nd most cited study in the review after Séralini 2012 (which they call a "metamorphic earth-quacking [sic] study", whatever that means). This obscure review by a single author in a short-lived open access journal by a completely unknown publisher is certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel by citation standards. And the current citation for the "consensus" sentence actually contradicts the sentence rather than supporting it. The only statement in that review directly related to the sentence is "Glyphosate has been the subject of regular assessments by national and international regulatory agencies (JMPR 2006; Williams et al. 2000). All had established that glyphosate has a relatively low toxicity in mammals. However, a recent report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that the herbicide and its formulated products are probably carcinogenic in humans (Guyton et al. 2015a, b; IARC 2015)." So it says that there used to be a consensus, but that is apparently no longer the case. If there are "plenty of sources" stating that there is a consensus currently, please share them with us, as the current citation contradicts that. Nosferattus (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Given the retraction of Williams 2000, I think we have to reevaluate what this page says about it. There's a sentence in the lead section, at the beginning of the last paragraph, that I think we should just delete. I'm inclined to prefer that what we say in Wikipedia's voice should take no stand, either way, about carcinogenicity, while citing the (not retracted) sources on both sides, and removing any assertions of "consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the retraction makes a difference here, but I agree we should be slightly more cautious here. There are definitely a number of reviews that support its safety and I'm sure if we counted they would numerically outnumber the reviews that say otherwise, but the point remains that we require a source stating there is a consensus per WP:RS/AC. Katzrockso (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
I made this edit: , and then self-reverted. Do we have, um, consensus to remove that sentence from the lead? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
I think we'd have to keep the original here over the new removal at least, especially respecting previous consensus. Even the retraction on Williams et al. 2000 itself was clear As handling (co)Editor-in-Chief, I emphasize that this retraction does not imply a stance on the ongoing debate regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate or Roundup. The retraction is not on this source in question, and the source only cites Williams 2000 once to briefly say Glyphosate has been the subject of regular assessments by national and international regulatory agencies. . .. This review instead was from 17 years later and just briefly mentions those very early summaries like Williams and then goes into later studies. It's a pretty severe reach to claim something is discredited in this study or that the review heavily relies on the Williams paper.
If something is in error in this different MEDRS source, that would have to come through other MEDRS sources saying its wrong. My main concern here is editors (rather than sources) are claiming there has been a change in the IRL consensus when there hasn't. There's also some circling back to misunderstandings about scientific consensus that were already addressed earlier. IARC is the outlier, and sources using either consensus language or strong statements generally acknowledge that. It's similar to how the consensus on climate change doesn't go away because one can pick out a not so reliable organization saying otherwise. You're going to find language pretty often by those who actually teach pesticide safety saying that IARC is an outlier and that there's agreement among other agencies that it isn't a substantiated cancer risk. KoA (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
One thing I do want to add on though is that I'm not entirely opposed to using language that's been done before when we had consensus-like language and yet it was still disputed. Change it to "broad agreement". Before this month old section was resurrected, there was discussion about why scientific consensus was linked the nuance going on with SmartSE and JzG. Broad agreement gets the point across without editors taking it in the weeds. I did make that WP:BOLD change since it has stuck before, but if that doesn't, then we really need to stick with the status quo for now if something else has to be hashed out. KoA (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure that "broad agreement" is the only way to characterize the debate. I also see "proliferation of conflicting opinions on where the truth lies." (from your Morini paper), "safety profile of the herbicide glyphosate and its commercial formulations is controversial" . Whether or not that controversy is warranted or whether critics come to the right conclusion doesn't obviate the fact that such debate exists, so "broad agreement" seems to deflate the "proliferation of conflict opinions" into some supposed universal morass of opinion. Indeed, it is paradoxical to proclaim a "broad agreement" while critics of the IARC state The apparent acceptance by so many in the scientific community of the classification by the IARC Monographs Program of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” is evidence of the failure of the vaunted self-correction mechanism of science.
I don't mean to imply that these critics are right or wrong, I don't have any opinion on that matter. I'm trying to narrow down the meta-level discussion here.
As for the status quo, until sources are provided that substantiate the characterization of "scientific consensus", it is a WP:V failure and violation of WP:RS/AC. I am unfamiliar enough with the literature to know if there are other sources that support the claim, but the cited sources do not. Katzrockso (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
I have removed the consensus sentence from the lede, since there is wide agreement here it is undue. If any editor wants to re-add it, reliable sources will be needed per WP:RS/AC. Vpab15 (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Outright removal would violate WP:DUE policy at this point, though there was a tweak mentioned above already. The existing content has been discussed repeatedly in the archives though (along with sources), so we do need to respect that.
While editors may disagree with the safety assessment themselves, when existing sources use language like Since IRAC’s classification of glyphosate, regulatory agencies have reviewed all the key studies examined by IARC – and many more – and arrived at the overwhelming consensus that glyphosate poses no unreasonable risks to humans or the environment when used according to label instructions. Regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Australia have publicly reaffirmed that glyphosate does not cause cancer., we can't say sources don't exist for the content, and it's getting into common semantics of how people often try to dismiss consensus statements because it didn't quite match a preferred wiki-legalese. We should be past that point already though, but additional sources could always be added on the regulatory note rather than outright removal. We might get to WP:CITATIONOVERKILL though. KoA (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
The statement needs a solid citation per WP:RS/AC. Your quote above seems useful. What is the source for it? Nosferattus (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Seems to be some newsletter from UMass written by Randy Prostak, who appears to be a "invasive weed specialist" and was not peer-reviewed. I am sure he is very knowledgeable, I'm just a bit uncertain if he would even be qualified as an expert in Wikipedia parlance given that he doesn't seem to have any published material and I can't find any record that he received higher education in any pertinent topic. He is nonetheless influential and has some awards and sits on some boards + works on some programs at UMass . It's not a WP:MEDRS source either way, so I guess the other question is moot.
We cannot introduce statements in wikivoice that are not supported by any policy-compliant sources, so please find MEDRS sources that support the statement before readding it. Katzrockso (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
We also have the same exact statement on Johnson v. Monsanto Co., Glyphosate-based herbicides and Roundup (herbicide), so whatever we decide here with sourcing or a statement, we need to make parallel changes to those articles as well. I would leave those articles alone until we have come to a solid consensus here, as spreading out the dispute over multiple articles would not be productive. Katzrockso (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
At this point in time, I think any sourcing that could be used to support either "scientific consensus" or "broad agreement" must be regarded as out-of-date and no longer a WP:RS for this purpose, unless it is published after the retraction and the expressions of concern have become widely known. Similarly, any consensus on this talk page that predates the retraction etc. is now outdated. I don't think we can still say that a consensus or wide agreement exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
I think you are overstating the impact of the retraction - the retraction doesn't even necessarily say the paper made erroneous conclusions, but opens the possibility that they may have. While it was very influential in the literature, I'm not convinced the course of events would have gone too significantly different had the paper never been published. And while there are some calls to reevaluate decisions, Health Canada already said the retraction doesn't change their assessment. For better or worse, I think that will likely be the reaction of most other regulatory bodies. I'd be fine if a good source were be to found that states that there is a consensus among regulatory bodies to include that in the article text, so long as it's not ancient and reasonably recent.
I think that whatever consensus may have existed on this talk page isn't necessary as binding simply because consensus can change (or be subject to a non negotiable policies). Katzrockso (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with you on that - we would need the regulatory bodies to issue statements that the retraction made a difference to their assessments which I don't think is the case, before we could conclude that all previous statements are invalid. Whilst the review may have been authoritative at one point, it is now very outdated (hence why were no longer using it as a source) and many other authors have reviewed the same literature since. I also agree with Katzrockso that the retraction doesn't necessarily mean that their conclusions were invalid either. There is still "broad agreement" amongst regulators that glyphosate is safe and the retraction doesn't change that. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there is any good reason to use "broad agreement" when we already list out the major regulatory organizations that have opined on glyphosate, it simply conveys the same information that is already present in the article. We would also need some good sourcing to make this claim without falling into SYNTH ('broad agreement' is a similar phrase to consensus, functionally I don't see how any statements about scientific agreement/certainty should be viewed differently from a WP:RS/WP:V perspective). Katzrockso (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Well, Smartse, my reasoning is, in part, that we shouldn't say anything until such time as the regulatory bodies say something new. Once they do that, sure, we can say it. But until the regulatory bodies tell us what the "scientific consensus" is, what precisely would you want to add back? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
I think that pretty well summarizes it here SmartSE. What Tryptofish is suggesting is something we cannot do as editors, and I say that as someone who agrees with them on most issues. The regulatory consensus hasn't changed, and they'll let is know if it did. Otherwise, it's us as editors trying to override experts in the field. It's going down a path of severe misunderstanding of how those agencies reach their conclusions.
It's also somewhat comparable to if someone had a paper retracted in climate change (or any other science topic that has consensus statements implied or otherwise). That doesn't change the overall consensus there because it's not based on any one review or even primary research paper. In the case of pesticides, those reviewing agencies go straight to the primary literature and regulatory studies to make their own conclusions and usually aren't relying much at all on reviews like this. That's especially the case for a 25 year old review when those more recent regulatory decisions would have been reviewing much newer information anyways. KoA (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
We shouldn't downplay MEDRS sources like that. You said earlier you aren't very familiar with sources on this subject, so if you aren't familiar with how university's work in ag. topics, that publication is out of UMASS Extension, not just an individual. It would be like saying a university webpage on a medical topic like say ticks is not reliable. That would be a huge paradigm shift in many articles to say they're no longer reliable/MEDRS. Extension deals in pesticide safety among other topics, and extension weed specialists would be the ones teaching herbicide safety or summarizing that science for farmers and the general public. It'd be one thing if it was on the non-reviewed personal blog of a researcher, but not when it's official publications of the university. KoA (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
An online newsletter from 2017 is a pretty weak source for a controversial medical claim. Nosferattus (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
A good source like this from 2017 for something uncontroversial among scientists in the field is more than good in addition to other sources though. We do need to be mindful of claims that this is controversial from the scientific perspective (which it is not). That would violate WP:POV policy. KoA (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
I have started a WP:RSN thread about this source in particular, see here. Katzrockso (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I see that the “consensus” statement in the article lede has been removed by Vpab15, and I endorse the removal. And I agree with Katzrockso: WP talkpage consensus can change. Jusdafax (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I also endorse the removal. FWIW, the IARC recently published a brief review of the scientific literature on glyphosate and cancer and concluded that the "existing evidence does not appear to support a change in classification". In other words, they have reaffirmed their conclusion that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic in humans". On the flip side, nearly all regulatory agencies disagree with this conclusion (other than California and Vietnam). I think the best approach is to simply present these conflicting facts to the reader and let them make up their own mind about it. Ironically, WP:MEDRS specifically recommends the WHO (which the IARC is a part of) as a source for finding the prevailing medical or scientific consensus. In this case, I think there is simply too much controversy for us to make any claim about consensus, especially in light of the retraction of Williams et al. 2000. Nosferattus (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    What are you talking about, Nosferattus? Multiple other WHO departments came to the completely opposite conclusion of IARC and the IARC decision was already completely debunked due to them forming the report based off of a lawyer consultant who was secretly leading multiple lawsuits against glyphosate. Basically an Andrew Wakefield situation all over again. Add to that that several claims in the IARC report, such as genotoxicity, were made off of studies where the study authors themselves called out IARC for actively misrepresenting the conclusions of their studies that actually found the opposite. It's specifically because of all of that that not only multiple WHO departments, but also the EfSA multiple times and all other major scientific groups repeated their investigations of the evidence and re-affirmed there being no evidence of carcinogenicity. SilverserenC 01:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    That may all be true, but it's original research. Without a solid source stating there is consensus, it's not appropriate for us to say so in Wikipedia's voice. Nosferattus (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    Literally the source in the article points out that.
Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is probably carcinogenic. The IARC conclusion was not confirmed by the EU assessment or the recent joint WHO/FAO evaluation, both using additional evidence.
It says right there that all assessments have concluded its safety and points out that re-evaluations did not match the IARC claims. And that's just from the abstract. It goes into much more detail in the body itself. I would love to know where the "fails verification" tag claim comes from. SilverserenC 01:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
No, it doesn't say "all assessments have concluded its safety". It says "all regulatory assessments". There's a critical difference there. The sentence on Wikipedia says "The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations". And if we remove the "scientific organizations" part, it's just repeating what is already written in the previous paragraph. Nosferattus (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Is this you not understanding the terminology here or just pedantry? Scientific organizations there means regulatory scientific organizations, because those are the ones that would be doing evaluations of safety for a chemical compound. Unless you think "scientific organizations" would have to include all scientific groups that exist in every field of science? That's not how those terms are used on Wikipedia science articles. Especially chemistry ones. SilverserenC 02:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
If "scientific organizations" actually means "regulatory scientific organizations", it's redundant and should be removed. Nosferattus (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
I don't think "regulatory scientific organizations" and "scientific organizations" have the same meaning here, otherwise the original text would not have had both. Also they manifestly do not mean the same thing. One can argue that the positions of other non-regulatory scientific organizations aren't relevant enough or impactful to be counted here, but they do exist. For what it's worth, I believe these other organizations don't really have a substantial difference from the regulatory bodies, but they are not the same thing. Katzrockso (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • The scientific consensus is what it is. Unless you have evidence that the major scientific organizations in the world have changed their stances due to new evidence, which they do not appear to have done, then the scientific consensus has not changed. Please don't feed the FRINGE pushers on this article. SilverserenC 01:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    That's really what it boils down to. I think part of the problem is we have a number of editors saying there isn't that agreement among regulators, while sources themselves disagree. Policy is pretty clear on what that means. I've seeing a few common arguments above for claiming there isn't a scientific consensus, agreement, whatever that are often taught about in science courses like how scientific consensus does not mean unanimity (and how people can try to make it look like there isn't consensus).
    Previous conversations already established there was wiki-consensus for this, so there really would need to be sourcing that the overall regulatory perspective has changed. We covered a lot over that time, but only a handful of representative sources were used for content until now. It's really not a debate that the sources plainly state there's overall agreement, IARC is an outlier, etc. It's a bit redundant at this point, but one could always add more sources even though it's functionally padding at this point. I don't have as much time as I used to, but in addition to the Extension source I pulled recently, there's the Weed Science Society of America stating regulatory bodies around the world have consistently concluded that glyphosate-based herbicides are not likely to be carcinogenic. There's often a treadmill in these conversations (especially thinking back to the GMO consensus RfC) where even with the 20+ super high quality sources you're still going to get editors disagreeing with the consensus. KoA (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    Also worth noting that Virginia Extension says The EPA conclusion agrees with virtually every major regulatory body in the world, (IARC, not a regulatory body, excepted) and includes the latest observations of enrollees in the Agricultural Health Study, a collaboration of EPA, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
    As I dug into the sentence a bit more in the body, I was reminded that it's meant as a summary-level sentence to lead in to the others. The following sentences describing the individual agencies often reference that their findings are reflected by most other major regulatory bodies in some fashion, so those sources are also pointing back to the lead sentence. That's why it was included in that location in addition to sources frequently using consensus language that prompted the addition. KoA (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    I'm still in favor of removing the sentence, and I'm not a fringe-pusher. Not saying anything in Wikipedia's voice is not the same as saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that something has changed. It's just not saying, one way or the other, until such time as we have new and better sourcing. I'm obviously not arguing that sources published prior to the retraction and expressions of concern (of multiple papers that played a major role in establishing the previous scientific understanding) don't still say what they say. But editors are asked to use judgment about whether sources are or are not reliable, and we do that all the time. And I'm saying that sources written before the retraction etc. are no longer reliable for this purpose, because they do not reflect recent changes in understanding. They are, in effect, outdated. To dig in and insist that, because those sources said what they did when they did, we need new sources before we can stop citing them in this way, may sound like being rigorous, but it's actually missing the point. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    And I'm saying that sources written before the retraction etc. are no longer reliable for this purpose. . . The problem is that is a tangent here. Nothing related to regulatory assessment was retracted, and I covered that in an earlier comment talking about the differences. If someone conflates the regulatory assessment process with the Williams paper, it's a severe misunderstanding of the subject matter, and personal opinion rather than sourced-based. If anything, it also contradicts the Williams retraction itself in that it explicitly says it does not imply a stance on the larger discussion of carcinogenicity of glyphosate.
    Right now we're at a point where nothing has changed on the regulatory assessment side of things, so we're of course left with the range of sources that discussed this when reliable sources were mostly summarizing this. If they put out changes, then that can be discussed, but what you're suggesting here would run counter to WP:CRYSTAL policy assuming something is going to change ahead of time. The issues compound when that undermines a scientific consensus too. It's kind of comparable to if someone said the consensus content on GMOs should be removed because it uses older sources. Instead, you'd need evidence of a change in the scientific consensus to say the sources are out of date. Silverseren summarized that very succinctly above in how we'd have to approach that here. KoA (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    I concur with KoA. It seems like that some are implying that the retracted paper was the sole publication to demonstrate anything. Which is truly not the case. We do not even know which parts were fraudulent; however, as a retracted paper, it does not ‘exist’ for scientific purposes anymore. In any case, we are not here to determine the "truth" ourselves, but to rely on what the relevant agencies state. And until now they haven't changed anything. --Julius Senegal (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
fraudulent???? Please provide a reliable citation claiming fraud was committed. The retraction made no such claim nor implication, in fact, just the opposite. The retraction notice can be accessed as newly incorporated into the 2000 paper.~2025-39446-09 (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
The paper that started this whole discussion, Kaurov & Oreskes 2025, says that Williams et al. 2000 was "fraudulent". Nosferattus (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
More precisely: They wrote "fraudulent authorship", not "fraudulent data" or so. --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

A key study related to Glyphosate has been retracted.

The study in question: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715.

Source: https://social.wildeboer.net/@jwildeboer/115644006415261401. Noobeditor32 (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

A review of this retraction, which dicusses Wikipedia edits related to the retracted paper, in great detail, is:
Kaurov, A.A. and Oreskes, N., 2025. The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How corporate authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse. Environmental Science & Policy, 171, p.104160. (discusses Wikipedia)
The retraction notice is:
Williams, G.M., Kroes, R. and Munro, I.C., 2025. Retraction notice to “Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans” [Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 31 (2000) 117–165]. Available online 5 December 2025, 106006.
The citation to the retracted paper is:
Williams, G.M., Kroes, R. and Munro, I.C., 2000. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, 31(2), pp.117-165.
Another article is:
Science journal retracts study on safety of Monsanto’s Roundup: ‘serious ethical concerns’ Paper published in 2000 found glyphosate was not harmful, while internal emails later revealed company’s influence. by Cary Gillam, The Guardian, December 5, 2025 Paul H. (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
See also the related discussions at Talk:Monsanto. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a big deal and we need to find wherever this study is used and fix the issues. Andre🚐 02:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Citations to it had already been removed prior to the retraction. SmartSE (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
That's nice to know, thanks.
I wonder if we should make a note of the retraction itself in the article. Noobeditor32 (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
BTW: The Séralini affair has its own article, but is only linked in the See also section. --Leyo 23:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Section Genetic damage

This short section contains two "Citation needed" tags (the only ones in the article). They were added six years ago, so it's high time to get rid of them, either by removing the associated text or by inserting appropriate references. Does anyone have any suggestions for the latter? Leyo 00:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I removed everything that was tagged and also something that led to a dead link. I left a sentence about the possibility of genetic effects that is sourced. I'm ambivalent about a section with a single sentence, but given the increasing amount of sourcing about lymphoma, I think it's probably due to include something about mutagenicity. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, this is probably the best (intermediate) solution. --Leyo 22:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Section "Misinformation campaigns"

The statement that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "has falsely claimed that glyphosate is partially responsible for the American obesity epidemic" is not substantiated by the source cited. An article published on childrenshealthdefense.org, a non-profit organization which RFK Jr. founded, has it's authorship attributed to the Children's Health Defense Team, and includes no direct quotes from RFK Jr. It's imperative that Wikipedia try to remain as partisan-free as possible. I suggest this paragraph be removed, edited to reflect the article's stated author(s), or substantiated with a different source. ~2026-11324-91 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added two sources - A Washington Examiner piece that expressly states RFK Jr said glyphosate is responsible for obesity, referencing an interview with Jordan Peterson. A transcript of the interview is linked in a second source. Fearadach (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the additions. After reading the transcript provided, nowhere in the interview does RFK Jr. directly claim that glyphosate is partially responsible for the obesity epidemic in America. He does claim that "GMO crops are nutrient barren", crops which would include those genetically modified to be glyphosate-resistant. He goes on to explain that "the most malnourished people in this country are the most overweight because they’re eating food like substances". However, RFK Jr. does explicity state that glyphosate causes cancer in this interview, referencing his client's 2018 victory against Monsanto Corporation. This statement appears to contradict the consensus reached in the main article that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and so may be appropriate to add under this section. My previous suggestions regarding the glyphosate obesity claim remain the same. CistronSSF (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
He is asked directly by Peterson "And what do you think is driving the obesity epidemic?" and he replies "it’s being driven by poison food" and expands on that statement by discussing the "saturation of the whole landscape" by glyphosate. I think that's pretty unequivocal. Fearadach (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
He says "They turn into sugar. They’re they’re all nutrient barren. They, you know, the original crops were nutrient rich, but the GMO crops are nutrient barren and they’re heavily dependent on pesticides". As I see it, his claim is that glyphosate is used to grow crops that are then turned into sugar, which causes obesity. Not exactly the same as claiming that glyphosate directly causes obesity. The section should be updated to reflect what he actually said. As it stands, the wording "US politician Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has falsely claimed that glyphosate is partially responsible for the American obesity epidemic" is quite misleading. Vpab15 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I added this: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I think the addition and the sourcing looks ok especially when it comes to WP:PARITY, and it's also worth noting that this actually probably does rise to the level of being warranted in this article rather than RFK Jr.'s page. A lot of fringe claims are made about glyphosate where I wouldn't really consider including all of them (even if mentioned in a newspaper), but given his current position and attention on this, that pushes it into WP:DUE territory pretty squarely. KoA (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Not sure that is enough. Phrased like that, I'd say it is a true statement, or at most controversial, but not false. I checked the sources and they don't label the claim as false, so the sentence should probably be removed per WP:NOR. Vpab15 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I see it as WP:BLUESKY. I don't see it as a true statement that's merely controversial, because Kennedy frames it in terms of GMO foods differing nutritionally from non-GMO foods, which is clearly false, as well as something that was established as consensus in WP:GMORFC. I suppose we could change it to something like "inaccurate" or "incorrect", but I don't think that would really improve things. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
This section has always struck me as WP:UNDUE and it would be preferable to integrate the content elsewhere. In this particular case, neither source calls Kennedy's comments misinformation and certainly not a "campaign". Given BLP applies, we should tread carefully. Seneff's ridiculous claims merit a mention, but do we really have sourcing that characterise it is a misinformation campaign? SmartSE (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I see your point about "campaign". Maybe we should change the section header to, simply, "Misinformation". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
That would help, but this seems to be a very small part of all the coverage about glyphosate (at least with the current sourcing) which is my main concern. SmartSE (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I've made the header change, and I've also added more sources, including two scientific journal sources about the general phenomenon of misinformation about glyphosate. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
"...claimed that glyphosate is partially responsible for the American obesity epidemic, by facilitating the availability of carbohydrate-containing foods." Huh? This sentence makes no sense and doesn't seem to reflect RFK's batshit statements. Shouldn't it say something like ""...claimed that glyphosate is partially responsible for the American obesity epidemic. According to RFK, crops that have been genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate-based herbicide are nutritionally poor." or something like that? Nosferattus (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Ah, how to summarize batshit statements without saying things that make no sense... I was basing it on what Vpab15 quoted, "They turn into sugar...", but I probably made it too succinct to convey the entire train of "thought". How about changing "by facilitating the availability of carbohydrate-containing foods" to "by facilitating the availability of what he considers to be nutritionally deficient foods derived from GM crops instead of from conventional crops"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
It's a mouthful, but it's less confusing and probably closer to what RFK was trying to express. Nosferattus (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
SOURCE 274, sciencebasedmedicine.org article by Steven Novella - makes no mention of RFK Jr. or obesity.
SOURCE 275, sciencebasedmedicine.org article by Jann Bellamy - links to source 278.
SOURCE 276, washingtonexaminer.com article by Gabrielle M. Etzel - quotes source 277.
SOURCE 277, sinjupost.com interview transcript of Jordan B. Peterson podcast with RFK Jr., episode 484 - the primary focus of our discussion.
SOURCE 278, sciencebasedmedicine.org article by David Gorski - The author is presumptive in his attribution of an article written by the 'Children's Health Defense Team' to that of RFK Jr., as pointed out previously.
It appears to me that none of these sources except the podcast transcript are valid in supporting the assertion that RFK Jr. claims glyphosate is linked to obesity in some manner. Source 277 should instead be supported with sources that disprove Kennedy's claim regarding the relative nutrient density of GM vs non-GM crops.
Perhaps a more accurate one-liner would read "US politician Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has claimed that the widespread adoption of glyphosate-resistant GM crops is partially responsible for the American obesity epidemic, as he believes that GM crops are nutrient barren compared to their unmodified counterparts.", although I do believe this would be better included and expanded upon under the 'Genetically modified crops' entry instead. CistronSSF (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I think your version is the best-written so far. However, I would prefer it said "falsely claims" rather than "claims" if we can find a good source to disprove it. Either way, I think it's an improvement. Nosferattus (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
In a more recent display of bogeyman hunting, anti-vaccine crank Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., claimed that vaccines and glyphosate are behind the current obesity epidemic, a ludicrous assertion David Gorski nicely eviscerated in a post earlier this year is in the Jann Bellamy source. The Gorski source states in the subtitle: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. published an article claiming that vaccines and glyphosate are responsible for the obesity epidemic.
I don't see that much an issue with the current version but I wouldn't be opposed to the version CistronSSF proposes. I would just rather trim all these unnecessary/unrelated citations, though. Katzrockso (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm OK with using fewer of the sciencebasedmedicine.org sources. I'm also OK with this newer version, so long as we include "falsely claims"; see also WP:GMORFC for (a) the fact that we must indicate that this is false, and (b) a ton of sources to back that up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd trim the sources that don't mention RFK and leave the transcript + the Gorski SBM at a minimum. I didn't check the WashingtonExaminer piece yet. Katzrockso (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
We also need to retain sourcing for Stephanie Seneff. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I didn't think we were discussing that sentence, I wasn't proposing making any changes to it or removing any sources, I was only talking about the RFK Jr. sentence so far. I removed one source that doesn't mention Stephanie Seneff and I think the two sources there are good.
I would keep the Washington Examiner source, since it dedicates 13 sentences to the RFK Jr.-glyphosate issue. This is what I think works best for the RFK sentence Special:Diff/1340104041, since the Bellamy source is just briefly mentioning the Gorski article, it seems unnecessarily duplicative. Katzrockso (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
We could use this article for the glyphosate-obesity epidemic claims from RFK Jr. too. Katzrockso (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
That article cites Gorski as a source, so it might not really add that much. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
-The Washington Examiner piece contradicts the conclusion that the glyphosate link to obesity is false. "Recently, glyphosate has also been found to exacerbate genetic predisposition to obesity, particularly in females." The rest of the article touches on the pervasiveness of glyphosate in the American diet and its carcinogenicity or lack thereof. Nutrient density, or GM crops in general, are not mentioned.
-The David Gorski article on sciencebasedmedicine.org presumes that RFK Jr. had a direct role in writing, editing, or approving the article published on childrenshealthdefense.org.
-The sinjupost.com transcript of the Jordan Peterson interview with RFK Jr. requires supporting evidence that GM crops are not "nutrient barren". You will find studies that show GM crops are less nutritionally dense, as well as studies that show the opposite. I believe the consensus reached on Wikipedia is that, in general, GM crops have a similar nutrient profile compared to conventional crops. I genetically modify bacterial and animal cells only, and so will defer to subject matter experts here.
I propose the issue be split into two, distinguishing the biological effects glyphosate has directly on the human body from the alleged effects of glyphosate-resistant GM crops on nutrient intake.
1. "Children's Health Defense, a non-profit organization founded by US politician Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has falsely claimed that glyphosate is partially responsible for the American obesity epidemic." While this has a level of implication that I'm not personally comfortable with, it is technically accurate, and should placate the Wikipedia editors with strong political leanings listed in their bio. The David Gorski article can be used here, but the Washington Examiner article supports the opposite conclusion.
2. A separate section under 'Genetically modified crops' or 'Genetically modified organisms' that can address the claims made by RFK Jr. regarding the lower nutrient density of glyphosate-resistant GM crops in particular, with a focus on GM corn. CistronSSF (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
The Washington Examiner is not a particularly reliable source for medical claims (WP:MEDRS), so it's unclear why we would use it here to make claims about obesity / glyphosate. Katzrockso (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Katzrockso that the Wash Examiner fails MEDRS, and I'll go further by pointing out that primary studies, which are the kinds cited for glyphosate being less nutritive or exacerbating obesity, also fail MEDRS, which requires secondary sources for such claims (that is, scholarly review articles, not news reports, in this case). But I also need to point, once again, to WP:GMORFC, which is binding here. If anyone wants to introduce content that says or implies that there are health issues with foods from GM crops that do not exist similarly in foods from traditional crops, it is necessary to follow the instructions given there. And that ain't gonna happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Just chiming in that I'm catching up a bit on this one, but I'm also concerned about making any claims that would run counter to the scientific consensus here. That RfC was supposed to cut through those kind of insinuations (and save us all time and stress). I can see areas of the discussion so far where things got a little loose in that regard. I'll see if I can dig up more sources in the meantime too though as I catch up. KoA (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
The Washington Examiner article (secondary source) is citing a Nature report (primary source) titled "Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology", doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42860-0.
I'd like to point out that at least two here stated they were very much in favor of using the WE source until it was communicated that the article actually supported RFK Jr.'s claim. Instead of following the citation and weighing the merits of the Nature article against a skeptic blog, it was discarded as a source.
The RfC regarding GMOs applies to safety. The risks to human health mentioned in the GMO entry are quite limited and include pathogen contamination, gene transfer, and environmental concerns. It is inappropriate to retroactively include nutrition under the umbrella of safety after the RfC has closed.
What you're really looking for here is the principle of substantial equivalence, under which nutrition is a factor. Keep in mind, however, that a food product does not necessarily need to be nutritionally equivalent to be deemed "safe".
Here's an analogy I would give in one of my undergrad biology classes:
Is a Milky Way more unsafe or dangerous than a Payday bar? I would argue that no, it isn't, and either chocolate bar is fine to consume within the context of a mixed, healthy diet. However if food availability, price, convenience, etc. led you to eat 1500 calories of chocolate bars a day, then eating Milk Ways would have you consume 32.5g less of protein and 62.5g more of sugar than if you were to consume those calories in Payday bars.
I will reiterate the need for sources that disprove RFK Jr.'s claim regarding the nutritional disparity between GM and conventional crops; not just any crops, but specifically glyphosate-resistant GM crops, with an emphasis on corn.
Here is one to get you started: 10.1021/jf0205662 CistronSSF (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
The primary report from Nature is this: . It's a study of DNA methylation in rats. Hardly evidence that glyphosate increases obesity in humans.
You are accusing "at least two" editors of changing our positions on citing the WE source "until it was communicated that the article actually supported RFK Jr.'s claim". That's a serious accusation to make on a talk page that is covered by WP:CTOP. I've read that source, and it actually seems to me to attempt a balanced assessment of RFK's claims, pointing out some areas of science (like problems with heavy dietary reliance on ultraprocessed foods, something where RFK's position is in agreement with mainstream science) where he may have a legitimate argument, and others, including the claim that glyphosate is responsible for obesity, where he doesn't. Speaking for myself, I'm fine with citing that source for things where it satisfies WP:RS, but I'm not going to cite it to claim that glyphosate contributes to obesity in humans because it affects DNA methylation in rats.
If you want to argue that WP:GMORFC does not apply to nutrition, you can propose that argument according to the instructions there.
As the writer of the language that the community adopted in that RfC, I know perfectly well what substantial equivalence is.
And as for sources that disprove the nutritional disparity, I had added this one yesterday, before you posted this comment: . But the one for which you listed the doi is this: . It concludes: "Roundup Ready corn event NK603 is compositionally equivalent to, and as safe and nutritious as, conventional corn hybrids grown commercially today." If you want to cite that, fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
If your contribution to the RfC was writing the summary paragraph regarding safety, then you should know that nutrition was NOT included within scope.
The source that you recently added involved a mere 90 day safety trial in rats, so it's quite interesting that you're discounting animal studies when they don't agree with your position. The best source in support of your argument has been mine, i.e. the compositional equivalence of Monsanto's NK603 glyphosate-tolerant GM corn.
All of the sources added thus far, with the exception of one, have been either redundant, inaccurate, or supported the opposite conclusion. A reasonable person might agree that a politically motivated conclusion was reached first, with a number of quickly skimmed sources piled on second. That is NOT how we operate in the scientific community.
Anyone with strong political language included in their bio should excuse themselves out of conflict of interest. Anyone that cannot distinguish between primary and secondary sources should excuse themselves. It is imperative that editors here understand the science, and that comes with being a published author capable of replicating any one of these studies themselves.
I offer the same critiques here in this discussion page as I would during peer review. My goal here is not to force a conclusion, it's to enforce the rigorous standards of the scientific community and attempt to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia. CistronSSF (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I'll try to keep this brief. The words from the RfC "food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" includes within its meaning no greater nutritional risk. Something that is nutritionally unhealthy, to the point of increasing the obesity rate, is "risk[y] to human health". The source that I added is a review article, as encouraged by WP:MEDRS, so it includes multiple primary studies, not just one, and we can rely upon the conclusions drawn by the authors, rather than on our own conclusions. I also see that you are doubling down on your accusations of bad faith. Nobody needs to tell me about peer review and scientific integrity, since I am, in real life, a retired professor (neuroscience and pharmacology) from a large US research university, who was the principal investigator on multiple millions of dollars of NIH grants. But Wikipedia does not base arguments on editor credentials; we rely on sources, and I'm using sources correctly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Let's be clear here - corn products are not nutritionally healthy, especially when consumed in quantities that would contribute to obesity. An excess intake of corn with a lower nutrient content would satisfy the "partially responsible" qualification Kennedy used in his assertion. Nutrition content is referenced zero times within the GMO article, while other types of safety concerns are, therefore the RfC does not apply to nutrtion. As I've said earlier, it's entirely inappropriate to retroactively include nutrition under the umbrella of safety because you're unable to support your argument otherwise.
If you actually understood substantial equivalence, you would know that nutritional parity is not required for approval.
I can tell with absolute certainty that you are not, nor have you ever been, in this field. You cannot interpret the science, you misunderstand elementary biology concepts, and you pervert the knowledge earned by the scientific community at large for your own personal agenda. I've had to correct every single one of your supplied sources. You are 100% not qualified to edit any scientific articles.
Nevertheless I do want to thank everyone here who has participated in this discussion. I'm frequently asked by freshman undergraduates why I do not allow them to use Wikipedia as a source, so I thought I would dedicate a few slides to the problems with direct democracy in intellectual matters. You will certainly provide value as a cautionary tale to hundreds of young Trees entering STEM. CistronSSF (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm not going to get too much into this one since I'm heading out for awhile, but as a professor who actually does have expertise when it comes looking at crop variety profiles from a breeding perspective (GMO or otherwise), I can vouch for Tryptofish that they've been at this topic long enough on-wiki besides IRL credentials that they know how to navigate this. As they alluded to though, WP:EXPERT editors get no special privileges here and credentials don't really matter for our purposes. If someone wants to rely on IRL credentials, they need to publish a reliable source and then maybe someone else on Wikipedia can pick it up. I say this leading up to the idea though that we WP:FOC or focus on content, on contributor, especially on article talk pages.
When it comes to the content though, you are confounding concepts in your corn example that Tryptofish mentioned already. How healthy or unhealthy corn products are is a different question than whether it's an issue of say GMO corn vs. conventional. That's a common misconception I've run into as an educator on product like say strawberries when there are variety differences and people assume it's due to GMO instead. Nutrition has always been looked at in assessments on GMOs too, so it's not appropriate to claim it's "retroactive" in the consensus language, and sources back at the GMORFC did actually have variations of saying GM products were as safe or nutritious as their non-GM equivalents. The GMORFC pretty much settled that debate for us on-wiki after plenty of sources described the scientific consensus. KoA (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
If you want to message me privately, I will gladly compare credentials. Hint: you've already cited me. We can continue the conversation via my email link because this special-purpose account is no longer needed.
My message to students is that two or more unqualified or underqualified individuals with time to volunteer on Wikipedia will always "win" over the more qualified individual, especially with respect to contentious topics. There is a reason peer-review is accomplished by peers, and not volunteers from the public. The Wikipedia model does not work for science.
The GMORFC does not include nutrition
1. The GMO article does not mention nutrition.
2. The accepted proposal summary does not mention nutrition, only safety.
3. A source for proposal 1 does mention nutrition in the context of "safe and nutritious", explicitly not including nutrition under the umbrella of safety, while also noting that the majority of the studies considered were industry sponsored. Both conventional and GM crops can be nutritionally nonequivalent without being nutritionally deleterious, which is what I attempted to demonstrate with my examples; quantity is important. Furthermore, substantial equivalence can be determined at any stage of downstream processing, and analysis is not necessarily performed on the raw corn cob itself.
You've all misunderstood the actual claim(s) presented.
1. RFK Jr. claims the cause of the obesity epidemic is "poison food", which is composed of "ultra processed wheat, sugar and flour... seed oils, soy, canola, sunflower and then and then, you know, wheat and corn".
2. RFK Jr. explicitly mentions the three most subsidized crops being wheat, corn, and soy. "And and those are the feedstocks for all of our processed foods." "They turn into sugar. They’re they’re all nutrient barren."
3. RFK Jr. makes a separate but related claim that "the original crops were nutrient rich, but the GMO crops are nutrient barren".
4. RFK Jr. makes no specific claim that glyphosate interacts directly with the human body in such a manner as to contribute to the obesity epidemic - which we've previously established - although still present is the skeptic blog source falsely attributing an article to RFK Jr.
You cannot refute the entirety of RFK Jr.'s claim. There are two issues you need to distinguish between:
1. RFK Jr.'s ultimate assertion is that the American obesity epidemic is caused by the availability and abundance of ultra-processed foods. The Wikipedia claim uses the language "...partially responsible for the American obesity epidemic" to narrow its scope to secondary claims.
2. RFK Jr. makes the link between obesity and glyphosate indirectly through crop subsidies and incentives. Corn is used heavily in these processed foods because it's both subsidized and easy to treat with herbicide.
To refute this claim, one would need to demonstrate that glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant GM crops did not significantly contribute to the proliferation of soy and corn used in these processed foods.
3. RFK Jr. claims that conventional crops are not nutritionally equivalent to glyphosate-resistant GM crops. I've tried to help here by providing the journal article investigating the nutritional profile of NK603 specifically.
However, because Kennedy references these crops being used as sugar sources for inclusion into processed foods, you must also look at any variants intended to be used primarily for high-fructose corn syrup production. For example, an engineered crop intended for sugar production may be likely to have a higher carbohydrate content than non-engineered variants. Can you find a profile characterizing the nutrient content carried over in the HFS, if any remains, after downstream processing?
Concepts to remember:
1. You're not able to conclusively determine intent, especially with respect to literary devices and figures of speech, such as hyperbole. "Nutrient barren" may be one such example.
2. You must systematically disprove each aspect of RFK Jr.'s broad claim. I do not believe you can disprove RFK Jr.'s opinion regarding obesity and processed foods, but I do think it's reasonable to critique his claim regarding glyphosate-tolerant GM crops specifically, provided that you can address the existence of any variants used primarily or exclusively for HFS production.
3. "Children's Health Defense Team" authored articles cannot be treated as if they were written in whole or in part by RFK Jr. I maintain that the best course of action is to address the Children's Health Defense article here involving glyphosate directly.
A separate entry under GMO or GM Crops should be created to address RFK Jr.'s claim re: nutritional deficiencies.
4. The RfC does not address ultra-processed foods, glyphosate as a factor involved in the proliferation of soy and corn in the US, nutrition content within the scope of safety, or the nutrient profile of GMO-derived additives. There's still hard work to be done. Good luck. CistronSSF (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
@Tryptofish what instructions are you referring to here, for clarity? Katzrockso (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
"It may be overturned only by another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, or by decree of the Arbitration Committee." Those are the only possible avenues. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It occurs to me to make a more general comment about the Kennedy content. There's actually a very reasonable argument to be made, that a lot of present-day food crop varieties (at least in the US) are bred to hold up well during transportation and storage, possibly at the expense of nutrient content, although I haven't seen any high quality science that says that supermarket fruits and vegetables in the US are generally unhealthy. But that's an issue of plant breeding in general, and not related to GM or glyphosate resistance, as Kennedy has specifically placed some of the blame. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I think that this may be the best language we have so far for Kennedy:
"US politician Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has claimed that the widespread adoption of glyphosate-resistant GM crops is partially responsible for the American obesity epidemic, as he falsely believes that GM crops are nutrient deficient compared to their unmodified counterparts."
I took what we have above, but moved "falsely" to the second part of the sentence. I did that because that's the most specifically false aspect of it, and because the first part of the sentence already says "claimed". I also changed "nutrient barren" to "nutrient deficient". And I think that the four sources we currently have on the page, for the current version of the sentence about Kennedy, are sufficient when taken together. I've just added the fourth source, which establishes the falsehood of nutrient barrenness. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
So just to help with tracking edits while reading through this, you're focusing on the the sources this diff/paragraph right? I think your text threads any potential wiki-needles well and is pretty straightforward in having sources for the claim, and scientific sources required for context. I'm still seeing other comments above running counter to the GMORFC, so we really can't consider those here. I think that version should be fine until other sources comment on the fringe nature of his comments.
One alternative would be to add the GMORFC language here as that directly counters the idea that there's a nutritional difference. That or maybe just having a single summary sentence linking to the scientific consensus language somewhere as a sort of response, but your sentence seems simpler at least. KoA (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that link reflects the sources I was talking about. I've just replied to a comment above, where this additional source was raised: . It has the advantage of being specifically about Roundup-resistant corn, and the disadvantage of not being a review article. I'm OK with including, or not including, it. As for copying the GMORFC language, I too think that would become more wordy, and the sources I just referred to are easier to understand as being related to what RFK said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
I do have a minor suggestion. It's awkward to state in Wikivoice what someone "believes" (in the present tense). What about "US politician Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has claimed that the widespread adoption of glyphosate-resistant GM crops is partially responsible for the American obesity epidemic. He has falsely asserted that GM crops are nutrient deficient compared to their unmodified counterparts." Nosferattus (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. I like that better than what I had written. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
For that source, it's a primary source from 2002, so I'd be kind of meh on that. When it comes to the scientific consensus, there were sources looking at nutritional differences (or lackthereof) that informed the secondary sources. There is this review that's more recent. It mentions nutritional equivalence among other things and also Since the first genetically engineered or modified crops were approved for commercial production in 1995, no new GM organisms (GMO) have been shown to be a hazard or to cause harm to human consumers. KoA (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
OK, I'm fine with omitting that 2002 primary source. As for that 2025 review, I notice also that the abstract cites "nutritional improvement" as a good thing about GM crops. I'm OK with adding it, but the older review that I added to the page earlier should stay, I think, because it focuses specifically on nutritive value. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I was mostly just thinking that someone might fuss over seeing a scientific source quite a bit older than the RJK stuff, so adding that one should help on top of the one you mentioned. KoA (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I've added that source from 2025, and combined some of the sources so that we don't have long strings of superscripts (but I haven't removed any sources). I also implemented the language proposed by Nosferattus. Personally, I feel good about these changes, and I think that all the concerns that have been raised about the content have now been addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI