Kualitas bukti 4.38/5
Skor tinjauan delapan dimensi terhadap rubrik kualitas . Setiap dimensi dinilai 1–5.
- D1 Dasar sumber
- 5/5
- D2 Otoritas sumber
- 5/5
- D3 Aritmetika
- 3/5
- D4 Ketidakpastian
- 4/5
- D5 Cakupan
- 4/5
- D6 Prosa
- 4/5
- D7 Kejujuran persepsi
- 5/5
- D8 Kelengkapan peringatan
- 5/5
● faktor Anda — klik risiko ini ▾ untuk menampilkan
- Faktor Anda
≈ Sama mungkinnya dengan
Dipersepsikan
Glifosat adalah herbisida yang paling banyak digunakan dalam pertanian dunia dan bahan aktif dalam Roundup. Reklasifikasi IARC 2015 atas glifosat sebagai «kemungkinan karsinogenik bagi manusia» (Grup 2A), vonis bernilai miliaran dolar terhadap Monsanto/Bayer dalam Johnson v. Monsanto (2018), dan aliran tetap siklus pemberitaan «Roundup ditemukan dalam sereal Anda» telah mengukuhkan kekhawatiran publik. Banyak konsumen memperlakukan setiap residu glifosat yang terdeteksi pada gandum, oat, atau buncis sebagai risiko kanker yang berarti dan membeli organik khusus untuk menghindarinya. Survei secara konsisten menempatkan pestisida di antara kekhawatiran keamanan pangan teratas orang dewasa AS.
Perkiraan kasar: 46 % orang dewasa AS menempatkan pestisida sebagai kekhawatiran keamanan pangan 3-teratas (IFIC 2025)
Aktual
~99,9 % perkiraan asupan diet AS berada di bawah 1/1.000 dari asupan harian yang dapat diterima EFSA sebesar 0,5 mg/kg/hari; tidak ada asosiasi kanker yang signifikan secara statistik dalam kohort aplikator terbesar
Orang dewasa AS yang mengonsumsi produk konvensional, biji-bijian, dan makanan olahan
Tampilkan perhitungan
Kanker diet seumur hidup orang dewasa AS yang disebabkan glifosat ditetapkan sebagai placeholder konservatif 1-dari-1.000.000, floor yang sama yang digunakan oleh `pesticide-residue-food`, karena tidak ada kohort paparan-diet yang mendeteksi sinyal kanker dan bukti kohort-aplikator (Andreotti dkk. 2018, JNCI, N=54.251 -- studi prospektif terbesar yang tersedia) melaporkan tidak ada asosiasi antara penggunaan glifosat dan limfoma non-Hodgkin (rate ratio 0,87, 95 % CI 0,64-1,20 untuk kuartil paparan tertinggi vs pengguna yang tidak pernah, p-trend 0,95). Perkiraan asupan diet AS tipikal dari FDA Total Diet Study kira-kira 1/1.000 dari asupan harian yang dapat diterima EFSA sebesar 0,5 mg/kg/hari. Klasifikasi Grup 2A IARC 2015 (Monograph 112) bertumpu pada bukti manusia «terbatas» dari studi kasus-kontrol okupasional dan bukti «memadai» pada hewan pengerat laboratorium; EPA (ulasan interim 2020), EFSA (peer review 2023), ECHA (opini RAC 2022), Health Canada (re-evaluasi 2017), dan APVMA Australia masing-masing menyimpulkan bahwa glifosat kemungkinan tidak karsinogenik bagi manusia pada tingkat paparan yang diharapkan. Angka 1-dari-1.000.000 adalah plafon konservatif yang mengakui perbedaan pendapat IARC dan kemungkinan efek dosis-rendah yang belum dapat diukur; angka diet sebenarnya mungkin secara efektif nol. Pita ketidakpastian yang lebar mencerminkan ketidaksepakatan institusional ini, bukan variabilitas yang terukur.
Catatan: Entri ini membahas paparan glifosat dari makanan untuk orang dewasa AS yang meng…
Entri ini membahas paparan glifosat dari makanan untuk orang dewasa AS yang mengonsumsi produk konvensional, biji-bijian, dan makanan olahan, serta risiko kanker terkait yang masuk akal. Entri ini tidak mencakup paparan aplikator okupasional di luar pengali di atas, efek ekologis (penyerbuk, amfibi, invertebrata akuatik), evolusi resistensi-herbisida pada populasi gulma, atau titik akhir non-kanker (fungsi ginjal, efek endokrin, mikrobioma) yang tetap menjadi area penelitian aktif tanpa konsensus skala-populasi. Angka 1-dari-1.000.000 adalah plafon konservatif, bukan tingkat yang terukur -- tidak ada kohort paparan-diet yang mendeteksi sinyal kanker pada paparan konsumen tipikal, dan kohort aplikator terbesar (Andreotti 2018, N=54.251) melaporkan null pada semua kuartil paparan. Perpecahan Grup 2A IARC vs non-karsinogen EPA/EFSA/ECHA/Health Canada itu nyata dan menentukan; entri ini berpihak pada konsensus regulasi yang berbobot-kohort-lebih-besar untuk cakupan diet sambil menandai perbedaan pendapat IARC dalam asumsi. Meta-analisis Zhang dkk. 2019 (kontrapoin yang sering dikutip) kontroversial secara metodologis karena fokus subkelompok hanya-paparan-tinggi dan tidak digunakan untuk menurunkan angka seumur hidup di sini; literatur tentang kesimpulannya tetap benar-benar terbelah. Jika data kohort diet AS jangka panjang akhirnya melaporkan sinyal, entri ini akan direvisi.
Bagaimana risiko bervariasi
Angka utama merata-ratakan situasi yang sangat berbeda. Berikut bagaimana probabilitas bervariasi berdasarkan skenario atau konteks:
1 dari 1.000.000
intake typically ~1/1000 of EFSA ADI; placeholder floor based on null applicator-cohort finding extrapolated downward by orders of magnitude
1 dari 2.000.000
modestly lower glyphosate residue exposure than US estimates; EFSA dietary risk assessment found no consumer concern at approved-use levels
1 dari 40 · 2,5%
baseline lifetime NHL risk ~2.14%; Andreotti 2018 found RR 0.87 (not statistically elevated) for highest glyphosate exposure quartile -- so the applicator subgroup tracks the baseline rate rather than dramatically exceeding it; scope is occupational, not dietary
Panjang dan gradasi warna batang memeringkat skenario ini satu sama lain, bukan terhadap risiko lain. Peluang pastinya ditampilkan di samping masing-masing.
Risiko terkait
Risiko lain dengan tema serupa — untuk menjelajahi ketakutan terkait.
Residu pestisida
Berapa kemungkinan residu pestisida pada produk pertanian konvensional akan membahayakan kesehatan Anda?
Kanker peralatan masak Teflon
Berapa kemungkinan terkena kanker dari peralatan masak antilengket (Teflon)?
Akrilamida & kanker
Seberapa besar akrilamida dari makanan bertepung yang digoreng atau dipanggang sebenarnya meningkatkan risiko kanker?
Tersedak anggur utuh
Berapa kemungkinan seorang anak kecil tersedak hingga meninggal karena anggur utuh?
Keracunan beri liar
Berapa peluang meninggal akibat memakan beri liar beracun yang salah diidentifikasi?
Daging gosong & kanker
Seberapa besar makan daging panggang yang gosong atau matang sempurna sebenarnya meningkatkan risiko kanker Anda?
Risiko KKR serat rendah
Berapa kemungkinan terkena kanker kolorektal karena tidak cukup mengonsumsi serat?
Daging merah & KKR
Seberapa besar sebenarnya makan daging merah atau olahan setiap hari meningkatkan risiko kanker kolorektal Anda?
Pilih penantang
Glyphosate is one of the rare cases in this catalogue where major institutions explicitly disagree on the hazard, and the public conversation has settled on the more alarming of the two readings. IARC’s 2015 Monograph 112 classified the herbicide as Group 2A — “probably carcinogenic to humans” — on the basis of limited human evidence for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and sufficient evidence in laboratory animals. EPA’s 2020 interim review, ECHA’s 2022 RAC opinion, EFSA’s 2023 peer review and Health Canada’s 2017 re-evaluation each conclude that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at expected exposures, drawing on a larger set of carcinogenicity studies including industry-submitted dossiers that IARC excluded. The split is genuine; it is not a story of “industry vs science”.
For dietary exposure — the question most consumers actually face — the
strongest negative evidence comes from the Agricultural Health Study.
Andreotti et al. (JNCI, 2018) followed 54,251 licensed pesticide applicators
prospectively and reported no association between glyphosate use and non-
Hodgkin lymphoma at any exposure quartile (rate ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.64-
1.20 for highest vs never users). Applicators have exposures orders of
magnitude above any dietary consumer. A null at that end of the exposure
distribution implies that the consumer dietary signal, if any, sits well
below the detection floor of population epidemiology. Typical US dietary
intake estimates from the FDA Total Diet Study are roughly one-thousandth
of EFSA’s acceptable daily intake. The 1-in-1,000,000 placeholder used here
mirrors pesticide-residue-food and is a conservative ceiling — the true
dietary figure may be effectively zero.
The headline does not apply uniformly. Occupational licensed applicators
face genuinely higher exposure, and although Andreotti 2018 reports no
significantly elevated cancer rate even at the high quartile, the IARC
dissent and a nominally elevated (non-significant) acute-myeloid-leukemia
signal in the heaviest-exposed applicators keep the question live for that
subgroup. Hobby gardeners using glyphosate sprays heavily without
protective equipment sit between consumer and applicator scope (see
gardening-without-ppe). Heavy consumption of US wheat, oat or pulse
products tracks the highest residues in the food supply, driven by pre-
harvest desiccation practices, but even the upper end of intake remains
far below regulatory acceptable daily intake levels. Choosing organic
substitutes reduces an already very low dietary exposure further; the
absolute risk difference at consumer scope is small.
Fakta terkait
46% orang dewasa AS menempatkan pestisida di antara kekhawatiran utama keamanan pangan, namun risiko kanker akibat glifosat dari makanan sekitar 1 in 1,000,000 atau kurang. Hampir seluruh asupan yang terukur jauh di bawah batas harian yang dapat diterima.
Buku besar klaim
Setiap angka di bawah ini adalah apa yang dilaporkan masing-masing sumber, dengan kutipan kata demi kata yang kami andalkan dan bagaimana kami sampai pada angka kami. Klik tautan mana saja untuk memverifikasi langsung.
4/4 sumber diverifikasi secara independen kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip
-
[1] International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), WHO — IARC News: Q&A on Glyphosate Terverifikasi
IARC News: Q&A on Glyphosate- Statistik
IARC Monograph Volume 112 (March 2015) classified glyphosate as Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic to humans", based on limited evidence in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and sufficient evidence in laboratory animals.- Kutipan
“Glyphosate was classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) based on "limited" evidence of cancer in humans from real-world exposures that actually occurred, "sufficient" evidence of cancer in experimental animals from studies of pure glyphosate, and "strong" evidence for genotoxicity, both for pure glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations. ”
- Data sumber dari
- 2016-03-01
- Diakses
- 2026-05-30 · salinan arsip
- Verifikasi
- Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
- Perhitungan
- The IARC Group 2A classification is a hazard-identification, not a risk-quantification. It states that the agent has the potential to cause cancer under some exposure conditions, not that any particular exposure level produces a measurable cancer rate. The dietary cancer probability for a typical consumer is not computable from this source alone. Cited here to anchor the IARC half of the institutional split and to ensure the entry is honest about the strongest evidence in the "concerning" direction.
- Independensi
- IARC's evaluation drew on ~1,000 publicly available studies via an independent working group with conflict-of-interest screening. The working-group methodology is institutionally distinct from EPA, EFSA and ECHA cancer-classification processes, which weight the evidence base differently (notably by including registrant-submitted studies not always in IARC's review universe).
-
[2] US Environmental Protection Agency — Glyphosate (Ingredient Used in Pesticide Products) Terverifikasi
Glyphosate (Ingredient Used in Pesticide Products)- Statistik
EPA Interim Registration Review (2020) concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at exposure levels expected from approved uses; review covered 15 acceptable carcinogenicity studies, more than IARC's 8 animal studies.- Kutipan
“"EPA concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." EPA further notes that its position is based on "a more extensive dataset of studies" than IARC reviewed. ”
- Data sumber dari
- 2022-08-01
- Diakses
- 2026-05-30 · salinan arsip
- Verifikasi
- Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
- Perhitungan
- EPA's Interim Registration Review for glyphosate (2020) and subsequent defenses of that decision form the institutional counterweight to IARC. Like IARC the conclusion is hazard-level rather than a quantitative cancer rate, but the framing -- "not likely carcinogenic to humans" at expected exposures -- bears directly on the dietary consumer scope this entry concerns. Used jointly with EFSA below to establish that the regulatory consensus across the largest assessment bodies is non-carcinogenic at dietary levels.
- Independensi
- EPA's review universe includes registrant-submitted carcinogenicity studies that IARC excluded; EPA and IARC analysed substantially overlapping but not identical study sets. EFSA's evaluation is institutionally separate and reaches a similar conclusion via a separate review pipeline.
-
[3] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) — Glyphosate: No Critical Areas of Concern; Data Gaps Identified Terverifikasi
Glyphosate: No Critical Areas of Concern; Data Gaps Identified- Statistik
EFSA July 2023 peer review concluded no critical areas of concern for human, animal or environmental health from glyphosate; relied on ECHA RAC 2022 opinion that glyphosate does not meet criteria for classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic.- Kutipan
“EFSA's peer review concluded there were "no critical areas of concern" regarding glyphosate's impact on human health, animal welfare, or environmental safety. EFSA relied on ECHA's classification finding that glyphosate "did not meet the scientific criteria to be classified as a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substance." ”
- Data sumber dari
- 2023-07-06
- Diakses
- 2026-05-30 · salinan arsip
- Verifikasi
- Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
- Perhitungan
- EFSA's 2023 conclusion is the third major regulatory data point against IARC's Group 2A classification (after EPA 2020 and ECHA 2022 RAC). It does not produce a dietary cancer probability either, but strengthens the case that across the major Western regulators the consensus on the dietary-consumer cancer question converges on "no measurable increase". Combined with Andreotti below, this is the basis for the 1-in-1,000,000 conservative placeholder rather than a higher figure.
- Independensi
- EFSA's peer review draws on ECHA's hazard classification and on member-state rapporteur assessments. Methodologically independent of both EPA (different review pipeline, different study weighting) and IARC (different evaluation rules; EFSA reviews regulatory dossiers including industry submissions, IARC focuses on publicly available studies).
-
[4] Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Andreotti et al.) — Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study Terverifikasi
Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study- Statistik
Prospective US cohort, N=54,251 licensed pesticide applicators (44,932 glyphosate users; 7,290 incident cancers diagnosed during follow-up). No association between glyphosate use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma overall or any NHL subtype (rate ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.64-1.20 for highest exposure quartile vs never users, p-trend 0.95).- Kutipan
“"In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes." ”
- Data sumber dari
- 2018-02-08
- Diakses
- 2026-05-30 · salinan arsip
- Verifikasi
- Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
- Perhitungan
- The Agricultural Health Study is the largest prospective cohort of licensed applicators with quantitative glyphosate-exposure data. It addresses the cancer hypothesis most prominently raised by IARC (non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and reports no association at any exposure quartile. A nominally elevated acute-myeloid-leukemia signal in the highest exposure quartile (rate ratio 2.44, 95% CI 0.94-6.32) is the one residual finding worth flagging and is not statistically significant. This is the strongest single piece of dietary-relevant negative evidence: applicators have orders-of-magnitude higher exposure than dietary consumers, and the null at the high end implies a very small ceiling on consumer-level dietary harm.
- Independensi
- The Agricultural Health Study is a long-running NCI/NIEHS/EPA collaboration tracking ~89,000 farmers and spouses; independent of IARC, EPA classification reviews and EFSA peer reviews. The Andreotti 2018 update extended follow-up by ~12 years relative to the 2005 analysis that contributed to IARC's evaluation.







