Abstract

The controversy over glyphosate-based herbicides, where there is extreme divergences in health and environmental assessments, is rooted in several methodological and normative factors. Foremost among them are the differences found in testing pure glyphosate compared to the testing of glyphosate formulations. The adjuvant chemicals found in formulations can be more toxic than the so-called “active ingredient.” Other factors can also account for why scientists reach different conclusions on the toxicological effects of GBH including the preconceptions and methodological choices they bring into the study. Lack of consensus on the science can be problematic for policymakers. The paper argues that the toxicological science behind the GBH assessments is embedded in a normative substratum, which must be considered in policy decisions.