Comment Submissions - Notice of Augmentation of Record and 15-Day Public Comment Period for Exposures to Glyphosate from Consumer Products

I have learned that the Ninth Circuit of Appeals recently ruled that the EPA must vacate their finding on the risks to human health from glyphosate exposure. This ruling means that the proposed California labeling of glyphosate-based herbicides is therefore inaccurate; consequently, the EPA will now be required to reassess the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. If the EPA chooses to follow the correct regulatory procedures and rely less on studies provided by industry, the finding will likely follow that of IARC - glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. This is the only course of action that will protect the environment and the health of living organisms, including humans. I understand that Glyphosate would have been taken off the market years ago without protection from: "Ghostwritten research to support the safety of glyphosate" "The EPA’s willingness to ignore their own SAP panel" "The EPA’s refusal to follow their own rules in animal toxicity studies" There has been a great deal of research on the harmful effects of glyphosate in studies from countries around the world. It has been known since 2015 that glyphosate is classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization. Recently, France’s own National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) strengthened the analysis of risks associated with glyphosate. It is time that the EPA does its job to protect the environment from the harm glyphosate causes.