Glyphosate study where traces found in urine of majority of participants no cause for alarm

The US National Nutrition Examination Survey found the herbicide in 1,885 of 2,310 urine samples conducted as part of the study from across the country.

CropLife Australia chief executive Matthew Cossey said the widespread publicity surrounding the study had largely focused on the presence of glyphosate in urine, which he claimed was missing the major point within the data.

RELATED: Glyphosate sparring continues

RELATED: Good timing means gly supply risks avoided

"We've seen a lot of media commentary about the presence of glyphosate but what has been missed in virtually every piece has been the concentration levels," Mr Cossey said.

"The average levels of glyphosate found are just 0.14 per cent of what is considered a dangerous level by authorities across the world," he said.

"What we see here is the improved testing capabilities, we are now able to test for traces of compounds down to levels previously impossible, you can find traces at a parts per trillion level which is not relevant in the slightest in terms of human safety."

Mr Cossey said the study showed the regulatory system was working.

"What we are finding is that while there are traces of glyphosate in the sample they are at miniscule levels, the farmers are using the product correctly and it is not causing any health concerns whatsoever.

"The other point that needs to be considered is that glyphosate does not build up in the human body, it is excreted, which is consistent with the findings of the study where traces were found in urine."

However, anti-glyphosate campaigners have seized upon the study in their calls to tighten up usage of the controversial weed-killer, saying it should not be present in food at any levels.

The 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an organisation affiliated with the World Health Organisation (WHO) that found glyphosate a "probable carcinogenic" continues to have implications on the products perceptions.

However, Mr Cossey said further research from scientific bodies such as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) had found this was not the case.

"In late May ECHA handed down their finding that based on the available scientific evidence glyphosate did not meet the criteria as a carcinogenic," he said.

Meanwhile, Bayer, the company that initially developed glyphosate under the Roundup brand, has had further legal problems to do with the herbicide.

A recent Bayer attempt to have the Hardeman v Monsanto (now part of Bayer) case thrown out was rejected by the US Supreme Court.

Bayer officials said they disagreed with the verdict.

"Bayer respectfully disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision to deny the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Hardeman," a spokesperson for the company said.

"The company believes that the decision undermines the ability of companies to rely on official actions taken by expert regulatory agencies, as it permits every US state to require a different product label, which conflicts with the clear intent of the "uniformity clause" adopted by the U.S. Congress in FIFRA and similar statutes," the spokesperson said.