Who Decides How Much Cancer Risk is Acceptable in Our Children’s

Who Decides How Much Cancer Risk is Acceptable in Our Children’s Food?

CJ Bare

– October 31, 2026

6 min read

Every parent knows the anxiety of standing in a supermarket aisle, trying to decide what to feed their children. We worry about nutrition, affordability, and whether our children will actually eat what we buy. But there is another, more frightening question. Could the food we give our children every morning be exposing them to chemicals that increase their risk of cancer later in life?

As a new parent two decades ago, I assumed that if a product was legally sold in a supermarket, somebody had established that it was safe. Surely scientists and regulators had examined the evidence and ruled out serious dangers. Moreover, one would think the government would not allow dangerous chemicals into our food. The more I have investigated glyphosate, however, the less comfortable I have become with that assumption.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is among the world’s most widely used weedkillers. It has transformed agriculture by allowing farmers to control weeds efficiently and produce food more cheaply. One might argue the benefit of food production in an insecure food environment outweighs any related potential health concerns. But its widespread use means residues can find their way into bread, maize meal, cereals, and other foods children consume regularly. Unlike an occasional exposure to a household chemical, dietary exposure can occur repeatedly, beginning in infancy and continuing throughout a lifetime, bringing with it concerns of accumulation effects in the body rather than once-off exposure.

Earlier this year, the African Centre for Biodiversity commissioned laboratory testing of South African staple foods. Glyphosate and its breakdown product, AMPA, were detected in products including maize meal, wheat flour, bread, and infant cereal. Alarmingly, two products exceeded South Africa’s default legal residue limit.

Central Question

The central question is whether the limits established by regulators adequately protect against long-term harm. Maximum residue limits are based partly on the quantities of pesticide expected to remain on crops following approved agricultural practices. Regulators separately assess whether the resulting dietary exposure falls within health-based thresholds.

The example of the United States (US) should serve as a warning to parents everywhere. Since becoming US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr has exposed serious weaknesses in the regulation of chemicals added to American food. Most worrying is the longstanding “Generally Recognised as Safe” system, which has allowed food manufacturers to declare certain ingredients safe without independently obtaining approval from the Food and Drug Administration, or even notifying it. Kennedy has moved to close this loophole, while also targeting petroleum-based artificial food dyes over concerns about their effects on children’s health and behaviour. In August 2026, his department proposed new rules requiring companies to disclose the scientific basis for their safety claims, although these would still stop short of mandatory independent approval. The implications are deeply unsettling.

For decades, companies have been able to introduce certain substances into America’s food supply without regulators necessarily knowing what was being added or examining the evidence to support its safety. This does not mean that every such ingredient is therefore dangerous, but it exposes how easily commercial interests can override regulatory scrutiny. For parents, the lesson is clear. Neither government approval nor the absence of a government warning should be mistaken for proof that every ingredient in their children’s food has been independently and thoroughly tested.

The cancer evidence related to glyphosate is especially troubling. In 2015, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. Its assessment drew on evidence from animal experiments, studies of exposed people, and research into mechanisms through which cancer might develop.

A 2025 Italian study intensified these concerns. Researchers following rats exposed to glyphosate-based substances reported increased cancers, including leukaemia, at doses that used the European acceptable daily intake.

Disagreement

There are regulatory authorities, including in Europe, that disagree with the conclusion that connects glyphosate and cancer. But the disagreement itself raises an uncomfortable question for us as parents. When scientists reach different conclusions about a chemical found in everyday food, how confidently can anyone declare the matter settled?

Cancer is not the only concern. Research involving Californian farmworker families found an association between childhood exposure to AMPA and metabolic syndrome in young adulthood, a condition linked to diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

What makes these uncertainties more disturbing is the enormous commercial power behind glyphosate.

Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, spent decades defending Roundup’s safety and corporate position. Documents disclosed through litigation revealed efforts to influence scientific publications and shape the public debate. In 2025, an influential scientific review published in 2000 was retracted following concerns about undisclosed Monsanto involvement in its preparation. Although the retraction has itself been disputed, the episode exposes a serious vulnerability in a system that relies partly on research submitted or supported by companies whose profits depend on regulatory approval. Corporations consequently have powerful incentives to lobby regulators, defend existing safety thresholds, and challenge research that threatens their products.

We cannot reasonably deduce that regulators deliberately approve dangerous limits. However, we should be wary of any suggestion that official approval is beyond question. Ultimately, the difficult risk analysis falls on parents who have to weigh up the benefits and potential dangers as they stare down the choices afforded to them at their grocery stores.

What Next?

So, what should we do?

I would not panic or remove nutritious staples from my children’s diet. The residues detected in the South African products were extremely small relative to established daily exposure thresholds. But I would also not interpret those thresholds as safety endorsements, particularly when questions remain about long-term exposure and cancer.

Instead, I would reduce avoidable exposure where practical. I would vary the grains my children eat, consider organic alternatives, and pay particular attention to foods consumed repeatedly by babies and young children. Providing a variety of food categories and grains remains a solid rule of thumb.

Parents deserve to know what is in their children’s food, how safety thresholds were established, and whose research informed them. I would also encourage researching independent scientific assessments rather than relying exclusively on statements from manufacturers or government departments. South Africa urgently needs transparent pesticide testing, public disclosure of residue findings, and regulatory decisions insulated from commercial pressure. Until then, we must educate ourselves.

We need not be in a panic at the supermarket. But it is a call to be cautious and well informed. The lesson is not that every trace of glyphosate will cause cancer. It is that a chemical’s legal approval cannot erase legitimate scientific uncertainty, particularly when powerful commercial interests have tried to influence the evidence. We must always be the sentinels of our own families and our health.

CJ Bare is based between South Africa and the United States and holds a degree in psychology.