Last week, an aisle display in the Garden Center at a Maryland Lowe’s featured three tiers of the most widely used weedkiller ever created: Roundup. From afar, the white bottles with bright red caps looked identical.

Upon closer inspection, however, despite having the same name, there were two distinct products intermingled on the shelves. One contained glyphosate, the chemical that’s become synonymous with the brand name—like tissue is to Kleenex. The other contained three completely different herbicides most people have never heard of.

The display was one manifestation of a promise that agrichemical giant Bayer made in 2021 to stop selling glyphosate for use on lawns and gardens starting in 2023.

Roundup is ubiquitous across agriculture. But Bayer decided to pull the chemical from home retailers because the costly lawsuits claiming the product has caused cancers came primarily from people fighting weeds in lawns, garden beds, and sidewalk cracks. Many outlets reported then that the company would stop selling Roundup for residential use.

Now that glyphosate is being phased out, however, Roundup remains—as an updated line of multiple weedkillers for home gardeners.

And today, environmental nonprofit Friends of the Earth (FOE) released a report calling into question the company’s new ingredients, claiming the reformulated products are even more toxic than the old. “It’s outrageous that in a moment when it’s so clear that Roundup has taken such a toll on people’s health, Bayer has made Roundup more toxic,” said Kendra Klein, deputy director of science at FOE and the lead author of the report.

In response to a question about the findings on toxicity, a Bayer spokesperson noted that the ingredients replacing glyphosate have “been used successfully by homeowners and others in a variety of different weed-control products for decades. All Roundup weed-control products in the U.S., including our new Roundup Lawn and Garden products, have been thoroughly reviewed and approved by independent experts at the EPA to ensure the products can be used safely with the label instructions.” Bayer also released an statement today that callled the report “deeply flawed” and pointed to the authors’ methodology as “inconsistent with how leading regulatory and health experts measure risk.”

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” and juries have now decided against Bayer multiple times based on the strength of the scientific evidence linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not come to the same conclusions.

The new formulations use different combinations of four herbicides—diquat, triclopyr, fluazifop, and imazapic. None of the chemicals are classified as carcinogens by IARC or the EPA, meaning they are not associated with a known cancer risk.

FOE’s analysis looked at scores the EPA gives chemicals on their overall human toxicity for both acute exposure (which refers to immediate risks, like burns) and chronic exposure (harm that may occur from repeated exposures over time). FOE scored all four as more acutely and chronically toxic compared to glyphosate. Diquat and triclopyr, in particular, had much higher toxicity scores. (The World Health Organization characterizes diquat and triclopyr as “moderately hazardous,” while glyphosate is ranked as “slightly hazardous.”)

Bill Jordan, a consultant and volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network who worked at the EPA for 40 years and was the former deputy director of the agency’s pesticide office, said the human health risks any pesticide poses depend on both the toxicity of the ingredients and the amount of exposure a person experiences when they use it. Since the toxicity scores alone don’t take into account the second half of that equation, it’s hard to know, then, what the real risks might be.

Jordan added, “the registration of the new Roundup formulations clearly suggests that the agency thinks the product, with its new composition and labeling, does not pose unreasonable risks.”

While Klein admits the toxicity scores come with plenty of limitations (which are outlined in the report), given the fact that the EPA still maintains Roundup is safe, she and others doubt the agency’s processes provide effective protection from risks.