Glyphosate: A Controversial Agricultural Input
The debate surrounding glyphosate, a key agricultural input, is intense. Some view it as a toxic component of modern farming, while others see it as a target of unfounded fears against science.
Both sides, however, overlook the more complex reality: glyphosate is essential for agriculture, but its safety is heavily debated, creating public distrust and challenging policy decisions.
The skepticism began in 2015 when the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” based on limited evidence, alongside animal studies and mechanistic data.
That said, concerns often focus on potential hazards rather than real exposure situations. Regulatory agencies, on the other hand, assess whether a substance poses an unacceptable risk when properly used.
In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has insisted that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Recently, however, it retracted its 2020 decision due to legal challenges, indicating a reassessment of its previous analysis.
Over in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority stated in 2023 that there were no major concerns regarding glyphosate, and the European Commission has extended its approval until 2033. The European Chemicals Agency also found no sufficient evidence to classify glyphosate as carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction.
A significant study contributing to this discourse is the Agricultural Health Study, which tracked over 54,000 licensed pesticide applicators in North Carolina and Iowa. An analysis from 2018 noted no overall link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, though it did raise concerns about increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia in highly exposed individuals.
Further, a pooled 2019 analysis involving over 316,000 farmers from several countries also found no strong association, despite hinting at a potential elevation of risk for certain lymphoma types among prolonged glyphosate users.
Meta-analyses, which compile data from multiple studies, show varying conclusions. A 2019 meta-analysis indicated a 41% increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among high exposure groups, but subsequent analyses in 2020 and 2021 advised caution regarding publication bias, acknowledging that diffuse large B-cell lymphoma remains a possibility.
A balanced review of the literature doesn’t definitively clear glyphosate nor place full blame on it. It’s essential to keep an eye on high-exposure individuals, particularly farmers at risk for specific lymphoma subtypes.
This ongoing uncertainty raises important questions for policymakers. Glyphosate has become America’s leading herbicide, applied to more than 100 types of crops.
Usage surged from under 5,000 metric tons in 1987 to over 80,000 by 2007—an increase of more than 15 times, coinciding with the rise of glyphosate-tolerant crops and reduced tillage. Roundup, initially created by Monsanto and now owned by Bayer, stands out as a prominent glyphosate product. Yet, suggesting a ban on such a widely used pesticide could lead to regrettable alternatives.
Bayer recently ceased selling glyphosate-based Roundup for residential use, primarily due to ongoing legal battles, rather than safety worries. As of early 2026, Bayer has already disbursed around $11 billion in lawsuits. In some cases, formulations of Roundup were replaced with diquat dibromide, which is banned in the EU for its higher toxicity.
The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sets glyphosate’s chronic intake threshold at 1 milligram per kilogram of body weight daily, while the European Food Safety Authority’s is lower at 0.5 milligrams. Diquat dibromide’s threshold is significantly lower, between 0.002 and 0.005 milligrams, although actual formulations may vary and mitigate some risk.
The choice to limit glyphosate also relies on the availability of safe, effective alternatives. Interestingly, glyphosate was initially adopted to replace more harmful pesticides. For instance, the notorious Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War included a precursor to glyphosate, which was compounded with dioxin—an extremely toxic substance.
Fortunately, that formulation was banned in the mid-1980s, allowing glyphosate to fill the gap. Notably, glyphosate has been detected in roughly 81% of Americans, albeit at levels far below safety thresholds.
This doesn’t negate the concerns people raise about glyphosate’s potential impact, including effects on the gut microbiome and interactions with other chemicals that may enhance toxicity.
Ultimately, the discourse shouldn’t be one-sided. Calls for a complete ban on glyphosate might unintentionally lead to increased use of other chemicals that could be even more harmful, higher costs, and more environmental damage.
A thoughtful approach to glyphosate moving forward necessitates evidence-based policies that involve rigorous monitoring for high-exposure groups, innovation in alternative solutions, clear communication about risks, and fair regulations that genuinely take these concerns into account while weighing the trade-offs responsibly.
