By Kelly Ryerson
Editor’s Note: On September 28, The New York Times ran a Guest Essay by contributing Opinion writer, Michael Grunwald, provocatively titled, “Spraying Roundup on Crops Is Fine. Really.”
Toward the middle of Grunwald’s convoluted argument, he writes, “Glyphosate is a convenient target because it’s the most widely used herbicide, and because ‘Roundup ready’ GMO crops engineered to tolerate weed-killing doses of glyphosate are the ultimate symbol of the GMO revolution. There’s overwhelming evidence that GMOs are safe, and glyphosate happens to be one of the most benign forms of weed control.”
I am the MAHA mom who calls out glyphosate. I’m also a realist.
The safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup, is one of the most contentious debates in the environmental health world and a subject repeatedly raised by HHS Secretary Kennedy’s MAHA constituency. Glyphosate is the most widely used pesticide of all time, sprayed on most of the American corn and soybeans that have been genetically modified to be resistant to its effects. It is also sprayed on grains and chickpeas at the end of their season to kill off the crop, allow it to dry evenly, and thus facilitate a more efficient harvest. Glyphosate is so frequently used that it is now commonly found in food, water, rain, blood, hair, and urine. If it is that ubiquitous, we should probably be sure it’s safe, right?
Secretary Kennedy served as an attorney representing plaintiffs who claimed that exposure to glyphosate gave them Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Bayer, a manufacturer of glyphosate, has paid out around $11 billion in settlements and jury verdicts, proving that the cancer victims had a strong legal case. Bayer’s stock price has crashed by over 70% since its 2018 acquisition of Monsanto, the original manufacturer of Roundup.
Bayer’s key strategy to stop the bleeding is to pass legislation through Congress to limit the ability of Americans to sue if they get sick from chemical exposure, effectively creating a pesticide liability shield. Shockingly, many members of Congress are backing this outrageous legislation, and our right to hold chemical manufacturers accountable in court is in serious jeopardy. The glyphosate cancer litigation produced a doozy of internal documents that exposed a long history of corporate manipulation of science and regulatory capture. Internal emails show that Monsanto ghostwrote research for the EPA claiming that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and passed it off as work by independent scientists. Other emails show a cozy relationship between Monsanto and EPA regulators, and even a marketing plan that included a line item to “discomfort the opposition” – opposition like Kennedy and we MAHA moms.
It is exactly this corporate influence on health regulation that Kennedy and his supporters vehemently oppose. Independent, peer-reviewed research connects continual exposure to glyphosate to kidney disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, hormone disruption, and neurological conditions. And of course, Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Unfortunately, the EPA bases its safety determinations primarily on company-provided research, which has been less than enthusiastic in investigating these potential health impacts.
Last year, I presented research to the EPA demonstrating that glyphosate is found in a broad variety of bodily fluids, including semen. Given our national fertility crisis and plummeting sperm counts, an extensive study of glyphosate as a potential endocrine disruptor seems much overdue. Like previous visits to regulators, the EPA officials simply took notes and politely escorted our team out the door. A thorough endocrine disruption study has yet to be performed. Unfortunately for Secretary Kennedy, no amount of research can untie his hands in dealing with this harmful chemical. While special interests often block the best intentions of regulatory officials, the case of glyphosate is especially tricky. Over the last fifty years, the foundation of the American agriculture system has become highly dependent on this herbicide. Even worse, as weeds evolve and glyphosate loses effectiveness, farmers are forced to adopt even more toxic, next-generation herbicides, landing our country on a perpetual chemical feedback loop of increasing toxicity.
Some organic purists call for the immediate ban of glyphosate. This is well-intentioned but unrealistic – farmers cannot change their decades-long dependence on these chemicals overnight. In fact, loss of access to glyphosate would potentially lead to the use of even more toxic replacement weedkillers. The only way we will permanently close the door on the chemical agricultural era is to support and incentivize our farmers to gradually overhaul the current farming practices. Starting now.
Government-funded financial safety nets and technical assistance would support farmers to heal their chemically damaged soil and make crops more resistant to troublesome pests, decreasing the need for toxic chemicals. The Farm Bill, expected to be drafted in the House this month, must provide substantial funding to make this transition a reality and overhaul our toxic food system. It is the only way our country can escape the crippling chronic disease epidemic – taxpayers deserve access to clean food, water, and environments.
For President Trump to succeed in his mission to Make America Healthy Again, we need Congress and all regulators to act now to financially support farmers to step off the chemical treadmill, or risk a future that is poisoned from the ground up. The health of our children can’t wait.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.
I get the sinking feeling that Roundup is an awful lot like Agent Orange lite.
“Bayer, a manufacturer of glyphosate, has paid out around $11 billion in settlements and jury verdicts, proving that the cancer victims had a strong legal case.”
This is a bad conclusion. Bayer actually wins a majority of the cases that go to trial. Win rate is about 75%. Problem is that mass tort litigation favors settlements, because whenever Bayer wins, they win 0 Dollars (negative with attorney costs) and when they lose, they lose a billion dollars for one case (One might ask the question of whether a billion dollars makes sense). Settlements make sense, regardless of guilt, at basically anything over a 10% likelihood of loss given the figures that Juries keep throwing around.
“Bayer’s key strategy to stop the bleeding is to pass legislation through Congress to limit the ability of Americans to sue if they get sick from chemical exposure, effectively creating a pesticide liability shield. “
This is also incorrect. What is being asked is that if Federal law requires manufacturers to label a product in one way, they cannot be sued over that labeling, functionally requiring companies to choose whether they want to be sued by private individuals or by the federal government for non-compliance. This is in line with medical labeling, under Dow vs Rigel (2006). Strict Liability and Defective products are both still viable suits.
“The glyphosate cancer litigation produced a doozy of internal documents that exposed a long history of corporate manipulation of science and regulatory capture. Internal emails show that Monsanto ghostwrote research for the EPA claiming that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and passed it off as work by independent scientists.”
The EFSA recently did a full review of glyphosate. They had no issue. Every regulatory agency around the world has found no issue for concern. What I would ask Ryerson is given that the primary evidence given is the IARC 2015 report, and that the IARC has been found (through internal leaks obtained by Reuters) to have engaged in the same backroom dealing that Ryerson claims that Monsanto was engaging with, then why would anyone trust the IARC either. The IARC has done this with other products. Stacking the deck to satisfy the initial ground for Tort Litigation, or because there is a set of people intent on creating a problematic product. This happened with processed meats, and with gasoline (the gasoline emails to tort firm communications have also leaked).
The problem is that since the IARC is outside of US jurisdiction, they have not been subject to discovery that the EPA was. But all evidence suggests that the IARC is just as involved in the “Ghostwriting” and at a much grander scale, but since they’re not on trial, and since they confirm Ms. Ryerson’s bias, they must be right!
“Last year, I presented research to the EPA demonstrating that glyphosate is found in a broad variety of bodily fluids, including semen.”
Here is the fun part. Do you mean glyphosate, or do you mean AMPA? Because they have been used interchangeably. AMPA can be found in the breakdown from phosphonates, and those phosphonates are used in water treatment. In fact, in a recent study in europe, it was found that the primary source of AMPA and even chelated reformed glyphosate was from commercial detergent, not from agriculture.
In short, everything about this post is designed to push a narrative that is frankly false and incorrect.
Praise for Kelly Ryerson for this important article.. Chemistry ,like Mathematics , can be presented in a way that is understandable, , using simple , easy to understand descriptions of the terms involved and the procedures involved in any situation, or it can be made complex by not explaining things fully. An example in Mathematics can be found in a book by A Albert Klaf written in 1944, as follows – An aircraft carrier is in the ocean at a point 600 miles off the coast and an airplane flies at an angle ( the bearing, the angle is not given, ) it is flying at speed 120 mph , lands at a point East of the point that is 600 miles from the carrier ( the carrier is North of the point 600 miles on the coast.) when it turns East it increases speed to 200 mph .The question is What is the distance between the point on the coast directly South of the carrier and the point directly East where speed is increased to 200 mph ? This is presented as a Calculus equation ( title of the book is Calculus Refresher) – I tried about two dozen times to understand the approach using the Calculus and could not find the answer – woke up one morning and it was all clear – this was a simple plain Trigonometry exercise – with just those numbers to work with I saw that it would be a case of determining the Tangent function , First divided 120 by 200 to get the sine function which gave the bearing angle as 36.86 degrees and the Tangent of that is .75 ,so 600.mutiplied by .75 is 450 .That is the answer 450 mies . The point is that circumstances ,such as the chemistry pertaining to this Round up matter can be explained In a way that favors all of the good things about it and it doesn’t consider things like How often it is used, What amount is used when applied ,etc those matters right there indicate the need to look at all sides of the situation .I do believe Kelly Ryerson presents an honest opinion , an honest outlook outlook on this matter.
I’ve been spraying roundup for over 50 years on weeds, fence lines, cracks in cement, etc. Never sprayed it on crops but I hope they leave those of us alone who use it strictly to kill unwanted grass and weeds.
Glyphosate is also the main ingredient in agent orange that caused such severe nerve damage in Vietnam vets. I know local farmers who blame it for their parkinsons disease, and have an ongoing lawsuit because if it. Round up also poisons the ground. If only Monsanto had not developed Round Up, and sold it off to Bayer to avoid legal liability. Another reason for regenerative farming to take over modern farming practices.
Every regulatory authority on the planet agrees that glyphosate is SAFE and does not cause cancer. This infographic has direct links to each organization.
~Glyphosate Safety Infographic~
What do global regulatory and research agencies conclude about the health impact of glyphosate?
Shame on AMAC for junk mail.
But wait: EATING GMO LABELED FOODS IS INGESTING ROUNDUP POISONS.
Genetically Modified Organisms are created to deliver the Roundup poisons to the crops as a step saver for farming AND TO AVOID BEING DETECTED.
Look at every label of processed foods and you WILL FIND MOST ARE LISTED THE REQUIRED GMO WARNINGS.
I GUARANTEE YOU WILL NOT FIND A CAN OF CAMBELLS SOUP THAT IS NOT SHOWING A GMO WARNING.