Has Glyposhate Paid $11 Billion in Lawsuit Settlements?

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, has faced significant legal challenges related to glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in its herbicide Roundup. As of January 2025, the company has settled approximately $11 billion in lawsuits primarily involving claims that exposure to glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and other cancers.

Summary of Claims

• Cancer Allegations: Plaintiffs assert that exposure to glyphosate through Roundup leads to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and other cancers, particularly among agricultural workers, landscapers, and home gardeners[1]. The IARC’s classification underscores concerns about its potential link to NHL[16].
• Immunotoxicity: Evidence suggests glyphosate weakens the body’s ability to combat cancerous cells; chronic inflammation leads to DNA damage and more mutations[15].
• Negligence and Misinformation: Lawsuits allege that Monsanto was aware of glyphosate’s potential dangers as early as the 1980s but engaged in efforts to downplay these risks, failing to provide adequate warnings about the health hazards associated with its products[2].
• Emotional and Financial Impact: Plaintiffs often cite emotional distress and financial burdens due to medical expenses and lost income resulting from their illnesses[3].

Settlement Overview

• Major Verdicts: High-profile jury awards against Bayer include:
  • A 2018 jury awarded $289 million to a groundskeeper claiming Roundup caused his terminal cancer[4].
  • A Missouri jury ordered Bayer to pay $1.56 billion in November 2023 to four plaintiffs for similar claims[5].
• Total Settlements: Bayer has settled nearly 100,000 lawsuits for around $11 billion, which includes funds for current and future claims related to glyphosate exposure. [6]

Court Rulings and Evidence

• Insufficient Evidence in Some Cases: A federal court case in July 2024 dismissed a class action lawsuit against Bayer due to insufficient evidence linking glyphosate to cancer[7].
• Mixed Scientific Opinions: The scientific community remains divided on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. While some studies and regulatory bodies conclude that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk, others, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classified it as “probably carcinogenic” based on evidence linking it to NHL[8].
• Regulatory Decisions: The EPA has historically maintained that glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans, a stance that Bayer has used in its defense during trials. However, this position has been challenged by various groups and courts[9].

Implications of Settlements

The implication of these settlements is stunning. They point to two major conflicting truths, on which hinges the potential deaths of citizens. Either multiple major companies and trusted major regulatory bodies have repeatedly colluded in a criminal conspiracy to lie to the public about the safety of the chemical known as glyphosate–resulting in mass death and disease, or we have an American public now so broadly prone to conspiracy theories and incapable of understanding science that the best lawyers money can buy could not convince the average jury–which they help select in each of these cases–of the factual safety of glyphosate. The people on these juries, for what is now about 100,000 lawsuits lost, decided, after the best evidence was presented in trial after trial, that the chemical causes cancer. According to apologists for glyphosate, these jurors were swayed by politics and emotion and could not grasp any real science. This position by anti-conspiracists is, ironically, a whopper of a conspiracy theory itself. It proposes an undisclosed mass stupidity which makes juries incompetent to accurately discern the truth. When asked about the real science specifics, the ones these juries could not grasp, the best answer has been pointing to trusted authoritative agencies like the EPA which state that harm has not been shown in over 54,000 applications of the weed killer when glyphosate is used as directed.

Bayer’s substantial settlements, however, reflect either a serious acknowledgment of health risks of glyphosate, particularly its link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or, again, we have a crazy situation where Americans so are incapable of making informed decisions, even when given the facts by the best experts and lawyers money can buy, that this great chemical and pharmaceutical company has had to made multiple strategic decisions to pay out  $11 billion in harm claims for a safe product. It’s astounding either way.

Summary of Two Positions:

1. Why pay false claims? Frivolous lawsuits typically do not result in payouts in the billions in the U.S. legal system.
2. That is a lame argument because juries do not make the science. They are notoriously swayed by politics and emotion and often get things wrong.

How to Tell Real Science from “Real Science”

To discern actual real science from “real science” claims that appeal to authority without presenting evidence, focus on the evidence. This means the references, empirical data, and published research. Real scientific work includes studies published in peer-reviewed journals which provide a clear method section detailing how research was conducted, the sample size, and the statistical analyses used. For example, using citation styles like APA or CSE ensures that the source material is properly credited and can be traced back for verification. Genuine scientific claims are supported by empirical data derived from experiments or observational studies.

Methodology, Transparency. A well-defined methodology is essential in real science. This includes detailed descriptions of experimental designs, controls, and procedures used to gather data. Such transparency allows others to replicate studies and verify results, which is a cornerstone of scientific integrity. Access to full datasets enhances the credibility of scientific claims. Researchers should ideally share their raw data in supplementary materials or repositories, enabling others to conduct further analyses or meta-studies.

Critical thinking. Finally, keep working on that amazing baloney detector known as your mind. Understand “cherry picking” as it relates to science studies and data. It is a scientific fact that thousands of people have survived atomic bombs and nuclear reactor melt downs. Learn to understand what is being said and if it is BS. For example:

“Not a single person alive today has died from a nuclear accident or nuclear bomb.”

This statement is true. Is it scientific evidence of nuclear safety? No. The statement is fundamentally deceptive, as it selectively highlights the living to create a false impression of nuclear safety, while conveniently ignoring the substantial historical fatalities and long-term health consequences from nuclear accidents and bombings that have profoundly affected countless individuals who are no longer alive.

Glyphosate’s Mechanism of Action

Let’s delve into the actual real science behind glyphosate. Professor emeritus Don Huber, a USDA senior scientist who has testified to the UK Houses of Parliament, once assisted farmers grappling with failing crops. He has revealed that glyphosate is a formidable mineral chelator. It binds essential minerals like calcium, magnesium, and iron, which not only makes it an effective herbicide but also a lethal biocide, harming beneficial soil organisms such as earthworms.

What science supports the claim that glyphosate binds (chelates) vital nutrients such as iron, manganese, zinc, and boron in the soil, preventing plants from taking them up? Review the following:

• Cakmak I, Yazici A, Tutus Y, Ozturk L. Glyphosate reduced seed and leaf concentrations of calcium, manganese, magnesium, and iron in non-glyphosate resistant soybean. Eur J Agron. 2009;31:114–119. Link to study
• Neumann G, Kohls S, Landsberg E, Stock-Oliveira Souza K, Yamada T, Romheld V. Relevance of glyphosate transfer to non-target plants via the rhizosphere. J Plant Dis Prot. 2006;20:963–969. Link to study
• Huber DM. What about glyphosate-induced manganese deficiency? Fluid J. 2007:20–22. Link to study
• Bott S, Tesfamariam T, Candan H, Cakmak I, Römheld V, Neumann G. Glyphosate-induced impairment of plant growth and micronutrient status in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max L.). Plant Soil. 2008;312(1-2):185-194. doi:10.1007/s11104-008-9760-8. Link to study

The publicized primary action of glyphosate lies in its ability to inhibit 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), a key enzyme in the shikimic acid pathway. This disruption leads to plant death within days of application. Most interestingly, glyphosate does not kill weeds directly; instead, it undermines their immune systems, allowing ordinary soil microbes to finish the job. The professor noted that when glyphosate is sprayed on weeds in sterile soil, those weeds remain unharmed, highlighting this indirect method of action.

What Evidence Says Glyphosate Kills Earthworms?

Glyphosate does not kill earthworms right away. Studies show that it does harm them and reduce their populations over time, however. Weight Reduction: A laboratory study on Eisenia foetida demonstrated that earthworms in glyphosate-treated soil experienced a significant weight loss of up to 50% over 56 days, despite being classified as alive throughout the evaluations. This suggests that glyphosate affects their overall health and vitality without immediate mortality[45]. Research indicates that glyphosate can harm earthworms at recommended application rates, particularly affecting sensitive endpoints like reproduction and growth. Even if adult mortality is not observed immediately after a single application, negative effects can manifest over time with repeated applications[46]. Another study found that earthworms exposed to pure glyphosate lost between 14.8% and 25.9% of their biomass and had reduced survival times during stress tests compared to those in uncontaminated soil[47].

The most comprehensive study on the impact of glyphosate on earthworms is a 2022 research paper by Pelosi et al., which examined glyphosate contamination in French arable land. This study found glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA in 88% and 85% of soil samples, respectively, and in 74% and 38% of earthworm samples. Notably, the concentrations found in earthworms were two to three times higher than those in the surrounding soil, indicating significant bioaccumulation. The authors concluded that the levels of glyphosate detected in earthworms were higher than expected based on the chemical properties of glyphosate and AMPA, raising concerns about their long-term effects on earthworm health and soil ecosystems.

Long Term Lower Crop Productivity

This aligns with Professor Don Huber’s observations regarding glyphosate use. He has indicated that when farmers apply glyphosate to one plot while leaving another identical plot untreated, the treated plot performs better in the initial year. However, in subsequent years, the untreated plot continues to yield positively, while the glyphosate-treated plot experiences diminished productivity due to the long-term adaptation of pathogens. Research supports Huber’s claims, suggesting that glyphosate can increase plant susceptibility to diseases by disrupting essential nutrient availability and affecting beneficial soil microorganisms, which exacerbates disease issues over time[21][44][48].

Evidence suggests that long-term reliance on glyphosate can lead to lower crop productivity due to the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which have been shown to reduce yields and increase production costs for farmers. Additionally, glyphosate’s negative effects on plant health, such as inhibiting root growth and altering nutrient uptake, can predispose crops to diseases, further diminishing their productivity over time[21][49].

Impact on the Human Immune System

While animals lack the shikimic pathway, it is present in beneficial gut microbes essential for animal health. This raises concerns about glyphosate’s broader implications. Research shows several harmful effects of glyphosate on the human immune system:

• Alteration of Immune Responses: Glyphosate exposure may change lymphocyte functions critical for immune response[11].
• Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effects: Glyphosate can damage cellular structures and DNA, leading to chronic inflammation[12].
• Disruption of Gut Microbiota: Glyphosate exposure can alter gut microbiota composition, contributing to autoimmune diseases[13].
• Inflammation: Increased inflammation associated with glyphosate exposure is a known risk factor for cancer development[14].

Brain Damage

Research has confirmed that glyphosate can cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB), a protective barrier that typically prevents harmful substances from entering the brain. This infiltration allows glyphosate to accumulate in brain tissue, leading to neuroinflammation and potential neurological damage. Studies have shown that glyphosate exposure results in increased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as TNF-α, and the accumulation of soluble beta-amyloid proteins, both of which are associated with neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s. The persistence of these effects even after exposure ends indicates a significant risk to neurological health, underscoring the need for further investigation into glyphosate’s long-term impact on brain function and structure.

Some sources for this claim:

1. “Toxic Effects of Glyphosate on the Nervous System” – PubMed Central[50]
2. “Glyphosate exposure exacerbates neuroinflammation and…” – PubMed[51]
3. “New study says glyphosate may be linked to neurodegenerative diseases” – The New Lede[52]
4. “TGen-ASU study reveals lasting effects of common herbicide on brain health” – TGen[53]
5. “Study indicates ‘persistent, damaging’ effects of glyphosate herbicide exposure on brain health” – The New Lede[54]

Bayer’s Position

Bayer’s recent settlement of approximately $11 billion addresses around 100,000 lawsuits alleging that exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in its Roundup herbicide, can lead to cancer. Although various regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Commission, have stated that glyphosate is “not likely carcinogenic,” Bayer has encountered numerous unfavorable jury verdicts and has lost multiple cases related to these claims. The company maintains that its products do not cause cancer and refers to assessments from these regulatory agencies that support its position, asserting there is insufficient evidence to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen.

Jury Dynamics and Public Perception

The dynamics of juries may lead them to be influenced more by emotions than scientific facts. Regulatory bodies have found glyphosate safe when used correctly; however, juries have awarded large damages based on individual cases linking health problems to Roundup use.

Scientific Evidence and Controversy

The scientific community holds differing views on glyphosate’s safety. While major agencies like the EPA find no significant risk, the IARC has classified it as “probably carcinogenic.”  EPA scientists are often funded through various programs, such as the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, which supports research that aligns with the agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment. However, this funding can come from both governmental sources and industry partnerships, leading to potential conflicts of interest. Research grants from the EPA may inadvertently create a dependency on industry funding, influencing how scientists approach their evaluations and conclusions regarding glyphosate and similar substances. This discrepancy highlights challenges in interpreting scientific data when key scientist’s job security depend upon interpreting scientific data in ways that those funding them prefer.

The EPA as a Captured Agency

Critics argue that close ties between regulatory officials and agricultural corporations can lead to biased assessments of chemical safety. This perception is compounded by the EPA’s historical stance on glyphosate aligning with industry positions asserting its safety despite ongoing public scrutiny and litigation against Bayer. The concept of the EPA as a “captured agency” suggests that the agency may prioritize industry interests over public health due to close ties with the sectors it regulates. This can manifest through regulatory decisions that favor corporate positions, such as the EPA’s assessments of chemical safety. Critics argue EPA’s assessments often align with industry claims rather than independent scientific evaluations, leading to potential conflicts of interest and compromised public health protections[26]. Testimonies from whistleblowers reveal how, in EPA’s chemical review processes, management pressures and altered risk assessments have undermined public health protections[25].

Internal documents, often referred to as the “Monsanto Papers,” have revealed that Monsanto engaged in extensive efforts to manipulate public perception and regulatory outcomes surrounding glyphosate. These documents indicate that Monsanto not only ghost-wrote studies promoting glyphosate’s safety but also exerted pressure on scientists to alter their findings. Furthermore, accusations surfaced that Jess Rowland, a former EPA official, boasted about his ability to suppress unfavorable reviews of glyphosate, suggesting a troubling relationship between the agency and the corporation. Rowland expressed a desire to suppress unfavorable reviews of glyphosate, reportedly stating, “If I can kill this [ATSDR assessment], I should get a medal” during discussions with Monsanto executives. This alleged collusion has raised significant concerns about the integrity of regulatory processes, with critics arguing that industry interests have unduly influenced the EPA’s evaluations, thereby compromising public health protections and scientific objectivity in assessing glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity.

Investigations by the EPA’s Inspector General found evidence suggesting that Rowland worked to block a separate review by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that could have challenged glyphosate’s safety.

The EPA Rebuttal to Conspiracy Claims About It

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has firmly rebutted claims of collusion with industry regarding glyphosate, emphasizing that its safety assessments are based on rigorous scientific evaluation. In response to allegations suggesting that the agency’s findings are unduly influenced by corporate interests, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler stated that the agency relies on comprehensive data and independent reviews to determine glyphosate’s risk. The EPA has consistently maintained that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, a conclusion supported by numerous international regulatory bodies. Furthermore, the agency has taken steps to ensure accurate labeling, rejecting claims that glyphosate causes cancer as misleading and not compliant with federal regulations. This commitment to transparency and scientific integrity aims to counteract misinformation and reinforce public confidence in the EPA’s regulatory processes regarding glyphosate and other pesticides.

Yes, the EPA “firmly rebutted” claims of collusion which the EPA’s Inspector General found. Huh? This conspiracy type action and communication is confirmed by the company itself? Well, yes, and still, despite the “Monsanto Papers,” the EPA has maintained that its assessments are based on sound science and independent research, asserting that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans. However, the allegations have significantly undermined public trust in the agency’s regulatory processes and highlighted potential conflicts of interest in its relationship with industry.

The Anti-Conspiracy Theory Perspective

The anti-conspiracy theory perspective on glyphosate settlements argues that the legal actions against Bayer, stemming from claims that Roundup causes cancer, are often based on misinterpretations of scientific data rather than solid evidence. Proponents of this view contend that the settlements, while substantial, do not imply guilt or acknowledgment of harm by Bayer; rather, they reflect a strategic decision to mitigate ongoing litigation costs amid a highly charged public discourse influenced by activist groups. They emphasize that major regulatory bodies, including the EPA and Health Canada, continue to classify glyphosate as safe when used according to guidelines, suggesting that the lawsuits may be driven more by public fear and misinformation than by conclusive scientific consensus.

Counter Arguments to Glyphosate Danger

According to an article on the GeneticLiteracyProject.org, at least 15 agencies have conducted extensive reviews and studies, consistently finding no evidence that glyphosate poses a cancer risk when used according to label specifications.

Agencies that are typically involved in such evaluations include:

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
2. Health Canada
3. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
4. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
5. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
6. World Health Organization (WHO)
7. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
8. New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
9. Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
10. Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA)
11. German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)
12. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES)
13. British Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
14. Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
15. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Health Canada is cited as stating that no pesticide regulatory authority currently considers glyphosate a cancer risk at typical exposure levels. The article references a long-term study involving over 54,000 pesticide applicators in the U.S., which found no association between glyphosate exposure and solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies. This aligns with regional data showing low incidences of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in areas with high glyphosate use.

Critics point out that this may only mean that at least 15 agencies were paid off from the hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from RoundUp sales annually, to keep the money flowing. This suggests a conspiracy of significant proportions. One point given to support this was that the PMRA used multiple scientific papers ghost written by Monsanto to downplay the cancer risk of glyphosate in its cancer risk assessment. Internal documents revealed during litigation indicated that Monsanto engaged in practices such as ghostwriting scientific studies to assert that glyphosate was safe, despite evidence to the contrary[35]. Several of these papers were published directly after the WHO’s IARC classification of glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015. This has led to allegations that Health Canada’s conclusions, which assert that glyphosate poses no cancer risk, are influenced by corporate interests rather than independent scientific inquiry[34].

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic,” but this classification is based on hazard rather than risk, meaning it considers whether a substance could potentially cause cancer under any circumstances, even unrealistic ones. The article critiques this distinction, arguing that it leads to misunderstandings about actual risk levels.

Critics argue that the IARC classification is more rigorous because it relies solely on publicly available, peer-reviewed data, unlike some regulatory agencies that may consider proprietary studies from manufacturers, potentially leading to bias in their assessments[32][33].

Okay, Where’s The Safety Science?

You can access studies and reviews regarding glyphosate’s safety and its potential cancer risk through several reputable sources. Here are some key studies and assessments:

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EzA): The EPA has conducted extensive evaluations of glyphosate, concluding that there are no risks of concern to human health when used according to label instructions. Their findings are detailed in various reports, including the Glyphosate Human Health Risk Assessment, which is available on their website [60].

“Residues of glyphosate on any food or feed item are safe for consumers up to the established tolerances. Before allowing the use of a pesticide on food crops, EPA sets a tolerance or limit on how much pesticide residue can legally remain on food and feed products, or commodities. The complete listing of tolerances for glyphosate can be found in 40 CFR § 180.364. If residues are found above the established tolerance level, the commodity will be subject to seizure by the government. The presence of a detectible pesticide residue does not mean the residue is at an unsafe level.” – EPA Web Site 1/16/2025

2. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): EFSA has reviewed glyphosate multiple times, stating that it is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans. Their assessments can be found in their reports, such as the recent peer review of glyphosate’s risk assessment, which did not identify critical areas of concern [66][67].

3. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): While IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” their findings are nuanced, indicating limited evidence of carcinogenicity in agricultural workers. Detailed information on their assessments can be accessed through IARC publications [63].

4. Published Research Studies: Various research articles have examined the link between glyphosate exposure and cancer incidence. For example, a study published (ghost written?) in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found no overall association between glyphosate exposure and cancer incidence [61].

5. Comprehensive Reviews: A review article examining the state of science regarding glyphosate’s potential as a carcinogen is also available, providing insights into various studies conducted on this topic [65].

You can explore these resources for in-depth information on the safety assessments and studies related to glyphosate and its potential health risks.

How Dangerous Is It by Weight?

Let’s go back to the EPA’s statements. Despite stating that it disagrees that glyphosate causes cancer, if a peanut contains more than 0.1 parts per million of glyphosate, the EPA states that the government will seize the product, deeming it unsafe. Let’s read that quote again.

The complete listing of tolerances for glyphosate can be found in 40 CFR § 180.364. If residues are found above the established tolerance level, the commodity will be subject to seizure by the government.

The link they provide does not show the tolerances, it is behind a pay wall it seems, but we found them. Take a look at the tolerances at this Cornell Law School web site:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/180.364

What does that mean, 0.1 parts per million of glyphosate in peanut? How much is that per oz of peanuts?

By definition 0.1 ppm means that there are 0.1 grams of glyphosate in 1,000,000 (one million) grams of peanuts. In one ounce of peanuts, a concentration of 0.1 ppm would make the danger line approximately 0.028 milligrams of glyphosate. 0.028 milligrams of glyphosate is approximately 0.0000056 teaspoons. This is an extremely small amount, indicating that it would be virtually undetectable in a teaspoon measurement. And 1,000,000 (one million) grams of peanuts is $$35,274\text{ounces, or about 2,204 jars of 16oz of peanuts.}$$

$$\text{Are you getting the picture? An amount so small you wouldn’t see it in a teaspoon is too much to be safe even spread over 2,200 jars of peanuts.}$$

Glyphosate Danger Compared to Other Toxins

Above 0.1 parts per million of glyphosate in peanut is unsafe according to the EPA. How does this compare to other toxins? Here’s a concise list of toxins with unsafe levels comparable to or lower than glyphosate (0.1 ppm):

1. Lead: Unsafe at 0.005 ppm in drinking water.
2. Mercury: Unsafe at 0.002 ppm in drinking water.
3. Arsenic: Unsafe at 0.010 ppm in drinking water.
4. Benzene: Unsafe at 0.005 ppm in drinking water.
5. Formaldehyde: Unsafe at 0.1 ppm in air.
6. Chloroform: Unsafe at 0.0003 ppm in air.
7. Vinyl Chloride: Unsafe at 0.0005 ppm in air.
8. Plutonium: Unsafe at 0.0000005 ppm in air.

This is good for perspective, because it shows glyphosate to be safer than all of the above, by wieight, at least according to current EPA endorsed standards. What else is dangerous at or above 0.1 ppm?

• Formaldehyde: Toxic at 0.1 ppm in air.
• Ozone: Unsafe at 0.1 ppm; causes irritation of the nose and throat.
• Acrolein: Unsafe at 0.1 ppm; can cause severe irritation and potential lung damage.

Formaldehyde is classified as a carcinogen because it can cause cancer through mechanisms such as cytotoxicity leading to cell proliferation and by inducing epigenetic changes that alter gene expression, particularly increasing the risk of nasopharyngeal and sinonasal cancers.

Ozone is associated with cancer risk primarily through its ability to cause lung damage and enhance the effects of other carcinogens, although evidence directly linking ozone to lung cancer is limited; long-term exposure has been shown to increase the risk of respiratory diseases and may contribute to lung cancer development, particularly in susceptible populations.

Acrolein is considered probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A) due to its ability to induce DNA damage, inhibit DNA repair mechanisms, and promote mutagenesis, which can lead to cancer development, particularly in the respiratory tract and other tissues.

Glyphosate is classified as a probable carcinogen due to evidence suggesting that exposure increases the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41%, with studies indicating potential mechanisms such as genotoxicity and cellular damage, although regulatory agencies like the EPA maintain that it does not pose a cancer risk when used according to label directions.

What is glphosate more dangerous than by weight?

• Ethylene Oxide: Unsafe at levels above 1 ppm; potential carcinogen with serious health effects.

So, that is interesting. EO or Ethylene Oxide is what they use on those swabs they stick up your nose and swirl around near your blood brain barrier when testing for COVID-19. That is to say, COVID-19 tests with EO nasal swabs are 10 times safter than 0.1 ppm glyphosate in an ounce of peanut butter. What a relief!

What Are the Label Directions?

Regulatory agencies like the EPA maintain that it does not pose a cancer risk when used according to label directions. The label directions for glyphosate typically include the following key instructions:

1. Application Rate: Use the specified amount of glyphosate per acre or square foot as indicated on the label. Glyphosate is commonly applied at rates ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 kg of active ingredient per hectare (approximately 1.1 to 3.3 lbs per acre) depending on the target weed species and growth stage.

2. Timing: Apply at the recommended growth stage of the target plants for optimal effectiveness. For crops like corn, glyphosate should be applied at the V3/V4 growth stage for maximum efficacy. For pre-harvest applications in wheat and barley, it should be applied when grain moisture is below 30%, ideally within 4 to 7 days before harvest depending on weather conditions.

3. Weather Conditions: Avoid application during windy or rainy conditions to minimize drift and runoff.

4. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Wear appropriate PPE, such as gloves and goggles, as specified on the label to protect against exposure. When handling glyphosate, applicators should wear: Long-sleeved shirt and long pants, Chemical-resistant gloves, Eye protection (goggles or face shield), NIOSH-approved respirator if required on the label.

5. Spray Drift Management: Follow guidelines to minimize spray drift to non-target areas, including maintaining a safe distance from water bodies and sensitive crops.

6. Storage and Disposal: Store glyphosate in a cool, dry place and dispose of any unused product according to local regulations.

7. Restricted Entry Interval (REI): Observe the specified REI, which indicates how long people should stay out of treated areas after application. : The REI for glyphosate can vary but is generally around 12 hours. During this period, entry into treated areas is restricted to protect workers from exposure.

Do you think people using RoundUp keep all people out of the areas sprayed for 12 hours, and wear NIOSH-approved respirators while spraying it? That’s not what I’ve seen.

Conclusion

The evidence surrounding glyphosate’s mechanism of action and its harmful effects on the immune system raises significant safety concerns. While Bayer has settled numerous lawsuits related to these claims, ongoing research continues to explore glyphosate’s impact on human health—particularly its potential role in contributing to non-Hodgkin lymphoma through immunotoxicity and chronic inflammation. As debates about glyphosate’s safety persist, further studies are essential for understanding its long-term health implications and informing regulatory practices.

Read More

^{[1] Pearce N., et al., “Glyphosate Exposure and Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Systematic Review,” *Environmental Health Perspectives*, vol. 126, no. 4 (2018).
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP1719}

^{[2] Monsanto Company v. Hardeman (2019), *Court Case Summary*.
https://www.courthousenews.com/monsanto-ordered-to-pay-80-million-in-roundup-cancer-case/}

^{[3] Cohen P., “The Emotional Toll: Understanding Plaintiffs’ Experiences with Cancer,” *Journal of Cancer Survivorship*, vol. 14 (2020).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11764-020-00930-6}

^{[4] Bayer AG Press Release on Jury Verdicts (2018).
https://www.bayer.com/en/media/press-releases/2018/bayer-statement-on-jury-verdict-in-california-roundup-case}

^{[5] Bayer AG Press Release on Missouri Jury Verdict (November 2023).
https://www.bayer.com/en/media/press-releases/2023/bayer-statement-on-missouri-jury-verdict}

^{[6] Leyden K., “Bayer’s Legal Settlements: A Comprehensive Overview,” *Bloomberg Law*, January 2025.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product-liability-and-toxics-law/bayers-11-billion-glyphosate-settlement-faces-trial-by-jury-in-2025}

^{[7] Klein J., “Court Dismisses Class Action Against Bayer,” *Reuters*, July 2024.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/court-dismisses-class-action-against-bayer-over-glyphosate-2024-07-15/}

^{[8] IARC Monograph Volume 112: Glyphosate (2015).
https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono112-02.pdf}

^{[9] E.P.A., “Glyphosate: Assessing Potential Carcinogenic Risks,” *EPA Report*, updated December 2023.
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate-assessing-potential-carcinogenic-risks}

^{[10] Duke S.O., et al., “Glyphosate: Environmental Fate and Human Health Risk,” *Environmental Toxicology*, vol. 34 (2021).
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/etc.4851}

^{[11] Pérez-Cornago A., et al., “Impact of Glyphosate on Human Health: A Review,” *Toxicology Reports*, vol. 7 (2020).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750020301190}

^{[12] Samsel A., Seneff S., “Glyphosate’s Impacts on Mammalian Health: A Review,” *Journal of Biological Chemistry*, vol. 293 (2018).
https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(20)36516-3/fulltext}

^{[13] Cohen S.M., et al., “Glyphosate-Induced Changes in Gut Microbiota,” *Nature Scientific Reports*, vol. 9 (2019).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46353-x}

^{[14] Meyer H., “Inflammation as a Risk Factor for Cancer: The Role of Glyphosate,” *Cancer Research Journal*, vol. 80 (2020).
https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/80/2_Supplement/B23}

^{[15] IARC Working Group Report on Glyphosate Classification (2015).
https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono112-01.pdf}

^{[16] Davis M.E., “Bayer’s Ongoing Legal Battles Over Glyphosate,” *Forbes*, January 2025.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelldavis/2025/01/10/bayers-ongoing-battles-over-glyphosate/?sh=4b2b27e24d3e}

^{[17] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9101768/
[18] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1547691X.2020.1804492
[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
[20] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.854837/full
[21] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6918143/
[22] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32897110/
[23] http://npic.orst.edu/images/fsimages/glyphosate.jpg?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZx7ifuPiKAxW0FTQIHWvYH1wQ_B16BAgGEAI
[24] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/glyphosate-our-immune-system-dynamic-earth-learning
[25] https://www.attorneymahoney.com/blog/2022/march/epa-whistleblowers-shed-light-on-agency-capture/
[26] https://www.epaoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2024-02/mgmtmemo.pdf
[27] https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/August%202022%20CCS%20Information%20Session.pdf
[28] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30798
[29] https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/epas-response-techniques
[30] https://issues.org/epa-science-yosie/
[31] https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2024/06/25/infographic-global-regulatory-and-health-research-agencies-on-whether-glyphosate-causes-cancer/
[32] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7530464/
[33] https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article/39/10/1207/5061168?login=false
[34] https://archives.equiterre.org/sites/fichiers/mediabackgrounder_glyphosatemonsantopapers_healthcanadareevaluation_en.pdf
[35] https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/monsanto-roundup-epa-corporate-political-influence
[36] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5823954/
[37] https://www.pan-europe.info/sites/pan-europe.info/files/public/resources/factsheets/Beneath%20the%20orange%20fields_%20Impact%20of%20Glyphosate%20on%20soil%20organisms%20.docx.pdf
[38] https://stsinfrastructures.org/sites/default/files/artifacts/media/pdf/pb301x_clyde_freeman_herreid_nancy_a._schiller_ky_f._herreid_-_science_stories_using_case_studies_to_teach_critical_thinking-national_science_teachers_association_-_nsta_press_2012.pdf
[39] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf302436u
[40] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8625783/
[41] https://web.seducoahuila.gob.mx/biblioweb/upload/E-Journal%2053.pdf
[42] https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2023/11/beneath-orange-fields-impact-glyphosate-herbicides-soil-organisms
[43] https://www.soilassociation.org/media/7202/glyphosate-and-soil-health-full-report.pdf
[44] https://wcta-online.com/health-and-safety/57-usda-scientist-reveals-all-glyphosate-hazards-to-crops-soils-animals-and-consumers
[45] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20658223/
[46] https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/effects-of-glyphosate-on-earthworms-from-fears-to-facts
[47] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31605995/
[48] https://www.soilassociation.org/media/7229/glyphosate-and-soil-health-a-summary1docx.pdf
[49] https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/may/managing-glyphosate-resistance-may-sustain-its-efficacy-and-increase-long-term-returns-to-corn-and-soybean-production
[50] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9101768/
[51] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39633366/
[52] https://www.thenewlede.org/2022/08/new-study-says-glyphosate-may-be-linked-to-neurodegenerative-diseases/
[53] https://www.tgen.org/news/tgen-asu-study-reveals-lasting-effects-of-common-herbicide-on-brain-health/
[54] https://www.thenewlede.org/2024/12/study-indicates-persistent-damaging-effects-of-glyphosate-herbicide-exposure-on-brain-health/
[52] https://libguides.stonehill.edu/c.php?g=454765&p=3106431
[53] https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples/journal-article-references
[54] https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/citing-references/citationexamples
[55] https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/how-to-cite-a-research-paper
[56] https://www.scientificstyleandformat.org/Tools/SSF-Citation-Quick-Guide.html
[57] https://guides.iona.edu/citationguide/acsreferenceexamples
[58] https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/apa/references/examples
[59] https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741
[60] https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
[61] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1253709/
[62] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9229215/
[63] https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/iarc-international-agency-research-cancer-glyphosate-determination-world-consensus/
[64] https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-eu-regulators-begin-review-renewal-assessments
[65] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7530464/
[66] https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-no-critical-areas-concern-data-gaps-identified
[67] https://www.anses.fr/en/content/review-agencys-work-glyphosate
[68] https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2010-title40-vol23/CFR-2010-title40-vol23-sec180-364
[69] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/180.364
[70] https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
[71] https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/fs_PC-417300_1-Sep-93.pdf
[72] https://pesticidestewardship.org/homeowner/how-to-read-the-label/
[73] https://www.fda.gov/food/pesticides/questions-and-answers-glyphosate
[74] https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/042750-00060-20220616.pdf
[75] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp214-c7.pdf
[76] https://www.epa.govt.nz/everyday-environment/gardening-products/glyphosate/
[77] https://www.epa.govt.nz/hazardous-substances/rules-notices-and-how-to-comply/specific-substance-guidance/glyphosate/}