Another Decade of Glyphosate – But at What Cost?
EU regulators have once again given glyphosate the green light for another decade. The herbicide, widely used in industrial agriculture, home gardening, and even city landscaping, has been at the center of controversy for years. While regulatory agencies continue to insist that glyphosate is “safe when used as directed,” independent studies, court rulings, and growing public concern paint a more complicated picture.
So, why aren’t we asking more questions about its approval?
Video: Poisoned Fields – Glyphosate, the underrated risk? (Full Documentary)
Before diving deeper into the glyphosate debate, take a look at this eye-opening documentary, Poisoned Fields – Glyphosate, the Underrated Risk. This documentary has been on YouTube for nine years (at the time of writing), meaning regulators have had access to this information for nearly a decade. The documentary uncovers the influence of agrochemical corporations, their role in shaping public policy, and the real-world consequences of industrial agriculture’s reliance on chemicals like glyphosate. Watch and decide for yourself—who really benefits from glyphosate’s continued approval?
The story of glyphosate and corporate influence is bigger than just one company or one chemical. This is about how regulatory decisions are made, who controls the narrative, and why public health often takes a backseat to industry profits. As you continue reading, ask yourself: Are we truly making informed decisions, or are we just being told what’s safe?
The Science vs. The Spin
Regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. federal agency responsible for environmental protection, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) base their approvals on studies claiming glyphosate poses no significant risk to human health. But who funds these studies? A large portion comes from the very companies that manufacture and profit from glyphosate-based herbicides.
Contrast this with the independent research that has linked glyphosate to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, endocrine disruption, and microbiome damage. Multiple lawsuits have resulted in billions in settlements to victims who developed cancer after long-term exposure. Why does a court of law recognize harm where regulators don’t?
The Missing Discussion: Cumulative Exposure
One of the biggest blind spots in the glyphosate debate is cumulative exposure. Regulators assess risk one chemical at a time, but in reality, we are exposed to a cocktail of pesticides, herbicides, preservatives, and industrial toxins every single day. Glyphosate is found in:
- Food supply – Residues remain on crops, especially in processed foods and grains.
- Drinking water – Runoff from agricultural fields contaminates groundwater.
- The air we breathe – Sprayed fields release glyphosate particles into the atmosphere.
Yet, there is no long-term safety data on how multiple exposures interact within the body. How can regulators claim safety when this question has never been adequately studied?
Regulatory Capture: Who Really Benefits?
The approval of glyphosate isn’t just a scientific debate—it’s a political and economic decision. The agrochemical industry is a multi-billion-dollar powerhouse with deep influence over policymaking. Lobbyists push narratives that support continued use, while dissenting voices—scientists, environmental groups, and concerned citizens—are often dismissed as alarmist.
Regulatory agencies are supposed to serve the public, but time and again, we see approvals that benefit corporations over human health and environmental safety. If the system were truly impartial, wouldn’t independent research be given equal weight in decision-making?
The Environmental Blind Spot
The discussion around glyphosate often focuses on human health, but what about the environment? Studies have shown that glyphosate is toxic to pollinators, harms soil microbiology, and contributes to biodiversity loss. Yet, most regulatory reviews largely ignore these long-term ecological consequences.
- Declining bee populations – Glyphosate disrupts gut bacteria essential for honeybee survival.
- Soil degradation – Repeated use depletes beneficial microbes that support plant health.
- Runoff pollution – Glyphosate enters waterways, harming aquatic ecosystems.
We are approving chemicals without fully understanding their long-term environmental costs—and that should alarm everyone.
The Convenience Factor: Why Glyphosate Remains the Go-To Choice
One of the key reasons glyphosate continues to be approved is convenience. As of now, there is no widely adopted alternative that provides the same broad-spectrum weed control with similar efficiency. Farmers, landscapers, and even municipalities rely on it to manage unwanted vegetation quickly and cost-effectively. Without a viable replacement, regulators are reluctant to ban or restrict its use, as doing so would disrupt agricultural productivity and significantly increase costs. Many municipalities and councils have experimented with alternative methods, such as using hot water or mechanical removal, but these approaches are often deemed too expensive and labor-intensive compared to glyphosate. For large-scale farming operations, the cost of switching to alternative weed management strategies could lead to higher food prices and economic strain on farmers. However, should economic convenience take precedence over long-term environmental and health concerns?
The Critical MindShift: Asking Better Questions
The re-approval of glyphosate is not just about whether it’s harmful—it’s about a system that refuses to ask the right questions. Instead of assuming safety based on corporate-funded research, we should be demanding:
✅ Independent, long-term studies on glyphosate exposure – not just industry-backed reports.
✅ A re-evaluation of cumulative exposure risks – we don’t live in a world of isolated chemicals.
✅ Greater accountability in regulatory decisions – transparency, not corporate influence, should guide public health policies.
✅ A precautionary approach – if serious doubts exist, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution?
Who Decides What’s Safe?
There’s an old saying: Follow the money. If glyphosate’s approval benefits agrochemical giants at the expense of public health, can we really say the decision is being made in the public’s best interest?
Regulatory agencies are supposed to work for us, yet their actions suggest they are more aligned with industry interests than public safety. The bigger issue here is not just glyphosate, but the pattern of unquestioned approvals, minimal scrutiny, and the dismissal of independent research.
If we don’t demand accountability now, what other chemicals will quietly receive a free pass?
Final Thought: The Power of Public Scrutiny
History has shown that public pressure can drive change. DDT, leaded gasoline, and asbestos were once deemed “safe” until overwhelming evidence—and public outcry—forced regulatory agencies to act.
Will glyphosate follow the same trajectory? Or will we wait until the damage is irreversible?
💡 Critical thinking starts with asking better questions. If regulators won’t, then we must.
Further Reading & Resources
For those who want to dig deeper into the science, politics, and environmental impact of glyphosate, here are some recommended resources:
Research & Reports:
📄 Glyphosate and Cancer Risk: Independent Research Findings
A study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health examines the potential link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
🔗 Read the study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3945755/
📄 Impact of glyphosate on soil bacterial communities and degradation dynamics
This study investigates glyphosate’s effects on soil bacterial communities and its degradation dynamics, providing insights into how this herbicide influences soil health and microbial diversity.
🔗 Read the study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389424032072
The impact of glyphosate on soil health: A summary of the evidence to date
This summary explores glyphosate’s effects on soil health, particularly its impact on microbial diversity and essential soil functions.
🔗 Read the study: glyphosate-and-soil-health-a-summary1docx.pdf
📄 EU Glyphosate Renewal Decision: Full Report & Controversies
A breakdown of the EU’s decision to renew glyphosate’s approval for another decade, including critiques from environmental groups and independent scientists.
🔗 Read the EU Commission report
Books:
As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases at no extra cost to you.
📖 Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science [amazon.com]
Carey Gillam
A deep dive into the history of glyphosate, its corporate backers, and the lawsuits that exposed its risks. Gillam uncovers how regulatory agencies and industry players have shaped the narrative around glyphosate’s safety.
📖 Poisoned: The True Story of the Deadly E. coli Outbreak That Changed the Way Americans Eat [amazon.com]
Jeff Benedict
While not specifically about glyphosate, this book provides insight into regulatory failures in the food industry and how public health is often compromised for corporate interests.
Videos & Documentaries:
🎥 The World According to Monsanto
Marie-Monique Robin
Description: This investigative documentary delves into Monsanto’s history and its influence on global agriculture, shedding light on the implications of its practices.
🔗 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl9tV-c0VxE
🎥 Glyphosate: Poisoned Fields
DW Documentary
This investigative documentary looks at glyphosate’s widespread use, its environmental consequences, and the global efforts to ban or restrict its use.
🔗 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDyI10Z8aH0
🎥 The Secret Tactics Monsanto Used to Protect Roundup
The Guardian
Description: This investigative piece uncovers the strategies Monsanto employed to safeguard its product, Roundup, amidst health risk allegations.
🔗 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JszHrMZ7dx4
Related Articles on CriticalMindShift.com:
📝 Addressing the Autism Epidemic: Examining the Role of Vaccines & Pesticides
How environmental toxins, including pesticides like glyphosate, may contribute to rising autism rates. Is regulatory oversight missing the bigger picture?
🔗 Read more: https://criticalmindshift.com/addressing-the-autism-epidemic/
📝 Are We Overlooking the Dangers of ‘Safe’ Chemical Exposure?
Regulators approve thousands of chemicals based on outdated safety models. What happens when cumulative exposure is ignored?
🔗 Read more: https://criticalmindshift.com/overlooking-dangers-of-safe-chemical-expo/
Image acknowledgement
The featured image on this page is by Macor. Check out their work on Depositphotos.com.
