Roundup under the microscope: what we know about the dangers of glyphosate

For decades, Roundup has been a farm staple and a homeowner’s quick fix for weeds. Its main ingredient, glyphosate, has been sprayed on hundreds of millions of acres since the 1970s. But science has raised red flags: the International Agency for Research on Cancer called glyphosate a probable carcinogen in 2015, pointing to animal studies and human data linking it to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Courts have seen dozens of cases where long-term users say Roundup gave them this blood cancer. Regulators like the EPA have said glyphosate is safe when used correctly, but this stance relies on research that changes over time. One key study that EPA once trusted was recently retracted due to research misconduct—yet it still pops up in reassurances about Roundup’s safety. That raises a big question: if the evidence used to claim “no risk” gets pulled, how solid is the claim itself?

The Supreme Court’s latest decision sides with Roundup’s maker, likely shutting down thousands of pending lawsuits. For farmers and garden centers, this brings welcome legal clarity. For doctors treating lymphoma patients, it feels like a step backward. They see real people with real cancers, and they wonder how many cases might trace back to long-term exposure to products like Roundup. History shows that past assumptions about safety have been wrong before. Decades ago, cigarettes were marketed as healthy, even in hospitals. Today, we look back with disbelief. If glyphosate follows a similar path, the question isn’t whether science evolves, but whether society waits for proof—or acts sooner to protect health and demand transparency.

Actions