Glyphosate and the Arc of History: Will Glyphosate Join Tobacco, Lead Paint, and Asbestos?
- Jon Bari
- Apr 1
- 6 min read
Updated: 2 hours ago
Overview
For decades, certain products have followed a familiar trajectory: widespread adoption, early warnings dismissed, mounting scientific concern, public health reckoning, and eventual regulatory or legal fallout. Tobacco, lead paint, and asbestos are now canonical examples -- once celebrated for their utility, later condemned for their harm. Increasingly, critics argue that glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, appears to be tracing a similar arc.
The People vs. Poison
Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!”
On April 27, 2026, the case of Monsanto Co. v. Durnell will be argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision could set a far-reaching precedent, potentially limiting the ability of future victims to hold chemical companies accountable in court.
Here’s what's at stake: Bayer -- the foreign corporation that acquired Monsanto -- has already paid more than $10 Billion to resolve claims from cancer victims linked to its weedkiller Roundup (whose active ingredient is glyphosate). Tens of thousands of cases remain pending.
Now, Bayer is seeking to ensure it won't face similar liability in the future.
The company is pursuing multiple avenues -- legislative, regulatory, and now judicial -- to secure a single outcome: a legal shield that would effectively bar claims if the Environmental Protection Agency has approved the product.
Monsanto is a corporation that has already faced more than 160,000 cancer lawsuits is now asking for a sweeping form of legal protection. If granted, it could extend beyond Roundup to tens of thousands of pesticide products -- reshaping corporate accountability and potentially affecting public health for generations.
The Pattern We’ve Seen Before
Each of these historical cases shares a common pattern. Tobacco was marketed as safe -- even healthy -- long after evidence of its carcinogenicity emerged. Lead paint was prized for durability and brightness, despite early recognition of its neurological harms. Asbestos, once hailed as a "miracle mineral," became synonymous with cancer and occupational disease.
In each case, early warnings were contested, regulation lagged, and only sustained public pressure forced change.
Glyphosate’s Rise & Ubiquity
Glyphosate's use has exploded in the United States since the 1990s, becoming deeply embedded in the global food system. Today, it is found not only in agriculture, but also in food residues and human biomonitoring studies.
Many regulators in the United States have maintained that glyphosate is safe when used as directed. However, disagreement persists globally -- particularly after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as "probably carcinogenic."
A Parallel Trend: Rising Chronic Childhood Disease
At the same time glyphosate use has increased -- especially since the early 2000s -- the United States has experienced a notable rise in chronic childhood conditions.
The White House's "Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Assessment Report" (2025) estimated that roughly 40% of U.S. children now suffer from at least one chronic condition, including asthma, autoimmune disease, metabolic disorders, and neurodevelopmental conditions. The report identifies environmental chemical exposure -- including pesticides -- as one of the major contributing categories.
"Crop Protection Tools: including pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides. Some studies have raised concerns about possible links between some of these products and adverse health outcomes, especially in children, but human studies are limited. For example, a selection of research studies on a herbicide (glyphosate) have noted a range of possible health effects, ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation and metabolic disturbances." -- MAHA Report Assessment
Within this broader trend, two immune-related conditions stand out for their rapid growth: Celiac Disease and food allergies.
Celiac Disease, once considered rare, has increased significantly over the past several decades, with some studies showing rates doubling or more in certain populations. Similarly, food allergies -- particularly in children -- have risen sharply, in some cases doubling over a relatively short time frame. These increases cannot be explained by genetics alone, prompting growing focus on environmental triggers.
2006 Marks the Year When Gluten Allergies & Celiac Began Exploding
In a 2020 conversation with Dr. Mark Hyman on the Doctor's Farmacy, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. talked about the explosion in the number of cases of Celiac and Gluten allergies. According to RFK, Jr., the year 2006 marked the first time when farmers started spraying Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, on crops like Wheat right before harvest.
"And so 2006 marked the date when suddenly these Gluten allergies began exploding, and Celiac Disease and all these kind of Wheat problems that we started seeing in this country. If you measure back and say when did it start, you can look and draw a red line and that's 2006, and it's the year that they began spraying it [Roundup] on Wheat."-- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr
Glyphosate has entered this discussion as a hypothesized contributor, though the science remains unsettled. Some researchers have proposed biologically plausible mechanisms through which glyphosate could influence immune-related conditions, including:
Disruption of the gut microbiome
Interference with detoxification pathways (e.g., cytochrome P450 enzymes)
Effects on nutrient absorption through mineral chelation
Because glyphosate is widely used on crops—including in some cases as a pre-harvest desiccant -- this raises questions about chronic, low-dose dietary exposure, particularly in children.
However, the broader pattern is notable:
A rapid rise in immune-mediated disease
Occurring alongside large-scale environmental and dietary changes
With plausible but unproven mechanisms linking the two
This type of uncertainty is not new. Historically, similar patterns preceded deeper understanding of other public health hazards -- where early signals existed long before definitive proof.
Importantly, glyphosate is unlikely to be the sole explanation. Researchers point to a range of contributing factors, including dietary changes, microbiome disruption, antibiotic use, and broader environmental exposures. Glyphosate sits within this larger constellation -- but stands out because of its scale and ubiquity.
RFK Jr., MAHA, and the National Policy Conversation
The rise in chronic disease—and its potential environmental drivers—has moved beyond academia into national policy discussions.
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Assessment Report explicitly identified environmental chemical exposure as a key area of concern, while the subsequent Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy (2025) calls for further research and prevention-focused policies.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been a central figure in elevating these issues. He has repeatedly called for reducing exposure to pesticides and other environmental chemicals and has referred to glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen" in public and legal contexts.
At the same time, the policy response has been measured. The MAHA strategy stops short of calling for direct regulatory restrictions on glyphosate, instead emphasizing additional study and collaboration with agricultural stakeholders.
This tension -- between raising concern and limiting immediate action -- mirrors earlier moments in public health history.
The Regulatory Divide: United States vs. Europe
The glyphosate debate is further sharpened by stark differences in regulatory philosophy.
United States (Risk-Based Model): Regulators such as the EPA maintain that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk when used as directed, allowing widespread use --including pre-harvest applications.
European Union (Precautionary Model): The EU applies stricter exposure thresholds, lower acceptable daily intake levels, and in some cases limits or restricts certain uses. Decisions are more explicitly guided by the precautionary principle.
These differences reflect fundamentally different approaches to uncertainty: whether to wait for definitive proof of harm—or act on plausible risk.
Echoes of the Past
What makes glyphosate reminiscent of tobacco, lead paint, and asbestos is not simply the question of toxicity—but the broader pattern:
Widespread exposure before long-term effects are fully understood
Scientific disagreement across institutions
Rising concern centered on children’s health
Policy hesitation amid economic dependence
The MAHA reports bring these dynamics into sharp focus, placing environmental exposures -- including pesticides -- within a growing national health crisis.
A Question of Timing
History suggests that the greatest public health failures are not always about what was unknown -- but about what was known and not acted upon.
Glyphosate now sits at that inflection point.
Looking Forward
It remains uncertain whether glyphosate will ultimately be judged alongside tobacco, lead, and asbestos -- or remain a defensible tool of modern agriculture.
But the conversation has changed.
With chronic childhood disease rising, immune-related conditions increasing, and environmental exposures under renewed scrutiny, glyphosate is no longer just an agricultural issue -- it is part of a broader public health debate.
If glyphosate does one day join the ranks of past public health failures, the defining question will not be whether warning signs existed. It will be whether they were taken seriously in time.
