Dr. Barry Dworkin

Glyphosate-use policy enacted by the US to secure its food supply leads to polarized responses.

Medical Mythbusting Commentary for February 25, 2026

Source:
What to know about glyphosate, the herbicide behind a Trump executive order that’s angered MAHA moms

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on February 18, 2026, titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides.” It invokes the Defense Production Act to boost domestic production of glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—and elemental phosphorus, declaring them critical to U.S. national security, agricultural productivity, and military readiness. The order aims to strengthen supply chains amid concerns over foreign dependence, with no direct one-for-one chemical alternative available.

This has angered MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) advocates and moms, who view it as prioritizing industry profits over public health, especially given ongoing concerns about glyphosate’s potential cancer risks.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide. In 2015, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it as Group 2A: probably carcinogenic to humans, based on limited evidence in humans (mainly non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and sufficient evidence in animals, plus strong mechanistic data on genotoxicity. The U.S. EPA maintains that glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic to humans at typical exposure levels from labeled use, though it is updating its evaluation (final review expected in 2026) following court orders and new data.

Recent developments include 2025 rodent studies showing multiple cancers (including early-onset leukemia, lymphoma, and tumors in organs like liver, thyroid, skin, and mammary gland) at low doses approximating the EU’s Acceptable Daily Intake. A landmark 2000 safety study (often cited by industry) concluding no human cancer risk was retracted in late 2025 due to serious ethical concerns, including undisclosed Monsanto involvement and questions about authorship integrity and data validity. This has renewed scrutiny and calls for reassessment.

The key distinction in carcinogenicity rankings lies in hazard versus risk. Hazard (IARC’s primary focus) assesses whether a substance can cause cancer under any conditions, even extreme ones. Risk (EPA and regulators’ focus) evaluates the actual probability of cancer occurring at real-world, typical human exposure levels. IARC identifies potential hazards; regulators weigh exposure to determine practical risk.

Related posts:

  1. Study showing alcohol increases risk of certain cancers does not show cause and effect
  2. CFIA: Traces of parts per billion of herbicide glyphosate in some foods pose little to no risk to human health
  3. To sugar or to not sugar, that is the 50,000 soda-pop-can question. An excellent review from @GidMK that debunks a study’s claim using simple math that sucralose (Splenda) is genotoxic, that is, it can cause cancer.
  4. WHO adds aspartame to the “possible carcinogen” list as it has for pickled vegetables, aloe vera, Ginkgo Biloba, carpentry and joinery, and common medications like hydrochlorothiazide, progestins, and sulfasalzine, among others.