On January 26th, 2024, a Jury ordered Bayer, the owner of Monsanto, to pay $2.25 Billion as a result of a lawsuit by John McKivison. John contracted non-Hodgkins lymphoma (a cancer infecting his immune system after using RoundUp at his home for more than 20 years. This was not the first time Bayer had been held accountable by a jury in recent years and with over 200,000 new cases of Non-Hodgkins lymphoma in the United States each year there is no sign of law suits slowing down. Glyphosate – the active ingredient in RoundUp – is coming under increased scrutiny as people evaluate the effects and presence of glyphosate in their lives.

The IARC vs. the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)

In one corner, we have the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which, in 2015, raised the red flag by classifying glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Their verdict echoed through courtrooms and headlines, casting a shadow over this ubiquitous herbicide.

But wait! In the opposite corner stands the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), armed with its own findings. According to the EPA, when used as directed, glyphosate is safe and poses little risk of cancer. They even went so far as to declare it unlikely to be a human carcinogen.

The Jury’s Verdict and Enhanced Carcinogenic Effects

On that fateful day, January 26th, 2024, the jury awarded a staggering $2.25 billion to a plaintiff who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after prolonged Roundup exposure. This is another case adding to the over $10 billion Bayer has paid out in the last decade. The IARC’s classification likely played a starring role in this courtroom drama. But here’s the twist: the EPA still stands by its safety assessment.

So, why the hefty settlements? Why has Bayer shelled out $10 billion over the past decade? And why have some countries banned Roundup for household use? These questions echo through the courtroom and across the nation.

Glyphosate by the Numbers

Let’s crunch some numbers. In the United States alone:

• 1.8 million tons of glyphosate are used annually.

• Glyphosate blankets approximately 298 million acres of crop land each year.

• CDC study shows more than 80% of Americans harbor traces of glyphosate in their urine.

With glyphosate woven into the fabric of our lives, skepticism creeps in. Who can we trust? Is glyphosate truly safe?

Aquatic Life and the Runoff Threat

Beyond land, glyphosate’s impact extends to waterways. This is in part due to its high solubility and persistence in water, meaning it can easily mix with water and be carried away in runoff—the draining away of excess water and its cargo—which poses a threat as it is easily able to enter various waterways. Some researchers have turned their gaze to aquatic life to see how these chemicals interacts in the water table. Here’s what they found:

1. Neotropical Fish (Prodchilodus Lineatus): A 2008 study exposed these fish to Roundup. The results were consistent: genotoxic damage caused by the herbicide. The body of these fish are being attacked on a cellular level.

2. Goldfish: In a similar 2007 study, goldfish exposed to Round Up exhibited increased nuclear abnormalities meaning the types of mutations that can potentially lead to cancer. The evidence painted a troubling picture.

3. European Eel: A 2014 study has shown DNA and chromosomal damage following short term exposure to AMPA, the main metabolic breakdown product of glyphosate. This is another type of cell damage that overtime may become cancer, and every time this type of damage occurs that chances of getting a form of cancer become higher.

Glyphosate Effect on Soil Biodiversity

On a microscopic level what kind of effects are we seeing glyphosate have on your farm's soil?

• Studies have shown a decrease in fungal biodiversity after heavy glyphosate applications, this could lead to the prevalence of more fungal diseases. As biodiversity decreases so does the fungal competition in a plant’s environment, this lack of diversity makes it easier for fungal pathogens to colonize a plant.

Aging Glyphosate and AMPA

As glyphosate ages, it metamorphoses into a compound called aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA). But don’t let the name fool you; AMPA isn’t a benign alter ego. A study scrutinized AMPA’s effects on human immune cells. The verdict? Significant damage compared to the control group, the same type of damage that may lead to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The Global Ban Wave

Around the world, countries, states, cities, and towns are donning their anti-glyphosate armor. Over 20 countries have restricted or banned glyphosate use ranging from Sri Lanka to France. In the United States local town and city governments have put forward programs to reduce or ban glyphosate use in over 25 states. Bans and restrictions are sprouting like weeds. But why? Is it a precautionary move or a verdict on glyphosate’s guilt?

While the true effects of glyphosate exposure remain a puzzle, one thing is crystal clear: reducing glyphosate usage has a proven impact. Farmers, listen up! Here’s the golden nugget: less glyphosate means more green in your wallet. How?

1. Cost Savings: Not only do fewer herbicides mean less money spent but also increased water retention, nutrient cycling, and improved pathogen predation from keeping your soil less bare and your microbiology intact means even more reduced inputs. Simple math.

2. Preparedness: By trimming glyphosate use, farmers brace themselves for potential restrictions. It’s like having an umbrella before the storm.

3. Environmental Stewardship: Saving money while being kind to the Earth? That’s a win-win.

As the glyphosate pendulum swings, we ponder: Is it a villain or a misunderstood hero? Perhaps the truth lies in the courtroom, where justice allegedly outweighs corporate interest.