A New Look at the Glyphosate Debate

For years, a prominent environmental activist has built a career in courtrooms, arguing that the herbicide glyphosate causes cancer. He earned millions by pushing cases to trial and frequently cited this claim during his presidential run.

Recently, he surprised his supporters by backing an executive order that would boost domestic production of glyphosate. The move appears to be a political flip‑flop, but it also exposes how fragile the anti‑glyphosate movement has been when confronted with scientific evidence.

He once helped win a huge lawsuit against the company that sells glyphosate, yet now he aligns with regulatory agencies that say the chemical is not likely to cause cancer when used properly. This shift has angered many followers who feel betrayed.

What is more concerning is the fact that for decades he helped spread misinformation that made people fear glyphosate, while simultaneously making money and giving a narrow group of lawyers big profits.

Regulators—such as the Environmental Protection Agency—agree that glyphosate is not a human carcinogen when used as directed. The real controversy stems from a 2015 study that labeled it “probably carcinogenic,” a category also used for red meat and very hot drinks. Later investigations revealed that the study’s authors had financial ties to law firms profiting from lawsuits.

Because of this study, courts became a venue for an $11 billion settlement boom. The activist’s 2018 verdict opened the floodgates for thousands of lawsuits, large advertising campaigns to recruit plaintiffs, and a reliance on disputed science in courtrooms.

Fortunately, legal reforms in 2023 strengthened judges’ ability to scrutinize expert testimony. Courts can now demand scientific consensus rather than rely on litigation‑funded studies.

Those who feel let down by the activist’s new stance should also question those who helped create the panic in the first place. A serious movement against misinformation must look inward as well as outward.