Glyphosate & Roundup: Cancer Risk, Trump Order & Exposure Concerns

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup – the most widely used weed killer globally – is once again at the center of a complex debate, intersecting agriculture, public health, and now, national security. Recent actions by the Biden administration have reignited scrutiny of the herbicide, particularly among supporters of a health-focused movement that once found an unlikely ally in former President Donald Trump.

On February 18, President Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to boost U.S. Manufacturing of glyphosate and elemental phosphorus, a key component in its production. The order declared glyphosate-based herbicides “critical to the national defense,” citing the need to maintain agricultural productivity and ensure a stable domestic food supply. The full text of the executive order details the rationale behind this decision, emphasizing the herbicide’s role in modern farming practices.

This move has created a surprising rift, particularly among those who follow the “Craft America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement. Initially championed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now the Health and Human Services secretary, MAHA advocates for reducing chemical exposure in food and promoting natural alternatives. Kennedy, who previously won a lawsuit against Monsanto (now Bayer) alleging Roundup caused cancer, publicly endorsed Trump’s executive order, stating it prioritizes national security and food supply stability. CNN’s reporting details this shift in perspective.

Understanding Glyphosate: How Exposure Happens

Glyphosate is extensively used in agriculture, sprayed on hundreds of millions of acres annually. It’s commonly applied to crops like corn, soybeans, wheat, oats, cotton, and almonds, and is also available for residential lawn and garden use. The primary route of exposure for most people is through the food they consume, particularly conventionally grown produce.

“Residues have been detected in a range of conventionally grown crops,” explains Melissa Perry, ScD, a researcher and epidemiologist at George Mason University. This means that produce grown without adhering to organic certification guidelines may contain trace amounts of glyphosate. Farmworkers and those directly applying the herbicide are also at higher risk of exposure. However, exposure isn’t limited to these groups. National biomonitoring studies have revealed that glyphosate is commonly detectable in human urine, indicating widespread, low-level exposure across the population.

Data from the National Health and Nutrition Survey show that glyphosate was detected in the urine of 80% of people ages 6 and older. This widespread presence underscores the pervasiveness of glyphosate in the environment and the potential for ongoing human exposure.

Conflicting Assessments: Cancer Risk and Regulatory Responses

The potential health risks associated with glyphosate, particularly concerning cancer, are subject to ongoing debate and differing conclusions from international and national regulatory bodies. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” This classification was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans – specifically non-Hodgkin lymphoma – and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in animal studies involving mice and rats. Everyday Health provides further context on the IARC classification system.

It’s key to understand that IARC classifications assess the *hazard* of a substance – its potential to cause cancer under some conditions – rather than the *risk* – the likelihood of cancer at typical exposure levels.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, has reached a different conclusion, stating that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at doses relevant to human health risk assessment. European regulators have similarly concluded that current exposure levels are unlikely to pose a cancer hazard. However, recent developments have cast a shadow over some of the historical safety data. A key review paper published in 2000, frequently cited as evidence of glyphosate’s safety, was formally retracted by the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology due to “serious ethical concerns” regarding the independence of the authors and the role of Monsanto in its development.

While the EPA maintains its safety assessment didn’t solely rely on this study, the retraction has fueled calls for a thorough re-evaluation of glyphosate’s safety, particularly as the agency approaches a 2026 deadline to review the herbicide’s registration.

What Does the Research Say About Human Health?

The evidence linking glyphosate to cancer in humans remains a subject of ongoing research and debate. The most consistent signal observed in studies involves non-Hodgkin lymphoma among individuals with direct exposure, such as farmworkers. Some large agricultural studies have not found a statistically significant overall association, but pooled analyses combining multiple studies have suggested a modest increase in risk among those with the highest cumulative exposure.

For individuals exposed primarily through diet at lower levels, the data are less conclusive. Animal studies, however, provide further cause for concern. A 2025 study published in the journal Environmental Health reported increased rates of multiple tumor types in rats exposed to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides, even at doses near current regulatory limits. This finding strengthens concerns that even low-dose exposure may not be benign, aligning with IARC’s classification and other studies linking glyphosate exposure to certain cancers.

Beyond Cancer: Other Potential Health Effects

Research suggests that glyphosate may have other potential health effects beyond cancer, including possible endocrine and reproductive impacts, as well as effects on the gut microbiome. While not all studies have yielded the same results, the toxicological profile suggests biological activity at exposure levels previously considered safe. Regulatory agencies have concluded that glyphosate does not meet the criteria for endocrine disruption at approved exposure levels.

Alternatives and Reducing Exposure

It is possible to grow crops without relying on glyphosate. Organic farming systems routinely do so, and conventional growers can utilize crop rotation, cover crops, mechanical cultivation, and alternative herbicides. While glyphosate is widely used in “no-till” farming – a practice that helps prevent erosion and protect soil health – alternative methods can be employed, albeit potentially requiring adjustments to farming practices.

If you are concerned about glyphosate exposure, experts recommend thoroughly washing fruits and vegetables and peeling produce when appropriate to reduce pesticide residues. Choosing organic options, particularly for produce on the “dirty dozen” list (those with the highest pesticide exposure), can also help lower dietary exposure. Everyday Health provides a list of the “dirty dozen”. Reducing or avoiding home use of glyphosate-based herbicides and wearing protective gear when applying them can also minimize exposure.

The debate surrounding glyphosate is likely to continue as new research emerges and regulatory bodies reassess the available evidence. For now, understanding the potential risks and taking steps to minimize exposure remain prudent approaches for those concerned about the herbicide’s impact on their health.