Inside the MAHA Movement's Glyphosate Crisis: Why Health Leaders Are Divided

The world's most widely used herbicide is creating an unexpected rift among health-focused leaders and policymakers. When President Donald Trump issued an executive order to boost glyphosate manufacturing, it sparked immediate backlash from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, despite backing from U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who previously argued the chemical caused cancer.

What's Driving the Split in the MAHA Movement?

Glyphosate, commonly known by the brand name Roundup, is an herbicide that kills weeds by blocking their ability to produce amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. It's sprayed on crops like corn and soybeans that have been genetically modified to withstand its effects. The Trump administration's decision to increase domestic glyphosate production has exposed a fundamental disagreement within health-conscious circles about chemical safety in food production.

Casey Means, a wellness influencer and Trump's pick to be the next surgeon general, expressed serious concerns during a Senate hearing. "We must, as a country, move away from using toxic inputs in our food supply, and we must study these chemicals more to understand their effects," she stated. Her position directly contradicts Kennedy's support for the executive order, revealing that even within the MAHA movement, consensus on glyphosate is far from settled.

What Does the Science Actually Show About Glyphosate and Cancer?

The research landscape on glyphosate is genuinely complicated, and that complexity explains much of the disagreement. In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans," meaning there is some evidence suggesting it poses a cancer risk. However, other major regulatory bodies have reached different conclusions. In 2016, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined glyphosate was likely not carcinogenic.

The conflicting assessments stem from how different experts weigh scientific evidence. A 2018 study by researchers at the National Cancer Institute found no association between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer affecting the lymph nodes, in farmworkers. Yet just one year later, a 2019 meta-analysis found a "compelling link" between glyphosate exposure and the same cancer. The key difference: the 2019 analysis focused specifically on the most highly exposed groups, such as agricultural workers.

"Scientific evidence for the herbicide's possible effect on human health since then has strengthened for cancer and other end points," explained Lianne Sheppard, senior author of the 2019 meta-analysis and a professor at the University of Washington who studies the health effects of chemical exposures.

The financial stakes are enormous. Bayer, which acquired Roundup's original manufacturer Monsanto in 2018, has faced nearly 200,000 claims alleging harm from glyphosate exposure. Earlier this month, Bayer agreed to pay $7.25 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged glyphosate exposure contributed to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A Monsanto spokesperson told Scientific American that the settlement did not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

How Does Glyphosate Enter Our Bodies?

Glyphosate can enter the human body through multiple pathways. Grains and legumes are among the crops most likely to be contaminated with the herbicide, making dietary exposure a primary concern. People can also be exposed through direct contact with treated surfaces or by inhaling the chemical. This widespread exposure potential is why understanding glyphosate's long-term health effects matters for public health.

Why Don't We Know More About Glyphosate's Health Effects?

Studying glyphosate's impact on human health faces significant scientific challenges. The herbicide has a short half-life in the body, estimated at between 5.5 to 10 hours, meaning it breaks down quickly. This makes it extremely difficult for researchers to measure long-term exposure by testing urine or blood samples, since those tests only capture a snapshot of exposure at one moment in time. Conducting long-term studies that track participants over months or years is logistically complex and expensive.

Animal and cell studies have shown connections between glyphosate exposure and health effects including cancer, endocrine disruption (interference with hormone systems), and oxidative stress (cellular damage from unstable molecules). However, translating these findings to human populations remains challenging. Scientists sometimes use geographical data to estimate long-term exposure, but that approach is imprecise and doesn't account for individual variations in diet and lifestyle.

Steps to Reduce Your Glyphosate Exposure

• Choose Organic Grains and Legumes: Organic crops are grown without synthetic herbicides, including glyphosate. Prioritize organic versions of wheat, oats, lentils, and chickpeas, which are commonly treated with glyphosate in conventional farming.
• Wash Produce Thoroughly: While washing won't remove all residues, rinsing fruits and vegetables under running water can reduce surface contamination from herbicide spray drift or residual chemicals.
• Support Regenerative Agriculture: Seek out foods from farms using regenerative practices that minimize chemical inputs. Farmers markets and local food cooperatives often feature producers using these methods.
• Read Food Labels Carefully: Look for certifications like USDA Organic, Non-GMO Project Verified, or Regenerative Organic Certified, which indicate stricter standards for herbicide use.

Brenda Eskenazi, a professor emerita of public health at the University of California, Berkeley, emphasized the urgency of further research. "We're just at the beginning of studying glyphosate, but we absolutely must study it, given it is the most commonly used herbicide in the world," she noted. She highlighted that particularly vulnerable populations, including pregnant women and fetuses, warrant focused research attention, as do questions about whether glyphosate might affect human fertility and reproduction.

The MAHA movement's internal disagreement over glyphosate reflects a broader scientific reality: the evidence is still evolving, and reasonable experts can interpret existing data differently. What's clear is that glyphosate's widespread use means even small health risks could affect millions of people globally. Until more definitive research emerges, health-conscious consumers have legitimate reasons to seek alternatives and demand greater transparency about chemical use in food production.