Posted on 06/28/2026 4:24:35 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Prominent activists with the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement are raging and saying they feel betrayed after the Supreme Court sided with pesticide maker Monsanto on Thursday and said it did not need to put a warning label about a potential cancer risk associated with its Roundup weedkiller.
The backlash could test the movement’s ties with the Republican Party, especially after the Trump administration backed Monsanto in the case.
Several studies have found a link between glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, and cancer, including a major study from last year. Bayer and Monsanto have denied any such connection.
But MAHA followers have long been alarmed by the idea, and many have grown impatient with a White House that has largely resisted their calls for tighter regulation of pesticides.
In April, President Trump, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and high-level administration officials held a private meeting with MAHA activists to hear their complaints and try to smooth over any ill-will.
Later that month, a MAHA-led coalition rallied outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments, saying people should be able to hold companies accountable.
Inside, the justices heard arguments — including some by the Department of Justice — that companies should be protected.
For some MAHA supporters, Thursday’s verdict showed that despite Trump’s alliance with Kennedy, the administration would rather prioritize the interests of pesticide makers.
“A lot of MAHA voters are realizing they’ve been snookered, they’ve been had by Republicans that had no intention of protecting their health. It’s just a talking point that they added,” said David Murphy, founder of United We Eat and finance director of Kennedy’s presidential campaign.
Murphy said the decision could be a tipping point for MAHA voters, who have historically...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Switch chasers. 😉
“These new results provide robust evidence supporting International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) conclusion in 2015 that there is “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity of glyphosate in experimental animals”. Furthermore, the study’s data are consistent with epidemiological evidence on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides.”
Based on the touted extensive international study quoted above, you could have a possibility of cancer if you drank water flavored with Roundup. Now read through the article and see if you can come to a different conclusion.
On a previous post I said, “I can remember a time when if you used a chemical and it was effective you understood it would probably hurt human beings, so you used equipment and thoughtful procedures dedicated to the purpose that mitigated any possible damage to you. Concerning Roundup, because it was really good at killing vegetation, I knew it could probably kill me, so I proceeded accordingly. I never considered an idea like brushing my teeth with it. Now this sort of reasoning is not expected to be taught or used. The result seems to be that if the federal government doesn’t tell you of a potential problem, regardless of how obvious, you can proceed as if the chemical was no more dangerous than a dish of ice-cream.
“I try to avoid American wheat”
Same here. We’ve turned to Italian and German only wheat and pasta.
One good policy is to use the minimum chemical that will do the job.
Many users think more is always better.
Wow! I read your post 3 times. Good post ithink. Here’s my take mostly, if it kills bugs I don’t let my animals near it. If it kills weeds I don’t get it on me or in me. If a horse can take ivermectin and I have it and may help cure Covid? I eat it on a brownie with orange juice. Go figure.
Well that is an interesting theory. My theory is the left hates glyphosate because it’s too good at what it does. By effectively increasing crop yields, it has helped the world avoid a Paul Erlich style food scarcity crisis, thus denying them an opportunity to stampede the world into socialism. IOW Monsanto has thwarted their revolution, so they’re pissed.
The “Wikipedia” article on Glyphosate is actually well documented with various study information (unlike some “Wiki” articles”):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
Wiki:
“There is broad agreement among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity.”
“Although some small studies have suggested an association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, subsequent work confirmed the likelihood this work suffered from bias, and the association could not be demonstrated in more robust studies”
The “half-life” of Glyphosate in soil is 3-130 days:
https://www.pomais.com/how-long-does-glyphosate-stay-in-the-soil/
I get mine {concentrate generic version} at “Tractor Supply”....much cheaper! (I have 14 acres of weed/poison oak control to take care of...along driveways & near buildings mostly for wildfire prevention....a lot less “weed eatering” that way!)
I am switching to this next year...even less work...works multiple seasons:
https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/rm43-glyphosate-plus-weed-preventer-tvc-1-gal-1055610
Use gloves when mixing the Glyphosate concentrate and don’t spray on windy days and you will be just fine.
How can they feel “betrayed”? The MAHA movement didn’t play any role in elections until 2024, and no new Supreme Court justices have been appointed since then. So exactly who “betrayed” them?
And he'd have gotten the same unreliable answer.
For anything that is actually disputed, AI is about the worst thing in the world to ask because you have no idea which sources they believed, and which they didn't.
Better let a council of 9 legal experts decide teh science and ignore the law for you then...
“...that can be dusted with Roundup”
You just proved you don’t know what you are talking about.
Roundup is a liquid. It is sprayed, not dusted.
If you think it is wrong you could actually refute the answer with facts.
I dare you.
Which is just about everything, unfortunately.
Your answer:
Via Grok:
There is no precise, definitive number of cancers directly “caused” by Roundup (glyphosate-based herbicides), as establishing causation for individual cases or population-level totals is scientifically complex and contested.
Scientific Context
IARC (WHO) classification (2015): Glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), based on limited evidence in humans (mainly associations with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or NHL), sufficient evidence in animal studies, and strong mechanistic evidence (e.g., genotoxicity/DNA damage). This is the main basis for concerns.
Counter views from regulators: The U.S. EPA, European agencies (EFSA, etc.), and some large studies (e.g., Agricultural Health Study of ~54,000 applicators) conclude glyphosate is “not likely carcinogenic” to humans, with no clear overall association for NHL or most cancers in key prospective data.
Key studies on risk: A 2019 meta-analysis found high glyphosate exposure linked to ~41% increased relative risk of NHL. Other analyses show mixed or no consistent links across all cancers. Relative risk increases apply mainly to high/occupational exposure (e.g., farmers/applicators) and do not translate directly to absolute numbers of cases.
Population attributable risk estimates are not well-established or widely agreed upon due to these debates, confounding factors (other pesticides, lifestyle, etc.), and varying exposure levels. Billions of people have indirect/low exposure via food/residues, but strong evidence ties risks primarily to heavy, prolonged use.
Legal/Claims Perspective
Hundreds of thousands of people have alleged their cancers (overwhelmingly NHL and related blood cancers) were caused by Roundup:
~165,000–170,000 lawsuits filed against Monsanto/Bayer as of recent years.
Bayer (which acquired Monsanto) has settled over 100,000 claims for roughly $11 billion total (including earlier global resolutions and a proposed new ~$7.25 billion class settlement in 2026 for current/future claims).
Many individual verdicts have favored plaintiffs (sometimes hundreds of millions each), though appeals and Supreme Court rulings (e.g., recent decisions limiting some claims) continue. Settlements are not admissions of causation or liability by Bayer, which maintains the science shows no cancer link.
These numbers reflect alleged or legally resolved cases among users (mostly heavy occupational exposure), not a verified scientific count of causation. New cases continue as diagnoses emerge.
Bottom Line
No exact tally exists because cancer has many causes, and glyphosate’s contribution (if any) is probabilistic, dose-dependent, and debated. Most experts agree any elevated risk is modest and relevant mainly for high-exposure groups.
If you or someone you know used Roundup extensively and developed NHL or a related cancer, consult a doctor for medical advice and consider speaking with a lawyer about potential claims (statutes of limitations apply).
For the latest science, refer to IARC, EPA reviews, or major cohort studies rather than litigation-driven narratives alone.
The controversy remains active in courts, science, and policy as of 2026.
___________________
So they don’t know, but there is no clear evidence that it does in any but very high exposures
I am a right winger and I want it out of our food system.
Odd. I didn’t know RFK was on the Supreme Court.
The Supes rule on laws, not on political positions. If you don’t like the law, we have this thing called Congress to change it. All the Supes did was say, ‘This is what the law says in this case.”
We don’t need more warning labels.
No one uses Roundup on crops unless you want an entire field of dead crops.
Primary use is on Thistle and other similar broadleaf weeds.
The studies that show cancer causing with glyphosate seem to have problems releasing their raw data to be analyzed by other scientists.
I have seen the same thing, on a much smaller scale, in the peer review articles on bear spray and firearms.
It may not be intentional. It is hard to design experiments which do not reflect internal personal biases.
Statistical studies have multiple points of weakness in the way they are designed and analyzed.
Just a small mistake in data collection and analysis can show up in making something “statistically meaningful”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.