Glyphosate is driving a rift in MAHA. Here’s what the science says about its effects on health

February 28, 2026 - 00:24

A push to significantly increase manufacturing of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the world's most common weed killer, is reigniting a fierce debate over the herbicide's safety and its place in modern agriculture. This move has placed the chemical at the center of a growing rift between agricultural stakeholders who rely on it and public health advocates who warn of potential dangers.

The scientific community remains divided on the herbicide's effects on human health. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, classifies glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans," a finding that has fueled widespread concern and numerous lawsuits. Conversely, regulatory bodies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority have maintained that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk when used according to label instructions.

Critics argue that the potential health implications extend beyond cancer, citing studies that suggest possible links to other health issues and environmental damage, including harm to pollinators. Proponents, however, emphasize its critical role in supporting high-yield farming practices that feed a global population, arguing that alternatives are less effective or more expensive. This fundamental disagreement over the interpretation of scientific data continues to stall consensus, leaving policymakers and the public to navigate a landscape of conflicting evidence. The controversy underscores the complex challenge of balancing agricultural productivity with long-term environmental and public health safety.