Bayer’s $2.1 Billion Glyphosate Verdict – A Wake-Up Call for Our Food Supply?

The global pharmaceutical giant Bayer has already paid out over $10 billion to settle approximately 100,000 Roundup lawsuits. A jury in Cobb County, Georgia, has recently threatened to expand this figure, ordering Bayer to pay a staggering $2.1 billion to a single plaintiff who claimed his cancer was caused by exposure to Roundup over 20 years on his personal property.¹ Roundup is the popular weedkiller containing glyphosate, which Bayer insists is safe, citing support from agencies like the EPA and EFSA, but this latest verdict (undergoing appeal) deepens its crisis amid thousands of similar cases.

After acquiring Monsanto—the original maker of Roundup—in 2018, Bayer inherited over 60,000 lawsuits alleging cancer links. Prior judgments have forced Bayer into multi-billion-dollar settlements, and the lawsuits continue, creating a cloud of suspicion around glyphosate. But what exactly is glyphosate, and why has it become the most widely used herbicide on the planet?

Glyphosate – The Agricultural Industry’s Favourite Chemical

Glyphosate, chemically known as N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, kills weeds by blocking an enzyme (EPSPS) essential for plant survival. Since humans and animals lack this enzyme, glyphosate was initially claimed to be safe. Farmers quickly adopted glyphosate for its cost-effectiveness and efficiency. As it kills almost all plants, it was initially used in a targeted manner to kill weeds but not the crop itself. This changed in the 1990s with the introduction of genetically modified “Roundup Ready” crops that were resistant to glyphosate, allowing farmers to blanket entire fields without harming their crops. Today, glyphosate residues are found ubiquitously, from cereal boxes to waterways, raising health concerns worldwide.

Government regulators have historically considered glyphosate safe, with acceptable residue levels set by the EPA and European authorities. Almost unsurprisingly, these regulatory decisions heavily rely on studies from Bayer (formerly Monsanto) itself. In contrast, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015, based on human epidemiological evidence linking it to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and compelling animal studies.²

This regulatory contradiction has fueled skepticism. Why are courts continually awarding substantial damages if glyphosate poses no health risk? While court decisions alone don’t prove causation, the pattern is troubling. Allegations of ghostwritten studies, intensive lobbying, and undue corporate influence further muddy the waters. It’s known that Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting studies favorable to glyphosate, later cited by regulatory bodies. This troubling insight points toward potentially compromised regulatory frameworks.

Further complicating things is Bayer’s development of Aliqopa (Copanlisib), a drug to treat non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer most linked to glyphosate. This sad irony raises many questions. Aliqopa received accelerated approval by the FDA in 2017, and a year later Bayer purchased Monsanto, despite the IARC’s carcinogenic classification of glyphosate in 2015. While Bayer maintains that glyphosate is safe, the fact that a company can sell both a compound which has been linked to a disease, and a drug which treats that same disease, raises ethical concerns. 

Maybe Glyphosate isn’t Harmless?

It is important to note that the majority of court cases and epidemiological studies linking glyphosate to cancer represent individuals exposed to Roundup while applying it. Farmers, groundskeepers, but even individuals applying Roundup to their personal property can be exposed to incredibly high quantities. For these individuals, recent scientific studies deepen the concerns sparked by court cases. Heavy occupational glyphosate exposure has been shown to correlate strongly with cancer.³ 

For those not directly applying the compound, there may still be cause for concern. As previously stated, glyphosate is ubiquitous throughout the food supply, and studies have found glyphosate in 60%-80% of the general population, including children.⁴  We are almost all being exposed to the chemical. 

While direct human studies are lacking, the epidemiological studies correlating glyphosate with cancer raise suspicions even for those exposed through food. Additionally, animal and cell culture studies reveal glyphosate induces oxidative stress, damages DNA, disrupts hormonal pathways, and harms beneficial gut bacteria—mechanisms plausibly linked to chronic disease, inflammation, and impaired mitochondrial function.^4–6 Of particular concern given falling fertility rates in modern societies, are the studies demonstrating glyphosate to be endocrine disrupting, linked to adverse reproductive effects including reduced sperm counts and increased risk of pregnancy loss.⁷ Importantly, in many of these animal studies the glyphosate was administered through the diet.⁷ Even low-level dietary exposure, once considered harmless, is now questioned, as cumulative long-term effects remain poorly understood.

Given these uncertainties, a risk-reward evaluation becomes essential. Do we continue consuming glyphosate-contaminated foods, trusting assurances from potentially compromised entities, or do we cautiously avoid glyphosate exposure, betting on long-term health?

Strategies for Risk Reduction

One practical approach to reduce exposure is choosing organic foods. Organic certification explicitly prohibits glyphosate use. Although organic foods aren’t pesticide-free, and some approved natural pesticides, like copper-based fungicides carry risks, it significantly reduces synthetic chemical exposure. Studies show switching to organic foods rapidly reduces glyphosate residues in the body by 70% or more.⁸ Additionally, organically grown plants may be healthier independent of the pesticide residue, with studies demonstrating higher antioxidant and lower heavy metal content.⁹

However, organic food typically costs more, highlighting the connection between mind, body, and finance—the three foundational pillars of Energetic Media. While purchasing organic food is a financial decision, it can also be seen as an investment in bodily health and cognitive function. A number of animal studies have indicated that glyphosate likely harms mitochondria, which among many other roles serve as cellular energy producers.  In this way, glyphosate may silently drain energy, lower cognitive performance, and thus erode career productivity, ultimately impacting financial health. Viewed holistically, the premium for organic is an investment that potentially pays dividends in enhanced health, vitality, and earning power.

Recognizing that buying organic is not feasible for many, either due to financial limitations or lack of availability in certain regions, there are other strategies to consider. The “dirty dozen” represents a list of foods documented to contain the highest levels of pesticide contamination. This list includes strawberries, spinach, kale, collard & mustard greens, grapes, peaches, pears, nectarines, apples, bell & hot peppers, cherries, blueberries, and green beans. Not on this list but also known to be highly contaminated are oats, which have glyphosate applied right before harvest. If adopting an entirely organic diet is inaccessible, consider starting with oats and the specific dirty dozen foods that you consume regularly as this will have an outsized impact on your glyphosate exposure. While pesticides and herbicides have been shown to penetrate into foods, washing with a solution of baking soda and water can also be effective in reducing surface contamination.¹⁰

Risk – Reward? Reduce Exposure Where Possible

In the end, our food exists on a spectrum. On the healthier end we have organic whole foods, and on the other end we have ultraprocessed foods. Despite Bayer and other organizations insisting that glyphosate is not harmful, the available evidence supports a decision to avoid it where possible. That being said, whole foods of any form, organic or not, still outperform ultraprocessed foods on the health spectrum. Among all their harmful ingredients, processed foods filled with grains and corn are actually some of the worst culprits for glyphosate, and should be avoided in favour of whole foods, organic or not. 

Regardless of what we choose to eat, the glyphosate saga embodies broader truths: the necessity of informed skepticism toward corporate assurances, the interconnectedness of bodily health and financial wellbeing, and the practical wisdom of hedging risks in an uncertain chemical world. While absolute certainty about glyphosate’s harms may elude science for years, prudent caution today may protect your health, career, and financial future tomorrow.

References

1. Bayer hit with $2 billion Roundup verdict in US state of Georgia cancer case. Reuters (2025).

2. IARC Monograph on Glyphosate. https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate.

3. Zhang, L., Rana, I., Shaffer, R. M., Taioli, E. & Sheppard, L. Exposure to Glyphosate-Based Herbicides and Risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Meta-Analysis and Supporting Evidence. Mutat. Res. 781, 186–206 (2019).

4. Galli, F. S. et al. Overview of human health effects related to glyphosate exposure. Front. Toxicol. 6, 1474792 (2024).

5. Tang, Q., Tang, J., Ren, X. & Li, C. Glyphosate exposure induces inflammatory responses in the small intestine and alters gut microbial composition in rats. Environ. Pollut. Barking Essex 1987 261, 114129 (2020).

6. Puigbò, P. et al. Does Glyphosate Affect the Human Microbiota? Life 12, 707 (2022).

7. de Araújo-Ramos, A. T., Passoni, M. T., Romano, M. A., Romano, R. M. & Martino-Andrade, A. J. Controversies on Endocrine and Reproductive Effects of Glyphosate and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides: A Mini-Review. Front. Endocrinol. 12, (2021).

8. Fagan, J., Bohlen, L., Patton, S. & Klein, K. Organic diet intervention significantly reduces urinary glyphosate levels in U.S. children and adults. Environ. Res. 189, 109898 (2020).

9. Barański, M. et al. Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses. Br. J. Nutr. 112, 794–811 (2014).

10. Yang, T. et al. Effectiveness of Commercial and Homemade Washing Agents in Removing Pesticide Residues on and in Apples. J. Agric. Food Chem. 65, 9744–9752 (2017).