Glyphosate = Cancer? Not so Fast

By Nevil Speer
Published November 10, 2025 on Feedstuffs

Several weeks ago, the Washington Post ran an article titled “The mysterious rise of cancer among adults in the Corn Belt.” It leads with Mackenzie Dryden, Winterset, Iowa, who was diagnosed with cancer at 18 years old. The Post’s question is, “Could something in the land she loved have made her sick?”

Corn Belt, Iowa, the land. You know what’s coming. And sure enough, later in the article, there it is: “At the turn of the century, Iowa ranked 18th in the nation for cancer rates among adults under 50. Today, it’s fifth.” (It’s actually seventh.) And then comes this observation: “At the center of the controversy is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and the most widely used herbicide on the planet.” 

I first saw the article in a LinkedIn post. I commented, “Can someone please tell us precisely the mechanism that’s causing this?” It’s not a rhetorical question. I’d really like to know the etiology of increased cancer rates in young people. But IF glyphosate is the cause, then Iowa would likely have an even higher rate of cancer and rank first in the country – after all, the state accounts for the largest proportion (about 15%) of corn / soybean acreage in the U.S.

The Washington Post includes a section about its analytical methodology. You can read it here: How the Post found growing rates of young cancer in America’s Corn Belt. It’s needlessly complex.

So, I did my own quick analysis. It consists of three parts – all very straightforward:

1. First, I determined the average annual corn and soybean acreage (combined), by state, between 2000 and 2020 (remember, the concern here is cancer rates since the turn of the century and the introduction of glyphosate into the production system). As a side note, the top 20 states (without Indiana) account for 90% of all corn / soybean acreage – so let’s stay focused there.
2. Second, I queried state cancer rates for individuals under 50 (because that’s the population in focus). The data is easily accessible from the National Cancer Institute (you can find it here).
3. Third, merge the data (see Chart below). IF there’s meaningful causation, it will be readily evident.

Now, let’s go to the Chart. There are several key items:

• Yes, the relationship is positive: more acres, more cancer. But note the regression; the line is essentially flat, equal to 0.0000001 case per 100,000 per acre. That translates to 10 million acres being required to bump the cancer rate by 0.001%.

• Now the R-squared value. The differences in acreage describe only 3% of the variation in cancer rates; 97% of the variation in cancer rates is the result of other factors.

• IF glyphosate is the cause, one would think this would all be neatly proportional – it’s not. For instance, why the disparity between Iowa and Illinois? They’re essentially equivalent in terms of annual acreage; the Washington Post didn’t tell you Illinois’ cancer rate is roughly 8 points lower than Iowa.

• Alternatively, Nebraska and Minnesota plant only two-thirds of Iowa’s acreage, yet those two states possess higher cancer rates among young people. Something else must be occurring.

You get the gist. All this focus on glyphosate represents lost opportunity towards solving the real problem. That ultimately cheats all cancer patients (now, and in the future). We need to be serious people because cancer is an awful malady. And maybe, just maybe, someday we’ll find a way to prevent it. But in the meantime, let’s stop chasing glyphosate – it’s wasted effort.

Read the original article on Feedstuffs »

EU judges pull plug on pesticide approval loophole

By Eunseo Hong
Published November 19, 2025 on Courthouse News Service

Brussels got a sharp wake-up call Wednesday when Europe’s General Court sided with environmental groups and found EU regulators had bent pesticide rules to keep glyphosate and other farm chemicals on the market far longer than the law allows.

In a trio of connected rulings, the judges said the European Commission had turned what was supposed to be a short-term fix into a back-door renewal system, bending EU pesticide rules far beyond their limits. The court made clear the commission had made a serious error in judgment by keeping approvals alive long after the law said they should have expired.

The case at the center of the rulings focused on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup and one of the world’s most widely used weedkillers. The court found the commission mishandled delays in the renewal process, taking too narrow a view of the company’s role and letting it off the hook whenever others shared part of the blame. In doing so, they found regulators had misread the law and upset the balance lawmakers had intended.

“Many parties involved in the renewal procedure in no way relieves the commission of its duty to examine all the factors causing delay, including those attributable to the renewal applicant,” the Luxembourg-based court wrote.

The rule in question was meant to allow short extensions when reviews hit genuine roadblocks, but the court found the commission had applied it too broadly and kept glyphosate’s approval in place far longer than intended.

For years, environmentalists have accused the EU of using red tape as cover to keep disputed pesticides on store shelves. Glyphosate, first cleared for use in 2002, became the prime example with approval renewed again and again while scientists argued over its possible cancer risks and impact on biodiversity.

The judges didn’t buy the commission’s argument that the delays were unavoidable due to slow science and too many hands in the mix. EU rules, they noted, only allow short, one-off extensions to finish pending safety checks. Routine holdups, the court said, are no excuse for endless renewals, and stopgap measures are meant to be temporary.

The court’s criticism went beyond glyphosate, targeting a wider pattern of drawn-out approvals that have kept other farm chemicals on the market for years without full safety reassessments.

One case focused on dimoxystrobin, a fungicide used on cereals and oilseeds that is suspected of disrupting hormones. Its approval had been renewed seven times before the commission finally withdrew it in 2023. The judges found regulators had stretched the rules beyond recognition, warning that administrative shortcuts can never come at the expense of health or environmental protection.

Another case involved boscalid, a fungicide widely sprayed on fruits and vegetables. There, the court ruled five extensions in five years broke with the EU’s own precautionary principle, which requires regulators to step in early to prevent possible risks to people and nature.

The rulings should send a clear signal to Brussels to stop leaning on regulatory delays as a safety net. They also open the door for environmentalists to challenge EU decisions in court under international access-to-justice rules, a step activists hailed as a breakthrough for public oversight.

The groups behind the cases hailed the judgments as a turning point for EU pesticide policy.

Thomas Radetzki, chair of the Berlin-based Aurelia Stiftung, the group that brought the glyphosate challenge, said the decision ends “the devastating practice of the European Commission that kept hundreds of pesticide active substances on the market solely through derogations.” He welcomed the court’s insistence that approvals must be regularly reassessed, calling it proof that “the court explicitly affirms the primacy of environmental and health protection over economic interests.”

PAN Europe, which brought the dimoxystrobin case, said the outcome “should help to finally ban substances proven harmful to health and the environment.” Senior chemicals officer Hans Muilerman added the judgment makes clear the commission can’t use blanket extensions to keep toxins on the market.

Pollinis, the group behind the boscalid case, hailed the ruling as a victory for biodiversity. Campaigner Mathis Buis said the court had rightly ended “the abusive practice of automatic extensions that allowed bee-killing pesticides like boscalid to stay on the market for years without new risk assessments.”

The European Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Glyphosate remains one of Europe’s most contentious chemicals. The commission renewed its approval for another 10 years in late 2023 after EU scientists found no unacceptable risks when used properly, though several member states have kept national restrictions in place.

Dimoxystrobin has been withdrawn from the market, while boscalid’s approval now runs only until 2026 as regulators continue reassessing its safety profile.

The commission now has until the end of January to take its fight to the EU’s top court. If it lets the deadline pass, the rulings will stand as the final word.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.

Read the original article on Courthouse News Service »

Delayed Planting of Genetically Modified Crops in Kenya is Costly

By Gilbert arap Bor
Published October 29, 2025 on Global Farming Network

Kenyan farmers like me are losing money every day and food security for all is challenged because we have not been allowed to plant biotech crops. Recent studies and legal decisions indicate that delays and uncertainty surrounding the adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops are impacting farmer income and food security. While the government has expressed support for the technology, ongoing litigation and public opposition have created bottlenecks. 

According to the report from the Breakthrough Institute, and several other groups, including the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, all these have resulted in the total cost to the nation in excess of Ksh.20 billion— close to $157 million USD—over the last three years.

“This staggering loss has denied the country vital opportunities to boost food security, farmer incomes, and environmental health, and is exacerbated by persistent misinformation campaigns that hinder science-based progress,” says the Kenya News Agency.

It’s all because farmers are denied access to two biotech crops that the Government of Kenya already has approved: an insect-resistant maize, and a disease-resistant potato. Only one GM crop has been available for planting by Kenyan farmers since 2019 – Bt Cotton.

We can’t get the seeds because activist groups that despise modern agriculture have sued to block their distribution. Everything is tangled up in the courts.

Kenyan farmers suffer because we could be growing more and earning more. Kenyan consumers suffer because the country’s food prices are higher than they should be. The Kenyan environment suffers because we’re using pesticides that biotechnology has rendered obsolete.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Three years ago, the Kenyan government lifted its longtime ban on the importation and cultivation of GM crops, in a move that promised to let Kenyan farmers enjoy the technologies that farmers in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, and elsewhere take for granted. The idea was to bring Kenyan agriculture into the 21st century.

“This is the kind of change we need,” I wrote in a column, shortly after the announcement. “It’s time for Kenya to catch up—and now we will.”

Except that we haven’t—and now it’s starting to seem like we won’t.

In fact, it feels like the old ban is back in place. Or, perhaps more accurately, it feels like the ban never was lifted. Nothing has changed. Kenyan agriculture remains locked in its primitive and inefficient ways, while much of the rest of the world pushes forward with bigger yields and increased food security. Yet the country boasts some of the best agricultural researchers in the world, who have done their bit!

Our president, William Samoei Ruto, remains an advocate of biotech crops. Several months ago, his government reiterated its commitment to improve food production through biotechnology. A regulatory framework for the commercialization of GM crops remains in place.

Yet the lawsuits have halted Kenya’s progress.

“The government’s commitment to facilitate the adoption of new technologies and innovations to transform low agricultural productivity in the country is being derailed by unending litigation,” complained Mutahi Kagwe, the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture and Livestock Development.

I’d love to plant biotech crops. My family has farmed 25 acres for the last four decades. We always grow maize (corn), and this year we planted 10 acres. Most of it will become feed for our dairy herd, but two acres will turn into ugali, a corn meal that is the staple food of my country.

Access to biotech crops would make us more resilient farmers. We’d grow more food at a lower cost, boosting our profits and saving consumers money. In a fully flourishing system of modern agriculture, we would enjoy improved ways to defend our crops against insects, weeds, disease, drought, and more.

The longer the Kenyan courts allow litigations to stand in the way of Kenyans to access these excellent crops, the higher the losses will climb. We’ll continue to throw away the economic opportunity to generate hundreds of millions of shillings through honest work and innovation, all due to organizations motivated by an anti-scientific ideology. Their members don’t know much about growing food, but they know a lot about how to manipulate Kenyans’ minds, and the courts to serve a backward agenda.

To overcome this challenge, the government must focus on transparent public engagement that builds trust and continue to offer evidence that GM crops are safe.

It also will take farmers like me. We can’t fight in the court of law, but we can make our voices heard in the court of public opinion.

We must speak out and let our fellow Kenyans know that the sooner Kenyan farmers can access these amazing crops, the better off every one of us will be. We all pay a price for delay.

Gilbert arap Bor grows maize (corn), vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya and has now added coffee and avocados. Dr Bor is also a lecturer of marketing and management at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus. He is a member of the Global Farmer Network, and is a member of its Advisory Board.

Read the original article on Global Farming Network »