"In the Weeds" Glyphosate News Roundup: August 25, 2026

Takeaways - Court rulings and state requirements have left glyphosate manufactureres exposed to additional warnings and liability. - Brazil's Labor Prosecutor's Office has demanded a complete ban on glyphosate. - For Illinois corn and soybean producers, loss of glyphosate would be $300 million to $609 million per year. - The retraction came eight years after emails surfaced in court that revealed employees of Monsanto ghostwrote the paper. Innovations, Not Lawsuits, Shape Glyphosate's Future Published May 3, 2026 on AgroNews Legal and regulatory pressure around glyphosate has raised questions for U.S. farmers about future availability and labels, and some manufacturers have already adjusted product lines to limit litigation risk. While most major pesticide regulators, including the EPA, have concluded glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen, court rulings and state requirements have left manufacturers exposed to additional warnings and liability. That legal uncertainty could affect the supply and formulation choices available to farmers. Glyphosate remains one of the most widely used herbicides because it is inexpensive, broadly effective and enabled widespread adoption of tolerant crop systems that simplify weed control. Farmers commonly rely on it for preplant burndown, postharvest cleanup and in-season weed control where tolerant varieties are grown. EPA: Unlikely Carcinogen The herbicide also interacts with other agronomic outcomes: its use has been a factor in expanding reduced-tillage systems that cut erosion, diesel use and soil disturbance. Removing glyphosate without ready substitutes would likely push some growers back to more intensive tillage or to alternative chemistries with higher toxicity profiles, raising costs and potentially reversing conservation gains. Why Innovators Matter Industry and startups are developing tools that could reduce dependence on blanket herbicide applications by making weed control more targeted or by replacing chemical treatments altogether. Precision applicators now combine computer vision, sensors and precision nozzles to identify weeds and treat individual plants; one maker reports application reductions of up to 99% under certain conditions. Regulatory choices and litigation will shape whether farmers keep access to an herbicide that is needed in today's reduced-tillage systems... Robotic mechanical weeders and laser systems are also moving from trials into commercial use for specialty and high-value row crops, using cameras and actuation to remove or destroy weeds without herbicides. For large-acre, lower-margin crops where robots are still uneconomical, new chemistries and biological approaches are being pursued that aim for different modes of action or targeted delivery to reduce non-target impacts. Policy and Adoption Policymakers can accelerate the transition by funding and staffing regulators and extension systems so they can evaluate new products and help growers adopt precision tools. That includes faster, well-resourced review at EPA for novel pesticide products and at USDA for edited and modified crops that enable alternative weed-management strategies. Congress is also considering Farm Bill measures to support research, demonstration and farmer adoption of precision equipment, which would directly affect how quickly those tools scale on U.S. farms. If new technologies can match or beat glyphosate on cost, toxicity and the ability to support conservation tillage, farmers and environmental advocates are likely to adopt them. In the meantime, regulatory choices and litigation outcomes will shape whether farmers keep access to an herbicide that today underpins many U.S. reduced-tillage systems. Congress is considering Farm Bill changes to support research and farmer adoption of precision equipment. Read the original article on AgroNews » Brazilian Prosecutors Demand a Complete Ban on Glyphosate Published June 18, 2026 on UkrAgroConsult In Brazil, the Labor Prosecutor’s Office has demanded a complete ban on glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the country, which also underpins soybean, corn, and cotton production systems. The Prosecutor’s Office is seeking to halt the registration, production, sale, import, and export of glyphosate and all glyphosate-based products throughout Brazil. The federal government and the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency, which is responsible for approving and monitoring pesticide use, are named as defendants in the lawsuit. Brazil is one of the largest consumers of herbicides in the world... This initiative has already raised concerns in the agricultural sector, as Brazil is one of the largest consumers of herbicides in the world, and a significant portion of its crops rely on technologies in which glyphosate is a key weed control tool. Read the original article on UkrAgroConsult » Consequences of Glyphosate Ban Goes Beyond Lost Farm Revenue By John Dobberstein, No-Till Farmer Senior Editor Published July 31, 2026 on No-Till Farmer. A new paper published recently in Weed Science pegs the economic damage to farms in Illinois if there was a theoretical ban on glyphosate — which has happened in other countries. Although regulators in the current administration have not pushed outright for a ban, President Trump did sign an executive order directing more resources toward support for regenerative practices — a move that may cloud the future of glyphosate. To estimate the impact of a glyphosate ban on Illinois farmers, researchers quantified baseline glyphosate use and expenditures and used agronomic and economic literature to estimate “yield elasticities” for corn and soybeans under a complete glyphosate ban with no substitution. They examined: - How farmers would employ alternative weed-management programs - Changes in production costs and farm revenues with maintained yields - Scenarios where increased demand for alternative products raised input prices, as well as yield declines due to imperfect weed-control performance. For corn and soybean producers combined, the statewide loss would be $300 million to $609 million per year at the farm level, with a 9% yield loss in both corn and soybeans. The researchers don’t believe a glyphosate ban would mean a complete collapse of food production. But growers would probably shift toward other herbicide-tolerant trait systems with 2,4-D, dicamba or glufosinate. There would be more reliance on soil-residual and premix herbicides, selective postemergence grass control and residual chemistry. A “small but emerging” set of bio-based products could also be options. While there are options, this could lead to higher per-acre weed control costs, increased management complexity and possibly reliance on multi-pass applications. There’s also the risk of increased prices for alternative chemicals due to higher demand, and increased selection pressure over time on the alternative chemistries. President Trump ordered more resources toward regenerative practices, a move that may cloud the future of glyphosate… “In particular, many of these programs require multiple applications, tighter timing windows and increased attention to environmental conditions, which can increase both financial costs and operational complexity,” the authors said. Farmers who diversify their weed-management programs, test alternative chemistries and adjust practices, “are more likely to limit both cost increases and yield impacts” due to reduced glyphosate availability. Another scenario got little mention in the report: growers returning to tillage for weed control. Depending on frequency and intensity, tillage sets in motion a cycle of soil loss, stirred up weed seeds that germinate, yield-robbing compaction (which may cause even more tillage) and reduced soil biology. Not to mention higher costs for equipment and fuel. No-tillers surveyed in our annual No-Till Farmer Operational Benchmark Report are moving toward diversification, which is good to see. More are using glufosinate, 2,4-D and dicamba in soybeans and corn both for weed control and in traited cropping systems. They’re increasingly using residual herbicides and tankmixing glyphosate with other chemistries. While an outright glyphosate ban doesn’t seem likely in the near future, it’s better to be prepared rather than playing catchup. Your profits depend on it. Read the original article on No-Till Farmer » Publisher Investigating Two More Papers on Glyphosate Safety Over Ghostwriting Claims By Allicia Gallegos Published January 2026, updated June 15, 2026 on Retraction Watch Tayor & Francis is investigating two papers about the weed killer Roundup following claims the articles were ghostwritten by the company that developed the herbicide. The review comes after an Elsevier journal last year retracted a paper about Roundup linked to court documents that revealed company employees wrote the article but were not named as coauthors. Authors of the two latest papers under scrutiny stand by their work and deny any ghostwriting occurred. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is highly contentious, with critics arguing the substance is carcinogenic and supporters contending the chemical is safe. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing whether states can hold companies liable for failing to include cancer warnings on products containing the substance. In December 2025, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted a 2000 review article about glyphosate by Gary Williams, then a pathologist at New York Medical College in Valhalla, and two colleagues. The retraction came eight years after emails surfaced in court that revealed employees of Monsanto, which developed Roundup, ghostwrote the paper. Taylor & Francis is now looking into two more papers about glyphosate by authors named in the same court documents. A spokesperson for the publisher told Retraction Watch it “recently received information related to two papers in Critical Reviews in Toxicology:” A 2015 review article led by toxicologist Helmut Greim of the Technical University of Munich and a 2013 paper by toxicologists Larry Kier and David Kirkland that support the safety of glyphosate. “As a result of this new information, these papers are currently subject to an investigation by Taylor & Francis’ publishing ethics and integrity team,” the spokesperson told us. “As with all such investigations, we are seeking to address the concerns raised promptly, and cannot provide any further detail until the investigation is complete.” Authors of the two papers are mentioned in internal Monsanto documents released in 2017 during the course of a lawsuit alleging exposure to glyphosate caused people to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In an email discussion about producing a scientific paper with outside scientists, a Monsanto employee wrote, “an option would be to add Greim and Kier or [David J.] Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000.” 66 researchers have called for Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology to reverse its retraction of the paper… Over the last year, researchers Alexander Kaurov, Jason MacLean and Naomi Oreskes have urged Critical Reviews in Toxicology to request retraction of the two papers. Kaurov and Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, previously analyzed the impact of the Williams study and wrote about their findings in Science and Undarkqwaw. The scholars’ work led to the Williams retraction. The Kier and Greim papers are arguably more consequential for glyphosate regulation than the Williams paper, said Kaurov, a researcher at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. “In regulatory use, the two often travel together,” said Kaurov, noting a 2018 document from the Agency about glyphosate that cites both papers. The EPA maintains glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Since then, regulators have used Greim’s paper to counter the finding and justify reapprovals of glyphosate, MacLean told us. Reliance on the article has “unduly skewed the regulation and adjudication of glyphosate’s cancer risks,” said MacLean, who has acted as an expert witness for plaintiffs in glyphosate litigation. Christian Strupp, a coauthor of that article, told us he and his colleagues “stand by the scientific integrity of the publication, which has undergone professional peer review, and await clarification from the publishers as to any concerns raised.” Kirkland, the coauthor of the 2013 paper, told us the article “was not ghostwritten.” He and Kier “state clearly” in the text they had “sole responsibility for the writing and content of the paper,” Kirkland told us in an email. “As an editor of Special Issues for Mutation Research (at that time), I firmly believed it was important to ignore any suggestions from the glyphosate manufacturers in relation to our review process, our interpretation of results and our conclusions in order that our review would be independent,” he said. Kirkland said Taylor & Francis informed the authors of some concerns with the paper, but the publisher has not provided details about the nature of the concerns. If asked for more information, he “will be happy to collaborate with their investigation,” he said. A spokesperson for Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, provided a statement from the company calling the allegations about the papers “absurd.” The statement added a Monsanto employee, David Saltmiras, was a coauthor of the Greim paper and was “clearly identified as such” in the article. “This appears to be yet another attempt by the litigation industry – this time specifically including a paid plaintiff expert from the Roundup litigation – to discredit sound science for its own purposes and financial benefit,” Bayer said in the statement. The retraction of the Williams article remains the subject of intense debate. A group of 66 researchers have written an editorial calling for Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology to reverse its retraction of the paper. The group contends there was no evidence of scientific weakness in the paper that justified retraction. Christopher Borgert, a pharmacology researcher who is leading the campaign, told us the rationale given for the retraction “is not defensible,” and the ghostwriting concerns about the paper are “flimsy.” Borgert said the editorial was originally accepted by Archives of Toxicology, but that he withdrew it. He said another journal has provisionally accepted it, but he declined to name the journal. But Martin van den Berg, co-editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, told us the journal would not be reversing the retraction. The decision to remove the paper was fully independent, based on the COPE guidelines. “Any suggestion otherwise should be considered mud smearing and bullying,” he said in an email. Kaurov, MacLean and Oreskes responded to Borgert’s upcoming editorial in a post on their blog Reckoning Science that called the piece an “editorial that defends a ghostwritten paper by citing additional ghostwritten papers.” Update, 6/15/26: This story was updated to clarify that Naomi Oreskes had also requested retraction of the papers. Read the original article on Retraction Watch »