Glyphosate, grassroots and the power of small choices.
/As I write this on Monday, April 27, 2026, the Supreme Court is considering a case that could quietly reshape the future of our food system: Monsanto (Bayer) v. Durnell. At its core, the case asks a deceptively simple question: Can a state require warning labels on pesticides if those warnings differ from federal guidance?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which regulates pesticide labeling in the U.S., does not classify glyphosate—the most widely used herbicide in the world—as a carcinogen (1, 2). Based on that position, Bayer argues it should not have been required to pay $1.25 million to the plaintiff, Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and claimed he was not adequately warned under Missouri law (3).
Durnell’s argument is equally straightforward: he deserved to know the potential risks.
If the Court sides with Bayer, the implications stretch far beyond this single case—it could effectively shield pesticide manufacturers from state-level labeling requirements—and from tens of thousands of pending lawsuits against Bayer—by limiting warnings to what the federal government requires, even if states want stronger protections and/or additional language.
One underlying question I always seek to understand is what the science says. Unfortunately, it’s unclear. The EPA maintains that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans at typical exposure levels through maximum dietary exposure (1). Meanwhile, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” (4).
Those are not small differences in interpretation—they shape policy, labeling, public perception and, presumably, court case outcomes. Currently, over 100,000 claims have been filed against Bayer, with more than $11 billion paid in settlements related to alleged harm, including cancers like non-Hodgkin lymphoma (5), a disease that has taken the lives of two of my own family members.
In my work and in my own healing journey, I urge and prioritize consumption of uncontaminated foods, knowing the prevalence of endocrine disrupting chemicals used in modern agriculture and how exposure to them wreaks havoc on our hormones and health. Hence, I endeavor to understand the science behind glyphosate—how does it actually work?
Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, meaning it kills most plants it contacts. It works by disrupting a biological pathway essential for plant growth. It’s also water-soluble, which allows it to move through plant tissue and persist in soil and water for days to months, depending on conditions (6).
And then, more questions arise: If it moves through water, does it travel beyond the fields where it’s sprayed? If it’s absorbed by plants, does it end up in the foods we eat? If it disrupts biological systems in plants, what does that mean for the complex systems in our bodies?
These aren’t Earth-mama, nature nutritionist, fringe-y concerns. They’re the kinds of questions researchers, farmers, clinicians, and everyday consumers have been asking for decades.
We know the modern food system is built on efficiency, yield, and scalability. Glyphosate played a major role in that shift. After its introduction as Roundup in 1974, and especially following the development of glyphosate-resistant crops in the 1990s, its use expanded dramatically worldwide (7, 8). Besides use in home gardens and in forestry, glyphosate augments large-scale production of commodity crops like soy, corn, cotton, canola and wheat (6, 7).
This system feeds millions. It also raises important questions about long-term ecological and human health, which is where my own apprehension exists. The deeper I go into this work—supporting clients, studying the research, engaging in local food systems—the more I see how often financial incentives surpass precaution and concern. How long can “acceptable risk” define policy when so many people live with the consequences of glyphosate and other toxicants.
I keep returning to a core question of whether small actions matter. In the face of Supreme Court rulings, billion-dollar settlements, and global chemical use, it’s easy to view our values and choices as insignificant. Does choosing sustainably grown produce, supporting a local farmer, or asking questions at the grocery store make any real difference?
But then I remember: change rarely starts at the top. The term grassroots originally described collective action driven by everyday people—those closest to the ground, literally and figuratively. People who shape systems not through power, but through persistence. There’s something quietly powerful about that. And while glyphosate was designed to kill what grows from the soil, grassroots movements remind us that what sustains that growth is resilient.
We don’t need to overhaul our entire lives to participate in this conversation. But we can be proactive and make intentional choices:
Prioritize organically grown options for the most heavily sprayed crops.
Support local farms that use regenerative or low-spray practices.
Wash and prepare produce thoughtfully.
Stay curious—read labels, ask questions, and follow the science as it evolves.
Engage in conversations that are nuanced, not reactive.
Importantly, remember that your choices are not isolated—they signal demand. They shape markets. They influence policy, over time.
We may not control the outcome of a Supreme Court case. But we do participate—every day—in the kind of food system we’re willing to support, and what we choose to put into our bodies. And that, in its own quiet way, is powerful.
Originally written for and published by 5BGazette.com.