03:25 - Carey kicked off the episode by noting that while glyphosate is best known as the active ingredient in the widely used weed killer RoundUp, it’s also found in many other herbicides, collectively known as “glyphosate-based herbicides” (GBHs). Today, more than 750 products contain glyphosate — each with varying salt carriers, adjuvants, concentrations, and combinations with other herbicides (source.

**06:55 - Carey noted a turning point in the field of pesticide research: the 2015 classification of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” (a substance likely to cause cancer) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—**a conclusion that sparked years of scientific debate and regulatory back-and-forth

You can read that original report here.

Carey then reflected on how the very process of determining glyphosate’s “safety” has been manipulated by bias and industry influence. In the U.S., regulators such as the EPA base their evaluations primarily on company-provided data — in this case, studies submitted by Monsanto itself to support the registration of glyphosate-based herbicides.

Independent reviews have found that regulatory decisions often rely heavily on industry-funded, unpublished studies, giving them more weight than peer-reviewed research from independent scientists — a pattern repeatedly identified as a serious concern ([source](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/glyphosate-03-17-2017.php?), source.

This bias was made strikingly clear through The Monsanto Papers — a collection of internal company documents released in 2017 during litigation in which Monsanto was found liable for glyphosate’s role in causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma after acute exposure (source). These records revealed that Monsanto ghostwrote safety studies, paid scientists to publish them under their own names, and pressured independent researchers whose findings suggested harm. The company even forbade its own scientists from publishing evidence of DNA damage and required them to sign strict secrecy agreements (source).

One of the most cited papers claiming glyphosate’s safety — Williams et al. — was later shown to have been co-written internally by Monsanto staff (source).

When the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015, it highlighted the deep divide between independent science and regulatory determinations. The agency’s evaluation focused on publicly available toxicological, epidemiological, and mechanistic data — much of which regulatory agencies had discounted in favor of proprietary, industry-funded studies ([source](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/glyphosate-03-17-2017.php?), source.

The problem is not limited to the U.S. In Europe, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) — which produced a key report used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) — was found to have copied entire sections from Monsanto’s Glyphosate Task Force, including text asserting glyphosate’s safety (source.

Additionally, new research further undermines these safety assurances. A 2025 study found that even exposures equivalent to the EU’s “safe” acceptable daily intake (ADI) — which is 3.5 times lower than the U.S. limit — led to significant increases in both non-cancerous and cancerous tumors in laboratory animals (source, source, source).

15:10 - Carey highlighted the stark international differences in how glyphosate and genetically modified (GM) crops are governed and accepted. She explained how many of these crops — patented by Monsanto and engineered specifically to withstand glyphosate spraying — have become central to global trade disputes and cultural tensions.

One of the most visible examples she pointed to is the ongoing conflict between Mexico and the United States over the import and use of GMO corn. Mexico views the unrestricted trade of GMO corn as a direct threat to its sovereignty, traditional farming practices, and food heritage. This dispute, which has been unfolding for years, gained major attention in 2023, when Mexico (1) banned GMO corn in dough and tortillas and (2) began phasing out GMO corn in other food products and animal feed. The move angered U.S. corn producers, who argued that Mexico’s policy violated the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) (source).

In March 2025, Mexico solidified its stance by amending its Constitution to ban GMO corn seeds, marking one of the strongest national rejections of GMO agriculture in the world (source.