admin
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have formally announced a collaborative initiative to coordinate research and identify scientific gaps regarding the safety of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide. This inter-agency memorandum of understanding (MOU), disclosed on September 23, 2026, aims to bolster the scientific evidence base for the EPA’s ongoing re-evaluation of glyphosate’s registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). While presented as a step towards enhanced scientific rigor, the announcement has been met with considerable skepticism from pesticide critics and food safety advocates who question its potential for meaningful impact, citing historical regulatory patterns and the EPA’s ultimate authority in the registration process.
The Enduring Controversy of Glyphosate
Glyphosate, first introduced to the market in 1974 by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) under the brand name Roundup, revolutionized weed management in agriculture. Its broad-spectrum efficacy and relatively low cost led to its rapid adoption globally, particularly with the advent of "Roundup Ready" genetically modified crops designed to withstand the herbicide. Today, it remains the most common herbicide used in the United States, with an estimated 280 million pounds applied annually across agricultural, commercial, and residential settings. Its pervasive use has led to widespread environmental presence, detected in water, soil, and even human urine samples.
However, glyphosate’s widespread use has been shadowed by a persistent and escalating controversy surrounding its potential health and environmental impacts. The debate intensified significantly in 2015 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A), specifically linking it to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This classification stood in stark contrast to the regulatory stances of many national agencies, including the EPA, which had consistently maintained that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans when used according to label instructions.
Since the IARC finding, Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits from individuals alleging that exposure to Roundup caused their cancer. The company has settled many of these cases for billions of dollars, though it continues to assert that glyphosate is safe and does not cause cancer. These legal battles have kept public attention firmly fixed on the chemical’s safety profile and the regulatory processes governing its approval.
Beyond human health concerns, environmental advocates have raised alarms about glyphosate’s impact on biodiversity, including its potential harm to monarch butterfly populations (by eliminating milkweed, their primary food source), soil health, and the development of herbicide-resistant "superweeds," which necessitate even greater chemical use.
A Mandated Re-evaluation: The 2022 Court Decision
The current federal re-evaluation of glyphosate’s safety is not a voluntary undertaking but a direct consequence of a significant legal challenge. In 2022, a federal court issued a landmark decision rejecting the EPA’s interim registration review of glyphosate. The court found that the EPA had failed to adequately assess the risks posed by glyphosate, specifically citing the agency’s dismissal of cancer risks and its inadequate consideration of impacts on endangered species. This judicial rebuke forced the EPA to reopen its assessment and commit to a more thorough and scientifically robust review process.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandates that the EPA periodically re-evaluate pesticides to ensure they do not pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. This registration review process is supposed to occur every 15 years. The 2022 court ruling underscored the importance of this process and highlighted perceived shortcomings in the EPA’s prior reviews of glyphosate. The EPA is now under pressure to finalize its human health risk assessment by early 2027, making the timing of the HHS collaboration particularly critical, though its immediate influence remains debatable.
Details of the HHS-EPA Collaboration
The newly signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlines a framework for the Department of Health and Human Services to collaborate with the Environmental Protection Agency on glyphosate research. According to official statements, the primary objectives of this partnership are to coordinate scientific efforts related to glyphosate safety and to identify and address existing gaps in scientific evidence. The intent is to broaden the scope of data and analyses available to the EPA as it conducts its ongoing, court-mandated registration review.
Under the terms of the MOU, HHS, through its various agencies such as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), could potentially contribute expertise in toxicology, epidemiology, and public health risk assessment. This input could involve reviewing existing studies, identifying areas where more research is needed, and perhaps even initiating new studies or analyses.
However, a critical aspect of the MOU, and one that fuels much of the skepticism, is that the EPA retains the ultimate authority over all registration decisions concerning glyphosate. While HHS’s input might inform the EPA’s assessment, it does not supersede the EPA’s final judgment. This structure raises questions about the true influence HHS will wield, particularly if its scientific findings diverge significantly from the EPA’s established positions or industry perspectives.
Skepticism from Advocacy Groups and Environmental Watchdogs
The announcement, while seemingly a positive step towards inter-agency cooperation, has been met with significant doubt from long-standing critics of glyphosate and the EPA’s regulatory practices. Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), dismissed the MOU as largely symbolic. "I think this is a fig leaf," Cook told Civil Eats, adding, "I don’t think this really amounts to anything." Cook’s skepticism stems from a historical perspective, where he argues that the issue has rarely been a lack of available science or hidden data, but rather whether the EPA chooses to acknowledge and incorporate that science into its decisions. He suggests that similar inter-agency consultations on chemical reviews are not uncommon and have not historically led to significant shifts in regulatory outcomes for controversial pesticides.
This sentiment is echoed by other prominent figures in the food safety and environmental advocacy community. Bill Freese, director of the Center for Food Safety Science, expressed deep skepticism that the MOU would lead to any substantive changes, given the EPA’s past record. He specifically highlighted that by keeping the EPA as the sole authority on registration decisions, the new collaboration might lack the necessary teeth to compel a different outcome. Freese also pointed out that any new research or collaborative efforts would likely take years to yield results, making it improbable to significantly impact the EPA’s current review, which is slated for completion by early 2027.
Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, offered an even more pointed critique. "The problem has never been that EPA’s pesticide office doesn’t compile all the relevant science or consult with outside researchers, it’s that it selectively ignores the science that doesn’t support the pesticide industry’s regulatory goals," Donley stated. He concluded that the announcement "does nothing to prevent that from happening, so as far as I’m concerned it’s a bunch of smoke and mirrors." These statements reflect a deeply entrenched mistrust born from years of perceived regulatory capture and a consistent pattern of EPA decisions favoring chemical manufacturers.
The "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement, a significant force in advocating for food safety and reduced pesticide use, has long rallied against glyphosate. While some MAHA advocates expressed cautious optimism or even positive attention on social media platforms following the MOU announcement, the broader sentiment among critics remains guarded. Their experience with the current administration’s shifting stance on glyphosate has only reinforced their cautious outlook.
Political Context and Shifting Administrative Stances
The political backdrop against which this MOU has been announced adds another layer of complexity and fuels much of the critics’ skepticism. The Trump administration, which initiated the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement, initially appeared to align with critics of chemical use in food. The first MAHA Commission report, for instance, contained language that suggested a willingness to scrutinize pesticides more closely.
However, this initial alignment proved fleeting. The administration later scaled back its focus on pesticide risks, instead emphasizing issues like ultra-processed foods. More significantly, the administration has since sided with chemical company Bayer in key legal battles concerning glyphosate, including a recent Supreme Court case. Furthermore, in a move that directly contradicted the spirit of reducing reliance on controversial chemicals, the Trump administration issued an executive order aimed at boosting domestic glyphosate production.
These actions have created a perception among environmental and food safety advocates that the administration’s commitment to public health through chemical regulation is inconsistent and often yields to industry interests. While the administration has also attempted to engage MAHA voters through initiatives promoting regenerative agriculture, these efforts are seen by many as incongruous with its support for increased glyphosate production and its legal backing of Bayer. This history makes it particularly challenging for critics to view the new HHS-EPA collaboration as a genuine pivot towards stricter oversight or an unbiased scientific review.
Broader Implications and Future Outlook
The collaboration between HHS and EPA, despite the skepticism it has engendered, represents a potentially significant development in the ongoing saga of glyphosate regulation. Even if its immediate impact on the current review is limited, it establishes a formal precedent for inter-agency dialogue on pesticide safety. This could, in theory, pave the way for more integrated and public health-oriented assessments of chemicals in the future, especially if a future administration or legislative action empowers agencies like HHS with more decisive roles.
For the agricultural industry, the persistent uncertainty surrounding glyphosate’s future poses ongoing challenges. Farmers reliant on glyphosate for weed control face the prospect of needing to explore alternative weed management strategies, which could include mechanical cultivation, cover cropping, or other non-chemical methods. This shift, while potentially beneficial for long-term soil health and environmental sustainability, would require significant investment and adaptation. Bayer, meanwhile, continues to defend the safety of its product, but the increasing regulatory scrutiny and ongoing legal liabilities create considerable financial pressure and market uncertainty.
The outcome of the EPA’s human health risk assessment, due in early 2027, will be pivotal. A decision that maintains glyphosate’s current registration without significant restrictions would likely be met with outrage and renewed legal challenges from advocacy groups. Conversely, any move to restrict or ban glyphosate could have profound implications for agricultural practices and the chemical industry.
Globally, regulatory bodies have taken varied stances on glyphosate. While some countries, particularly in Europe, have moved towards restricting or banning the herbicide, others continue to permit its use. The EPA’s final decision could influence international policy debates and scientific assessments, highlighting the interconnectedness of global food systems and environmental regulations.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of this new MOU will hinge not just on the scientific data it helps to compile, but on the EPA’s willingness to genuinely consider and act upon all available evidence, even if it challenges established positions or industry interests. The collaboration shines a spotlight on the inherent tension between regulatory agencies’ mandates to protect public health and the environment, and the powerful economic and political forces exerted by the agricultural chemical industry. As the 2027 deadline approaches, all eyes will be on the EPA to see whether this new partnership translates into a truly independent and health-protective assessment of glyphosate.
