Glyphosate, a herbicide that has been widely used across the world for more than five decades and promoted as an indispensable tool for modern agriculture, is increasingly at the centre of a fierce global debate over its long-term impact on human health, the environment, and farming communities. Critics argue that while multinational and domestic agrochemical companies continue to generate enormous profits from their sales, the risks associated with the chemicals are often downplayed, leaving farmers exposed to potential health hazards and environmental damage. Concerns have also been raised that, despite repeated use, many weeds continue to survive and reappear, forcing farmers into a cycle of repeated chemical dependence and increasing expenditure.
One of the major criticisms directed at glyphosate is that although it is marketed as an effective weed-control solution, many farmers report that weeds often return after repeated spraying. Over time, certain weed species have developed resistance to the herbicide, giving rise to what are commonly known as "superweeds." These resistant weeds are more difficult and expensive to control, leading to concerns that farmers may become increasingly dependent on stronger and costlier chemical formulations. Critics argue that this creates a cycle in which farmers continue purchasing products while the underlying problem remains unresolved.
Glyphosate is regarded as one of the most controversial agricultural chemicals ever developed. The debate surrounding it extends far beyond farming practices and has become a global discussion involving public health experts, environmental scientists, regulators, courts, governments, and multinational corporations. While supporters argue that glyphosate has significantly improved agricultural productivity and reduced labour requirements, opponents point to studies linking the chemical to health concerns and environmental degradation.
A major turning point in the controversy occurred in 2015 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a specialised agency of the World Health Organisation, classified glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen to humans." This classification intensified global scrutiny of the herbicide and triggered widespread debate about its safety. Critics argue that despite this classification, several regulatory agencies continue to permit its use, often relying on data submitted by manufacturers and industry-sponsored studies.
The question of glyphosate's safety remains deeply contested. While some countries continue to permit its use under regulated conditions, others have chosen to impose restrictions or outright bans. More than 30 countries, including Vietnam, Austria, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and several Gulf nations, have either prohibited glyphosate entirely or significantly restricted its application. These decisions were often influenced by concerns regarding public health, environmental sustainability, and long-term ecological consequences.
The legal challenges surrounding glyphosate have become one of the most significant corporate liability issues in modern history. Thousands of individuals suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other illnesses have filed lawsuits alleging that prolonged exposure to glyphosate contributed to their medical conditions. Courts in various jurisdictions have examined evidence relating to the chemical's safety, leading to substantial compensation awards in several cases.
After acquiring Monsanto in 2018, the German pharmaceutical and life sciences company Bayer inherited a massive number of legal claims linked to glyphosate-based products. The company has already paid approximately 11 billion US dollars in settlement costs to resolve a large number of lawsuits. In addition, it has outlined plans for further settlements worth billions of dollars to address future claims. Critics argue that the scale of these settlements raises questions about the company's confidence in the product's safety, while Bayer maintains that the settlements are intended to reduce prolonged litigation rather than serve as admissions of liability.
Environmental concerns have also become a central aspect of the debate. Researchers and environmental groups have warned that glyphosate residues can enter rivers, lakes, and groundwater systems through rainfall and runoff. They argue that contamination of water sources may affect aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity. Concerns have also been raised regarding the long-term persistence of glyphosate and its by-products in soil, potentially affecting soil health and microbial activity that are essential for sustainable agriculture.
Critics frequently accuse agrochemical companies of prioritising sales growth over farmer education and safety. They argue that while companies invest heavily in marketing and distribution networks, insufficient attention is given to training farmers in the safe handling and application of herbicides. In many rural areas, awareness regarding protective measures remains limited, and farmers often apply chemicals without proper safety equipment, increasing the risk of direct exposure through the skin and respiratory system.
The history of glyphosate dates back to 1950, when Swiss chemist Henri Martin first synthesised the compound while working for the pharmaceutical company Cilag. At the time, the substance did not demonstrate significant pharmaceutical value and was largely ignored. Two decades later, in 1970, Monsanto scientist John E. Franz independently investigated the compound and discovered its remarkable ability to kill weeds. Recognising its commercial potential, Monsanto patented glyphosate and introduced it to the market in 1974 under the brand name Roundup.
The widespread adoption of glyphosate accelerated dramatically during the 1990s when Monsanto introduced genetically modified crops engineered to withstand the herbicide. These "Roundup Ready" crops enabled farmers to spray entire fields with glyphosate while leaving the primary crop unaffected. The technology reduced labour requirements and simplified weed management, leading to rapid global adoption and making glyphosate the most widely used herbicide in agricultural history.
For years, glyphosate was celebrated as a revolutionary innovation that transformed agricultural productivity. However, the IARC classification in 2015 triggered a major shift in public perception. The report intensified scrutiny of the herbicide and led to a surge in legal actions, scientific investigations, and regulatory reviews around the world. Since then, governments, health agencies, environmental groups, and industry representatives have remained divided over the evidence surrounding its safety.
While organisations such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have generally maintained that glyphosate does not pose a significant cancer risk when used according to approved guidelines, concerns continue regarding environmental effects, occupational exposure, and long-term health outcomes. These differing scientific interpretations have contributed to ongoing disagreements among regulators and policymakers.
In India, glyphosate occupies a particularly contentious position. Officially, the herbicide is approved primarily for weed control in tea plantations and certain non-crop areas. However, the widespread cultivation of herbicide-tolerant cotton and growing labour shortages have encouraged broader, often unauthorised, use across multiple agricultural sectors. Farmers increasingly rely on glyphosate to clear weeds before sowing crops such as rice and to manage weed growth in vegetable cultivation.
The widespread use of glyphosate in India raises additional concerns because many farmers apply the chemical manually without adequate protective equipment. Unlike large-scale mechanised agricultural systems found in some countries, Indian farmers often carry spray tanks on their backs and work without gloves, masks, goggles, or protective clothing. This increases the likelihood of direct exposure and has prompted concern from states including Kerala, Punjab, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh.
In response to these concerns, the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare drafted regulations in 2020 aimed at tightening controls on glyphosate use. After extensive consultations, the government issued the Restriction on Use of Glyphosate Order, 2022. Rather than imposing a complete ban, the government opted for a middle-ground approach, allowing use in specific circumstances while restricting who could apply the chemical.
Under the proposed framework, glyphosate spraying was to be carried out only by licensed Pest Control Operators (PCOs) trained to handle hazardous chemicals safely. The objective was to reduce risks associated with improper application while preserving access for sectors such as tea plantations, where the herbicide remained important. Companies were instructed to amend product registrations accordingly.
The agrochemical industry strongly opposed the restrictions and challenged them before the Delhi High Court. Industry groups argued that India lacked a sufficient number of trained Pest Control Operators and that requiring farmers to depend on licensed applicators would increase costs and delay weed management operations. According to the industry, these restrictions could negatively affect agricultural productivity.
Following these arguments, the Delhi High Court granted an interim pause on the implementation of the government's order and directed authorities to undertake further consultations with stakeholders. During subsequent proceedings, the government's position became less assertive, and it assured the court that the restrictions would not be forcibly implemented until a final decision was reached. As a result, the proposed regulatory changes were effectively placed on hold.
Critics argue that while companies cited the lack of trained operators as a reason to oppose the restrictions, they did little to help establish training networks or improve farmer safety. They contend that greater investment in safety awareness programmes, protective equipment distribution, and operator certification could have addressed many concerns while still protecting public health.
The broader debate surrounding glyphosate continues to reflect a complex conflict between agricultural productivity, corporate interests, environmental sustainability, regulatory oversight, and public health. Supporters view the herbicide as an essential agricultural tool, while critics see it as a potentially dangerous chemical whose risks have not been adequately addressed. As scientific research continues and legal battles persist, glyphosate remains one of the most intensely scrutinised and controversial agricultural products in the world, with millions of farmers, consumers, regulators, and policymakers closely watching the outcome of this ongoing global debate.
