Charlebois: How glyphosate became agriculture's scapegoat

Photo: Jeff Pachoud/AFP

Theo Grataloup, 17, speaks to the press while he arrives at the courthouse in Vienne, France, on April 3, 2025, as his family sues the German group Bayer for the severe malformations from which he suffers and which they attribute to his in-utero exposure to glyphosate, the flagship product of the chemical giant. (Photo by

In a quiet but seismic signal to the global agri-food industry, Bayer is warning it may halt the production of glyphosate — the world’s most widely used herbicide — amid mounting legal pressure and ballooning compensation payouts.

The German agrochemical giant has already earmarked US$16 billion to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits in the United States, while never admitting liability and standing firm on the assertion that glyphosate does not cause cancer. In Canada, similar class-action suits are now beginning to surface.

For Bayer, the issue is not science — it’s economics.

The financial and reputational burden of defending glyphosate is beginning to outweigh its commercial value. With each new lawsuit, the cost of maintaining the herbicide’s market presence rises. Whether glyphosate remains legally defensible is one question — whether it is worth defending, commercially, is another. At some point, something has to give — and it may simply be cheaper to pull the plug, develop a next-generation alternative, and rebrand.

Much of this trouble can be traced back to 2018, when Bayer acquired Monsanto for $63 billion. The merger was meant to create a global powerhouse in seeds and crop science. But Bayer may have seriously underestimated the legal baggage that came with Monsanto — particularly its deepening litigation over glyphosate and the product’s alleged link to cancer. What was initially viewed as a bold strategic move has since become one of the most expensive and reputationally damaging acquisitions in corporate history.

And yet, this moment also presents an opportunity. Bayer could turn the page by investing in a new product — one that delivers agronomic value while also meeting the rising demands of environmental sustainability and social acceptability. In an era of growing consumer scrutiny and regulatory caution, a replacement for glyphosate that is both effective and aligned with societal expectations could reshape Bayer’s legacy and restore public trust in crop science.

Glyphosate has played a central role in modern agriculture’s ability to increase yields, reduce labour costs, and conserve soil through no-till practices. Its abrupt removal could disrupt farming systems, especially in countries that depend heavily on crop protection tools to remain globally competitive.

The controversy around glyphosate centres on claims that it causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma, yet the evidence remains inconclusive. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015 — a category that includes hot beverages and red meat. However, regulatory bodies around the world, including Health Canada, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have consistently concluded that glyphosate poses no unacceptable risk to human health when used as directed.

Yet the courts have not been swayed by scientific consensus. They have responded to emotional testimonies and procedural arguments, producing headline-grabbing verdicts that often overlook scientific rigour. The result is a troubling precedent — one that may discourage companies from pursuing innovation out of fear of legal exposure.

The Canadian dimension should not be overlooked. Should similar lawsuits gain traction here, Canadian farmers may face higher costs and reduced access to essential crop protection tools. That, in turn, could affect everything from yield forecasts to global trade flows. At a time when the world is already navigating climate shocks, fertilizer shortages, and supply chain disruptions, further limitations on inputs could drive food prices even higher.

Food security depends not just on land and labour, but on the ability to innovate and manage risk. Glyphosate has been a cornerstone of that risk management for decades. Losing it — particularly without a viable, scalable alternative — would be a significant setback.

The Bayer story, then, is not just about a chemical. It’s about how scientific credibility, legal activism, and public perception can collide with profound consequences. And in the end, it may be consumers who pay the price.

If the goal is a safer, more sustainable food system, decisions about agricultural tools must be grounded in evidence — not fear, emotion, or politics. Bayer’s best move may be forward, not backward: By innovating a new solution that farmers can trust, regulators can approve, and society can embrace.

Sylvain Charlebois is the Director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.