BIG CHEMICAL IS TRYING TO CHEAT PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR RIGHTS THROUGH CORRUPTING LEGISLATION

And now onto our main discussion, regarding “Glyphosate & Big Chemical’s War on Nutrition”; and to begin with, I’d like to highlight that, in the Trump administration the MAHA movement is among the initiatives that have produced a significant amount of progress, especially considering that the second Trump administration set itself up for a tough, fundamentalist approach to health care, which would challenge misconceptions sponsored by diabolical actors, while empowering people with information that helps them to make an informed choice about their health.

Part of the progress we’ve seen has included banning petroleum-based synthetic dyes in food, ramping up heavy metal testing in infant formula, the first-ever ban on adding fluoride to public water supplies, tighter restrictions on school meal additives and ultra-processed diets, limits on using SNAP (food stamps) benefits for soda and junk food, rethinking the outdated food pyramid, and even scaling back some recommended childhood vaccines. These changes quickly materialized because we saw political will align with grassroots demands from Americans.

But in the same way that the propagators of the COVID debacle are unrelenting, the corporations that profited from making Americans and people around the world sick were not going to passively stand by as their corruption was exposed and their profits curtailed. And, in the status quo, we see this not only with the fear mongering of vaccine manufacturers, but notably because “Big Chemical” is actively trying to infiltrate and undermine the MAHA initiative and movement, while Republicans have unwittingly (or deliberately) helped by allowing Big Chemical-friendly provisions into legislation.

Which brings us to a controversial provision of legislation that has been at the centre of much controversy – which is Section 453 – in the House Interior Environment Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2026. This section, notably buried in a massive, unrelated spending package (made up of over 20,000 pages)… this provision sought to preempt stricter state and local pesticide regulations and grant broad immunity to manufacturers from “failure-to-warn” lawsuits. It would have also blocked timely updates to pesticide warning labels (while the EPA’s reviews occur only every 15 years) and prioritized corporate protection over public health.

And so, this provision directly contradicted MAHA’s goals of reducing toxic exposures; and despite Big Chemical’s efforts to hide this immunity in an unrelated 20,000 page document, the public found out about this; and public backlash was swift! Then, after significant outrage, the provision was stripped from the bill around January 5, this year. But, here’s more about Section 453, and here, Kelly Ryerson was discussing this in 2025, before public backlash forced a reversal on that provision.

BAYER HAS BEEN AGGRESSIVELY LOBBYING FOR PESTICIDE PROTECTIONS

But, the question then is: why was this sneaky “immunity for pesticide manufacturers provision” added to section 453 of an unrelated 20,000 page legislative document? In short, the answer lies in special interests, and the lobbying power of diabolical actors.

In more detail, you’d recall that we highlighted the diabolical attempts of a major actor in efforts to shield pesticide producers from liability, which is the Bayer corporation (which also acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, largely for the Roundup/glyphosate portfolio). And what is uniquely diabolical about Bayer’s role in all of this is that Bayer aggressively lobbies for pesticide protections while simultaneously profiting from cancer treatments – thus creating a perverse conflict of interest. And the perversion here lies in the revelation that glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in the Roundup pesticide, faces thousands of lawsuits “alleging” it causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers. She references There is actually even ongoing litigation, including Bayer’s appeal to the Supreme Court in cases like Monsanto v Darnell (which is a $1.25 million verdict), arguing that federal EPA approval of labels should preempt state-level failure-to-warn claims, which is somewhat an annoying argument considering that pesticide manufacturers are known for corrupt actions including churning out industry-influenced data, delayed reviews, and past data manipulation.

Now, in all of this, it is unmistakable that lobbyists do not lobby themselves. In other words, what makes the lobbying capacity of certain actors and corporations dangerous is that there are some politicians or strategic actors who are impressionable; and this is unfortunately visible in the MAHA initiative. In fact, you see this with the removal of explicit pesticide restrictions from official MAHA action plans, delays in enforcing bans on “forever chemicals” (or PFAS), and even inaction on neo-nicotinoid insecticides or glyphosate itself (which RFK Jr has repeatedly called a major driver of chronic disease).

Additionally, former pesticide lobbyists – such as Douglas Troutman and Nancy Beck – now occupy key regulatory positions, which they use to push liability shields at the state level. You see this in laws passed in North Dakota and Georgia; where Georgia’s 2025 legislation (effective on the 1st of January 2025) immunizes pesticide makers from cancer-risk lawsuits, despite the state having elevated cancer rates (especially thyroid cancer in northeast Georgia). Meanwhile, regional health disparities are also key to note: in particular, the Southeastern region of the US shows disproportionately high cancer incidence, potentially linked to heavy agricultural chemical use rather than solely poverty or racial factors. Louisiana’s infamous “Cancer Alley” corridor is also notable, where industrial pollution correlates with cancer rates that are 50–700 times the national average in some areas.

But, again, the reason these threats to health and nutrition are so prevalent is because there are actors serving as enablers.

WHY BAYER/MONSANTO ARE CAPITALISING ON LOBBYING, TO TRY TO SAVE GLYPHOSATE

Now, we also ought to address why Bayer and its subsidiary Monsanto are capitalising on lobbying tactics to try to save glyphosate. And really the answer lies in the fact that, despite previous leadership from Bayer or Monsanto having emphasised the company’s confidence in containing litigation risks and defending glyphosate’s alleged safety based on regulatory consensus, internal documents unearthed during US litigation paint a different picture of glyphosate. And these are the same internal documents, called the “Monsanto Papers,” that were released through court discovery, and expose systematic efforts by Monsanto to shape narratives around the glyphosate-based herbicide RoundUp’s alleged carcinogenic properties.

So, a key tactic that was used by Monsanto to shape narratives on its products involved ghostwriting scientific literature. In one prominent example, a highly influential 2000 review article published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology concluded that Roundup posed no health risks to humans. The paper, authored by external scientists Gary Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian Munro, was retracted in December 2025 due to “serious ethical concerns.” Court emails showed Monsanto employees drafted significant portions, selected only favorable unpublished company data, and downplayed conflicting evidence on chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. Despite this hidden involvement being revealed in 2017, the paper remained widely cited for over two decades, influencing regulators worldwide and bolstering claims of safety.

Then secondly, Monsanto also mobilised to counter unfavorable science, particularly after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015. The company orchestrated campaigns to discredit IARC scientists, pressured journal editors, and supported third-party allies—like industry-funded groups—to publish attacks accusing critics of fraud or bias.

Then in addition, and beyond scientific journals, efforts extended to media and public relations. Documents indicate Monsanto worked with consultants and front groups to monitor and influence coverage. In some cases, operatives posed as journalists to gather intelligence at trials. The company tracked journalists, activists, and public figures—leading to a 2021 fine in France for illegally compiling dossiers to sway opinion on glyphosate. Allies published articles dismissing concerns about pesticides as fearmongering, sometimes in outlets like Forbes (later retracted due to undisclosed ties). This broader strategy weaponized so-called “fact-checking” and science communication by flooding discourse with industry-aligned content, often presented as independent. As such, this created an echo chamber that undermined legitimate health concerns, even portraying them as ideological rather than evidence-based.

Now, all of this matters in light of today’s discussion because it exposes that even Bayer and Monsanto know there is cause for liability with their product. In other words, they know that their glyphosate based herbicide is more than just alleged to be carcinogenic, because otherwise they would not be litigating lawsuit after lawsuit, and they also would not be asking to be shielded from future liability.

PUSHES FOR IMMUNITY CAME AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THE GHOST WRITTEN STUDY ON GLYPHOSATE

Also, the push by pesticide and herbicide manufacturers to be shielded from liability comes at a particularly curious time, in that it follows the removal of the ghost written bogus study on glyphosate. Crucial to note here is that the long‑standing regulatory confidence in glyphosate, which is the world’s most widely used herbicide, once rested heavily on a single review published in 2000 by Williams, Kroes, and Munro. For decades the paper was treated as an independent, authoritative synthesis of toxicology, repeatedly cited by the US’s Environmental Protection Agency and international regulators as a foundation for the assertion that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic.” Well, this review has (finally) been retracted, per the journal, “to preserve the scientific integrity of the journal.”

Well, the glyphosate facade collapsed this year, in 2025, when the journal titled “Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology” formally retracted the article after new disclosures revealed that Monsanto employees substantially ghostwrote the manuscript, directed its conclusions, and concealed their financial involvement. The retraction, coming a full twenty-five years after publication, arrived in the midst of a wave of scientific, legal, and policy developments that together render the EPA’s continued reliance on the review indefensible.

Furthermore,the Williams et al paper was central to the EPA’s internal cancer classification documents, including the 2016 Glyphosate Issue Paper, which cited it as a key summary of toxicology studies in support of its “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” designation. The paper was also repeatedly referenced in the 2017 Draft titled “Human Health Risk Assessment” and the 2020 Interim Registration Review Decision. EPA staff even used the Williams paper to bolster claims that glyphosate had no oncogenic potential in rodents and minimal risk to humans, often citing its summary tables of Monsanto-conducted studies.

BROLL PIC – REDACTED

But, in essence, the Williams paper became such an esteemed feature in the EPA and international regulatory institutions because when first appeared, it seemed to provide regulators with precisely what they wanted: which is a comprehensive rebuttal to mounting concerns about glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. Internally, Monsanto also viewed the paper as a strategic asset. HOWEVER, disclosures from the “Monsanto Papers” litigation—including email exhibits released during the Johnson v. Monsanto trial—show that company scientists were actually involved in the drafting and editing of the manuscript. 

And although the authors listed were academic toxicologists, none of them disclosed Monsanto’s editorial or financial role, which obviously influenced the outcome of the study, seeing as Monsanto had a financial stake the glyphosate based herbicide market, being a producer of Roundup, the most famous glyphosate based herbicide. Before we proceed, here’s more about glyphosate and why it is important to remove a study that has shielded it from intense scrutiny.

THE BOGUS GLYPHOSATE STUDY EXPOSES THAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD CAN INFLUENCE GENERATIONS OF POLICY

In 2025, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology formally retracted the Williams, Kroes, and Munro review after its handling co-Editor-in-Chief conducted an investigation into longstanding concerns about the paper’s authorship, data sources, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The retraction notice explained that the journal sought an explanation from the sole surviving author, being the lead author of the review Gary M. Williams, and received no response. The editor documented that the article’s conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate were drawn solely from unpublished Monsanto studies, while multiple long-term carcinogenicity studies available at the time of writing were omitted without explanation.

Then, the notice further cited evidence from US litigation showing that Monsanto employees may have contributed to the writing of the article without acknowledgment, raising “serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors.” It referenced misrepresentation of contributions, undisclosed financial compensation from Monsanto, ambiguity regarding which portions of the article were authored by corporate personnel, and a biased weight-of-evidence approach shaped by unpublished industry studies. Concluding that these issues “undermine the academic integrity of this article and its conclusions,” the co-Editor-in-Chief stated that confidence in the review’s findings had been lost and that retraction was necessary to preserve the integrity of the journal.

Now, here’s the crucial nuance: this reckoning did not arise in isolation. Earlier in 2025, Environmental Science & Policy published a landmark paper by Alexander Kaurov and Naomi Oreskes titled The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How corporate authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse. Their bibliometric analysis showed that the year 2000 review by Willians et al remained one of the most cited toxicology reviews on glyphosate worldwide—used in over 700 academic papers, EPA filings, and even AI training datasets. They documented how the paper’s influence extended into public knowledge platforms like Wikipedia, where editors referencing the review rarely noted its conflicts of interest or ghostwriting origins, even after legal revelations surfaced. AND SO, their work underscored that scientific fraud, when embedded in citation networks and reinforced by regulatory institutions, can literally influence generations of policy – which I would argue is what we’re seeing in the status quo. And it is no surprise that this is occurring at a time when many begin to tie glyphosate to fertility issues.

TWO THINGS CAN BE TRUE AT ONCE: GLYPHOSATE IS BAD, BUT MAHA REMAINS AN IMPERATIVE MANDATE

Finally, in light of all that we’ve discussed, I’d like to highlight that two things can be true at once: it is true globasate is bad and there should be a push for Republican leaders and all leaders not support it, but it is also true that MAHA remains imperative. And MAHA’s importance lies in how it focuses on tackling root causes of America’s chronic disease epidemic, including ultra-processed foods, artificial additives, environmental toxins, and overmedicalization. And (once again) MAHA has driven real progress: states have passed laws banning or restricting synthetic food dyes, the FDA has worked to phase out petroleum-based dyes, and initiatives target junk food in schools and SNAP programs. These efforts resonate deeply with parents, especially mothers concerned about children’s health, and long-term wellness.

And yes, recent debates and events on glyphosate highlight differing positions within the broader conservative coalition. HOWEVER, amid this, mainstream media coverage has been amplifying controversies to portray divisions in the Republican base. Stories about food dyes, for instance, have been framed in ways that exaggerate setbacks or voluntary industry delays, in an effort to fuel frustration among health-conscious voters. Some reports even seem designed to aggravate MAHA advocates, while sowing doubt about the movement’s sincerity or effectiveness, and discouraging support for Republican candidates in upcoming midterms.

Now, I highlight this to say that, this is where discernment becomes essential. Not every headline warrants immediate outrage or mobilization. Some stories represent genuine policy challenges or compromises in a complex political landscape, where agricultural interests, national security, and health priorities intersect. But, other stories are nothing more than coordinated efforts to exploit divisions – they are classic psy ops aimed at fracturing unity among conservatives and independents drawn to MAHA’s message of cleaner food, fewer toxins, and healthier families.

And so, it is important to learn to differentiate which stories are worth responding to and drawing your Senator or Congressman’s attention on; and also which stories are planted by the mainstream media to try to sow discord among the conservative coalition, and even to undermine the MAHA movement.

MAHA’s imperative endures because America’s health crisis. As such, glyphosate concerns are valid and should fuel advocacy, seeing as we’ve seen a response already, with section 453; but these concerns do NOT negate the broader fight for nutritional reform, reduced additives, and transparency. By staying focused, differentiating real threats from manufactured discord, and continuing to build pressure constructively, MAHA can maintain momentum and deliver lasting change for families nationwide. And this is very important because this is not a fight that started in the present; it is a fight that dates back to when glyphosate was discovered, and even a fight that is interconnected with the efforts of diabolical actors to undermine the security of America through destroying food and nutrition.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso