By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite a landmark $289 million verdict against Monsanto for distributing a weedkiller containing the carcinogenic chemical glyphosate, President Trump issued an executive order mandating its production. Invoking the Defense Production Act, Trump claimed a lack of glyphosate herbicides would “critically jeopardize agricultural productivity.” This decision, however, drew sharp criticism from public health advocates and environmental groups who viewed it as a betrayal of promises to protect public health and a move to grant legal immunity to Bayer, the company that acquired Monsanto. The executive order also came after a study supporting glyphosate’s safety was retracted due to ethical concerns regarding Monsanto’s involvement and after Bayer had made a significant donation to the Trump inaugural committee.
Read the original article here
The very notion of a leader who promised to “Make America Healthy Again” then mandating the production of a substance widely linked to cancer is, to put it mildly, jarring. It’s a move that has sparked considerable outrage and confusion, particularly when considering the individual tasked with leading the nation’s health initiatives, who himself had a hand in securing significant settlements against companies involved with this very chemical. The idea that an executive order, invoking powers historically reserved for national security crises, would be used to guarantee the supply of a herbicide like glyphosate, claiming it’s crucial for agricultural productivity and the domestic food system, seems to fly in the face of any health-focused agenda.
It’s difficult to reconcile this directive with the stated goals of improving public health, especially when the World Health Organization has classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. The argument that a lack of this weedkiller would “critically jeopardize agricultural productivity” feels like a weak justification when weighed against the potential long-term health consequences for the population. The fact that the Defense Production Act, a tool for bolstering national security, is being employed here raises questions about the prioritization of corporate interests over public well-being. This is particularly perplexing given past promises and advocacy for confronting dangerous pesticides and chemicals.
The situation appears to be a stark contradiction, with the administration seemingly undermining its own purported commitment to health. For those who had placed their faith in promises of a healthier America, this decision feels like a profound betrayal. It’s as if the very essence of a health-conscious platform was a mere tactic to gain support, rather than a genuine commitment. The impact is especially felt by those living and working in agricultural areas where glyphosate is heavily used, exposing them to potential risks on a daily basis.
The timeline of events adds another layer of complexity, with recent reports indicating substantial settlements being reached by the very company associated with glyphosate due to cancer claims. This context makes the executive order to boost production even more questionable. It suggests a willingness to overlook established concerns and potentially amplify existing risks for the sake of agricultural output, or perhaps for other, less transparent reasons. The notion that this administration would consistently make the wrong choices regarding health and safety seems, unfortunately, to be playing out with this mandate.
The inconsistency in health policy is truly baffling. While advocating for certain health measures, the administration simultaneously embraces the widespread use of a chemical with significant health concerns. It creates a landscape where health advice appears to be influenced by the most superficial trends rather than scientific consensus or established medical understanding. This lack of coherence leaves the public in a state of confusion and distrust regarding the government’s role in safeguarding their health.
The historical context of some of the companies involved also adds to the disquiet. It’s a reminder that the pursuit of profit can sometimes overshadow ethical considerations and public safety. When considering the potential for this chemical to cause harm, particularly in occupational settings where exposure is high, the mandate to increase its production seems inherently problematic. The argument that “the dose makes the poison” is often used, but when the chemical in question is so pervasive, the cumulative effect on public health becomes a significant concern.
There’s a sense that certain segments of the population are being deliberately disregarded or even endangered by these policies. The promise of making America healthy again appears to be conditional, or perhaps entirely disingenuous when it conflicts with economic or corporate interests. This selective approach to health and regulation raises serious questions about the true intentions behind the administration’s actions and their impact on the lives of ordinary citizens. The concern that this might be a deliberate effort to undermine public trust and well-being by promoting potentially harmful substances is not an unreasonable one.
Furthermore, the idea that a chemical’s safety is determined by the EPA and that occupational exposures are the primary concern overlooks the broader implications of widespread use. When a chemical is applied extensively in agriculture, it inevitably finds its way into the food supply, affecting everyone, not just those directly involved in its application. The reliance on arguments that minimize risk without fully addressing the long-term societal impact is a recurring theme that can erode public confidence.
The timing of such a mandate, especially in light of ongoing litigation and public awareness campaigns surrounding glyphosate’s potential health risks, is particularly noteworthy. It suggests a deliberate choice to move in a direction that contradicts prevailing public health concerns and scientific caution. This creates an atmosphere of distrust, where the government’s commitment to its citizens’ health is called into question, and the very definition of “making America healthy again” seems to have been dramatically reinterpreted. The ease with which certain regulations are bypassed in favor of increased production of potentially harmful substances paints a concerning picture of where public health stands in the current agenda.