By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The president has signed an executive order to protect the domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Roundup, and elemental phosphorus, citing national security concerns related to food supply. This order also aims to provide immunity for manufacturers from liability, a move strongly criticized by health and environmental advocates who highlight the herbicide’s links to cancer and ongoing litigation against companies like Bayer. Critics argue this order prioritizes chemical companies over public health and betrays promises made to voters concerned about pesticide use.
Read the original article here
President Trump has issued an executive order that appears designed to protect a widely used weedkiller, placing it at the center of a significant barrage of lawsuits. This move has sparked considerable concern and criticism, with many questioning the motivations behind such a directive.
It seems to be a recurring theme, this tendency to prioritize certain industries or products, even when they face substantial legal and health-related challenges. This particular weedkiller, glyphosate, has been the subject of numerous legal battles, with plaintiffs alleging it has caused serious health issues, most notably cancer.
The executive order’s intent, from what can be gathered, is to create a shield of sorts around the companies that produce and distribute this herbicide. Critics are pointing to this as another instance where what they perceive as corporate interests are being placed above public well-being.
There’s a strong suspicion that financial incentives are at play. The suggestion is that substantial donations may have been made, or are being solicited, in exchange for this protective measure. This line of thinking suggests a pattern of presidential actions being influenced by financial gain rather than public service.
This action is being framed by some as a clear indication that the administration is willing to overlook or actively dismiss concerns about potential health risks associated with common products, aligning with a broader perceived agenda.
The collapse of insect and bird populations is a stark reminder of the ecological impact of widespread pesticide use. Decades ago, the natural world was far more vibrant and noisy, filled with the sounds of wildlife. Now, there’s a noticeable and concerning silence.
This weedkiller is seen as a significant contributor to this environmental decline, alongside other factors. The argument is that this order benefits powerful, wealthy entities by keeping them in business, even at the expense of the environment and human health.
The comparison is drawn to other harmful substances and practices from the past, like the promotion of asbestos for insulation or even cigarette smoking. It highlights a perceived willingness to ignore well-documented dangers for the sake of certain economic interests.
The idea that this action might be self-serving is also being floated, particularly in relation to businesses that may have ties to such herbicides. The potential for liability is immense, and an executive order could be seen as a way to mitigate those risks.
Some are pointing to individuals who have publicly criticized the very chemicals now seemingly being protected, suggesting a possible conflict or shift in stance. This raises questions about consistency and commitment to previously stated concerns.
The notion that this move is about prioritizing profits for the “wealthy and evil friends” is a recurring sentiment, suggesting a system where financial power dictates policy outcomes.
There’s a growing cynicism that this administration is consistently making the “worst choice in any scenario,” regardless of the consequences. This perspective views the order as a particularly egregious example of such poor decision-making.
The argument that it’s “woke” to avoid consuming products linked to health issues, while the administration seemingly endorses them, highlights a perceived ideological clash.
The connection to significant financial contributions, such as a large donation to an inauguration fund, is seen as direct evidence of quid pro quo. This suggests that policy decisions are essentially being “bought.”
The idea of a “cartoon villain” in charge is a metaphor for a leader perceived as operating without moral compass or regard for consequences, driven by selfish motives.
Some have gone as far as to evoke extreme comparisons, suggesting that such actions align with descriptions of malevolent figures, born from a deep disappointment with the direction being taken.
The direct link to chemical companies, such as Monsanto (now Bayer), and the financial transactions involved are considered the most logical explanation for such a seemingly counterintuitive policy. When something defies common sense, the “money trail” is often the key.
The order is being characterized as a direct sale of decisions, where the highest bidder gets favorable policy. This implies a transactional approach to governance.
There’s a sense of bewilderment from some MAGA supporters who may find it difficult to reconcile this action with their political beliefs, leading to potential “mental gymnastics” to justify it.
The question of whether national security is genuinely threatened by weeds is raised satirically, to highlight the perceived absurdity of prioritizing this weedkiller.
The safety of the product is openly questioned, with the challenge issued: if it’s so safe, why doesn’t the president himself consume it? This is a common retort to dismiss claims of safety.
There’s legal uncertainty surrounding the ability of an executive order to unilaterally grant industry immunity from lawsuits. Such a move would likely face significant legal challenges and could be overturned.
The critique that this administration is actively protecting “billionaires, infectious diseases like measles, and cancer” paints a grim picture of its priorities and impact.
A grim wish is expressed for the president to personally experience the consequences of his policies, indicating a deep level of frustration and despair.
There’s also speculation about the president’s personal history and any potential past involvement or benefits derived from companies like Bayer, suggesting a long-standing relationship.
The contradiction between promoting healthy eating and endorsing products linked to illness is noted, portraying a policy landscape that is inconsistent and potentially harmful.
The fear that the president might eventually encourage his supporters to ingest the weedkiller underscores the distrust and concern regarding his influence and decision-making.