The case in front of the [US Supreme] court centers on whether Bayer, the German company that now owns Monsanto, can be shielded from lawsuits that have been filed in state courts over claims that the company failed to warn consumers about the cancer-causing effects of glyphosate.
The Trump administration’s decision to back the pesticide maker in the case, coming on the heels of an executive order supporting the expansion of domestic production of glyphosate, has angered the MAHA movement…
Just last month, leading scientists in the field of environmental health issued a consensus statement, saying that glyphosate can cause cancer and called for urgent action. Bayer disputes this.
Are you talking about Roundup? Doesn’t that stuff pretty much salt the earth? Making the ground sterile for all growth for months?
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. With extreme overuse, maybe? Again I am talking about its use for consumer-level invasive species management or ecological/environmental applications. Glyphosate has very high sorption (basically, it binds to other molecules in the soil and becomes inactive as a pesticide). When compared with alternative pesticides it is far less dangerous and has very few if any long term effects on soil.
So pretty much no. Actually one of the main reasons it’s so prevalent in spot-treatment at the consumer level is because it has fast, noticeable effects, and then everything goes back to normal quickly.