Glyphosate Executive Order: Industry Protection or Genuine Necessity?

Political Authorities and Media all say “Help we are pouring poison on the food and we can’t stop!”

Recently, former President Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to secure the domestic production and supply of glyphosate-based herbicides like Monsanto's Roundup.

Officially framed as a measure of national security and agricultural stability, this decision raises urgent and uncomfortable questions.

What's the Real Story?

Glyphosate has faced extensive scrutiny over severe health and environmental impacts, most notably numerous lawsuits linking it to cancer. The decision to actively protect and continue the widespread use of glyphosate under the guise of national security feels highly suspect. Rather than a genuine agricultural necessity, this executive order appears to reflect powerful corporate interests and industry influence more than a rational response to true agricultural needs.

Challenging the Accepted Narrative

Proponents of glyphosate often argue, "It's already extensively used in agriculture; stopping now would destabilize the food supply." However, this reasoning seems more like a corporate-crafted talking point than a reality grounded in genuine agricultural capability.

Human ingenuity, traditional agricultural practices, and regenerative methods offer numerous viable, practical alternatives. The notion that agriculture can't immediately transition away from glyphosate ignores both historical precedent and current innovation. It strongly suggests influence from corporate lobbyists and interests deeply invested in maintaining glyphosate usage.

A Troubling Consensus

Even previously strong glyphosate opponents, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have partially justified this executive order. The sudden alignment across diverse media, political figures, and industry voices raises concerns that this narrative is heavily controlled by industry lobbyists. Are these figures genuinely convinced of the necessity of glyphosate, or are their statements influenced by corporate pressures and interests?

Asking Hard Questions

We must question every aspect of this situation:

• Who benefits financially and politically from maintaining glyphosate use?

• Why is there so much resistance to implementing immediate, safer alternatives?

• Are political figures and media narratives influenced by lobbying, financial incentives, or other hidden pressures?

• Why can’t agriculture swiftly transition to safer practices, given our extensive knowledge and proven methods?

Moving Beyond Corporate Narratives

It's time to challenge and change this troubling narrative. We must insist on transparency, question motives, and demand policy decisions that reflect human health and environmental integrity—not corporate profits or industry-driven fears.

You have the power to speak up and advocate for genuine change and accountability. Question authority, demand transparency, and support practices that genuinely protect our health and environment. Together, we can move beyond manipulative narratives and toward a healthier, poison-free future.

Warm regards,

Azlan White
Global Relief Resources Inc. (GRR Inc.)