22nd February 2026
A political storm erupted in the United States last week after President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to boost domestic production of glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide.
The order invoked the Defense Production Act, framing glyphosate as essential to national security and food‑supply stability.
What might have been a technical agricultural policy decision quickly escalated into a heated national debate, drawing criticism from health‑advocacy groups, environmental organisations, and even some of Trump’s own supporters.
To understand why this decision triggered such intense reaction, it helps to look at the long and controversial history of glyphosate, the public‑health concerns surrounding it, and how the UK’s regulatory approach differs from the American one.
Why Glyphosate Is So Controversial
Glyphosate has been at the centre of global debate for nearly a decade. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it as "probably carcinogenic to humans." Although other regulatory bodies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have concluded that glyphosate can be used safely when applied according to guidelines, the conflicting assessments have fuelled public concern.
In the United States, this concern has been amplified by thousands of lawsuits filed by individuals who claim glyphosate exposure caused cancer, particularly non‑Hodgkin lymphoma. Several high‑profile court cases resulted in large settlements, cementing glyphosate’s reputation as a chemical under scrutiny.
Against this backdrop, any government action that appears to promote glyphosate rather than regulate it is bound to provoke strong reactions.
Why Trump’s Executive Order Triggered a Row
It boosts production of a chemical many want restricted
The executive order directs federal agencies to increase domestic production of glyphosate and its key precursor, elemental phosphorus. For health‑focused groups, this move feels like a step backwards at a time when many countries are tightening pesticide regulations.
It frames glyphosate as essential to national security
The order argues that glyphosate is a “cornerstone” of U.S. agricultural productivity and that shortages could threaten food security. Critics say this framing elevates a controversial chemical to protected status, sidelining public‑health concerns.
It provides legal protections to producers
The directive includes liability protections for companies that comply with federal instructions. Health advocates argue this shields manufacturers from accountability while litigation over glyphosate’s safety is still ongoing.
It angered a key pro‑health constituency
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement — a group that emphasises reducing exposure to harmful chemicals — reacted with particular anger. Many members had previously supported Trump, making the backlash politically significant.
In short, the row erupted because the order appears to prioritise agricultural output over public‑health caution, and because it contradicts the expectations of voters who want stricter controls on chemical exposure.
The Public‑Health Context - Why People Are Worried
Even though scientific bodies disagree on glyphosate’s risks, public‑health concerns persist for several reasons:
Widespread exposure: Glyphosate is used on farms, in parks, on road verges, and in home gardens. Traces have been found in soil, water, and food.
Uncertain long‑term effects: While regulators say glyphosate is safe when used correctly, critics argue that long‑term, low‑level exposure is not fully understood.
Environmental impact: Studies have raised concerns about biodiversity loss, soil health, and the decline of pollinators.
Legal battles: High‑profile lawsuits have shaped public perception, even though legal outcomes do not determine scientific truth.
For many Americans, the executive order felt like the government was doubling down on a chemical that large sections of the public view with suspicion.
What Is the Current Law on Glyphosate in the UK?
The UK’s approach to glyphosate is more cautious in tone but still permits widespread use.
Glyphosate is legal and widely used
Farmers, councils, and gardeners continue to use glyphosate across the UK. It remains one of the most important herbicides in British agriculture.
Regulation follows UK‑retained EU rules
After Brexit, the UK kept the EU’s pesticide‑approval framework. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) now oversees approvals and reviews. Glyphosate is allowed as long as products meet safety and usage requirements.
No national ban is planned
Although some local councils — including parts of London, Brighton, and Edinburgh — have voluntarily reduced or phased out glyphosate in public spaces, the UK government has not proposed a nationwide ban.
Ongoing safety reviews
The UK continues to review glyphosate as part of its post‑Brexit regulatory process. So far, regulators have concluded that glyphosate can be used safely when applied according to approved guidelines.
In other words, the UK’s position is cautious but permissive: glyphosate remains legal, regulated, and widely used, with no immediate plans for prohibition.
Two Countries, Two Very Different Debates
The uproar in the United States reflects a deep divide between agricultural priorities and public‑health concerns. Trump’s executive order was seen by critics as a move that elevates a controversial chemical at a time when many people want tighter controls, not expanded production.
The UK, by contrast, maintains a more measured regulatory stance. Glyphosate remains legal and widely used, but its approval is subject to ongoing review, and local authorities have the freedom to restrict it in public spaces.
As scientific debate continues and public awareness grows, glyphosate will likely remain a flashpoint in discussions about food production, environmental health, and the balance between economic necessity and public safety.