Originally published by A Voice For Choice Advocacy on April 02, 2026.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Bayer’s removal of glyphosate from consumer Roundup products was widely viewed as a safety win. But emerging evidence suggests many replacement chemicals may pose equal or greater risks to human health and the environment. This investigation examines how reformulation, driven in part by litigation pressure, has reshaped the product’s composition—and why “glyphosate-free” does not necessarily mean safer.

For decades, Roundup was marketed as a household solution—an easy, effective way for people to keep weeds at bay. Its active ingredient, glyphosate, was widely promoted as safer than competing herbicides, with regulatory agencies repeatedly asserting it posed minimal risk when used as directed. That narrative began to unravel in 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” What followed was not a simple scientific debate. It became a cascade of litigation, regulatory pressure and public reckoning—one that ultimately forced Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, the original manufacturer of Roundup, in 2018, to make a consequential shift. Beginning in 2023, Bayer pledged to remove glyphosate from U.S. consumer Roundup products, while continuing to sell glyphosate-based formulations for agricultural and professional use.

At first glance, this appeared to be a victory for public health. But a deeper examination reveals a far more troubling story: glyphosate has not been replaced with safer alternatives. Instead, it has largely been swapped for other herbicides that have been shown in some analyses to be more toxic, on average, to both human health and the environment, including chemicals banned in the European Union.

This phenomenon—known in environmental health as regrettable substitution—raises a critical question: If glyphosate was removed only to be replaced with herbicides that are often more harmful, was the product truly made safer—or was the problem simply repackaged?

The Legal Reckoning That Forced Change

Shortly after the IARC’s reclassification, thousands of lawsuits were filed across the United States alleging that long-term exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), a cancer of the lymphatic system. Many of these cases centered on failure-to-warn claims, arguing that Monsanto failed to disclose cancer risks on Roundup labels despite growing concern.

The first major verdict arrived in August 2018, when a California jury awarded groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages, finding Monsanto liable. The A Voice for Choice Advocacy article, “Hidden Glyphosate in Your Food: Part Two—Impact on Human Health,” goes on to explain:

“Dewayne took Monsanto, (who developed the product and introduced it to consumers in 1974) to court and the jury concluded, “Roundup® weedkiller caused his cancer,” and that the corporation failed to warn him of the health hazards from exposure. The jury further found that Monsanto “acted with malice or oppression.”

Although the award was later reduced on appeal, the verdict sent shockwaves through the agrochemical industry and shook home gardeners who had used the product for decades. Some of these consumers also developed NHL, and additional verdicts worth billions soon followed:

• Edwin Hardeman (2019): $80.3 million (later reduced) after decades of residential Roundup use.

• Alva and Alberta Pilliod (2019): An initial verdict exceeding $2 billion, later reduced to $86.7 million, tied to nearly 30 years of residential landscaping use.

• John McKivison (2024): A Pennsylvania jury issued a $2.25 billion verdict, the largest Roundup-related award so far, after he alleged the weedkiller caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma following 20 years of use.

• John Barnes (2025): A Georgia court ruled that his NHL was caused by long-term use of Roundup.

In response to a surge of lawsuits, Bayer announced in June 2020 a sweeping settlement of up to $10.9 billion to resolve approximately 95,000–125,000 current claims (and set aside $1.25 billion for future claims). At the same time, the company has maintained that glyphosate products are safe when used as directed. Yet Bayer did not agree to place cancer warnings on glyphosate labels, nor did it remove glyphosate from agricultural Roundup.

Despite efforts to stem mounting legal losses, lawsuits continue to accumulate. As of May 2025, the company is reportedly weighing additional payouts beyond the $10.9 billion agreement reached in 2020. If those measures fail to ease public pressure, Bayer has even floated the possibility of placing its agricultural business into bankruptcy. In the meantime, the company has pursued a parallel strategy to regain public trust while also reformulating its products.

The New Roundup: What Replaced Glyphosate—and Why It Should Be a Concern

According to a detailed analysis by Friends of the Earth, Bayer replaced glyphosate in at least eight residential Roundup products with combinations of four alternative active ingredients:

• Diquat dibromide

• Fluazifop-P-butyl

• Triclopyr

• Imazapic

All four chemicals present greater long-term and/or reproductive health risks for humans than glyphosate, based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicity evaluations. Two—diquat dibromide and imazapic—are so toxic they are among those banned in the European Union. Diquat dibromide alone is 200 times more toxic than glyphosate with chronic exposure and appears in all of the new formulations examined. This finding raises immediate concern. Friends of the Earth found that the addition of this chemical significantly increases the overall hazard in the reformulated products, stating:

“…on average, the new formulations are 3.9-fold more acutely toxic and 45.6-fold more chronically toxic than the glyphosate-based Roundup formulations.”

This finding upends the assumption that removing glyphosate automatically reduces risk. In reality, the hazard profile of residential Roundup has worsened, not improved, and most consumers have no idea.

Environmental Persistence and Ecological Harm

Beyond human toxicity, the replacement chemicals raise substantial environmental risks. Compared with glyphosate, the new active ingredients are significantly more likely to:

• Harm bees, birds, fish, earthworms and aquatic organisms

• Persist longer in soil and sediment

• Leach into groundwater, increasing the risk of drinking water contamination

These characteristics directly contradict the long-standing marketing of Roundup as an environmentally responsible product for home use. According to ENSR International Corp., an environmental consulting and remediation group, diquat dibromide poses a significant ecological threat. The company reports:

“Risks were predicted for pollinating insects due to direct spray and indirect contact with contaminated foliage. Acute risks were predicted for 7 of 10 wildlife scenarios, and chronic risks were predicted for 6 of 10 wildlife scenarios.”

Yet direct contact with sprayed plants isn’t the only way wildlife can encounter these chemicals. In a 2020 report titled “Environmental and Social Risk Assessment for Imazapic,” by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Forestry, the agency states:

“This product may contaminate water through drift of spray in wind. This product has a high potential for runoff for several months or more after application. Poorly draining soils and soils with shallow water tables are more prone to produce runoff that contains this product.”

More concerning, the report also notes:

“A study reported by the US Forest Service indicated that at the highest dose (100 µg/L) mortality was found in 25% of honeybees… long-term exposures (22 weeks or more) have resulted in reduced growth in birds of all sizes…[and]… Imazapic can be toxic to fish.”

Friends of the Earth has outlined these risks based on existing studies and reports, and issues a direct warning:

“Bayer’s reformulation of residential Roundup made it more toxic, and Bayer continues to mislead the public about Roundup’s potential to harm people and the planet.”

A Patchwork Exit Leaves Glyphosate Still on Shelves

Compounding the issue, glyphosate has not been fully removed from U.S. consumer markets. Older glyphosate-containing products remain legally sellable, meaning you may unknowingly purchase either version, depending on retail stock and labeling nuances. At the same time, glyphosate-based Roundup continues to be sold for agricultural and professional use, without cancer warnings, despite ongoing litigation and divergent court rulings.

Between 2021 and 2024, Bayer won several trials, as juries accepted arguments that federal pesticide labeling law—the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act—preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims. However, appellate courts remain split on this issue. In 2024, the Third Circuit ruled in Schaffner v. Monsanto that Bayer could not be sued under state law for failing to warn consumers because federal pesticide law already governs product labeling. Other federal courts—the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits—had reached the opposite conclusion, allowing those lawsuits to move forward. Acknowledging this disagreement, the Third Circuit explicitly invited the Supreme Court to step in, stating:

“The issue presented by this case, which is clearly of general interest, has yet to be decided by the highest court capable of resolving it — the United States Supreme Court.”

In early 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the Durnell v. Monsanto case and issue a ruling by June, a decision that could reshape glyphosate litigation nationwide. The case is expected to clarify whether federal pesticide labeling laws preempt state failure-to-warn claims, potentially determining the viability of thousands of pending and future lawsuits. After seeking the Solicitor General’s view, the Justice Department sided with Bayer, arguing that federal law should limit claims despite EPA approval—a position supporters say ensures consistent national standards and protects businesses from massive, unpredictable liabilities. Critics, however, warn this approach could deny justice to tens of thousands of plaintiffs facing severe or terminal conditions.

Safer Paths Forward: What You Can Do

For those managing outdoor spaces, true safety may come not from replacing one herbicide with another, but from abandoning the substitution cycle altogether. Many common weeds can be managed with simple, low-toxicity approaches that have been used for generations. Household solutions such as boiling water, vinegar-based sprays, salt solutions or soap and water mixtures can kill weeds on sidewalks, driveways and gravel areas without introducing persistent herbicides into soil or waterways. Physical approaches—including hand-pulling, mulching, flame weeding (burning) or covering soil with cardboard or landscape fabric—can also suppress growth while improving soil health.

If you prefer store-bought formulas, several over-the-counter weed controls rely on acetic acid (horticultural vinegar), citric acid, clove oil or fatty acids derived from plants. While no herbicide is entirely without impact, as these substances can still affect biodiversity in soil and surrounding ecosystems, these options are generally less harmful. They tend to break down more rapidly and are less likely to pose long-term toxicity concerns than conventional synthetic herbicides.

As a consumer, you can also influence broader change through purchasing decisions and civic engagement. Choosing non-toxic products, supporting retailers that prioritize safer ingredients, and advocating for stronger chemical safety standards can shift market demand and public policy, whether you live in the United States or abroad.

In 2023, the European Union renewed glyphosate’s approval through 2033, with restrictions. In part, this decision reflects a difficult reality faced by regulators on both sides of the Atlantic: many of the available chemical alternatives appear to be even more toxic. This has led some to conclude that while manual and non-toxic weed control methods are not perfect, they remain viable. Employing time-tested strategies like planting cover crops and tilling is a practical starting point. According to the Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture, the organization states:

“…to explore and implement alternative methods that can maintain productivity while minimizing the negative environmental and health impacts of pesticide use.”

What the Roundup saga ultimately reveals is not merely a dispute over glyphosate, but a systemic failure in how risk is managed and communicated to consumers. Removing a single controversial ingredient—without meaningfully reducing overall toxicity—creates the appearance of safety while preserving legal and commercial viability. This strategy may reduce litigation exposure, but it does little to protect public health or ecosystems.

As regulators, courts and the public focus narrowly on glyphosate, the replacement chemicals remain largely unknown, unchallenged and under-scrutinized, despite clear evidence of increased hazard. The implication is stark: “glyphosate-free” does not mean safer—it simply signals a shift in formulation. Until regulation prioritizes cumulative toxicity, long-term exposure and environmental persistence, the Roundup story will continue to repeat itself, under different names and compositions, with the same consequences unfolding beneath your feet. In this sense, the evolution of Roundup is not a story of reform—it is a case study in substitution without accountability.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

 

IPAK-EDU is grateful to A Voice for Choice Advocacy as this piece was originally published there and is included in this news feed with mutual agreement. Read More