02/22/2026
About Glyophaste…
The objection to stronger safety standards for Glyphosate is cost. That is an economic argument, not a scientific one.
If we want to persuade fiscal conservatives, the case is straightforward: higher evidentiary standards are not anti-business. They are pro-market. They reduce downstream liability, stabilize regulatory risk, and create durable competitive advantage.
History demonstrates this pattern.
Thalidomide
Diethylstilbestrol (DES)
Rofecoxib (Vioxx)
Troglitazone (Rezulin)
Fenfluramine / Dexfenfluramine (Fen-Phen)
Cerivastatin (Baycol)
Sibutramine (Meridia)
Rimonabant (Acomplia)
Cisapride (Propulsid)
Propoxyphene (Darvon)
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)
Partially hydrogenated oils (trans fats)
Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles
Phthalates in toys and cosmetics
PFOA in nonstick cookware
PFOS in stain-resistant fabrics
PBDE flame retardants in furniture
Lead in gasoline and paint
Asbestos in insulation
DDT in household spraying
CFCs in aerosol sprays
Triclosan in antibacterial soaps
Ephedra in weight loss supplements
Cyclamate in diet drinks
In each case, early approval and widespread adoption preceded late recognition of harm. The financial consequences were not trivial. Litigation, recalls, regulatory overhaul, reputational damage, and market disruption followed.
The diabetes story after GlaxoSmithKline and Rosiglitazone illustrates the opposite outcome … After cardiovascular risk scrutiny, regulators required large cardiovascular outcomes trials for new diabetes drugs in their Guidance to Industry.
That raised development costs and regulatory burden.
It also produced:
Empagliflozin with demonstrated cardiovascular mortality reduction.
Liraglutide with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events.
Semaglutide and Tirzepatide emerging in a market that now rewards outcome superiority.
The result was not contraction. It was record revenues for Eli Lilly and Company and Novo Nordisk.
Stronger standards created stronger products and larger markets.
If glyphosate is as safe as claimed, rigorous multi-year consumer-oriented trials would de-risk the industry, protect farmers from future litigation shocks, and create global trust leverage. That is not anti-agriculture. It is pro-capital formation.
Spending money to increase certainty reduces tail risk. Markets reward reduced uncertainty.
The conservative case is not to weaken standards. It is to invest in evidence that protects long-term shareholder value, agricultural stability, and public confidence.
Higher scientific standards do not destroy profitable industries. They differentiate the resilient ones.
But I suspect that safety studies will not be favorable and industry blowhards will continue to obfuscate safety signals/standards/results because frankly it’s lucrative.
Curious to hear your thoughts 💭
