The Business of Panic: How Glyphosate Became the Chemical Boogeyman
Panic as a Business Model
It doesn’t smell. You can’t see it. And yet glyphosate — the world’s most widely used herbicide — has been demonized for more than a decade as a cancer-causing, bee-killing, soil-poisoning chemical monster.
Environmental NGOs like Greenpeace and BUND, supported by sensationalist media, have turned it into a symbol of everything supposedly wrong with modern agriculture.
And the formula works: show traces of glyphosate in beer, urine, or bread; combine it with images of crop-dusters spraying children’s heads; label farmers as “murderers” — and then slide a donate now button into the same campaign page.
Critics like statistician Walter Krämer and psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer call this the “panic industry.”
It’s a lucrative ecosystem: NGOs rely on donations, media thrive on fear-driven clicks, and politicians reap easy points by posturing against “Big Agro.”
The perfect villain? Bayer, which inherited Monsanto’s glyphosate business. Tens of thousands of lawsuits, billions in settlements, and a market value collapse later, Bayer has become the poster child for chemical evil.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth: most regulatory bodies — from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — conclude that glyphosate poses no significant cancer or health risk when used correctly.
Hundreds of thousands of pages of studies support this. Yet public opinion couldn’t care less.
Chemical or Scapegoat?
Glyphosate has become more than a weedkiller; it’s a symbol. It’s the scapegoat for the insect die-off, for “toxic” agriculture, for corporate greed. In short: a projection screen.
Every few years, a new “study” emerges that allegedly proves glyphosate’s carcinogenicity — like the Italian Ramazzini Institute’s recent rat experiments.
But when you dig deeper, raw data is often missing, sample sizes are tiny, and the results don’t stand up to replication. Still, headlines scream, “Glyphosate Causes Cancer!” while retractions or null results barely register.
Meanwhile, the dose — the actual amount needed to cause harm — is almost never discussed.
That’s not a coincidence. As toxicologists love to remind us: “The dose makes the poison.”
Artificial vs. Natural: The Psychology of Fear
Why does glyphosate trigger so much more panic than, say, alcohol (a proven carcinogen), or obesity (a leading killer in the developed world)? Krämer and Gigerenzer point to deep psychological biases:
-
Artificial vs. Natural: People fear synthetic chemicals more than natural ones, even though most toxins we consume are naturally occurring. Biochemist Bruce Ames estimated that 99.9% of carcinogens in our diet are natural — like solanine in potatoes or aflatoxin in peanuts.
-
Forced vs. Voluntary Risk: Risks we choose (driving cars, smoking, eating processed food) are tolerated. Risks imposed on us (“farmers spraying fields”) trigger outrage.
-
Known vs. Unknown: Heart disease kills far more people than cancer. Yet cancer terrifies us more, because it’s harder to understand and explain.
This fear is particularly German. The term “German Angst” didn’t come out of nowhere. Germany alone chose to phase out nuclear power — not because of science, but because of a cultural romance with “pure nature” and deep distrust of technology.
The Dose Makes the Poison
Modern lab technology can detect chemicals at absurdly tiny levels — a sugar cube in a lake, as Gigerenzer puts it. But the public doesn’t grasp scale. “Glyphosate found in 70% of city dwellers’ urine!” makes headlines. The fine print? Concentrations so tiny they’re irrelevant for health.
Even water can kill in the wrong dose — as in the tragic case of a British woman who died after drinking 10 liters in a day. The presence of a substance doesn’t equal danger. Yet campaigns rely on the false syllogism: “Detected = Dangerous.”
If glyphosate were naturally found in cow manure, Krämer argues, nobody would care. But because it’s synthetic, made by Bayer, it becomes the perfect target for outrage.
Fear Sells — but at What Cost?
The glyphosate panic is not unique. Dioxins, GMOs, nuclear power — all have been dragged through the same cycle of fear, fundraising, and political theater. The real danger isn’t glyphosate in your beer. It’s the way fear distorts democratic decision-making and undermines science-based regulation.
The irony? By focusing obsessively on phantom risks, we ignore the real killers: cardiovascular disease, obesity, fossil fuel air pollution, and yes — climate change. But those require systemic lifestyle changes, not a donation to Greenpeace or a Bayer lawsuit. Fear of glyphosate is easy. Facing reality is hard.
📌 Sources & Further Reading:
-
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority): Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate
-
U.S. EPA: Glyphosate Interim Registration Review Decision (2020)
-
Bruce Ames (1990): Dietary Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens (Science, Vol. 249)
-
Gerd Gigerenzer & Walter Krämer: Unstatistik des Monats
No comments:
Post a Comment