University of Miami Law Review


Since 1974, Bayer’s Roundup remains the world’s most popular herbicide and pervades United States farmland and food production. However, in 2015, Roundup landed centerstage in an international and presently unsettled debate over whether its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer. Environmental groups regularly call for the de-registration of glyphosate due to the plethora of ailments, ecological harm, and weed resistance resulting from glyphosate use. Dissenting experts, however, believe that strict bans would devastate agriculture because of global dependence and the lack of any popular alternatives. Faced with mounting litigation, silence from the highest court, and unreliable regulators, Bayer continues to effect risk-management strategies while the world enacts increasingly more restrictions over glyphosate’s use.

This Note argues that modification of agricultural practices is inevitable and appropriate due to rising concerns around the safety and efficacy of glyphosate-based herbicides, notwithstanding the compound’s carcinogenicity. This Note ultimately calls for long-term deterrence of glyphosate use and the immediate development of alternative herbicides to minimize future industry hardship and protect consumers. As litigation and regulatory petitions still fail to produce results, Congress and state legislatures are the last venues to implement effective and lawful solutions proposed in this Note to one of the most unparalleled toxic torts dilemmas of our lifetime.