What if the weedkiller sprayed on fields, forests, and even roadsides isn’t just killing plants, but quietly rewriting the story of human health?
What if the rise in autism, infertility, and cancers isn’t only bad luck or better diagnostics, but the predictable outcome of decades of chemical exposure?
These are uncomfortable questions — the kind most of us would rather not ask over breakfast. Yet glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and countless other herbicides, has a way of showing up exactly where we don’t want it: in our food, our water, our soil, and even in us.
MIT researcher Dr. Stephanie Seneff has spent years warning that glyphosate is more than a farm tool — it may be a driver of today’s epidemics of chronic illness. Her claims are controversial, sometimes dismissed, but they force us to consider: are we ignoring early warning signs the same way we once did with tobacco and asbestos?
Because if there’s even a chance glyphosate is silently undermining human biology, the real public-health emergency might not be in the headlines — it might already be in our bloodstream.
Glyphosate and Protein Misfolding
At first glance, glyphosate looks deceptively simple — a chemical designed to stop weeds from growing by interfering with a plant-specific pathway. That’s the reassurance we’ve all been given: don’t worry, humans don’t have that pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.
But what if that’s only part of the story? What if glyphosate doesn’t just stay in the weeds, but slips into the machinery of our own biology?
Dr. Stephanie Seneff — senior research scientist at MIT and author of Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate Is Destroying Our Health and the Environment — has put forward a controversial but unsettling idea. She suggests glyphosate may actually masquerade as glycine, one of the building blocks of life. Glycine’s job is crucial — it helps proteins fold into the exact shapes they need to function. If glyphosate takes glycine’s place, those proteins can misfold, misfire, or simply fail. And when proteins don’t fold properly, the consequences can be devastating: think Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS, and other diseases linked to protein damage.
Sound far-fetched? Maybe. But scientists already know that protein misfolding is at the root of many untreatable neurodegenerative conditions. The question is whether glyphosate could be nudging us further down that dangerous path.
It’s not about fearmongering — it’s about asking whether a chemical so widespread, showing up in our food and even our bodies, might be doing more than regulators have ever tested for. And if that possibility exists, shouldn’t we be taking a much closer look?
Health Effects in the Spotlight
When you scan the headlines, it’s hard to miss the steady rise in chronic conditions: autism, infertility, cancers, gut disorders, neurodegenerative disease. Each one is usually treated as a separate crisis. But what if they’re not separate at all? What if a single thread runs through many of them — and that thread is glyphosate?
In Toxic Legacy, Dr. Seneff pulls together decades of evidence suggesting glyphosate isn’t just another chemical in the environment. It may be the driving force behind modern epidemics. She points to correlations that are hard to ignore: glyphosate use rising sharply over the past few decades, autism rates climbing in lockstep, infertility becoming more common, cancers appearing at younger ages.
Of course, correlation doesn’t prove causation. But how many overlapping patterns do we dismiss before we admit the picture is shifting? Tobacco started with correlations too.
Researchers have found glyphosate residues linked with:
- Autism and ADHD — higher exposure during pregnancy appears tied to developmental and behavioral disorders.
- Infertility and PCOS — studies show glyphosate can suppress aromatase, the enzyme that balances sex hormones, leading to masculinizing effects in female babies and fertility problems later in life.
- Cancers — liver, kidney, pancreatic, and thyroid cancers have all been raised as potential risks.
- Gut and metabolic disease — glyphosate has been shown to disrupt gut bacteria, with knock-on effects for celiac disease, Crohn’s, inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, and even diabetes.
These are not fringe claims. Independent testing has already detected glyphosate in breast milk, school lunches, urine samples, and even pet food. The question isn’t whether we’re exposed — it’s whether we’re willing to connect that exposure to the health crises unfolding around us.
So we’re left with the uncomfortable possibility: if glyphosate really is silently reshaping human biology, then the public-health emergency isn’t waiting in the future. It’s already here.
Environmental Fallout
When we talk about glyphosate, most people think about food and farming. But what if the bigger story is how it reshapes the land itself?
Dr. Stephanie Seneff points out that glyphosate isn’t just sprayed on crops — it’s also used as a desiccant in forests. By drying out undergrowth, it leaves entire landscapes primed for disaster. Could it be that some of the devastating wildfires in California and Canada weren’t just “acts of nature,” but partly fueled by this chemical cocktail of human intervention?
And it doesn’t stop with fire. Glyphosate runs off into waterways, where it has been linked to manatee die-offs in Florida, collapsing coral reefs in Hawaii, and the death of waterfowl within days of marsh spraying. If it can wipe out ecosystems so quickly, why are we surprised when chronic illnesses follow in its wake?
Closer to home, New Zealand’s own waterways and soils are not immune. Glyphosate is our most widely used herbicide, sprayed on roadsides, in forestry, and across farmland. If overseas wildlife is collapsing under the weight of this chemical, can we really assume our birds, fish, and insects are somehow different?
In Toxic Legacy, Seneff reminds us that glyphosate’s danger lies not just in what it does to the human body, but in how it undermines entire ecological systems. Break the chain in one place — soil microbes, pollinators, aquatic life — and the ripple effects come back to us eventually.
Which leads to a simple but pressing question: are we engineering a world where the very systems that sustain us — forests, rivers, reefs, and even the soil beneath our feet — are being slowly dismantled in the name of weed control?
Beyond Glyphosate – The Cocktail Problem
Even if glyphosate were the only herbicide in play, the story would be worrying enough. But it isn’t. Once weeds start resisting, the industry response isn’t to scale back — it’s to stack more chemicals on top. Dicamba, 2,4-D, and other herbicides are increasingly mixed into the same products, creating combinations we know even less about.
What if these mixtures are more dangerous than glyphosate alone? Toxicology usually tests one chemical at a time, in isolation, as if real life were a laboratory petri dish. But in the real world, farmers spray cocktails. Crops, soils, waterways, and ultimately our bodies are exposed to a chemical blend regulators have never properly assessed.
It’s a bit like drinking a dozen different medicines at once and assuming they won’t interact — because nobody bothered to test them together. Would you take that gamble with your own health? Yet that’s exactly the gamble being played out in agriculture every day.
The reality is that glyphosate still dominates because of its sheer ubiquity. It’s sprayed on genetically engineered crops, used as a harvest aid on non-GMO grains and legumes, and applied on pastures, orchards, forests, and even road verges. So while other herbicides pile on, glyphosate remains the baseline chemical exposure nearly everyone shares.
Which begs the question: if glyphosate is already the common denominator, and the “cocktail problem” only adds layers of risk, how much longer can regulators pretend they’re protecting public health?
Corporate Capture and Legal Immunity
If glyphosate really is as safe as its makers insist, why has Bayer — which bought Monsanto in 2018 — already paid out more than $11 billion to settle lawsuits linking Roundup to cancer? And if they were so confident in the science, why are they lobbying for new laws that would shield them from future liability?
It’s a familiar playbook. The tobacco industry swore cigarettes were harmless. The asbestos industry said the same. And now, the company behind the world’s most popular weedkiller wants legal immunity, claiming glyphosate is “too essential” to regulate. Too essential for whom? Farmers who’ve been sold a system with no way out? Or shareholders protecting their profits?
Dr. Stephanie Seneff doesn’t mince words. She argues this is corporate capture at its most brazen — the same strategy we’ve seen in other industries where profits are placed above people. Regulators reassure the public with safe-sounding limits, while courtroom battles quietly acknowledge the human cost.
Here in New Zealand, it’s tempting to think that’s someone else’s problem — that lawsuits in California don’t matter here. But they do. Because if our regulators are relying on the same science, the same industry assurances, and the same “safe levels,” then we’re standing on the same shaky ground.
So the question isn’t just whether glyphosate is dangerous. It’s whether the system designed to protect us is already too compromised to act.
What Can New Zealanders Do?
It’s easy to feel powerless when the headlines are about billion-dollar lawsuits and global corporations. But here’s the thing: every major shift starts with ordinary people refusing to look the other way.
So what can we do here in New Zealand?
- Support independent testing. We already know glyphosate is turning up in honey, bread, cereals, and more. But most of this data comes from overseas. The more we test our own food and water, the harder it becomes for regulators to dismiss.
- Push for transparency. Why should residues be a mystery? If glyphosate is as safe as claimed, testing results should be published regularly, in full view of the public.
- Challenge pre-harvest spraying. Using glyphosate to dry crops before harvest is one of the fastest ways it enters the food chain. Do we really need it? Or are there safer alternatives we’re simply not pursuing?
- Think about personal choices. Buying organic isn’t perfect — contamination still happens — but it lowers your exposure and sends a signal that New Zealanders care about chemical-free food.
- Hold councils and schools accountable. Glyphosate is often used in playgrounds, sports fields, and roadside verges. Local action matters. Communities have already persuaded councils to switch to safer methods — why not yours?
And finally, don’t underestimate the power of conversation. Every time we ask a supermarket, a farmer, or a local MP whether they’ve considered glyphosate risks, we chip away at the silence that keeps this issue hidden.
Because if we wait for Bayer or the Ministry for Primary Industries to suddenly put public health first, we’ll be waiting a very long time. But if enough of us raise our voices, the story changes.
A Toxic Legacy in the Making
Glyphosate was sold to us as a simple weedkiller. But the more we look, the less simple it becomes. From protein misfolding theories to rising rates of autism and infertility, from collapsing ecosystems to billion-dollar lawsuits, the picture is messy, unsettling, and impossible to ignore.
Dr. Stephanie Seneff — in Toxic Legacy and in her many interviews — has argued that glyphosate may be one of the hidden drivers of our modern health crises. You don’t have to agree with every detail of her theory to see the broader truth: this chemical is everywhere, it’s showing up in us, and regulators have never fully tested the long-term consequences.
So the real question isn’t whether glyphosate is a problem. It’s whether we’re willing to act before the evidence becomes undeniable — as it did with tobacco, asbestos, and lead.
What if, years from now, we look back and realise the warning signs were flashing the whole time? What if the real public-health emergency was already in motion while officials told us not to worry?
That’s why we can’t afford silence. Independent testing, community pressure, and a demand for transparency are not just “nice to have.” They are the first steps in breaking the cycle of denial.
Because if glyphosate really is leaving a toxic legacy, the worst mistake we could make is to do nothing and hope it all works out.
Resources & References
The studies and reports below are just the tip of the iceberg. Together they show how glyphosate’s reach extends from independent labs and medical journals to official regulatory files — and how often the conclusions don’t match. That gap is where the real questions begin.
Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate Is Destroying Our Health and the Environment.
By Dr. Stephanie Seneff
Dr. Stephanie Seneff’s book weaving together two decades of research on glyphosate’s impact on human health, agriculture, and ecosystems.
Glyphosate exposure in pregnancy and shortened gestational length: a prospective Indiana birth cohort study
Environmental Health, 17(1)
Parvez, S., Gerona, R., Proctor, C., et al. (2018)
Found detectable glyphosate levels in 93% of pregnant women studied; higher levels correlated with shorter pregnancies.
Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence.
Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research, 781
Zhang, L., Rana, I., Shaffer, R., Taioli, E., Sheppard, L. (2019)
Meta-analysis linking glyphosate exposure to increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
No More Glyphosate NZ – Independent Testing Results
Community-funded testing in New Zealand has found glyphosate residues in everyday foods.
Honey test results
Community-funded testing has found glyphosate residues in New Zealand honey, raising questions about contamination of a product marketed as natural and pure.
Bread test results
Testing of supermarket loaves revealed glyphosate residues in some of New Zealand’s most common breads, showing how pre-harvest spraying ends up on our plates.
Cereal test results
Glyphosate was detected in popular breakfast cereals, including brands eaten by children, highlighting the everyday exposure most families never knew they were getting.
Weet-Bix test results
Independent testing of Sanitarium Weet-Bix varieties found glyphosate residues, challenging the “wholesome breakfast” image of one of New Zealand’s most trusted brands.
Food Residues Survey Programme Report 2023–2024.
New Zealand Food Safety (2025)
Technical Paper No: 2025/05
Government monitoring report of pesticide residues in NZ food, including glyphosate. Raises questions about how breaches are handled and whether limits reflect real-world risk.
IARC Glyphosate Monograph (2015)
International Agency for Research on Cancer
Classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” based on evidence of cancer in animals and limited evidence in humans.
These references are a starting point, not the final word. For every paper that raises red flags, there’s an agency review insisting glyphosate is safe. The truth is likely buried somewhere in the middle — and until New Zealand demands its own transparent, independent research, we’ll remain in the dark about just how deep this toxic legacy goes.
Image Source & Attribution
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by Getty Images. You can find more of their work here: https://unsplash.com/@gettyimages.
