Poll Shows Near-Total Opposition to Glyphosate Stockpiling, Immunity

AUSTIN, Texas – March 04, 2026 – A new public opinion poll reveals a stark disconnect between federal policy and public sentiment regarding the controversial herbicide glyphosate, with respondents overwhelmingly rejecting a recent government mandate to stockpile the chemical and shield its manufacturer from legal liability.

The poll, released today by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), was conducted in the wake of a February 2026 executive order from the Trump Administration directing federal agencies to ensure an adequate domestic supply of glyphosate for national preparedness. The findings indicate a profound crisis of public trust, rooted in years of high-profile litigation and recent revelations that have undermined the scientific foundation for the herbicide’s safety claims.

According to the poll of 2,569 respondents, 89% oppose the federal stockpiling of glyphosate-based herbicides. Even more decisively, an astounding 97.8% oppose granting legal immunity to the manufacturers. The results suggest the public is keenly aware of the controversy, with 95.6% reporting knowledge of the more than $10 billion in cancer-related jury verdicts and settlements paid by Bayer AG, which acquired glyphosate-producer Monsanto in 2018.

“The American public is paying attention,” said Del Bigtree, founder and CEO of ICAN, in a statement accompanying the results. “They are sending a clear message: they do not support policies that result in stockpiling products with unresolved safety questions or shield corporations from accountability.”

A Mandate for Production Meets Public Resistance

The controversy was ignited by a February 18, 2026, executive order titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides.” Invoking the Defense Production Act, the order frames glyphosate as a critical component of national security, essential for maintaining the U.S. food supply and agricultural strength. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to secure domestic production, a move that directly benefits Bayer, the sole U.S.-based producer of the chemical.

Crucially, the order also grants legal immunity to domestic producers complying with the directive and aims to protect them from “regulatory or financial pressures” that could threaten their viability. While Bayer and agricultural industry groups have applauded the move as vital for farmers and food security, it has been met with fierce criticism from public health advocates who see it as a move to protect corporate profits at the expense of public safety.

The ICAN poll, while not a statistically representative sample of the entire U.S. population, captures the sentiment of an engaged segment of the public that is deeply skeptical of the government’s rationale. This skepticism appears to be fueled by two major developments: the relentless legal challenges against Bayer and a recent blow to the scientific case for glyphosate’s safety.

Billions in Lawsuits and Retracted Science

Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto came with a crushing legal burden. The company has faced approximately 197,000 lawsuits from individuals who claim that exposure to the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. To date, the company has paid out roughly $11 billion to settle a large portion of these cases and continues to face tens of thousands more. Just last month, Bayer proposed a new $7.25 billion class-action settlement to resolve a significant number of the remaining claims, a proposal that received preliminary court approval in Missouri today.

This legal firestorm has coincided with a crisis of scientific integrity. In November 2025, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology formally retracted a 25-year-old study that had long been cited by regulatory bodies worldwide as foundational evidence of glyphosate’s safety. The 2000 paper, which concluded the herbicide posed no cancer risk to humans, was retracted due to “serious ethical concerns” after internal Monsanto documents revealed it had been ghostwritten by company employees with undisclosed conflicts of interest.

The ICAN poll shows this event has not gone unnoticed, with 95.6% of respondents stating the retraction has negatively affected their trust in current glyphosate safety claims. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated it never relied solely on the retracted paper, critics argue it was instrumental in shaping a global regulatory consensus that is now in question.

A Divided Scientific and Political Landscape

The debate over glyphosate is complicated by conflicting assessments from major health organizations. The EPA maintains that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” This conclusion, based on a risk assessment that includes proprietary industry data, aligns with the findings of many other regulatory bodies, including the European Food Safety Authority.

However, in 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which relies on publicly available peer-reviewed studies, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” This divergence between a hazard-based assessment (IARC) and a risk-based one (EPA) has become a central battleground for scientists, lawyers, and advocates.

This complex situation is set to converge in a high-stakes legal showdown. In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a landmark case where Bayer will contend that the EPA’s approval of Roundup’s label without a cancer warning should preempt state-level lawsuits that claim the company failed to warn consumers of the risk. A victory for Bayer could dramatically curtail its future legal liability, a goal the administration's executive order appears to support.

As legal, political, and scientific battles rage, the ICAN poll suggests that for a significant portion of the public, the verdict is already in. Fueled by a decade of courtroom revelations and crumbling scientific assurances, the trust in glyphosate and the institutions that regulate it has been deeply eroded, creating a formidable challenge for policymakers pushing to secure its place in America’s future.