The retracted study had been used by regulators worldwide as proof of safety.
Labor prosecutors argue glyphosate poses risks to human health, occupational safety, and the environment, citing residues in drinking water and international cancer classifications. A key study used by regulators worldwide to approve glyphosate was retracted for potential author conflicts; Bayer and other chemical companies defend the herbicide as safe.
- Labor prosecutors filed suit May 23, 2026, seeking to ban glyphosate registration and use in Brazil
- A major safety study was retracted for author conflicts of interest, undermining glyphosate's regulatory approval worldwide
- International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic in 2015
- Brazil is Latin America's largest economy and a global agricultural powerhouse where glyphosate is the dominant herbicide
Brazil's Labor Ministry filed suit to ban glyphosate, the world's most-sold herbicide, citing health and occupational risks. The action follows retraction of a pro-glyphosate study due to conflicts of interest.
Brazil's labor prosecutors filed suit this week to ban glyphosate, the world's most widely sold herbicide, arguing that the chemical poses unacceptable risks to human health, worker safety, and the environment. The action, filed on May 23, 2026, targets the National Health Surveillance Agency and the federal government, seeking to block all registrations, production, imports, exports, and commercial use of glyphosate and its compounds within the country. The move carries weight: Brazil is Latin America's largest economy and a global agricultural powerhouse, and glyphosate is the herbicide of choice for the nation's agribusiness sector.
The prosecutors grounded their case in documented health threats. They cited studies showing glyphosate residues in drinking water as a human health hazard, and pointed to a 2015 classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which designated glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans." The labor ministry's argument centered on occupational and environmental risk—the chemical's effects on workers and rural communities who handle it daily, often without adequate protective equipment or health monitoring.
The timing of the lawsuit is significant. Months earlier, the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted a major study that had concluded glyphosate posed no health risks. The journal cited "potential conflicts of interest" among the authors as the reason. Brazilian prosecutors emphasized that this retracted study had been used by regulatory agencies worldwide as a reference point to approve and permit glyphosate sales. The retraction, in other words, undermined a pillar of the chemical's global regulatory approval.
Bayer, the German chemical giant whose Roundup formulation dominates the market, responded with a statement expressing confidence that "facts based on science will prevail throughout the process." The company noted that more than 60 scientists had publicly opposed the journal's retraction decision, and that regulatory authorities in the United States, Canada, and the European Union had all reaffirmed glyphosate's safety. Bayer also pointed out that the retracted study, published 25 years ago, had not even been considered in the European Union's most recent evaluation and approval process. The company's position: the retraction changes nothing about the chemical's established safety profile.
This is not Brazil's first attempt to restrict a widely used pesticide. In 2023, labor prosecutors sought to ban atrazine, another common ingredient in pesticides, but no final decision has been reached in that case. The current glyphosate action could have far-reaching consequences for chemical manufacturers operating in Brazil, particularly since glyphosate's original patent expired in 2000, allowing multiple companies to produce formulations containing the active ingredient.
The National Confederation of Rural Workers and Family Farmers acknowledged the health concerns but urged caution. The group expressed worry about the intensive use of pesticides, including glyphosate, and its effects on family farmers' health—particularly given the historical lack of adequate technical support, protective equipment, and health monitoring in rural areas. However, the confederation warned that an outright ban without structured transition planning could increase costs, reduce productivity, and leave small producers economically vulnerable. They called instead for a phased approach supported by government policies: expanded technical assistance, public research investment, differentiated credit access, and a gradual shift toward agroecological farming practices.
The confederation's position reflects a deeper tension in Brazilian agriculture. A ban on glyphosate would reshape farming practices across the country, but the transition cannot happen overnight. Family farmers, who operate at smaller scales and with tighter margins than industrial agribusiness, need alternatives in place before the chemical disappears from the market. The confederation has already raised these concerns with the federal government as part of its 2026 agenda, calling for a National Program for Pesticide Reduction and progressive targets for transitioning to biodiverse, sustainable, agroecological production systems.
The Anvisa, Brazil's health surveillance agency, declined to comment, saying it would only respond when formally called upon to do so. The case now moves through the courts, where judges will weigh the prosecutors' health and safety arguments against industry claims of regulatory approval and the practical concerns of farmers who depend on the chemical. What unfolds could reshape not just Brazilian agriculture but signal a shift in how the world's major agricultural economies approach pesticide regulation.
Citas Notables
The competent authority must adopt measures to reassess risks when there is alert or warning against pesticide use from responsible international health organizations.— Labor prosecutor Leomar Daroncho
A ban cannot occur without a structured transition process that guarantees viable alternatives for family farmers and prevents increased costs and productivity losses.— National Confederation of Rural Workers and Family Farmers
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the prosecutors choose this moment to file the suit?
The retraction of that study was the opening. For decades, regulators worldwide had pointed to that research as proof of safety. Once it was pulled for conflicts of interest, the prosecutors had grounds to argue that the entire approval structure was built on compromised science.
But Bayer says 60 scientists opposed the retraction. Doesn't that undermine the prosecutors' case?
It complicates it, yes. But the prosecutors aren't saying the science is settled—they're saying it's unsettled enough that Brazil shouldn't wait. The International Cancer Agency already classified it as probably carcinogenic. That's not nothing.
What happens to farmers if glyphosate disappears tomorrow?
Chaos, probably. That's why the farm confederation is pushing back. They're not defending glyphosate—they're saying a ban without alternatives and support would devastate small producers who can't absorb the cost shock or switch to new methods overnight.
So this isn't really about whether glyphosate is safe or not?
It's about that, but it's also about power and transition. The chemical companies have the resources to adapt. Family farmers don't. The real question is whether the government will build the infrastructure to help them shift to something else.
Has Brazil tried this before?
Yes, with atrazine in 2023. That case is still pending. So this isn't unprecedented, but it also shows how slowly these things move through the courts.
What's at stake globally?
Brazil is the world's largest agricultural economy. If they ban glyphosate, other countries will watch closely. It could be the first domino in a global reassessment of the chemical.