The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether the federal government has the final say on pesticide warnings—or whether states can go further to protect people by requiring stronger-worded cancer warnings on Roundup, the widely used glyphosate-based weedkiller at the center of thousands of lawsuits. In a recent Missouri case, a jury found that decades of Roundup exposure contributed to a man’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the product lacked adequate cancer warnings.
The legal question before SCOTUS—about labeling and federal authority—misses the bigger question we parents and SCOTUS should be asking: Why is this product still allowed anywhere children live and play? Why isn’t it completely banned?
Glyphosate-based herbicides are not confined to farms. They are used in agricultural and nonagricultural settings, including residential and public landscapes. Seattle has restricted glyphosate and placed it in the city’s most restricted pesticide category, but it has not banned glyphosate-based herbicides; King County uses integrated pest management and treats chemical controls as a last resort.
Recent research only deepens the concern. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis preprint reported that people exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides had a significantly higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with some estimates suggesting up to a 50% increased risk in highly exposed groups. A 2025 peer-reviewed review concluded that new epidemiological and animal evidence provides “consistent, coherent and compelling evidence” linking glyphosate exposure to blood cancers. Earlier meta-analyses also found elevated cancer risk among highly exposed populations. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.”
And yet, EPA maintains that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” and says products used according to label directions do not pose risks of concern to children or adults.
That contradiction is exactly why families deserve stronger protection than a label. A warning may inform the person buying or applying the product. It does little for a child already playing on grass, soil, or pavement that may have been treated with herbicides. Only a ban achieves that goal.
No one is arguing that agriculture can change overnight. But manufacturers of products like Roundup need to be pressured to find safer, lower-risk weedkiller alternatives. Until then, a complete ban on glyphosate use in parks, school grounds, residential areas, and public rights-of-way would reduce the most routine, involuntary exposure pathways for children.
For now, in the case before SCOTUS, every state should have the right to require stronger cancer warnings on these products. We can only hope the court sees the craziness of not allowing states to protect their people.
As for my dream ban, I don’t care who sets it. Sure, I’d like to see Roundup and other glyphosate-based weedkillers completely banned by the EPA. Or better yet, the federal government moves to restrict or ban glyphosate through regulatory action.
While I’m holding my breath for anything good to come out of the current federal administration, I’ll hope bluish Washington and superblue Seattle/King County will take that leap. Don’t just restrict, ban.
This article is an opinion piece (Op-Ed) and reflects the views of the author. We encourage thoughtful debate and welcome a range of viewpoints. Readers who wish to submit their own Op-Ed for consideration can do so by emailing [email protected].
