The Acceptable Poison

Glyphosate remains on the market not because it is harmless, but because its removal would be inconvenient.

Order imposed without wisdom becomes fragility.

Glyphosate remains on the market not because it is harmless, but because its removal would be inconvenient.

This is the part we are not supposed to say out loud.

A system capable of feeding billions has decided that the cost of stopping is higher than the cost of harm. The math has been done. The conclusion is not subtle: some damage is acceptable if the machine keeps moving.

The question is not whether glyphosate causes cancer in every body, in every dose, under every condition. That question is a decoy. The real question is why uncertainty is tolerated when profit is certain.

When a government says a chemical must remain available to avoid economic disruption, it is quietly redefining health as a secondary variable. Biology becomes negotiable. Soil becomes expendable. The future becomes a line item.

This is not regulation. It is triage.

Glyphosate kills what it touches by design. That is its function. What it erodes slowly — microbial life, soil resilience, ecological memory — is dismissed as collateral because it does not scream, protest, or file quarterly reports.

And when people become ill, the burden shifts downward. Prove it. Isolate it. Quantify it. Wait decades while the data matures and the damage compounds.

This is how devolution works in polite language.

The chemical remains. The lawsuits settle. The market stabilizes. And the lesson is learned: systems are protected first. Bodies adapt or fail quietly.

We are told this is progress.

But progress that cannot pause to examine its own consequences is not progress. It is acceleration. And acceleration without conscience is indistinguishable from collapse — just slower, cleaner, and easier to defend.