

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
For decades Roundup has been sold as an effective herbicide, one that was safe for humans and the environment. It isn't.
Mark Twain supposedly once said, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story," but there is a difference between a good story told in fun and a story (supposedly backed by independent scientific research) that people are led to believe because, well, science is supposed to be true. And so we come to the story of Roundup, the herbicide developed by Monsanto that swept the world because it worked and was the “safe” alternative to widely used weedkillers like Dicamba and 2,4-D,—it was said to be safer than table salt!
Roundup was developed in the 1970s as a non-selective herbicide, meaning it would kill almost any growing plant it touched. It was an effective burn-down herbicide farmers could apply prior to planting, and it assured an almost weed-free field at the beginning of the growing season. Roundup could be used in non-agricultural situations as well, to kill weeds and grass growing in sidewalk and patio cracks, around buildings, etc, but care was needed because, as noted, it was non-target and could kill whatever plant it touched.
For farmers, it worked well, except while it did kill growing weeds, buried weed seeds were not harmed, so a weed-free field at planting time did not ensure a weed-free field throughout the growing season. Weeds would continue to sprout, and more herbicide applications would be needed during the growing season.
Then Monsanto developed their big fix released in 1996, genetically engineered (GE) soybeans resistant to Roundup, followed by GE versions of other commodity crops: corn, cotton, sugar beet, and canola. Over-the-top spraying of these GE crops would kill everything but the crop, and Roundup became one of the most widely used herbicides in the world and GE crops came to dominate world commodity crop production.
Companies like Bayer have to protect their product and their profit even if they have to tell a few lies to do so.
While Monsanto sold Roundup with the slogan, “One spray is all you’ll ever need,” in time, it became clear that some weeds were developing resistance to Roundup and farmers were right back where they started, looking for herbicides that worked consistently. More genetic modifications were made to commodity crops making them resistant to other herbicides, like Dicamba and 2,4-D, the herbicides Roundup was supposed to have replaced. These multiple GE or “stacked” crops could be sprayed with a cocktail of herbicides, hopefully ensuring weed-free fields for the entire growing season.
Farmers are using more herbicide, even on the GE crops, and costs for GE seed have risen much faster than non-GE seed. Of course, the motive was never to reduce the farmer’s production costs or agricultural herbicide use but to increase it—that's where the profit is.
For farmers who didn’t jump on the GE bandwagon, finding non-GE seed is often difficult. Even more onerous, some farmers have found it necessary to plant GE seed as a preventative measure because non-GE crops can be damaged by chemical drift from neighboring GE fields.
So much for effectiveness, what about the safety of Roundup? In 2000 a study was published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that deemed the active ingredient in Roundup (glyphosate) was safe and not a human health risk. Since then, that study has been cited consistently as proof of Roundup’s safety. Numerous other studies have shown that glyphosate could cause cancer and that the inert ingredients that are part of the patented Roundup formulation increase the toxicity of glyphosate. Further, the practice of using Roundup as a desiccant on small grain crops (oats, wheat, and barley) prior to harvest puts Roundup directly on grain that enters the human food chain.
Since acquiring Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has paid out about $11 billion to settle almost 100,000 cancer-related lawsuits with approximately 61,000 still pending. In December of 2025 another blow to the claimed safety of Roundup came when the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal withdrew the 2000 article that had touted Roundup’s safety. While the study claimed to be independent and peer reviewed, it has come to light that Monsanto's scientists played a significant role in conceiving and writing the article. Oops.
For decades Roundup has been sold as an effective herbicide, one that was safe for humans and the environment, and without which “consequences would be dire.” Companies like Bayer have to protect their product and their profit even if they have to tell a few lies to do so. They claim to produce safe products that help farmers thrive—real independent research refutes that. Bayer and the agribusiness industry may be thriving, but farmers are not and in these times, too few people seem to care that lies are accepted as truth.
"Is there anything worse than a child dying of cancer when it was preventable?" asked one observer.
Infant mortality is on the rise in Cuba as the Trump administration tightens a decadeslong economic embargo on the island nation in hopes of toppling a socialist government that's outlasted a dozen US presidents.
According to the United Nations Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation, infant mortality in Cuba—which plummeted dramatically in the decades after the 1959 triumph of the Cuban Revolution—has increased from 4 to 7.4 per 1,000 live births since 2018, an 85% increase.
The rise in infant mortality comes amid a deadly surge in mosquito-borne illness, including dengue and chikungunya, that has inundated already struggling hospitals suffering shortages of staff and even basic supplies. Hospitals in Cuba—which in 2015 became the first country in the world to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV and congenital syphilis—are now reliant upon donations and the black market for their needs.
The crisis is particularly dire among children with cancer. Cuba's free healthcare system—which prioritizes the health of the people instead of industry profits, as in the United States—once boasted a pediatric cancer survival rate of 80%, on par with the world's wealthy nations. Now that's down to around 65% as the blockade has forced healthcare providers to modify treatment protocols and medications.
“The situation is very serious at the moment. It was already in terms of acquiring supplies and medicines. But now it is intensifying and complicated with other aspects," Dr. Forteza Saéz, an oncologist at Havana's University of Medical Sciences, told La Jornada in an interview on Wednesday.
Dr. Luis Curbelo Alonso, former longtime director of the National Institute of Oncology and Radiology in Havana, told La Jornada: "You have the knowledge, the expertise, the team to face something that can be curable or can be controllable and yet not have the drug. It's a very lacerating thing as a professional, very cruel."
The situation is also driving Cubans to extreme measures to find treatment. Two-year-old Mía Rey Jiménez and her family left their home in Cardenas, Matanzas last May weeks after the child was diagnosed with metastatic stage 4 neuroblastoma, an extremely aggressive childhood cancer requiring complex treatment.
The family left Cuba to seek treatment in Nicaragua and then Costa Rica, where Jiménez underwent chemotherapy and high-risk surgery. Still left with a tumor in her lung and cancer in her bone marrow, Jiménez's family sought help from Nicklaus Children's Hospital in Miami, one of the world's leading specialized facilities.
The hospital agreed to evaluate Jiménez and estimated her chances of survival with proper care at up to 80%—more than double her prognosis in Costa Rica. However, the humanitarian visa for which Jiménez's family applied was denied by US authorities due to what they claimed was "lack of evidence," even though the girl's father resides legally in the United States.
The family successfully appealed their denial and Jiménez and her mother Liudmila Jiménez Matos arrived in Miami in January.
“I can’t be happier," Jiménez Matos told Cuba Noticias 360 last month. "My daughter will be treated by doctors who have been waiting for her for a long time. That’s a love for the profession and for saving another life."
As President Donald Trump tightens the blockade on Cuba following a similar strangulation of Venezuela that ended with last month's US invasion and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to face dubious "narco-terrorism" charges in the United States, critics are renewing calls to end Washington's embargo.
Imposed in the early 1960s after a successful revolution that overthrew a brutal US-backed dictatorship and replaced it with a socialist government, the blockade—which accompanied a decadeslong campaign of terrorism by US-based Cuban exiles—has claimed thousands of Cuban lives and cost the country's economy more than $1 trillion, according to official estimates.
The United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly condemned the blockade 33 times.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned Wednesday of a potential "collapse" of Cuba's economy if the US keeps blocking oil from entering the country.
On Thursday, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who visited Cuba in 2024 as part of a delegation of progressive US lawmakers, called the ramped-up embargo, which is now targeting fuel imports, as "cruel and despotic."
Back in Havana, Cuban doctors vowed to do the best they can for their patients under the harrowing circumstances.
“We will continue to resist," Dr. Carlos Alberto Martínez, head of the Ministry of Health's cancer control section, told La Jornada. "We will continue to look for alternatives that allow the sustainability of what has been achieved."
Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases remain chronically underfunded in low- and middle-income countries. This neglect is not only unjust; it is destabilizing.
As the year draws to a close, I find myself thinking about what lingers after the headlines fade.
I am thinking about the corridors of a cancer conference in Tunisia, where doctors, nurses, scientists, students, and patients from across Africa gathered with a shared purpose: to reduce the burden of cancer in places too often overlooked. In conversation after conversation, I heard stories of ingenuity and quiet endurance; clinicians delivering chemotherapy with limited supplies, researchers building cancer registries on borrowed computers, patients selling what little they own to stay alive.
One young oncologist from Rwanda told me he is learning to speak differently with his patients about cancer. Not just about treatment protocols, but about fear, dignity, and hope. He explained how language itself can heal, how empathy can ease suffering even when resources are scarce. I called him the prophet—not because he predicted outcomes, but because he understood that healing begins with trust.
A breast cancer survivor from Gaza spoke of women forced to leave home in search of treatment, only to face drug shortages and fractured care across borders. Their struggle is not only against disease, but against politics and geography that interrupt therapy and shorten lives.
If the year ahead is to mean progress, it will depend on whether we choose to align wealth with wisdom and urgency with solidarity.
These stories stayed with me when I returned home; and when I read, almost casually, about tens of millions of dollars spent to influence a single political race in New York City. I could not stop doing the math. How many nurses could that money train? How many pathology labs could it equip? How many mothers could it help live long enough to watch their children grow?
We live in a moment when the science to dramatically reduce cancer and other noncommunicable diseases already exists. Prevention works. Diagnostics work. Treatment works. Yet survival remains a cruel lottery of birth. A child with leukemia in Boston, Heidelberg, or Tokyo has more than an 80% chance of survival. The same child in Kampala, Dhaka, Sana’a, or Gaza faces odds closer to 20%; not because science has failed, but because access has.
This inequity is not academic for me. I am living with stage IV cancer. My treatment is possible not because I am exceptional, but because of where I live. My ZIP code granted me specialists, hospitals, and medicines that millions of people around the world cannot access. In an era of breathtaking biomedical progress, this disparity is increasingly difficult to defend.
Meanwhile, vast sums continue to flow effortlessly toward political influence, luxury consumption, and fleeting spectacle; multimillion-dollar celebrations, couture collections, brief trips to the edge of space. Excess has always existed, and it always will. The question is not whether extravagance can be eliminated, but whether it must remain our highest expression of success.
History shows us another option. Coordinated global investment transformed the trajectory of HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. Millions of lives were saved not because the science was perfect, but because resources were mobilized with urgency and moral clarity. When funding aligns with purpose, outcomes change—quickly and dramatically.
Yet cancer and other noncommunicable diseases, now responsible for most deaths worldwide, remain chronically underfunded in low- and middle-income countries. This neglect is not only unjust; it is destabilizing. Untreated cancer weakens families, strains health systems, and erodes trust in institutions. The consequences ripple far beyond individual patients.
As the year ends, it is worth asking what our spending reveals about our values. Conferences like the one I attended in Tunisia are not only scientific gatherings; they are moral ones. They confront us with the gap between what is possible and what we choose to prioritize.
We live in a world of abundance and absence, sometimes within the same news cycle. One story celebrates money deployed for influence; another recounts lives lost for lack of basic medicine. These are not separate realities. They are the result of collective choices.
As the new year begins, we will make choices—about budgets, priorities, and what we choose to celebrate. Those choices will determine who receives care and who waits, who lives and who is left behind. Science has already shown us what is possible. If the year ahead is to mean progress, it will depend on whether we choose to align wealth with wisdom and urgency with solidarity, deciding, at last, that saving lives deserves the same resolve we devote to influence, attention, and prestige.