Glyphosate, Soil Health, and the Fight Over Food Safety

The Chemical That Almost Everyone Carries In Their Bodies (And You May Not Know It)

Photo by Josh Withers on Unsplash

Most people have never seen it, never touched it, and yet almost everyone carries this chemical in their bodies.

Glyphosate.

Over the past few years, I’ve done an array of interviews about glyphosate with Dr. Zach Bush and with Kelly Ryerson (aka Glyphosate Girl). We’ve also addressed it in several of our Regenerative Agriculture courses on the Commune course platform.

In today’s newsletter and Substack article, I want to provide a primer on glyphosate, as recently, this herbicide has surged back into the news cycle. Last week, the Trump administration issued an executive action expanding the domestic production of glyphosate and providing a liability shield for manufacturers. The administration has justified this action under the auspices of food security and food independence. The primary producers of glyphosate are German-owned Bayer Monsanto and Chinese-owned Syngenta. The administration wants to on-shore production and, in order to do so, needs to offer a liability shield because no company would ever want to face billions of dollars in potential civil liability lawsuits.

To add to the drama, Robert Kennedy Jr., the HHS secretary defended the order. This is notable as Secretary Kennedy has been a long-time critic of the chemical.

He was a lawyer on the winning legal team in the landmark Roundup cancer case. In 2018, a California jury awarded about $289 million to groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, finding Monsanto failed to warn about cancer risks. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was one of Johnson’s attorneys.

This has caused fissures in the health-focused MAHA movement.

Beyond the executive order, the Supreme Court is about to hear a case that could decide the future of nearly all Roundup lawsuits in America. On April 27, 2026, the court will hear oral arguments in the case of Monsanto/Bayer v. Durnell.

The question in this case isn’t whether glyphosate causes cancer (as some studies demonstrate). It’s whether people are even allowed to argue that in court. Bayer says that because the EPA approved its warning label under federal pesticide law, state juries shouldn’t be able to punish the company for not adding a cancer warning.

This is known as preemption.

If Bayer wins, EPA approval of the warning label would override state failure-to-warn lawsuits. In practical terms, it would not prove glyphosate is safe. It would determine that injured individuals would not be allowed to argue otherwise in court. Reversing the Biden administration’s position, Trump lawyers filed a supportive amicus brief backing Bayer Monsanto.

That’s the political snapshot. Now, let’s step back and understand what glyphosate actually is and the dangers it may pose to human, soil, and planet health.

What Is Glyphosate?

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Round-Up. It is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide, basically a weed killer.

A little history: Before it was a herbicide, glyphosate was primarily recognized as a metal-chelating industrial chemical.

It was first synthesized in 1950 and initially studied for industrial applications because it binds metals - essentially a chemical cleaner. It wasn’t until 1970 that a Monsanto chemist discovered its herbicidal properties. By 1974, it was sold as Roundup.

Unlike other weed killers, it does not burn plants on contact. It is absorbed and transported through plant tissues.

Its mechanism is the inhibition of the shikimate pathway, a metabolic route used by plants and many microorganisms to produce aromatic amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan).

These amino acids are required to build proteins, enzymes, growth regulators, and structural compounds.

When glyphosate is absorbed through leaves, it moves through the plant’s vascular system down into growing tissues and roots. Over several days:

1. The plant can no longer synthesize critical proteins

2. Growth stops

3. Metabolism collapses

4. The entire plant slowly dies, including the root system

So, unlike older herbicides that burn leaves, glyphosate kills the whole organism from the inside out.

Humans do not possess this pathway. This absence formed the original argument for safety. The reasoning was straightforward: if the biochemical target does not exist in human cells, the chemical should not harm human biology.

However, many microorganisms do possess this pathway, including those living in soil and inside the human digestive tract. That distinction becomes important later.

Agriculture Before 1996

Prior to the mid-1990s, herbicides were used selectively. Farmers relied largely on targeted or spot spraying. Chemical intervention was periodic rather than continuous.

That changed with the introduction of genetically engineered crops designed to survive glyphosate exposure.

The 1996 Inflection Point

In 1996, crops engineered for glyphosate tolerance were introduced, including corn, soy, cotton, and canola. These plants could survive field-wide spraying while surrounding vegetation died.

The practical effects for farmers were immediate:

• Fewer mechanical passes across fields

• Simplified weed management

• Reduced labor requirements

The agricultural role of glyphosate changed fundamentally. It moved from targeted treatment to routine field application. Usage increased dramatically over the following decades, transforming glyphosate into a foundational input of modern large-scale agriculture.

Glyphosate also began to be used as a desiccant. Farmers apply it shortly before harvest to dry crops uniformly, improving harvest efficiency and storage stability.

Because plants may be sprayed close to harvest, residues are sometimes detectable in finished food products such as grains and legumes.

After 1996 and the introduction of GMO Roundup-Ready crops, usage exploded. We went from less than 5,000 metric tons in the 1980s to over 80,000 metric tons by the 2000s.

Currently, we deploy about 275–300 million pounds per year of glyphosate are applied on U.S. farmland plus roughly 24 million pounds in yards, roadsides, and non-ag uses

So altogether, that’s 300+ million pounds of glyphosate sprayed annually in the U.S.

Glyphosate and the Soil

Glyphosate has chemical properties beyond herbicidal activity. It acts as a chelating agent, meaning it binds metal ions. In soil and plants, micronutrients exist as charged ions, including manganese, zinc, iron and copper.

These nutrients are required in small amounts but are essential for enzyme systems, disease resistance, photosynthesis efficiency, and root signaling.

Glyphosate can bind these minerals and form stable complexes. The minerals remain present but become less biologically available to plants and microbes.

The consequences include reduced plant immune function, impaired microbial metabolism and increased dependence on synthetic fertilizers

This effect does not immediately kill the plant. Instead, it alters the nutritional environment in which the plant grows. This is why our vegetables are less nutrient dense.

Glyphosate application also has significant impacts on soil microbiology. Healthy soil contains dense microbial ecosystems including bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, arthropods, and earthworms. Plants release sugars from their roots, and microorganisms exchange minerals in return. Nutrient cycling depends on this relationship.

Because many microbes use the shikimate pathway, glyphosate affects microbial communities in addition to weeds.

It kills off beneficial bacteria, reduces activity of mycorrhizal fungi, suppresses of nitrogen-cycling organisms and increases prevalence of certain plant pathogens

Nitrogen fixation is especially significant. In healthy soil, bacteria convert atmospheric nitrogen into biologically usable forms. When these organisms diminish, fertility is maintained through synthetic nitrogen fertilizer rather than biological cycling. Synthetic fertilizers require a process known as Haber-Bosch – an incredibly energy-intensive process that fixes nitrogen to produce ammonia-based chemical fertilizers.

The soil remains productive but becomes less biologically self-regulating. The soil requires more and more artificial inputs.

Soil Structure and Earthworms

Glyphosate-based herbicides also have a negative impact on the earthworm community. This may be due more to the adjuvants and other ingredients in herbicides. A 2013 study in Scientific Reports found that earthworm activity declined and reproduction decreased after glyphosate application in field conditions.

Why does this matter? Earthworms play a central role in soil function. They convert organic matter into humus. This is central to vermiculture. Worms metabolize manure, for example, into rich, moist compost that is ideal for growing. Earthworms also distribute microorganisms and aerate soil through burrowing.

Reduced worm populations lead to soil compaction. Compacted soil absorbs less water, increasing runoff and erosion. Fields may flood more quickly and retain less moisture between rains.

Carbon Sequestration

There is also a broader ecological impact to glyphosate use beyond agronomy. We’re all accustomed to the postcard images of rank-on-rank corn. In these images, the soil is heavily tilled. There is no vegetation or cover crop between each stalk.

This is aesthetically pleasing to the modern eye. Typically, farmers have wanted to remove weeds as they compete for resources with crops.

But living roots and microbial networks sequester carbon in soil. When plant cover decreases and microbial diversity declines, soil organic carbon oxidizes and returns to the atmosphere.

The Business Structure

Let’s take a cursory look at the business structure of industrial agriculture.

The commercial innovation accompanying glyphosate-tolerant crops was contractual rather than biological. Farmers purchasing patented seeds agreed not to save harvested seeds for replanting. Seeds became licensed intellectual property rather than reusable biological material.

This created a vertically linked system: seeds designed for a chemical and a chemical designed for the seeds. Farmers lost control of their inputs and became reliant on Monsanto. Monsanto essentially monopolized the process of growing food.

It said, “Here’s the chemical to spray on all your crops. And here’s the seed that is resistant to that chemical. We’ll sell you both.”

Monsanto was purchased by the German company Bayer in 2018 for about $63 billion. If you’re in my generation then your association with Bayer is through aspirin which it invented in 1897.

Indeed, Bayer is a pharmaceutical company.

Bayer makes drugs including:

• Xarelto (blood thinner)

• Eylea (macular degeneration vision treatment)

• Nubeqa (prostate cancer)

• Mirena / Kyleena (hormonal IUD contraceptives)

• Yasmin / Yaz (birth control pills) and Adempas (pulmonary hypertension)

It also produces a variety of consumer health over-the-counter brands. These are household pharmacy staples, including:

• Aspirin (Bayer invented it in 1897)

• Aleve (naproxen pain reliever, US distribution)

• Claritin (allergy medicine)

• Alka-Seltzer, Midol

• One A Day vitamins

• Flintstones children’s vitamins and Lotrimin antifungal creams.

So, yes, a pharmaceutical company essentially controls industrial agriculture.

Human Health: Hazard and Risk

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (which is part of the WHO system) classified glyphosate as a Group 2A probable carcinogen. The cancer most consistently discussed in relation to glyphosate is non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or NHL.

The IARC findings were based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans, “sufficient” evidence in experimental animals, and “strong” mechanistic evidence, including genotoxicity, for glyphosate and formulations.

When IARC says “limited evidence in humans,” it does not mean no evidence. It means there are positive associations in human studies, but confounding and bias cannot be ruled out.

So what are those studies? Historically, they include case-control studies in agricultural settings that reported elevated NHL risks in higher-exposed groups. Not all are consistent, but that’s the core signal.

Then, in 2019, a major meta-analysis pooled several epidemiological studies and concluded there was a statistically significant association between higher exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and NHL risk.

Now, the strongest piece of evidence that pushes back is the Agricultural Health Study, or AHS. This is a federally funded study. AHS is a large, prospective cohort of licensed pesticide applicators. Prospective cohort data is valuable because it reduces certain biases that can affect retrospective case-control studies.

In 2018, this study found no association overall between glyphosate and solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies, including NHL and NHL subtypes. It did report some evidence of increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the highest exposure group, but emphasized it needed confirmation.

So why do these studies differ? A few possibilities are frequently debated in the scientific literature:

• Differences in exposure assessment

• How “high exposure” is defined

• Latency timing, because cancers can take years to emerge

This is why you can find credible scientists on both sides.

As noted, the IARC’s conclusion did not rest only on human studies. It also relied on animal studies showing tumor findings under certain conditions and mechanistic evidence. Mechanistic evidence matters because it answers the “how could this happen?” question.

Typical carcinogenesis-relevant mechanisms include genotoxicity, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, endocrine disruption, and altered signaling pathways

In other words, the IARC’s classification evaluated hazard, meaning whether a substance can cause cancer under some conditions.

Regulatory agencies such as the EPA evaluate risk, meaning whether cancer is likely at real-world exposure levels.

This is why both conclusions can coexist:

• Cancer-causing potential exists

• Typical exposure may fall below harmful thresholds

Glyphosate is detectable in most human urine samples, but detection alone does not establish toxicity. Dose, duration, formulation, and exposure route all influence risk.

Other Risks

Aside from cancer, there are other potential human health impacts caused by glyphosate exposure, including its effect on the microbiome. Although human cells lack the shikimate pathway, many intestinal bacteria possess it.

Research suggests glyphosate exposure may alter microbial composition in laboratory and animal studies, with some bacterial groups showing greater sensitivity than others. Changes in microbial balance could, in theory, affect metabolic or immune processes because the gut microbiome contributes to digestion, vitamin synthesis, and inflammatory regulation.

Lawsuits

There have been numerous civil lawsuits surrounding glyphosate. Multiple juries have awarded damages in cases alleging inadequate cancer warnings.

Prior to the recent executive action, Bayer put forward a $7.25 billion settlement proposal to resolve tens of thousands of U.S. Roundup claims, aiming to cap its liability and give claimants predictable compensation. The deal covers current and future claims of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, with payments structured over 17 to 21 years to resolve long-standing litigation. That offer has been in negotiation with the plaintiffs and is under court review. Essentially, Bayer is trying to settle all claims while seeking a liability shield for any future additional claims.

The current legal argument before the Supreme Court is whether federal pesticide labeling authority overrides state liability claims.

The outcome will influence not only pesticide litigation but potentially the broader relationship between regulatory approval and civil accountability.

Why did Trump issue this order if glyphosate is so potentially bad?

Supporters of expanded protections argue that agricultural productivity is necessary for food supply security. Their argument isn’t about defending a chemical; it’s about defending the architecture of the current food system. It’s realpolitik … we’ve built this industrial system … And, in their view, until we build a different agricultural model, restricting glyphosate or relying on foreign production creates economic and strategic risk. Domestic expansion, they argue, protects food supply stability and reduces geopolitical vulnerability.

And if we are going to produce domestically, then we need to offer a liability shield because what company is going to want to produce a chemical that opens itself up to endless civil lawsuits?

In this sense, it’s somewhat akin to the liability shield offered to vaccine producers. In 1986, producers of the D-Tap vaccine were abandoning production because of civil suits. This is why Reagan instituted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

The NCVIA created a no-fault federal compensation program for vaccine injuries and significantly limited traditional product liability lawsuits. It didn’t eliminate liability entirely, but it redirected most claims into a federal system and shielded manufacturers from many design-defect lawsuits. That structure was designed to preserve vaccine supply while compensating for injuries.

The liability shield offered to herbicide manufacturers falls under a different legal framework but provides similar protections.

I can understand the stated intention behind the executive order. Ensuring a stable domestic food supply matters.

But here’s a wrinkle:

Glyphosate itself is off patent. Anyone can manufacture it. So, we can make it domestically.

But the seed traits that allow crops to survive glyphosate spraying are often still protected by patents and licensing agreements. So, expanding U.S. glyphosate production doesn’t eliminate reliance on proprietary genetics. It secures the chemical input, but not necessarily the genetic operating system of modern agriculture. In other words, Americans will still be reliant on foreign companies like Syngenta and Bayer until we radically overhaul our agricultural system.

Agriculture is not a marginal industry; it is foundational. My challenge to the current administration is this: what if securing today’s system also came with a commitment to evolve it?

A single farm can begin transitioning toward regenerative practices in one season. Soil recovery typically takes three to seven years. But transforming a national agricultural system built on monoculture, chemical dependency, and global commodity markets would take far longer - likely ten to twenty years. The primary barriers are not biological. They are financial, infrastructural, and political.

A transition at that scale requires long-term planning, stable incentives, and policy continuity. And that is difficult in a political culture dominated by short-term thinking and two-year election cycles.

Still, food production may be one of the few areas where bipartisan cooperation is possible. Farmers exist in every district. Soil health is not inherently partisan. National food security, rural prosperity, and public health could be shared priorities rather than ideological battlegrounds.

---

🎧 You can also listen to The Commune Podcast, a companion episode where I do a full deep dive on Glyphosate, Soil Health, and the Fight Over Food Safety.

Or listen on Spotify.

---

Upcoming Events:

• Join me for The Perfect Weekend, three days to reset your habits and align your lifestyle with your human design. April 10-12 + May 29-31 in Topanga, CA.

• From May 13-17 I’ll be hosting the Harvest Series at Six Senses Kaplankaya in Bodrum, Turkey. Join me for an intentional gathering for meaningful connection, reflection and collective imagination.

---

Want to Go Deeper Into Your Mind-Body Alignment?

If today’s essay resonated, you’ll love my Cultivating Inner Peace course—available to all paid Substack subscribers. 10 powerfully simple meditations for navigating turbulent times.

👉 Become a paid subscriber to unlock the course and more.

If you’re already a paid subscriber, you can start the course!

---

Want It All?

Become a Founding Member and receive everything above, plus exclusive access to the Good Stress Summit—a $999.99 value course bundle featuring over 3.5 hours of actionable strategies from 25 leading experts, designed to help you harness good stress and reclaim your health.

Your support helps sustain this work and keeps these practices accessible to all. Thank you for being here.

---