Walk into a grocery aisle built on commodity corn and soy and you are walking into a chemical weather system. The most widely used herbicide in that system is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and a long list of generics. It is not a rumor. It is measured on grain, measured in people, argued over in courtrooms and agencies, and still sprayed on tens of millions of acres. The question is not whether America uses a lot of it. The question is what that means for the plate, the pasture, and the kind of people we intend to be.
This piece sticks to primary sources: use data, residue surveys, biomonitoring, cancer evaluations, court rulings, and nutrient composition studies. Where the evidence is mixed, it says so. Where regenerative grazing and free-range red meat improve the story, it shows the numbers. Then it ties the whole thing to a simple national interest: soil that holds, animals that move, and meat that builds strength without pretending controversy does not exist.
How much spray is out there
Charles Benbrook’s 2016 reconstruction of U.S. and global glyphosate use remains the clearest long view in the peer-reviewed literature. From 1974 through 2014, more than 1.6 billion kilograms of glyphosate active ingredient were applied in the United States—about 19% of estimated global use over that span. Globally, use rose almost 15-fold after glyphosate-tolerant “Roundup Ready” crops arrived in 1996. Two-thirds of all U.S. glyphosate sprayed from 1974 to 2014 went on in just the last decade of that period. In 2014 alone, Benbrook’s Table 1 puts U.S. use at 276.4 million pounds of active ingredient, of which 249.9 million pounds were agricultural [10].
The boom did not stop at the edge of the dataset. USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service chemical-use survey for 2023 soybeans still finds glyphosate isopropylamine salt the most widely used active ingredient on the crop, applied to 46% of planted acres, with other glyphosate salt forms also in heavy use (dimethylamine salt on 25%, potassium salt on 22%) [13]. That is not a niche product. It is the default weed tool on America’s largest oilseed.
What shows up on the grain
USDA’s Pesticide Data Program does not pretend every commodity is clean. In calendar year 2022, PDP’s soybean-grain survey found glyphosate in 558 of 608 samples—91.8%—with measured residues ranging from 0.10 to 13.6 ppm against a 20 ppm tolerance. The metabolite AMPA showed up in 317 of 608 samples (52.1%). Corn grain was lower but not empty: glyphosate in 73 of 309 samples (23.6%), residues 0.058–0.12 ppm, tolerance 5.0 ppm [11]. PDP’s special-projects page confirms dedicated glyphosate/AMPA soybean surveys in 2010–2011 and again in 2021–2022 [12]. The point is not that every residue exceeds a legal limit. Most of those soybean hits sit under the tolerance. The point is exposure is ordinary. The chemical is on the staple crops that feed livestock, oil crushers, and a large share of the processed-food stream.
PDP 2022 — glyphosate detection
Share of samples with detectable residues (USDA AMS)
What shows up in people
If the spray stayed on the boom, this would be a farm story. It does not. CDC scientists analyzing NHANES 2013–2014 urine (Ospina et al., Environment International, 2022) found glyphosate in 81.2% of a nationally representative sample of Americans age 6 and older (N = 2,310). The median concentration was 0.392 μg/L (0.450 μg/g creatinine) [9]. Detection is not diagnosis. The authors are careful about that. But an herbicide that is both the most used in U.S. agriculture and present in roughly four-fifths of the population’s urine is not a fringe exposure. Diet is part of the pathway; people who had fasted longer had lower levels in the model-adjusted means.
Four out of five Americans showed recent glyphosate in their urine. That is not a fringe exposure.NHANES 2013–2014 · Ospina et al. 2022
The health fight, without the slogans
Here the honest version is the contested version.
In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). IARC’s own summary is blunt: that rested on limited evidence of cancer in humans (chiefly non-Hodgkin lymphoma from real-world exposures) and sufficient evidence of cancer in experimental animals, plus strong evidence of genotoxicity for both pure glyphosate and formulations [1][2].
In 2019, Zhang, Rana, Shaffer, Taioli, and Sheppard published a meta-analysis in Mutation Research/Reviews that pulled in the updated Agricultural Health Study plus five case-control studies. Using the highest-exposure groups where available, they reported a 41% higher risk of NHL associated with high glyphosate-based herbicide exposure (meta-RR = 1.41; 95% CI 1.13–1.75) [3].
That is not the only epidemiology. Andreotti and colleagues’ 2018 update of the Agricultural Health Study in JNCI—54,251 licensed pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina—found no statistically significant association between glyphosate and overall cancer, solid tumors, or NHL and its subtypes. There was a non-significant signal for acute myeloid leukemia in the highest exposure quartile (RR 2.44; 95% CI 0.94–6.32), and a significant association with a 20-year lag (RR 2.04; 95% CI 1.05–3.97) that the authors said needs confirmation [4]. Zhang’s team explicitly included that 2018 AHS update and still got an elevated meta-risk when high-exposure groups were prioritized. Different designs, different answers. Anyone who tells you the human evidence is settled is selling something.
IARC 2015
- Call
- Group 2A — probably carcinogenic
- Human
- Limited (NHL)
- Animal
- Sufficient
- Mech.
- Strong genotoxicity
Zhang 2019
- Design
- Meta-analysis, high exposure
- NHL RR
- 1.41 (1.13–1.75)
- Includes
- AHS 2018 + case-controls
AHS 2018
- Cohort
- 54,251 applicators
- NHL
- No significant association
- AML lag
- RR 2.04 at 20-yr lag
EPA / 9th Cir.
- 2020 Interim
- Human-health portion vacated 2022
- Sept 2022
- EPA withdrew Interim Decision
- Status
- Products still on market; review ongoing
Regulators split too. EPA’s February 2020 Glyphosate Interim Registration Review Decision concluded the chemical posed no human-health risks of concern under labeled use and treated it as not likely to be carcinogenic—language the agency has long used in its assessments. On June 17, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the human-health portion of that Interim Decision, holding that EPA’s “not likely to be carcinogenic” conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence, in part because the agency could not square an inability to resolve NHL risk with a clean non-carcinogen call under its own cancer guidelines [5]. EPA later withdrew the remaining portions of the Interim Decision (announced September 23, 2022) [6]. Glyphosate products remain on the market under existing labels while registration review continues. As of EPA’s current glyphosate page, the agency is still updating its human-health risk assessment [7].
Across the Atlantic, EFSA’s July 2023 peer review did not identify critical areas of concern for human or animal health or the environment under its definition (a concern that would block approval for all proposed uses). EFSA relied on ECHA’s 2022 hazard assessment, which concluded glyphosate did not meet criteria for classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic. EFSA also flagged data gaps and, on a conservative ecotoxicology screen, a high long-term risk to mammals for 12 of 23 representative uses [8]. “No critical concern” is not the same sentence as “no questions left.”
Then there is the litigation. In June 2020, Bayer announced agreements to resolve the bulk of U.S. Roundup litigation for a total payment of $10.1 to $10.9 billion, including $8.8–$9.6 billion for current claims and $1.25 billion toward a proposed class framework for future claims. The company said the deals would bring closure to about 75% of then-current Roundup claims and contained no admission of liability or wrongdoing. Three tried cases (Johnson, Hardeman, Pilliod) were carved out to continue on appeal [14]. Juries and settlements are not peer review. They are a signal that American courts have taken the NHL question seriously even while agencies disagree.
Put plainly: IARC and a high-exposure meta-analysis raise a cancer flag; the largest U.S. applicator cohort does not confirm NHL; EPA’s clean bill was vacated and withdrawn; EFSA finds no critical block but not a blank check. A serious country can hold all of that at once.
Regenerative grazing is not a vibe. It is management.
If the spray boom is one end of industrial agriculture, the other end is soil that has been treated like a parking lot with a crop on top. Regenerative grazing—short grazing events, planned recovery, high stock density for a short time, then rest—aims to put ruminants back to work as grassland engineers rather than as confined grain converters.
A 2022 PeerJ field comparison of five southeastern U.S. across-the-fence ranch pairs (Johnson, Teague, Apfelbaum, Thompson, Byck) measured adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing against conventional continuous grazing. AMP pastures carried 92.68 g/m² more standing crop biomass—about 46% higher photosynthetic capacity—showed a 20.6% increase in soil organic carbon in the top 10 cm, and cut soil CO₂ respiration rates by 19.52% [17]. That is one regional study, not a national census. It is also the kind of measured difference that beats a slogan. More living cover, more carbon in the topsoil, less wasted respiration. Farmers still need a living. Regeneration that ignores the balance sheet dies on contact with the real world. Regeneration that rebuilds soil while feeding people is the lane worth taking.
Free-range red meat: beef, bison, elk
This is where the plate gets interesting—and where Legends Only Racing’s agriculture brief stops being abstract.
Grass-fed versus grain-fed beef. Daley and colleagues’ 2010 Nutrition Journal review of three decades of fatty-acid work found that grass-based diets raise omega-3s, total CLA, and trans-vaccenic acid on a per-gram-of-fat basis, and shift saturated fats toward more stearic and less myristic and palmitic acid. Across the studies they tabulated, the average omega-6:omega-3 ratio was 1.53 in grass-fed beef versus 7.65 in grain-fed [15]. That ratio matters for inflammatory tone. It is not a license to eat recklessly. It is a reason to care how the animal was finished.
Phytonutrients, not just fatty acids. Van Vliet, Provenza, and Kronberg (2021) reviewed evidence that when livestock graze a diverse plant community, meat and milk concentrate terpenoids, phenols, carotenoids, and antioxidants—compounds usually credited to plants—at levels that shrink or vanish in grain-fed products. They are careful: few human trials link production system to clinical endpoints, and current knowledge does not yet let anyone draw a straight line from pasture practice to a specific disease outcome [16]. Fair. The composition difference is still real, and it lines up with the regenerative pasture story rather than against it.
Bison and elk. USDA FoodData Central (SR Legacy) puts numbers on the wilder red meats. Per 100 g [20]:
| Meat | Energy | Protein | Fat | Iron |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bison, ground, grass-fed, cooked (FDC 173847) | 179 kcal | 25.45 g | 8.62 g | 3.19 mg |
| Elk, cooked, roasted (FDC 175302) | 146 kcal | 30.19 g | 1.90 g | 3.63 mg |
| Beef, grass-fed, strip steaks, lean only, raw (FDC 169429) | 117 kcal | 23.07 g | 2.69 g | 1.85 mg |
Source: USDA FoodData Central API (DEMO_KEY), Oct 30, 2026. FDC IDs as listed.
Elk roasted is extraordinarily lean and protein-dense. Grass-fed bison ground is still lean by feedlot hamburger standards and carries solid iron and zinc (5.34 mg zinc per 100 g in the same bison entry). These are the meats of open country—animals that, at their best, convert diverse forage into nutrient-dense food without a confinement finishing lot.
Who paid to blame the fat
Before regenerative grazing can reclaim the plate, you have to understand how the plate got written against fat in the first place.
In the mid-1960s the Sugar Research Foundation—today’s Sugar Association—funded a literature review that would shape decades of American dietary argument. Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt, and Stanton Glantz reconstructed the episode in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2016 from internal industry documents. The Foundation’s Project 226 paid Harvard researchers a total of $6,500—about $48,900 in 2016 dollars—for a two-part 1967 New England Journal of Medicine review, “Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Disease,” authored by Robert B. McGandy, D. Mark Hegsted, and Fredrick J. Stare [21][22][23]. Kearns and colleagues found that the Foundation set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. Its funding and role were not disclosed. The review singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of coronary heart disease and downplayed evidence that sucrose was also a risk factor [21]. That is the documented record. It is not a cartoon about bribes or forged data. It is industry-funded science with an undisclosed hand on the tiller.
The payment
- Then
- $6,500 from the Sugar Research Foundation
- 2016 $
- About $48,900 (Kearns et al.)
- Project
- SRF Project 226 literature review
The authors
- Hegsted
- Professor of nutrition, Harvard SPH
- Stare
- Chair, Harvard SPH Nutrition Department
- McGandy
- Harvard SPH coauthor (NEJM 1967)
What the review did
- Elevated
- Fat and cholesterol as CHD causes
- Downplayed
- Sucrose as a CHD risk factor
- Disclosure
- SRF funding/role not disclosed
The rules then
- NEJM COI
- Financial disclosures required only from 1984
- What was told
- Other experimental funding disclosed
- What was not
- SRF sponsorship of the review
The cast matters. Hegsted was a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and a codirector of that first sugar-industry CHD project. Stare was chair of Harvard’s School of Public Health Nutrition Department and had been recruited onto the Foundation’s scientific advisory board. McGandy was their Harvard coauthor on the NEJM papers [21]. Journals then were not what journals are now: the NEJM did not begin requiring financial disclosures until 1984 [21][24]. The authors disclosed other industry and nonindustry funding of their experimental work; they did not disclose the Sugar Research Foundation’s sponsorship of the review itself.
Hegsted’s later career carried that fat-first framing into federal nutrition politics. The New York Times reporting on the Kearns documents notes that he went on to become head of nutrition at USDA and, in 1977, helped draft the forerunner to the federal Dietary Guidelines [24]. By the time the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans appeared in 1980, Kearns and colleagues observe, few scientists still treated added sugar as a major CHD factor, and the guidelines focused on cutting total fat, saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol [21]. Red meat—especially the marbled kind—got written as a problem. Sugar got a quieter ride.
A trade group paid for a review that elevated fat blame and minimized sugar. American dietary politics spent decades living downstream of that choice.Kearns, Schmidt & Glantz, JAMA Intern Med 2016 · documented record
Hold the science of today with the same honesty. Saturated-fat guidance is still contested in the literature: some reviews find weaker links to cardiovascular outcomes than mid-century dogma claimed, while major guideline bodies remain cautious about replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat rather than with refined starch and sugar. That debate is not settled in this article’s favor by a 1967 review, and it is not settled against pasture-raised ruminant meat by an industry memo. What the documents do settle is simpler and uglier: a trade group paid prominent Harvard nutritionists, without disclosure, for a review that elevated fat blame and minimized sugar—and American dietary politics spent decades living downstream of that choice. If you want a fit people and a serious steak, you start by refusing to let one industry write the villain list.
Be honest about red meat and cancer
IARC’s 2015 evaluation classified processed meat as Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans), based on sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer, and red meat as Group 2A (probably carcinogenic), based on limited human evidence, again strongest for colorectal cancer. The IARC press release estimated about an 18% increase in colorectal-cancer risk per 50 g of processed meat per day [18]. WHO’s Q&A on that evaluation still carries the Group 1 / Group 2A framing [19]. IARC’s own director noted at the time that red meat has nutritional value and that governments must balance risks and benefits.
So the argument here is not “eat cured meat like candy.” It is that unprocessed, pasture-raised ruminant meat—beef, bison, elk—belongs on a serious national plate when it is produced regeneratively, eaten in sensible amounts, and paired with the plants and movement that make a people fit. Processed meat is a different product. Conflating a grass-finished ribeye with a gas-station hot dog is how both sides of the food fight stay lazy.
What a fit and powerful people actually require
A nation is not made of slogans. It is made of soil, water, muscle, and the habits that keep them. Industrial herbicide dependence bought cheap grain and a weed strategy that selected for resistance; it also put a chemical into the food stream and into most Americans’ urine, then left the cancer question in a fog of conflicting studies and vacated decisions. That fog is not an excuse to do nothing. It is a reason to change what we can control.
What we can control is closer to the ground than a court docket. We can buy and raise ruminants on living pasture. We can favor producers who rest paddocks, build soil organic carbon, and finish on forage. We can put bison and elk back into the American kitchen beside grass-fed beef. We can treat glyphosate as a tool with a measured residue footprint and an unresolved high-exposure risk debate—not as a religion and not as a cartoon villain. Farmers who need a crop deserve better options than a single molecule. Eaters who need strength deserve meat that still tastes like the land.
The work is ordinary and hard: rebuild the pasture, shorten the chemical leash, keep the science honest, and feed people food that builds rather than merely fills. Empires do not endure on depleted soil and soft citizens. Duty starts with what is on the plate and under the hoof.
Do what is in your power. Leave the rest. Then do the next acre.Closing note
Key takeaways
- Glyphosate use is enormous. Benbrook’s series puts 2014 U.S. agricultural use near 250 million pounds of active ingredient; NASS still finds glyphosate salts among the top herbicides on 2023 soybeans [10][13].
- Residues are common on soy. PDP 2022 detected glyphosate in 91.8% of soybean-grain samples and 23.6% of corn-grain samples—mostly below tolerances, still a mass exposure [11].
- Most Americans show recent exposure. NHANES 2013–2014: glyphosate in 81.2% of urine samples age 6+ [9].
- Cancer evidence is contested. IARC Group 2A; Zhang 2019 meta-RR 1.41 for NHL at high exposure; AHS 2018 found no NHL association; EPA’s Interim Decision human-health piece was vacated in 2022; EFSA 2023 found no critical areas of concern [1][3][4][5][8].
- Regenerative AMP grazing showed measurable soil and forage gains in a southeastern ranch-pair study (+20.6% topsoil SOC; +46% standing biomass capacity) [17].
- Grass-fed beef improves fatty-acid profile (Daley 2010: average n-6:n-3 ≈ 1.53 vs 7.65), and pasture diversity concentrates phytonutrients (van Vliet et al. 2021). Bison and elk deliver high protein and iron at low fat [15][16][20].
- Sugar money helped write the fat story. The Sugar Research Foundation paid Harvard’s McGandy, Hegsted, and Stare $6,500 ($48,900 in 2016 dollars) for a 1967 NEJM review that blamed fat/cholesterol and downplayed sugar—funding undisclosed; NEJM did not require financial disclosures until 1984 [21][24].
- Hold the red-meat caveat: IARC Group 2A for red meat, Group 1 for processed meat. The case here is for unprocessed, free-range ruminant meat as part of a strong diet—not for ignoring colorectal-cancer evidence on processed products [18][19]. Contested saturated-fat science today is not settled by either a 1967 industry-funded review or a slogan.
Sources
- IARC, “IARC Monograph on Glyphosate” (Group 2A summary): https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/
- IARC Monographs Vol. 112, Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides (2017): https://publications.iarc.who.int/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Some-Organophosphate-Insecticides-And-Herbicides-2017
- Zhang L et al. (2019). Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis… Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. PMID 31342895: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31342895/
- Andreotti G et al. (2018). Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. JNCI. PMID 29136183: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29136183/
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, NRDC v. USEPA, No. 20-70787 (June 17, 2022) (PDF): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/06/17/20-70787.pdf
- EPA, “EPA Withdraws Glyphosate Interim Decision” (Sept. 23, 2022): https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-withdraws-glyphosate-interim-decision
- EPA, Glyphosate ingredient page (registration review status): https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
- EFSA (2023). “Glyphosate: no critical areas of concern; data gaps identified”: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-no-critical-areas-concern-data-gaps-identified
- Ospina M et al. (2022). Exposure to glyphosate in the United States: Data from the 2013–2014 NHANES. Environ Int. PMID 36368224: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36368224/
- Benbrook CM (2016). Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ Sci Eur. PMID 27752438: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0
- USDA AMS, Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2022 (PDF): https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2022PDPAnnualSummary.pdf
- USDA AMS, PDP Special Projects (glyphosate soybean survey years): https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdp-special-projects
- USDA NASS, 2023 Soybean Chemical Use Highlights (PDF): https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/2023_Barley_Oats_Peanuts_Soybeans/ChemHighlights-Soybeans-2023.pdf
- Bayer (June 24, 2020). Agreements to resolve major legacy Monsanto litigation: https://www.bayer.com/media/en-us/bayer-announces-agreements-to-resolve-major-legacy-monsanto-litigation/
- Daley CA et al. (2010). A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutr J. PMID 20219103: https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10
- van Vliet S, Provenza FD, Kronberg SL (2021). Health-Promoting Phytonutrients Are Higher in Grass-Fed Meat and Milk. Front Sustain Food Syst.: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.555426/full
- Johnson DC, Teague R, et al. (2022). Adaptive multi-paddock grazing… southeastern USA ranches. PeerJ. PMID 35873909: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35873909/
- IARC (2015). Press release 240: evaluation of red meat and processed meat (PDF): https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf
- WHO Q&A: Carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat
- USDA FoodData Central (FDC IDs 173847 bison; 175302 elk; 169429 grass-fed beef strip): https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
- Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA (2016). Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research… JAMA Intern Med. PMID 27617709: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27617709/ · PMC full text: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099084/
- McGandy RB, Hegsted DM, Stare FJ (1967). Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease. N Engl J Med. 277(4):186–192. PMID 5339697: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5339697/
- McGandy RB, Hegsted DM, Stare FJ (1967). Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease. N Engl J Med. 277(5):242–247. PMID 5339699: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5339699/
- O’Connor A. How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat. The New York Times, Sept. 12/13, 2016: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html
All links and cited figures checked Oct. 30, 2026 (America/Chicago), including the sugar-industry section added the same day. Residue detections below a tolerance are not a clean bill of health; IARC hazard classifications are not the same as a full risk assessment; Bayer’s settlement contains no admission of liability. Not medical, legal, or dietary advice. Read the linked primary sources before acting on any claim. LOR has no affiliation with Bayer, Monsanto, or any producer named.
