The intent of my previous column on glyphosate was simply to encourage some critical thinking. In it, I wrote: Glyphosate is an important piece of technology that benefits everyone – both directly and indirectly. And as such, it deserves careful consideration to ensure we’re not too hasty lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The column eventually made its way to No-Till Farmer. That spurred one reader to email asking me to call. The discussion quickly turned to his concern about farmers using glyphosate on their wheat crop prior to harvest. He mentioned some test results and asked: “Would you like me to send them to you?” I said sure! I’m always looking to learn something.

The results from two samples (2020 and 2022) are detailed in the table at the end of the column.

I know NOTHING about either the accuracy or repeatability of the results. But I was anticipating some sort of dramatic demonstration of the concern.

Accordingly, I emailed back, pointing out: “The highest residue level on the list is ~3,700 nanograms (3,700 parts per billion). That’s the equivalent of 3.7 micrograms (parts per million). [The Food & Drug Administration’s] tolerance for residue is 400 parts per million – more than 100X of the residue results you’ve attached here. I’m not sure what the concern here is given the data. But thank you for sharing anyway. This is an important topic with respect to all sorts of food products.”

Here’s where it gets interesting. My caller didn’t respond but, rather, had the lab’s CEO (and “health director”) email me about the results. None of his comments reference the results themselves. Rather, it was all about glyphosate.

Some of the important excerpts from the email are below (emphases mine):

• “The problem is that the levels considered safe by the [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] are not based on current scientific evidence. … The FDA-allowed levels are more than 100-fold higher than what is considered ‘safe’ according to the most recent science.”
  
  
• “These high levels are not acutely toxic, that is, consuming that amount will [not] knock you off your feet, but it is high enough to cause serious problems when consumed chronically, which is what happens when you regularly consume conventional wheat as bread or other products.”
  
  
• “There is an epidemic of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in North America, which is likely caused by these low levels of glyphosate.”
  
  
• “Glyphosate has been around long enough for this to be seen in the population of young people, and, indeed, we are seeing frequency of obesity in children that has never previously been observed. In the U.S., more than 30% of the young men who volunteer for the Army are rejected because they are overweight. A general recently observed that this problem is creating a national security emergency, where we cannot recruit enough people into the military to defend the country!”

Based on those comments, we’re supposed to assume: (a) the previous science is all wrong (more on this below), but (b) several sentences later, he’s using the word “likely” (so much for facts and science), (c) glyphosate somehow accumulates in the system (despite the half-life being less than 12 hours in the body) and (d) this all crescendos with glyphosate now tagged as a national security emergency (which is really over the top, as we all know the obesity epidemic is a complex epidemic).

Meanwhile, the dialog completely bypasses any recognition of the premise of my first column, which is that glyphosate has proved to be important technology that’s benefitted society – and, therefore, “deserves careful consideration when it comes to policy.”

I subsequently asked for a summary of glyphosate tests from the lab. The response: “That is a long list. Something I have never done. But I can send you are [sic] report that consolidates quite a lot of the data with different foods and beverages. I would ask that you keep that report confidential.”

You don’t have a summary of your lab’s results? And the information is confidential? At this point, I’m done.

Let’s return to the “most recent science.” There’s a lesson to be learned from a prior Feedstuffs column I wrote several years ago talking about Dr. Ivan Frantz’s obsession with cholesterol. Frantz was a staunch proponent of replacing animal fats with vegetable fats (i.e., new science) – convinced cholesterol was going to kill us – but it turns out “the vegetable oil people didn’t live longer.”

It reminds me of Billy Joel’s great song “Shades of Grey,” which goes: “The more I find out, the less that I know.” The point is that no matter how strongly we may feel about something, we get things wrong.

Never mind glyphosate; per the first column, what’s most important is the broader principle. Exploration of new policies and/or guidelines (for whatever reason it might be) cannot, and should not, be reliant on overdramatic interpretations (see “Factfulness”). Rather, the process must be grounded in discipline and rigor and objectivity, or else nobody wins.

Selected glyphosate residue samples

Dr. Nevil Speer holds a Ph.D. in Animal Sciences from Colorado State University and is an industry consultant in both academia and private industry. Follow Nevil on X @nevil_speer

A version of this article was originally posted at Feedstuffs and is reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit both the GLP and original article. Find Feedstuffs on X @Feedstuffs