Food For Thought: Glyphosate & Reading The Fine Print

Reading The Fine Print

There are certain things I look at in Italian grocery stores that send me down the proverbial rabbit hole. Egg labeling was one such warren (which I explored in a previous KD post). Now it’s flour—specifically, whether it’s glyphosate-free.

When I lived in the U.S., I used La Milanaise and Caputo flours, and later discovered the unusual ones from   Grapewood Farm in Virginia. In the U.S., the only guarantees that your flour hasn’t been harvested with glyphosate are either a reliable  organic certification  or a seal from The Detox Project, which independently tests products for pesticide residues. Organizations such as The Real Organic Project have stiffer standards than the USDA Organic label. 

Wheat, to be clear, is not a genetically modified crop in the U.S.—at least not officially. (Unlike corn and soybeans, over 80% of which are GMO and have been engineered to resist glyphosate.) But glyphosate is still widely used on wheat as a pre-harvest desiccant to dry out the crop evenly and quickly. Even Bob’s Red Mill, a company with an unimpeachable organic reputation, acknowledges that it cannot guarantee total glyphosate absence due to wind drift from surrounding farms.

So what’s the problem with glyphosate?

Regulatory Theatre

In the U.S., glyphosate’s use is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which reviews such chemicals every fifteen years. In 2020, the EPA released an interim decision declaring glyphosate posed “no risks of concern to human health” when used according to label directions. But in 2022, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this determination was legally inadequate, citing the EPA’s failure to assess ecological and oncological risks—risks documented by independent scientific research.

In a deft bureaucratic pirouette, the EPA did not pull glyphosate from the market but instead promised to reevaluate its ecological impact with the cooperation of two other federal agencies responsible for protecting wildlife: the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This assessment is ongoing. In the meantime, regulation has largely been punted to states, counties, and cities, which can enact restrictions on its use if they choose to.

Across the Pond

Europe has chosen a different path. Following the 2015 monograph by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—which classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”—several member states pushed back on continued approval. Nevertheless, in late 2023, the EU reauthorized glyphosate for another ten years. The concession: individual member states could impose their own limitations.

Italy has used that loophole quite thoroughly. Glyphosate-based pesticides are banned in public spaces—parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, sports fields, railways, and healthcare facilities—and are not permitted on soils with high sand content due to risks of groundwater contamination. Italy also forbids the use of glyphosate for pre-harvest desiccation, a practice still permitted in the U.S.

If you spot the certification ISO-22005 on your Italian bag of flour, it guarantees traceability of the supply chain and absence of glyphosate or similar “plant protection residues”—an intriguing euphemism. Italian commercial farmers can still use glyphosate to clear fields of weeds before planting and even to treat stored grain, but not for pre harvest use in the field. 

How Did We Get Here?

Glyphosate, an acid molecule, was first synthesized by a Swiss chemist in 1950 for the pharmaceutical company Cilag, which promptly shelved it for lack of practical use. It wasn’t until 1974 that Monsanto formulated it as a broad-spectrum herbicide, and launched it under the now-ubiquitous name “Roundup.” The product’s mechanism: it blocks a key enzyme which plants need for photosynthesis. In 1996 and 1998, Monsanto introduced genetically modified corn and soy that was impervious to Roundup and thus created a continuing loop for commercial farms in which, at ever increasing costs, they sow and harvest only glyphosate-resistant varieties, and use specialized fertilizers such as ammonium sulfate to enrich the impoverished soil. Excessive use of ammonium sulfate is now affecting the drinking water on farms. 

Glyphosate’s legal saga began in earnest with mounting evidence linking it to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. But the concerns now reach further: research is exploring possible connections between glyphosate and neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s. One growing body of work studies the heavy herbicide use on golf courses and its potential link to elevated Parkinson’s risk among nearby residents, especially where runoff can contaminate groundwater. (Roundup and Paraquat are the reigning champions of that velvety green perfection.)

Ignorance is Not Bliss

I remember summers in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware in the 1950s and early ’60s—when DDT was sprayed by low-flying planes over lawns and beaches to get rid of mosquitos.  The smell was pungent and chemical. All the children, myself included, would run out to get misted, waving gleefully to the pilots. I once shared this memory with a friend who had done the same with her sister—who later died of liver cancer at a young age. DDT was banned in 2004 with the Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants, except for malaria control.  One should remember that Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring” in 1962, which documented the dangers of DDT and other similar pollutants – so it took public concern, scientific research and advocacy over 40 years to have it banned. 

No matter which side of the Atlantic you call home, it’s clear that industry influence, regulatory ambiguity, and scientific complexity all intersect in how we evaluate agricultural chemicals. For now, the only real power we have as consumers lies in asking questions, reading the fine print, and—when possible—choosing producers who are transparent about their practices. And perhaps recognizing that when we treat our lawns and crops with laboratory convenience, there is often a reckoning to follow.