What Glyphosate Does to Your Body

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (0:00)
Seventy to eighty-two percent of Americans have detectable glyphosate in their urine. In the US., agricultural use has jumped over 750 percent since GMO crops were introduced in 1996 In effect, glyphosate acts like a low-grade selective antibiotic. It preferentially harms the good bacteria while sparing the bad. Glyphosate down-regulates something called Glut4 in skeletal muscle, and this is the primary transporter responsible for pulling glucose into muscle cells. When you disrupt Glut4, this obviously compromises muscle health and it fuels insulin resistance. Many people assume buying organic meat is necessary to avoid glyphosate, but studies consistently show negligible levels in cattle, pork, milk and eggs. So what's the alternative? The alternative is other chemicals, many of which are worse. Outright bans without better agricultural solutions means switching to harsher, less studied chemicals. While we can't change what agriculture is doing, we can change what we do. Here is your actionable evidence-based protocol ranked by scientific strength.
Should we spray our food with chemicals? Is glyphosate dangerous? And if it is, what's the alternative? This is an emotional topic. And I remember 10 years ago, when I was finishing my medical fellowship in St. Louis, I started seeing signs about glyphosate everywhere on the highway. So naturally, I called the smartest person I know, my mentor, Dr. Don Lehman, and I said, Don, if we spray our food with chemicals, common sense says we'll get sick. He paused as he often does, and he said, okay, well, that's a fair thought, Gabrielle. But have you thought about how do we solve a broader problem? And I was thinking, well, you know, I've thought about a lot of problems. And no, I hadn't. He said, we have 8 billion people to feed, and if we don't use this, what are we going to use? Do we use Agent Orange? Do we use a natural herbicide that might be just as toxic? You know, he had a point, and recently a patient sent me a video about glyphosate and her morning toast. She asked me point blank, Doc, is my bread killing me? And you know, I didn't have a good answer for her, but underneath her anxiety was a bigger issue, and it's a bigger issue that we are all starting to see, and that is, is our food supply safe? And who decided it was safe? And how sure are they? We've relied heavily on industry to tell us what's safe, which creates an obvious conflict of interest and erodes trust. But on the flip side, chemical efficiency, aka glyphosate, has allowed us to feed billions of people. And over the last 50 years, corn production alone has increased nearly 400%.
So today, we're going to look at the evidence objectively. Anytime something is emotional, we have to look at the evidence. Let's define what we're talking about. Glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide, and that was introduced in 1974 under the trade name Roundup. It is now the most widely used herbicide in the world. In the US., agricultural use has jumped over, get this, 750% since GMO crops were introduced in 1996 Agribusiness uses glyphosate for two primary reasons. Number one, weed control early in the growing season, and pre-harvest drying, also known as desiccation, spraying crops like wheat and oats right before harvest. Why do we do this? We do this to dry them out uniformly, although I've never done this in my entire life. But the second use is why residue ends up in your food. When you look at human biology, glyphosate is poorly absorbed in the gut, roughly 15 to 30%, isn't metabolized much, and is excreted largely unchanged without accumulation in human tissue.
Yet, Nhanes' data shows 70 to 82% of Americans have detectable glyphosate in their urine. This brings us to the massive scientific contradiction that confuses everyone. In 2015, the World Health Organization's IARC classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. Meanwhile, the US EPA and the European Food Safety Authority concluded it is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard at current exposure levels.
Now, this isn't a case of scientists that are honest versus corrupt ones. I don't think that that's the case at all. I think it's more likely a hazard versus risk. A hazard asks, can this chemical cause harm under any condition at any dose? Now, this is the IARC's focus, the IARC's focus.
Risk asks, is harm likely at the doses humans actually encounter day to day, which is the EPA or the Environmental Protection Agency, or and the European Food Safety? So we covered hazard, which is, is this dangerous in any capacity at any dose? And then risk asks, is harm likely at the doses humans consume, what they encounter on a day to day basis? If we take a step back, let's think about a shark, and I have seen jaws, it's terrifying. A shark in the ocean is a hazard, right? But your risk of a shark attack while sitting on your couch is zero.