Unveiling the Truth About Glyphosate: A Deep Dive with Glyphosate Girl

All right, Kelly, how are you? How are you doing? We're good. How's it going? I'm excited to be here. Yeah. Well, I always like to give people a little context. We met in person at a Maha event in South by at Arena Hall last year or almost a year ago. And then we were just on the regenerative ranch. Sovereignty Ranch was so fun. Tell us more. How is your experience at Sovereignty? Oh, my gosh, Sovereignty was so awesome. So people who don't know it's out in Bendera, Texas. Rylan Engelhardt, Molly Engelhardt have this incredible space that is just a place that feels magical. It's a regenerative farm, tons of animals, amazing restaurant. That's a regenerative organic restaurant. I mean, so delicious. And it was just such a cool vibe. Like, a lot of people came together for this food as medicine, conference, and we were all chatting about all these issues that we had in front of us that we feel are very solvable. And it was just such a nice time to be with like-minded people. It really was. The community is amazing. We hung out with Will Harris. That was my last guest. We did a remote show because we couldn't do it there in person. But it was so fun to just have story time with Will, you know, just be hanging out at the table with Courtney Swan, who's probably my next guest. You will, AJ, you know, all these people are just all about the same mission. Oh, it just feels so good because you can feel kind of isolated when we're all living in different places and can't see each other on a regular basis. So like actually coming together, you just feel, oh, that's why it's good to sometimes work in person, you know. And it was great. Courtney and I shared a house with Will Harris and we're like, oh, my God, we're sharing. We're here. That is so epic. Yeah. Well, I love that there's a famous regenerative ranch person. I love that that exists. He's been on Rogan a couple times, you know what I mean? It's like we're in a time where a rancher can be like a legend. So true, right? Yeah. Well, I'm going to redo that retreat, but my own version. So I'm going to kind of soft announce it now March 25th, 29th. I'm nailing down the dates with Molly. I just want to do it to get people together. Number one, right? Get like it's so fun to just be in person, have those experiences, stay up talking, all that stuff, but also support their ranch, support the restaurant. You know, we need people there. We do. If you guys are ever in that area, it is so worth the drive in. I mean, drive there, you know, if you're in San Antonio or in Austin, it's so worth the drive. If you're looking for a place to have a corporate retreat, it's so worth it. I mean, I can't even state enough how cool this gem is the place. It is. So we're going to do the Sapien retreat. So it'll be a bit different, a bit different, but I'll talk to you about it later. See who else we can get involved? It's not going to be as many talks, just more real experiences, you know, real like Sapien human stuff. So let's move on to the show, the juicy content, the glyphosate content. So you are glyphosate girl on Instagram. And so people check her out on Instagram at glyphosate girl. This show is going to be all things glyphosate, the definitive episode. I've not done a full episode on it. I've done, you know, little pieces, guests have talked about it, but it's a it's a big topic. And Kelly knows what she's talking about. She did a great presentation at the retreat. And where do you like to start in this story? It's some people are probably familiar with it, but there's also a controversy. Some people are just like, oh, it's not that bad. You know, I heard the science. So there's a lot of people. Well, you don't pay attention to something like glyphosate or know what even what that is unless you have some reason to my opinion. In my case, I was like, so many people have probably many of your listeners who had just a ton of different health issues that didn't really make sense. And so I was had two kids. They were little. So I had all of these different health issues. I was seeing I saw 20 different specialists. Each specialist had no real answers for me. And so they would instead layer on a drug. So because I was a new mom that it made sense to layer on and any depressing because you know, new moms must be crazy and anxious and depressed and all kinds of things. And so I was put on two any depressions and a benzodiazepine just to deal with my anxiety. Which, truthfully, the anxiety was based in the fact that no one understood what was wrong with me. I basically were wrong with me. So that was sort of a normal anxiety. And so this continued and continued. And for a long time for many months. And finally, I actually had no energy left. And I couldn't walk. And I I went into an MRI and and, you know, after two hour MRI, I was actually like saying, you know, a lot of prayers in that MRI saying, you know, if this MRI comes out clean, then I'm going to try and figure out what is at the root of this chronic disease epidemic, which is so weird. I mean, but you do whatever you can to bar you with God in those horrible moments, because I was pretty sure it was going to be an MS diagnosis. But low and behold, it was not. It came back completely clean. And I around that same time, decided I was going to go see a psychiatrist because all the doctors said you need a psychiatrist. So I went to see a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist happened to have intake blood work that had a vitamin panel on it. And so I decided I decided I did that blood work. And then oh my goodness, it came back. And I was completely deficient in these vitamins that you we're all supposed to have in this country. Okay. So like a thing's like vitamin C. I had scurvy. I had so no vitamin C. I had like barely any B12. I have barely any D. These things are should be one. All these things are so important. And I was like, oh my gosh, I think that this has something to do with my with my health issues. I brought it back to my primary care doctor. And she said, no, vitamins don't really that couldn't be clean. What what's going on with you? I'm like, but aren't they the basis? Oh my gosh. And so I fired her. I found a new doctor and the doctor for the very first time said, what are you eating? And no one had asked me that before in all of this, including my GI doctors that I've been meeting with, no one had asked me, what are you eating? And so she suggested, I mean, how wild is that? You know, I mean, just such a detachment, a clear detachment, yet I'm layered on these drugs. So I my new doctors, I think she tried giving up gluten. I did. I started feeling a lot better, really pretty quickly. I started eating more organically as well. And I was supplementing all these vitamins, started really getting better. I went to a conference in at Columbia University where they were talking about in their in their serious celiac center as a preeminent celiac center there. And while I had non-celiac gluten sensitivity, they were talking about that as well. So I went and they were saying that they think that there's something going on with the grain that isn't even necessarily the gluten that might be contributing to this epidemic of non-celiac gluten sensitivity. And so I went to the microphone and I asked, I said, well, is anything being sprayed on the farm that could be connected with this? I just am curious, like a pesticide or what's happening? And no one knew. And so I just went and sat down. I was like, okay, I guess not. You know, I don't know anything about farming. And and an employee from General Mills found me after the talk and said, actually, round up, the weed killer is a lot of times sprayed on our green just before harvest to help speed up the harvest to make it easier to harvest the grain. And so I was like, oh my gosh, that doesn't sound good. Like I'm just picturing in my head, Home Depot, right? With yeah. Home Depot with like all these round of bone, like that's what's being sprayed on her. I mean, who's studying this, you know? But not even just to grow the crops, just at the end, just spraying gallons and gallons of it, yes. Yeah, just at the end. Yeah. And just to explain that a little further, so farmers, it is easy. I mean, it makes sense. It's easier if the whole field is dead at one time and you can just do one pass of your combine and do the harvest all in one pass. That saves a lot of money and time. And so that's what it does to to chemically dry the crop instead of just letting it ripen naturally. And then you might have one part of the field that isn't quite ready for harvest and one part is. And so it's just it's easier. But but you're also spraying a chemical that then ends up in our food and in our you know, in our cereal. So that that doesn't seem necessarily worth it. But of course, the the thought is that Roundup is in glyphosate or non-toxic glyphosate is the active ingredient. If we want to dive into what is glyphosate glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. It is the most used pesticide of all time. So of all underneath that umbrella of the word pesticide is herbicide like like glyphosate is and and then you can have insecticides and fungicides and rodenticides are all these different sides inside means to kill. So you so this one's an herbicide, but of that whole class is the most sprayed globally ever. It was originally developed in the 1950s by some Swiss Swiss scientists who were trying to look for different pharmaceuticals and they came up with glyphosate couldn't find pharmaceutical application of glyphosate and so they just kind of tabled it. But they did notice that it has this amazing ability to bind to minerals and and so it was a great type cleaner because it could bind to things like all these different metals that you might find in in like a metal boiler and it would collect them, you can rinse them out and so it was really effective at doing that. And then it that's great for the human body, but keep going. And that's so great. So I was like, table that in your mind for a minute of like that it has this natural ability to bind and lock up minerals, right? Yeah. And so then and so then in the 1970s Monsanto, who you know, probably most of your listeners now is probably the most notorious company of all time, a chemical company, realized that it has this herbicidal property where I it can kill, it can kill weeds and it was very effective at doing so. And at the time the other products that were on the market that were weed killers were extremely toxic. And so it was very, it was this great new discovery that like non toxic, it doesn't impact humans, it only impacts plants. It's incredible. So they put it together with the soapy substance called the surfactant and they put together this formula. So it was like this eight and this and this soapy substance and they called it Roundup and they launched it in 1974. It was picked up very quickly in landscaping and on farms, it was really just this miracle product. So sort of the beginnings of like to say. Amazing. Okay. So keep going. Okay. So so so this become this continues and expands and it keeps on growing and people once again are celebrating this non toxic safe enough to drink the side. That is now all these farmers are using it. They think it's a tree leaf. They can go out and spray it. It is it is this miracle worker is highly highly effective at killing weeds. So the patent was going to run out on this blockbuster product Roundup for Monsanto, which was not a good situation because this was their blockbuster product. And they decided that they were going to come up with an even bigger business strategy. And so they started developing seeds that are now known as GMO seeds that would be resistant to the effects of glyphosate. So this is where GMOs were birthed. I actually personally didn't fully understand that that was the key reason why GMOs were even developed because you hear a lot of reason for GMOs like technology and like amazing. Let's innovate. Feed the world. This this is how we do it. These are incredible. In reality, these GMO seeds were developed just to be resistant to the use of Roundup. So farmers could go and plant these GMO corn, soy, cotton, seeds, spray it with as much Roundup as they wanted and the crop wouldn't die, but all the competing weeds around the crop would die. So I mean, it's actually a really brilliant plan. It's just not very well thought out of what could happen down the line. So this happens. And then in so in 1996, and what's really interesting about that is I actually started having some digestive problems in around 1996. And I've always just kind of wondered if that was part of the reason that so the GMOs entered the food supply. And the use of glyphosate explodes. You look at these maps, these usage maps. And you know, it was it was definitely used before, but but these GMOs just made it so that it was saturating basically our bread basket in this country. And with both literal and and figurative, the bread basket being called the states that are growing all these grains just a density became so intense. And so then in the late 90s, early 2000s that in Europe actually they'd started doing this pre-harvest spray that I was talking about where they're spraying it just to ripen, ripen up the crop right before harvest. So on oats and grains and legumes. And so then that added even more to our food supply. And actually, it's interesting is where you look where glyphosate enters our food supply. It usually is more from that pre-harvest spray than it is from the GMOs because the GMOs are it's only a subsection of a very small percent that actually goes into the human diet because most of it is going to feed animals. But of course, we eventually eat the animals. And so it also goes up the line. But a lot of it is. Another reason to eat grass-fed grass finish. Oh my gosh, right? Yeah. It's such a huge reason. And I'm glad you're saying that because people, you know, don't understand that that's the difference you get whatever the animal has eaten as well when you're eating the stuff. So this happens. And now we have a situation where glyphosate is in the air. It's in the rain. It's in our bodies. It's in our urine hair, semen, breast milk. I mean, it is completely infiltrated our lives. It is in personal products. It's like in, you know, tampons, pads, diapers, all these different cotton products. It's in our alcohol. It's it is truly ubiquitous to living in 2025. So so if and and the EPA has always said that, you know, this, this is likely very safe and we see no concerns for human health. And so and so if you want me to expand now as to why there might be problems. Well, yeah. I mean, I remember hearing years ago about like the shigamate pathway. I don't know if that's how you pronounce it. But the idea that, oh, it's it doesn't affect humans, but it affects our microbiome. It affects all these other gut microbiome. Yeah, keep going. Yeah. Yeah. So so this was the argument. Okay. So glyphosate does not impact the human body because of this one specific pathway, the shigamate pathway, which is that they claimed is a metabolic pathway that they claim that only plants had and it effectively shut off the energy to that pathway and plants, which is what killed the killed the weed. So humans don't have it. The humans tell it sell does not have the shigamate pathway. What does have it is the bacteria and our microbiome? When glyphosate first came out, there was, I don't even know, I mean, if there was any knowledge of the microbiome, it was really preliminary. And so and it really isn't until recently that we knew just how significant the microbiome is to our everyday functioning and overall health, right? And well, so it is actually interesting. Then there was a lawsuit in I think 2018, 2019 where some lawyers sued Monsanto and said, you can't say this doesn't impact humans because of the microbiome. And they went to the defense of the microbiome as being key to human health, which is like now we know this and the evidence exists. But with wild is just, you know, I'm sure a lot of your listeners already know, it is how critical the microbiome is. And it is a big source of where we get our serotonin. And all these different was stabilizing factors come from the microbiome. And so what happens when you shut down the shigamate pathway in bacteria while it actually shuts down the pathway to develop the serotonin? And so if we're eating this constantly and it's going into our gut, back gut biome and it's killing off some of the beneficial bacteria, then we are definitely having a dysbiotic situation in our gut microbiome. And what is just so maddening is is that it actually was registered as an anti parasitic antibacteria by Monsanto because they knew sometime back that this potentially had visibility to be antibiotic. And it's actually a really particularly nasty antibiotic because it selects for the beneficial gut bacteria. And it allows some of the pathogenic gut bacteria to proliferate because they're able to avoid the consequences of it. So things like lactobacillus, all the things that we're taking in our probiotics most of the time. Those are the bacteria that glyphosate will target. And not only that, but it also has been shown to create this situation in your gut and maybe your listeners know about leaky gut that because it is so dysbiotic and really messing with your good gut bacteria, it also can impact the ability of the gut to hold toxins in where they should be, not in the bloodstream in the intestinal tract. And it can cause these tight junctions to stay open too long in the gut and allow some toxins that should never, ever leave the gut to go into the bloodstream and contribute to this autoimmune cascade. So by the saying is a part of that and it's interesting because I've gone to a lot of functional medicine conferences and they a lot of times will have this picture of the gut and this idea of leaky gut and its contribution to autoimmunity and all these other issues or root cause issues. And there's always like pesticides with an arrow and it has one of the things and like oh my gosh, it's pesticide, pesticides should be enormous with the arrow, not just like one little tiny greeting. They're like, it's a really big one. But a lot of these organizations are nervous to really call it out because they don't really want the wrath of the chemical industry coming after them. And I mean, that's what the chemical industry does is make sure the stays quiet as long as possible. It's sad. They have so much power to do that. And yeah, I know that and they control so many nerves, they control studies, they control marketing. Well, that's kind of what I figured out about how the world works. Why is everything backwards? It's because processed food and pharmaceuticals and herbicide, pesticides, stuff like that have such a high profit margin and therefore they have big money, big lobbying, big everything. Actually, it's so true. And on the, the ultra processed foods front, none of the ultra processed foods could have been developed without the use of roundup and the rat-up ready GMOs. That's what allowed them to make these things to such an extent that, you know, it really became the dominant food source. It seems in the United States. The roundup is definitely a piece of that puzzle, even though and this is an interesting little bit that a big thing just happened actually that that I haven't seen celebrated that much online, but it actually should be on the ultra processed food front. So a lot of times on the package foods, like a Coke or or other highly processed food package food, you won't see any labeling of it being GMO. And in that was always really strange to me. So I'm like, I know that those, like the hype of those corn syrup and other soy oils that those are GMO-based. So why isn't there a GMO label on there or at least like call this number to find out what the ingredients are? You don't see that on there. Well, there was a loophole that said that if the final product, if you test the final product, and you don't find any genetically modified proteins in there or any any remnant of it, that then it's no longer considered GMO, even if the whole thing was based on GMOs. So it was a loophole that now just was closed this last week because the court said that's, no, you have to say that that's a GMO, which is going to be a big deal for all the ultra processed food that's depending on it. So it's kind of an exciting win. Wow. So yeah, now how long will that take to come to effect though? Well, you know, and then that's the question. So they ordered the order of the USDA to immediately reassess it. So hopefully given the current administration, they'll be willing this to do that. But they really would change people's opinion because I I've always thought that was so strange on something like this is GMO. Like, what, why, how is it not label? This is crazy. So they're powerful. Well, here's the question too. Here's a question too, because I've heard I came from the scientific skeptical world 15 years ago. I didn't know anything about health. And I just, you know, listen to the authorities and things. And GMO sounded safe. They're like, okay, it like the the actual like substance is fine for humans. But it's the fact that it's just made for Roundup and all the other pesticides. It makes it more dangerous. Is that like the bigger factor, right? Then the actual. So they're they're debates. To me, the bigger factor is the pesticides. Yeah. And they're people that are GMO people, activists that would say that's not true. So I mean, this is an ongoing debate. But the truth is now to you that the weeds have developed into superweeds now in in our in on these on these on the acreage where they're on these farms. And so superweeds are now forming that are resistant to the effects of glycosate. This is a huge problem, right? Because they developed these Csps resistant to glycosate. And now the the weeds are outthinking it. And I love by the way that nature is outthinking thinking glycosate. I wish the humans could do. You don't have that sophistication. I can't cheat nature. I found that in general. In general, and yes, using glycosate is trying to cheat nature. But there's unintended consequences of our microbiome stuff like that. There's always the unintended consequences. Like every time, no matter what you do, you can't cheat it. And so but so now this chemical companies are trying to cheat it. And so now they've added other pesticides to what the GMOs are resistant to. And so now you have up to five different pesticides that can be sprayed on these GMOs to kill the weeds around it. It's like, at what point are you going to realize this is a failing system? Like you shouldn't have to spray five different pesticides on here that are increasing toxicity, by the way. Oh guys, so it's just enraging. But but you know, it back to back to glycosate. So now we have this in our in our world, in our environment, in our bodies. And the impacts are really immense. And now that we've laid out just how dependent the GMO system and basically meaning our entire farming system is on this chemical, it is such a grave situation because it isn't as easy as well as just being glycosate because they're always more toxic options to come down the line. And glycosate is horrible. So I've already talked about what it's doing to our gut and to our gut bacteria. It is a significant endocrine disruptor. And we've seen a lot of research out there about how hormone testosterone levels are crashing. We have infertility crisis that's growing by the day with IVS and fertility companies stepping in with excitement to now they'll have just this enormous multi billion dollar industry to step in and solve the issue of fertility and fertility. But the connections are really there. And I brought this to the EPA several times. They have no interest in addressing it, which makes me just wonder because in the you guys have presumably have children or want grandchildren or whatever it is. And this is a really scary thing. I had wondered with the crash and semen levels or crash. I wondered about the crash and sperm levels. And several years ago and I wondered whether or not glycosate could cross the blood testis barrier. And it wasn't supposed to. And I didn't really see any reports that said that it would. But it just kind of made me wonder. And so I had some friends send in samples to the lab and all them came back positive for glycosate in the semen. And there are some studies that show that it can kill sperm. And so now we had the proof that it can cross the barrier that's supposed to be resistant to that and is killing sperm. And so I brought this to the EPA. And I even was like, can I make some sort of endangered species act application to humans because this is literal and end of species we have going on here. This is insanity. And you know, they just kind of ignored it. I guess it's okay for that in their minds that that's happening. It also has been shown to it crosses down past the placenta. It goes into when you're growing a baby, it goes into their world early on and can impact their microbiome. It is has been really closely connected to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, kidney disease. It now has been shown across the blood brain barrier. It is connected to dementia. It's collected to obesity. It's just this list of things is lengthy that you think that there is peer-reviewed independent research on glyphosate being connected to. But the big one that's making all the headlines is cancer. And that is what all the people may have seen. There were tons and tons of ads for a while on if you have non-Hodgkins lymphoma, did you use Roundup? And so that's actually where I got my start because the trials were starting in San Francisco, which is where I live. And I wanted to go and take a look and see what was happening in these court cases. And so I went and I sat and I came up with this blonde glyphosate girl, which is where I got my name now on Instagram. And I wanted to tell the actual story of what was happening in the courtroom that couldn't be biased. And so I did that. And you guys, like the things that were said in this courtroom are so atrocious that any sane person should want glyphosate gone immediately. The amount of trickery that went on with Monsanto covering up the fact that this chemical can cause cancer is so obscene. There's a situation where actually in 1985, yeah, around 1985, the EPA was relatively new at the time. And so they were still coming up with what the guidelines should be to determine whether or not a chemical should be allowed in our system or not. So it was all a little bit new. And the scientists at the EPA took a look at the glyphosate science and they said, hey, this looks like it's a carcinogen. And so we're going to put this label on it that it's a carcinogen. So Monsanto really didn't like that. And there's this one study that was really core in the glyphosate trials because it's just so bad. So there's a mouse study and in this mouse study that that the EPA required, the research that Monsanto submitted, which is surprisingly even submitted it, frankly, but it showed that there were these kippy tumors in the mice with an increase level. So the more that they're exposed to glyphosate, the more likely they are to have these kippy tumors. So that EPA looked at that and they said, well, this really isn't good. This shows that it is likely carcinogenic. And so that's the label we're going to give it. And Monsanto said, no, hold on a second. Let's just do a recent like, if that important, let's just do a reassessment. We're going to have this new pathologist who by the way, like totally worked for industry, he's going to go and he's going to take another look at those kidneys and those in that in the same mice and he's going to be sure that, you know, that we read that correctly. So he went in and what he did is he found a tumor in the control group, meaning that the one that had no glyphosate applied to it suddenly had a tumor that was discovered, which meant that the whole study showed that something was just up with those mice, not that it was had anything to do with glyphosate. So this magic thing happened and the EPA said, oh, you know, that is kind of fishy, but you suddenly found that. But you know, we think you should redo that study. We really think you should. But they just didn't. And then finally with enough pressure, eventually the EPA just forgot about it, never made them repeat the study. Still to this day, haven't made them repeat the study. It is so obscene. And so when the International Agency for Research on Cancer came out in 2015, they said, and by the way, this is an organization of WHO, they are very special because they only look at peer-reviewed independent research on any subject. So they pick which things they're going to look at to see if they cause cancer. And then they look at peer-reviewed independent research, nothing from industry. So nothing can be biased. And so they found that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen in 2015. Well, so Monsanto freaked out and even the internal documents show that they were orchestrating an outcry well in advance of even the decision because they knew it was going to come back as carcinogenic. They, the EPA called together a group of scientists as they usually do when there's a question of something. And this, I mean, this is big time crisis and big time crisis inside the EPA because they love to protect this chemical. And so they went around and they find these scientists that that purportedly don't have any ties to industry. And so one of the scientists is my friend, Dr. Lupin Zay, who is over at Cal Berkeley, and she's an amazing toxicologist. And so she was brought in to look at all the evidence on glyphosate and see whether or not it can cause cancer in the epidemiology. So she did that. She and some colleagues from University of Washington and they're like, wow, there is an increased likelihood you're going to get non-Hodgkin's lymphoma if you are exposed to glyphosate. Okay, so like it was significant. It was a thing. They submitted that decision to the EPA. And in 2016, the EPA came out and said, oh, yeah, we took a look. There's no evidence that cancer can cause or glyphosate can cause cancer. Can you imagine this? And so she was so I rate that she went and she published it herself with those colleagues. And it is that there's a 40% increase in likelihood of getting cancer if you are if you are exposed to glyphosate, like that's what the evidence shows. So this is shows the madness of how we cannot trust our regulators whatsoever. They are going to be approving these things regardless of what we say. And frankly, like, I really hope that this, this, you know, with the maha spirit and this time when Trump really wants to reverse that the chronic disease epidemic that we would see more proactive work against these these pesticides and glyphosate. And in fact, in the first maha report, which was in May. So Secretary Kennedy had the opportunity to list all the things that he thinks might be impacting children's health effectively. And in there were there were all kinds of things that the old process foods, EMFs like over medicalization or too many drugs, just a bunch of different things. And in that list were pesticides, but specifically calling out both glyphosate and atrazine. And clearly really scared a lot of people because suddenly senators were wanting to meet with him. And he basically had just back-to-back meetings even at the White House and all the industry groups coming in and saying you don't understand the entire ag system in the United States is based on glyphosate. Like you can't just say we're going to take away glyphosate. And so about three or four weeks later, what happens? Well, two of the huge lobbyists from big ag and ag can suddenly end up at the EPA and in the leadership positions, the department of pesticides. And so now we're just like, okay, so it's back to this and unfortunately Secretary Kennedy isn't in charge of the EPA. So we'll see what happens, but they were clearly trying to send a message that we're not going to be listing glyphosate on these lists of potential problems that are connected to the product disease epidemic, even though it is entirely 100% correct that it is tied to the product disease epidemic. So what I hate politics, but what I've understood about them is that there's certain things that are just not going to be changed and we need to just figure out other ways to deal with them and you need to just do it on your own, right? There's these things that are in trench these systems are so much money being made that even if you want to do something, you can't. And I don't like that defeatist attitude, but we're kind of seeing it happen that even if Bobby Kennedy's in there trying to do things, it's like, well, this is EPA, this is beyond my control or this is going to take 15 years to undo all this or everything's going to fail. Our entire economy might fail. So you just, I guess one of the big takeaways is, well, how the system works, knowing the system is like this, you just have to know that you can't trust certain studies, certain decisions and you have to just take matters into your own hands and there's not much else. I mean, we can slowly try to change it. We are also doing that, right? I'm not like defeatist and like we can't do anything. I mean, actually even posting a legislative agenda tomorrow to talk about this stuff and what's, what's like we can put in Texas on the legislative agenda next year to actually, you know, move some of these things forward, but I'm not holding my breath on that or it's just going to take a while. And in the meantime, it's let's do all the podcasts, spread the word, you know, make sure everyone just knows what to do. I mean, that's something like you hosting this podcast is such a big deal because I can't even tell you in the last five years in particular year over year it gets louder and louder. And now, and people had no idea what glyphosate was. And it's really thanks to people like you that are sharing the news and because otherwise to the point that if you go and you Google glyphosate, you know, for a long time, it's getting a little better now, but for a long time, you just would hit all the front group saying what a wonderful chemical this is and how crazy people like, you know, like I am. I specifically pointed out that there's nothing wrong with this chemical and you're so right about taking into your own hands. And you know, that's what I love about being able to go into PubMed myself. People that don't know you go to PubMed, it's called and it's a place where you can put into search all kinds of things that you might be interested in. And you can read with the scientists or actually saying in actual studies about whatever it is you're curious about. And you know, you could spend months in there. It's so fascinating. But taking it into your own hands and I agree, you know, that, and I reached this point probably two years ago where I had had so many, I just, I felt like I was hitting a wall in being able to even make any kind of impact on the government front. I mean, Bobby Kennedy changed that somewhat because now we actually have someone on the inside that we know understands all this. I mean, he was one of the attorneys that fought Monsanto on those glyphosate cancer trials. But at the same time, can I know you you think a lot about this? And of course, Ryland does too. We talked about it as sovereignty ranch. Can we change the agriculture system so that we can heal our soils enough that we don't need these chemicals anymore? Because in and I actually as much as I hate glyphosate, I don't think that we can just suddenly ban it because it is legitimately would crash our entire act system that never should have been based on glyphosate in the first place, but it is. And so here we are. So what do we do at this point? And you know, that's where regenerative agriculture comes in. Well, yeah, that's a good point. I wanted to bring up too is that it doesn't have to be used. And there's plenty of people like Will Harris just went through his whole story on my last show talking about the transition. It wasn't easy. Actually, a line with nature, it actually can work in regenerative and systems. How did we get food worked? And we've you know, how did we get food for thousands of years without glyphosate? Well, it worked because nature works. And then we start to go against it. It seems like it's working, right? We got more calories. We got more wheat. We got more all these calories for people. But then it backfires. It completely backfires. And the narrative that drives me crazy is that we need glyphosate and GMOs to feed the world because it's just not factually true. You don't need GMOs and you don't need glyphosate to be the world. That has been disproven. And yet that is the narrative that continues. And I also don't think that this just gets personal. I don't think that we necessarily have the responsibility to feed the rest of the world from our limited amount of basically pretty infertile soil at this point. I just think the mentality needs to change until we can heal what we've done because just like what we've done to our microbiome with exposure to glyphosate and some other pesticides, the same things happened in our soil to the point that it is known that the microbial life is dead. It's dying. It is not what it should be in terms of how we found this fertile soil in the first place, you know, in the 1800s as people moved west. It was this gold mine of fertile soil that then we decided after World War II, maybe we should start spraying it with these chemicals that then killed that. So what's horrible is it took thousands of years even to make it that beautiful nutrient dense. And so we have a long way to go. But we can't. You're right. And Will Harris has proven that they're plenty of farmers that decided, you know, and I'm done with this. I'm going to start transitioning. And it may not be that first year they give up light to save them. Maybe they give up some fungicides that first year. Maybe they try, you know, cover crops. And maybe that helps with their weed issue. And but it can be done. And it can be done profitably. And oftentimes farmers find that they're more profitable at the end because they're not in spend so much on fertilizers and chemicals. But it's a risk for sure. It's easy for me to say because my my life isn't dependent on a farm. Well, yeah. I mean, you have a picture of gay brown behind you. That's a movie poster for common ground. And I had gay brown on the show years ago. And yeah, again, it was a process. And it it wasn't fun. And it took hailstorms and crop failures and all this stuff. But now he does it without the chemicals. And he's doing it profitably. And it's possible. It's with a growing population. For all history, we've had a growing population. And we've all fed our communities by just ramping up production. And it can work. And it had its works. And then yeah, then we're trying to feed other communities. It's like, oh, that ship grain and corn, you know, to Africa. And then you're disrupting their economies, too. You know, you're screwing up everything. But you're also, yeah, taking our depleted soil and giving them glyphosate corn and weed and all this. And then also disrupting their economies. Because now they don't have to try to actually figure out how to grow their own crops and feed themselves. And yeah, this is a thing I bring up a lot now is you we don't to feed the worlds, you just need to feed your community, right? You don't have to feed the world in a mass scale. If every community fed itself, then you've just fed the world. 100%. Imagine that. Like how, you know, it always was. Yes. And another thing that I want to be sure to mention too is that right now there is something of an emergency in the test site world. And because of the cancer litigation that I was talking about earlier around glyphosate, so bear bought Monsanto, the pharmaceutical company bear now owns Monsanto. And they have for about seven years now. And so bear has had a huge crop, huge, like 70% crash in stock price since they acquired Monsanto because it was such a bad acquisition with all of this litigation going on, not only with glyphosate, but PCBs as well. And so they are looking for a way to stop the the bleed, basically the financial bleed because they are out 11 billion dollars and there's still tons of different planets that are suing and still want settlements. And so this stands to bankrupt bear. So instead of putting a label on the glyphosate product, which by the way, the federal judge said, why don't you just put a label that says, in some studies, it has been connected to cancer. You don't have to say, this is a car surgeon, just say, you know, Iarx said that this is probably from procedure where they won't do it. And instead, they're sending millions, millions of dollars to pass liability shields in the United States just to stop all lawsuits. So this means that and they've already successfully passed one in Georgia and in North Dakota. And it means that if you get sick from exposure to glyphosate, so if you get cancer, if you get infertility, whatever the issue is, but not just flight to state, actually, this is the supplies to all pesticides. Now, if you get sick from pesticide exposure, you can no longer sue the manufacturer if you get sick. That is what these liability shields are doing. And they are trying very hard to pass it on the federal level too. And so they're putting it into the farm bill. They're putting in a different spending bill. The one that just now shut down the government, if there's actually a provision in there, that is a liability shield. And you think about how egregious this is. So, you know, as I say, it's not just quite the same. Actualism, which is an extreme endocrine disruptor, is in there. The periquot is in there. And that's crazy. If periquot is connected to Parkinson's disease, of which we have this explosion in this country. And it's manufactured by chemchina. And it's banned in China because it causes Parkinson's disease. So we would be giving a liability shield to chemchina to continue to poison us, give us Parkinson's. And we, well, there's nothing we can do about it. And what's so scary is there are plenty of people in Congress that are more than happy to be passing this. And in Governor Kemp, then Georgia signed off on this so that his people in Georgia can no longer sue. I just, I don't know what's going on that to steal people's rights to that's usually the only thing that they even have going for them in terms of, you know, any, of course, recourse. It's so crazy how money and power and they just drives an industry just drive everything to this point. I don't know what to do. So are you, are you working like just to stop some of this? Like tell us more about what you do. Yeah. So I am, I right now am running a campaign against these liability shields. And people want to sign up for that. You can go to stop poison and you put in your name and I will send emails for call to actions. And stop poison.com or, oh, sorry, stop poison.org. Oh, okay. Stop poison.org. You can go there or you can go to my website playpacetfacts.com. And there you can also find ways to understand this liability shield, but we have thousands of people now that have been calling. We have these calls to action and trying to get that situation fixed. But I have to say like, it is a really an uphill battle right now. And I think there's a lot of fatigue because we had a lot of problems in this country and I think people are just tired. So anyone who's newly enraged by this, I would appreciate any help that you, you have. And so I, I'm working a lot on that and I am continually trying to bring that into the conversation into some of the farmers worlds because they're the ones that are on the front lines of the exposure and have these high, like, the rate of cancer and young adults in Iowa is crazy. So is so outpaced the rest of the country and they're right there amongst all these GMO things being sprayed. So those are the kinds of things I really try to raise awareness around. Yeah, I mean, they're the ones getting the brunt of it. If they're actually out there springing it, getting like way more exposure than the rest of us, but it should show a signal to us. I mean, I really should. And what's crazy is that the industry groups are saying farmers want this liability shield to protect their chemicals. And I'm like, have you really gone in and talked to these people that are like definitely have cancer and are their kids have birth defects? And do you think that they don't think that, you know, maybe this would be a bad idea to have legal protection? That's so wild. Do you, do you remember a lot of your your facts and figures? I mean, you do presentations and may not have them on hand, but I want to do some more waking up. If you can throw out some of this, like, how much is used? All that type of stuff? Oh, yeah. So it's 300 million pounds is used every year in the United States. So that is excessively very, very large amount outpacing everything else. By far, the number two most used pest test aside is atrazine. That is used on GMO corn. Atrazine is a really concerning one. And I brought that up a few times because of its its extreme impact on development and hormones. It is an extreme endocrine structure and it's now found in the drinking water in Texas as well as other other states. This one is connected to penis malformation in baby boys. It's connected with decreased testosterone, messing with estrogen. It is such a hideous one. And that's the number two most used. And oh, and you know, I also wanted to talk about this study that came out about by the state. There's a lot on the endocrine disruption of it, but this one is especially just, it's always emblazed in my mind. So the study out of Mount Sinai was done by Dr. Shana Swan. And she looks at environmental contaminants impact on fertility and the endocrine system. And so she did a study where she looked at the levels of glyphosate and second trimester women in their urine and assessed that and then measured the distance between the vagina and the anus in the baby girls that were born to those months. And what was found is that the higher the glyphosate level in the second trimester urine, the wider the distance between the vagina and the anus and that's called the AGD. That means an androgenization of our baby girls. That is a masculinization of our baby girls when they are exposed in utero to glyphosate. That's a kind of thing that should stop everyone in their tracks because it is so outrageous to think that once again going back to nature, this is physically changing nature so that we can't reproduce anymore. That's what's happening. You know, with these penis malformations with the changing female genitalia, it is nature saying this is too toxic of a world to bring kids into and therefore we're not going to lie you to reproduce. And it's the same with this fertility crisis. It's too toxic. It's just too toxic around between that and the PCN and you know, they lead to the forever chemicals, all these different things that we're exposed to. So those are just a few of the studies that are particularly concerning. Wow, yeah. Yeah, she was on on Rogan as well. For some reason, that's just my barometer of like making it into the mainstream that, you know, Shanna's been on there talking about this stuff, which is good. Yeah, I'm so glad with her with her measurement device that opens eyes. Yeah. Well, yeah, do you have any other facts and figures or things we can throw out there? Well, let's see. Other than it being the most used, and of course, like our GMO system, I think it's 90% of the corn is GMO and something close to that is GMO with the soy as well. A concerning factor around that is that with a lot of these regenerative farmers who are wanting to step away from glycosate and chemicals that are looking to that are looking to use seeds that are not GMO. They actually can't source the seeds because the seed a lot of the seed companies were bought up by Monsanto a long ago and the seeds are either owned by Monsanto or they're already pre-dipped in Neonic pesticides, which is an insecticide. So and by the way, that Neonic is at the basis of the collapse of pollinators. Like a lot of pesticides are, but that's really the worst. And so when you think about all these seeds being dipped in it and then planted and what the impact is of that, and then you have these regenerative farmers are being great. I'm going to decrease my exposure to glycosate or what have you and they're still having to take those GMO seeds. That's an enormous problem that the country is going to have to figure out in terms of increasing the native seed supply that's non-GMO. That's an enormous hurdle that I think is coming down the line. But in terms of actual facts and figures, other than it being the most used and probably about, oh, I don't know, 50 different health conditions that are connected to it. You can check out your website and blog and Instagram and stuff as well. Here's a question too. So a lot of people, they go to Europe and they are like, "Hey, I ate the bread there and I felt fine." This is a big narrative and I think it's true. And so I want to know your take on why that is. Are they using less glyphosate, less GMO, different heritage breed of the wheat, all that stuff? So I was really convinced that it was the glycosate issue and that was making it so that people can eat the bread there versus here because they don't allow pre-harvest desiccation in the same way with glycosate. And so that already decreases the exposure. So 90% of dietary exposure is thought to be from pre-harvest desiccation. So if you don't do that in Europe, then that is that is going to decrease your exposure considerably. And now I, for one, can't eat the bread in Europe. But a lot of people can. Actually, my husband is also gluten intolerant and we were at recently in Europe and he was proudly like, "Fosty, it could, but that he couldn't because he had to pay the price later." But so the people that are really able to do that, I think it comes more down to the long fermentation in the in the process of actually creating the bread. It's not as speedy of a process as what we have in the United States that doesn't allow for some of the gluten to break down to be more palatable, tolerated. And in Europe, that's just not the way that they create the bread. But on the other hand, also, if you have less glyphosate in the system, which they do, they use it. They still use glyphosate, by the way, in all the countries. It's not banned anywhere. They use it in farming. And if your exposure is still going to be less than your diet, chances are that your microbiome is going to stay more intact. And therefore, you're going to be able to tolerate something to different breads in a much better way. Because gluten in and of itself is actually inflammatory. And so you have to have, no matter who you are, whether you're gluten intolerant or not, you have to have a pretty stable microbiome to be able to even tolerate it. So I think that that's partially what's going on. But you know, I think it's very interesting that some of the very best gluten-free foods actually come out of Italy and France. And I'm like, well, clearly they're having the problem there, because they're having to develop all these alternatives. Yeah. Well, I think it's it's very multifactorial. And I know it's it's a hotly debated. Like everyone has their own take on it. Some people will say, oh, well, yeah, you're on vacation and you're walking a lot. And you can, you know, you lose people like, oh, I eat the bread and I lost weight. So yeah, there's all these different factors. But I, yeah, I think the fact that they're not spraying it at the end is a big. Yeah. There's just so many factors that I don't know if we'll ever know exactly, right? There's a lot of this health stuff you never really know because there's so many factors. You can't do a double blind placebo control trial on that. No, you really have to be hyper focused on it. The study that I want to see done and no one's done is exactly like this glyphosate study, whether or not it's the gluten or if it's the glyphosate, I've never seen someone actually do that study. And I asked a scientist if he'd be willing to do it if I could find funding for him. And he said he couldn't because he worked at Harvard. And they wouldn't ever allow him to do that kind of study. But imagine that study that was like, okay, this bread that's with gluten is sprayed, you know, with glyphosate this this wheat was sprayed. This was not people don't know. So you can't really react. And how amazing would be to have that information? It would be. But this also makes a case for just eating real food and doing things properly and like sourdough. So some people in the US they say, yeah, I get sourdough from the farmer's market. They're doing it right. They're doing that long fermentation. They're using probably I think so that the non GMO non glyphosate stuff in general. Yeah. Yeah. So, but I will say that one time I did go to Copenhagen and I went to the Joe and the juice there. And by the way, Joe and the juice is from Copenhagen. And so it was like one of the originals. And I went there and I was like, oh, I I want that gluten free muffin. And so they're like, here you go. And or I said, what's gluten free? So this muffin. So I took it, ate it. It was the best muffin I've ever had in my life. At the next day went back to get the gluten free muffin. And they're like, oh, we don't have anything gluten free. And I was like, what? So there you go. There was the study. I didn't know. And I was fine. That is super interesting. I think there's something to it. I've been talking about this with people lately that your your the placebo effect is real. We know about the placebo effect. And I think, yeah, that that there's a lot of people in the health world that are I think orthorexic. People who are going crazy. So I I'm not saying, yeah, just go eat bread and and whatever and bad foods and just pretend they're good. But I think there is something to it of your perception. And if I eat off off brand, I'll call it non-safety. If I'm a little off brand sometimes at a event someone's birthday, whatever, I don't freak out about it. Actually, I just am very positive. I'm not like obsessed of like, oh my god, what if this is, you know, sprayed with something? And I feel great. I just don't do it that often. That's where I am to you. I'd say like I'm 70% in line. Like when I eat at home, I'm super clean. Yeah. Or I'm eat out. Because otherwise, you know, your social life really is bad. If you can't go to those parties and just eat. That's what I think. And that's what you also you could do both too. Also want to encourage people to keep with their plan too. Because you could go to parties and then just choose other things to eat, right? When I was in my sickest, I certainly was not eating anything but the cleanest things. Like if you're in a healing mode or whenever your thing is like, he, I mean, who cares what they think, right? Absolutely. And there's usually things, yeah, you can eat. There's go for the meat. I'm, you know, I'm a meat-based person, as people know, everyone knows listening. Well, this is awesome. So we're wrapping up here. What are their closing thoughts to you? Or just some things to think about when you come into your house, take off your shoes, don't track it in. And then you can keep yourself relatively safe. I like it. Well, thanks, Kelly. This was great. And tell them your website again. Oh, yeah. So go to, if you want some more details and specifics, go to glyphosatefacts.com, F-A-C-T-S facts. And then you can find me as glyphosate girl on Instagram and I post various things about glyphosate and other food issues there. And send me an email if you have any specific questions. Awesome. Well, I'll hope to see you soon. Maybe back at the retreat. Sounds good. - Yeah, it's obviously Ranch, and yeah, take care.