by Hugh Locke
More than 100 million acres of U.S. farmland using GMO no-till systems are already labeled regenerative, forcing a closer examination of how definitions, herbicide use, and system design shape the future of truly regenerative farming.
Caroline Grindrod, in her analysis “The Glyphosate Problem in Regenerative Agriculture,” argues that the real issue is not whether GMOs or glyphosate are acceptable, but that “the need for glyphosate reveals a failure to redesign agricultural systems at a fundamental level.” This perspective opens space for a more productive conversation about systemic transformation.
The Scale Problem
In the United States, there is significantly more farmland labeled as regenerative that incorporates GMOs than farmland excluding them. Organic acreage, all non-GMO by definition, totals approximately 5 to 8 million acres. Meanwhile, GMO-based no-till systems that corporations market as regenerative agriculture encompass 93 to 100 million acres in corn and soybeans alone. The ratio is twelve-to-one to twenty-to-one favoring GMO-inclusive systems claiming the regenerative label.
Herbicide-tolerant GMO seeds enable no-till farming, which reduces erosion, sequesters carbon, and cuts fuel use. These farms have made real changes with measurable environmental improvements.
The Glyphosate Question
Grindrod’s analysis emphasizes that the GMO debate may obscure a deeper question. Can any herbicide-dependent system legitimately claim to be regenerating agricultural ecosystems?
She examines the shikimate pathway, the metabolic process glyphosate disrupts. This pathway exists not just in plants but in bacteria, fungi, and microorganisms comprising soil biology. “You cannot claim to be regenerating soil biology while applying a chemical that disrupts the metabolic pathways of soil microorganisms.”
Studies indicate that glyphosate can reduce earthworm reproduction by 56% and increase soil nitrate concentrations by 1,592%. Soil ecosystems evolved resilience to floods and drought, but “what they have never encountered is a synthetic molecule blocking a fundamental metabolic pathway across bacteria, fungi, and plants.”
These concerns gained urgency with January 2026’s retraction of a landmark 2000 glyphosate safety study after emails revealed undisclosed Monsanto involvement. This comes as the WHO classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” and Bayer paid over $10 billion settling approximately 100,000 Roundup claims.
What Glyphosate Has Let Us Avoid
Grindrod contends, “Glyphosate hasn’t just allowed farmers to control weeds without tillage. It has allowed our entire agricultural system to avoid confronting fundamental questions about how and what we grow.”
Without herbicides, annual monocultures would have required alternative strategies, such as longer rotations, livestock integration, or perennial cropping systems. Herbicide-tolerant GMO seeds enabled continuation of existing industrial models rather than systemic innovation.
Moving Beyond Practice Debates
The discussion shifts from “which practices are acceptable?” to “what conditions enable genuine system transformation?” Rather than debating whether GMO no-till or glyphosate use is acceptable, the focus becomes how agricultural systems can maintain or build soil biology, diversify crops, and enhance ecosystem resilience. Organic farmers have produced food without synthetic herbicides for over 70 years. The solution lies in developing “the capacity to ask whole-system questions, and training enough farmers to find answers that work for their unique places, soils, climates, and communities.”
The Path Forward
Definitions matter because they create markets, shape policies, and determine which farmers receive support. Currently, major corporations are defining regenerative agriculture in ways that accommodate existing business models, while many practitioners focus on soil health and system regeneration. Engaging the complexity of these definitional and systemic questions is critical to advancing truly regenerative agriculture. Absolute positions may obscure deeper systems issues; frameworks that acknowledge incremental progress while maintaining a clear trajectory toward ecological regeneration may provide the most constructive path.
GMOs are not central to the principles of regenerative agriculture, but dismissing the 100 million acres already operating under GMO-based regenerative labels risks overlooking the scale and implications of these systems. Addressing this complexity is essential for both policy and practice.
Advertisements
