Kelly Ryerson, an outspoken advocate known to many as “Glyphosate Girl,” has become a prominent voice in the public conversation about glyphosate, conventional farming, and the future of U.S. agriculture. Her recent remarks on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) newly launched regenerative pilot program underscore not only support for alternative approaches to farming, but also deep-seated concerns about the longstanding use of synthetic pesticides and the industry pressures around protection and accountability.
Ryerson’s perspective is rooted in her personal journey and decades of advocacy work focused on glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, and the broader implications of chemical-based agriculture for public health, ecosystems, and farming communities. Michael Brescia explains that this comes at a time when federal policy, litigation, and conservation priorities are converging in ways that could reshape how U.S. agriculture evolves in the decades ahead.
From Personal Health to Public Advocacy
Ryerson’s advocacy began with personal experiences around health and diet that led her to explore farming and pesticide issues more broadly. She founded the Glyphosate Facts website and serves as co-executive director of American Regeneration, a nonprofit initiative promoting regenerative agriculture practices. Ryerson’s work often centers on raising public awareness about the prevalence of glyphosate in food, soil, and the environment, and pushing for policy changes that reflect what she argues are gaps in current regulatory assessments.
In comments to media, Ryerson applauded the USDA’s December 2025 announcement of a $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program, which she sees as a meaningful step toward reducing dependence on chemical inputs like glyphosate and fertilizers in commercial agriculture. The pilot, spearheaded by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), aims to support farmers transitioning toward soil-health-focused practices such as cover cropping, reduced tillage, diversified crop rotations, and enhanced grazing systems. The initiative is part of USDA’s broader effort to simplify conservation assistance and incentivize whole-farm regenerative outcomes.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins and other administration officials have framed the pilot as a “farmer-first, outcomes-based” program that removes bureaucratic hurdles and provides financial support to producers adopting regenerative methods that improve soil, water quality, and long-term productivity. The program is also connected to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda, which includes collaborations with the Department of Health and Human Services on research linking regenerative practices to nutrient density in food and chronic disease concerns.
Ryerson, for her part, welcomed the pilot as a tangible policy mechanism that could begin shifting agriculture away from its longstanding reliance on chemical inputs.
A “Pesticide Treadmill” and the Case Against Dependence
Ryerson’s critique is shaped by what she describes as a “pesticide treadmill”: a term used by critics of conventional pest-control strategies to characterize a cycle in which farmers must increasingly rely on stronger or more frequent applications of synthetic chemicals to maintain yields and manage resistant weeds and pests. She has said that simply banning glyphosate could inadvertently push farmers toward “more toxic replacement chemicals,” a concern rooted in both historical and contemporary agricultural practice.
The concept of a pesticide treadmill is not new. Historically, pesticides like DDT were introduced into agriculture after World War II, only later to be banned due to environmental and health risks. Glyphosate was identified as a highly effective herbicide in the early 1970s and became a cornerstone of modern weed management, especially after the introduction of glyphosate-resistant crops. These Roundup Ready seeds, developed by Monsanto and now under Bayer ownership, allowed farmers to spray glyphosate directly over crops to kill weeds without harming the plants themselves.
Today, glyphosate is applied to hundreds of millions of acres of U.S. farmland annually, 280 million pounds across 285 million acres, according to data referenced by sustainability advocates. Ryerson and others cite these figures when arguing that glyphosate’s ubiquity merits a reevaluation of its role in agriculture and its potential health and environmental impacts.
Proponents of regenerative agriculture argue that by building soil health, diversifying crop rotations, and reducing reliance on synthetic inputs, farming systems can become more resilient, less costly over time, and potentially less dependent on herbicides and fungicides. These methods mimic ecological processes, such as nutrient cycling and biological pest control, that more closely align with natural systems than conventional chemical-centric models.
Industry Pushback and Legal Battles Over Pesticide Liability
Contrasting sharply with Ryerson’s views are arguments from pesticide manufacturers and their allies that glyphosate and similar products remain essential tools for modern agriculture. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, maintains that glyphosate-based herbicides are safe when used as directed and play a critical role in crop protection and global food production.
The company points to extensive regulatory reviews by agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic at current use levels. Regulatory bodies in multiple countries have similarly reaffirmed glyphosate’s safety profile based on available data.
However, the legal landscape tells a more complex story. Bayer has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits in the United States alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicides caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers. The company has spent billions settling cases and is pursuing further legal strategies, including appealing key issues to the U.S. Supreme Court and supporting legislative efforts to limit state-level liability for products approved at the federal level. Critics view these moves as attempts to shield pesticide manufacturers from accountability, a point underscored by recent congressional debates over riders that would have restricted lawsuits and regulatory actions inconsistent with existing EPA assessments. Those provisions were ultimately removed from the 2026 appropriations bill after advocacy by organized public health and environmental groups.
These deep tensions between regulators, industry, activists, and farmers create a charged context for the USDA’s regenerative pilot, inviting questions about how federal agricultural policy can support environmental resilience without alienating producers who depend on conventional crop protection tools.
Regenerative Agriculture as a Policy Response
USDA’s Regenerative Pilot Program represents an effort to provide a structured financial and technical pathway for farmers to explore practices that may reduce reliance on chemical inputs over time. By offering direct payments, cost-sharing, and technical support for practices like cover cropping and soil biology-focused methods, the program aims to help producers manage the transition and mitigate economic risks during the shift from conventional to regenerative systems.
Supporters of the pilot, including Ryerson and allied advocates from the Make America Healthy Again Commission, see this investment as a recognition of the broader health and ecological costs associated with traditional pesticide-intensive farming. They link soil health improvements to better nutrient density in food, enhanced ecosystem services, and fewer inputs that may pose environmental or public health concerns.
Yet critics raise questions about the scale and implementation of such programs. Regenerative practices are knowledge-intensive and context-dependent, requiring careful design and monitoring. Without clear metrics and robust long-term data on economic outcomes and yield stability, some farmers may remain cautious about widespread adoption. Furthermore, the term “regenerative” currently lacks universally accepted definitions or certification standards, opening the door to inconsistent claims and consumer confusion around products marketed as regenerative.
Broader Implications and Future Directions
The debate over glyphosate, pesticides, and agricultural futures reflects deeper tensions in U.S. food and farming policy. Conventional crop protection tools have enabled large-scale production and helped maintain low consumer food prices. On the other hand, ongoing litigation, environmental concerns, and public health activism illustrate lingering doubts and contested interpretations of the scientific record.
Programs like USDA’s regenerative pilot sit at a crossroads, attempting to balance economic viability for farmers with ecological stewardship and public health objectives. As Ryerson and other advocates emphasize, long-term resilience may depend on empowering producers with alternatives to chemical reliance, fostering soil health, and reducing broader environmental impacts.
The unfolding policy landscape in 2026, advances in regenerative agriculture, litigation outcomes, and potential regulatory changes, is likely to shape how agriculture evolves in the United States. Whether these developments yield substantive reductions in pesticide use, stronger soil and ecosystem health, or enduring shifts in production practices remains uncertain, but the conversation is undeniably expanding.