Weedkiller in Our Food: Why Demand is Rising and Methods for Current Testing

Glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—is one of the most widely-used herbicides in the world. In the U.S., it’s estimated that nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate are applied to farmlands each year, which can leach into our food and water systems—and by extension, our bodies. Mounting litigation and growing consumer concern around its health risks have led food companies and manufacturers to increase testing in their supply chain—primarily in the U.S., but increasingly worldwide.

In December, a scientific journal retracted a decades-old study that had been widely cited to support claims that glyphosate was safe. The journal cited “serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors.” This decision has only intensified concerns around this popular weedkiller and increased demand for testing in supply chains.

In this article, we look at the rise of glyphosate testing and the scientific methods currently being used, and those on the horizon.

Why Food Companies are Testing for Glyphosate

Reputation and risk: A quick Internet search will reveal numerous articles surrounding  glyphosate litigation and the thousands of lawsuits linking long-term exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides to cancer—most notably, non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Several high-profile verdicts and multibillion-dollar settlements have made glyphosate one of the most closely watched and significant mass tort cases in recent history. The widespread public attention of these cases has generated greater public awareness and consumer advocacy. The emergence of organizations like The Detox Project, which certifies food and beverage products as glyphosate-free, reflects the increasing demand for greater transparency and accountability.

PR scandals have also played a role. In one recent high-profile controversy, a report showed Banza chickpea pasta to have high glyphosate levels (approximately 280–300 parts per million (ppm)). Banza disputed those findings and followed with sharing internal and independent lab tests showing lower residues of approximately 0.1 ppm. Banza has since earned The Detox Project’s CleanScan certification, meaning its finished products were tested by an accredited lab and showed non-detectable glyphosate down to less than 0.01 ppm.

Tighter oversight: Tighter oversight is emerging as advocacy groups and retailers push for greater transparency and independent testing. Consumer watchdog organizations have amplified calls for clearer disclosure, while major retailers are beginning to expect suppliers to verify that products meet defined safety or residue standards. As a result, routine testing and third-party certifications are becoming more common, signaling a shift toward stricter accountability and increased scrutiny across the food supply chain.

Tolerance and Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs): Glyphosate regulations are governed by tolerance thresholds, or Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs), which define the legally allowable residue on food and feed products and can trigger enforcement if exceeded. These limits vary widely based on geography, crop, and end use, creating compliance challenges for producers operating across markets where a product may be compliant in one jurisdiction but not another. In the U.S., for example, the EPA sets glyphosate tolerances ranging from 0.1 to 400 ppm, including 30 ppm for oats, 20 ppm for soybeans, 5 ppm for corn, and up to 400 ppm for certain animal feeds such as alfalfa hay, illustrating the broad dispersion in allowable levels depending on commodity and application.

The result? More testing, in more places, more often—not just for compliance, but for credibility and competitive advantage.

Current Ways to Test

1. Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS): A highly sensitive and specific analytical tool that requires a lab to perform a three-phase test. Before testing can begin, food samples must be processed to remove other natural components that may interfere with the analysis. In the liquid chromatography phase, molecules are separated based on their interactions (e.g., polarity) with the column. Next, a mass spectrometer measures the molecules and how they break apart, providing a recognizable pattern that can identify the substance and how much of it is present.

• Pros: Gold-standard precision, high sensitivity, and widespread regulatory acceptance.

• Cons: Expensive, slow (samples are sent to a lab with turnaround times ranging from days to weeks), and impractical for on-site detection and high frequency.

2. Immunoassays (ELISA, lateral flow): There are many different types of immunoassays, including ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) tests. All of them are based on an antibody binding to an antigen and triggering a response—usually a color change.

• Pros: Fast, affordable, suitable for on-site detection.

• Cons: Generally lower sensitivity and selectivity relative to in-lab methods, culturing and harvesting specific antibodies can be expensive, and results can vary across sample types—antibodies are sensitive to harsh conditions like high temperatures or extreme pH levels and have short shelf lives.

3. Electrochemical sensors (what Amulet uses): Sensor system that measures the electrical signal generated when a target contaminant interacts with the sensor’s surface. As the substance reaches the sensor’s surface, a chemical reaction occurs, generating an electrical current. The size of this current is proportional to the contaminant’s concentration, allowing the sensor to quantify how much of the substance is present.

• Pros: Portable, quick, accurate, and capable of providing immediate results in the field.

• Cons: Still an emerging technology for some applications, and in certain cases, closely related chemicals can produce interfering signals, limiting selectivity.

Why On-Site Testing Is Gaining Ground

• Speed: On-the-spot answers instead of waiting days or weeks for lab results.

• Coverage: Enables frequent checks throughout the supply chain.

• Compliance: Helps meet growing retailer and buyer requirements.

• Efficiency: Screen internally and confirm what’s necessary.

Future of Testing

Lab-based testing remains the status quo, but faster, routine screening is enabling speedier operational decisions and is quickly becoming an emerging frontrunner in the food safety field.

More testing provides more data, which can help support regulatory decisions, inform pesticide and herbicide use guidelines, and better understand the potential health impacts of these contaminants in our environment over time.

As testing becomes faster and more routine, the industry can shift from reactive compliance to proactive safety and prevention. Widespread, accurate glyphosate monitoring promises greater transparency, stronger supply chains, and food that consumers can trust.