Well, now you've opened a can of worms. Farmers should not be able to do just whatever they want with regard to glyphosate. Consuming it can cause gut permeability all by its self with no other factors involved--with mammoth cascading health problems. Anything GMO to provide "self pesticide" affects the gut biome negatively. Sorry Monsanto. So yeah, lots of informed people are saying no to the influence of the SAD, sad American diet. It's about the only one that will kill you worldwide. I too know people who have lived elsewhere and gotten off all their meds.
Farming is also not free from corruption, like any other industry. Met a large farmer from Iowa on vacation in Puerto Rico. Mentioned to him a fellow I knew of who leased salt marsh in south Texas at 2 cents and acre--so he could "plant" wheat on it, and then not harvest it. The subsidy that year paid you to plant but not harvest. So he raked in 600K from the gooberment. The farmer just laughed and said "yeah, that's what we call farming the insurance." Sad. But he then doubled down, saying "Lots of folks get their lawyers to put things in all their kids names, so they get about half a million each from time to time,"
A couple of points of clarification on the 'US food is dreadful' discussion. TL;DR, it kind of is.
GMO is just as legal in Europe as it is in the US. What is different is consumer attitudes, especially historical consumer attitudes.
The EU consumer has always been deeply suspicious of GMO, so products labelled with 'contains GMO' historically did poorly. Hence those products, whilst available, are not common in that market. Why use an ingredient that whilst marginally cheaper and offering some benefits, loses you competitive advantage?
The US consumer, historically at least, does not care. The same label of 'contains GMO' does not influence purchase intent nearly as much, so why NOT use the cheaper ingredient? Especially as US labeling regs are a lot more lax on requiring that label in the first place...
As a result, GMO got prevalent enough that there are classes of foodstuffs in the US where it is virtually impossible to source non-GMO options at scale, even if businesses wanted to. Corn derived anything, for instance. Plus consumers still don't really care to nearly the same degree.
I have differing opinions to you on if GMO is 'universally bad' or 'universally unhealthy' and to be honest, based on the data I have seen in my career I have no objection to it, but that is the background as to why the US uses them a lot more.
As for why the US diet is so disappointing?
There are many other instances where the US agricultural and food lobby has succeeded, where in Europe they failed. Propylene glycol in flavors for instance. In both the EU and the US this is a recognized carcinogen. Both apply limits on use rate. In Europe, the limit is 0.1% or 1000ppm. In the US, it is 5%, or 50,000ppm. Cheap 'n' tasty US foods as a result, but at a cost of increased cancer risk.
Same for FD&C colors. Recognized carcinogens, banned in Europe in the 90's. Still in use in the US, although it looks like a 2025 ban is coming. Almost universally still in use, especially in foods marketed to children. Gives US products that vibrant 'pop' of color very cheaply, but is it worth it?
Or there's the use of artifical flavors. US regulations are incredibly lax on this topic compared to the EU, or even Canada. You don't even have to label them as such in many instances.
Then there's the taste preference part of the equation. The US (and Canadian) consumer LOVES 'sweet' in a way that no other consumer I've developed products for does. Every single thing I move into this continent (or anything I develop for this market), we do the consumer testing and it's always the same comment; 'It's not sweet enough'. It doesn't matter how much sugar I put in my formulations, I have never, ever seen a 'just about right' attribute for sweetness score 'too much', or even 'about right'. There is no such thing as 'too sweet' for the US consumer.
Historically, that meant a diet absolutely loaded with sugar, which meant obesity. That lead into a diet loaded with high fructose corn syrup, as that's just as sweet, but even cheaper. That lead to even more obesity, and diabetes, and colon cancer.
These days it means a huge reliance on stevia, or sucralose, or Ace K, or monkfruit, or erythritol, or whichever high intensity sweetener is in vogue. The jury is out on if that's an 'improvement' and I haven't seen enough data either way to have a firm opinion. But US consumers once again aren't that educated on the topic. The level of knowledge is growing, but the US lags Europe by about 10-20 years.
I think that this sugar preference is a trained response lead by the historical food industry in the US. Foods loaded with sugar have better shelf life, which makes distribution easier and reduces losses. Plus, it makes bland food taste good on the cheap.
But it also means that standard food items such as US bread, are as sweet as most European doughnuts. In fact, under EU regs, US white bread would be classified as 'cake'. Of course, standard supermarket bread in Europe goes moldy in about 3-5 days. In the US, it lasts 2+ weeks...