Brought to you by:
With Bayer CropScience shelling out more than $10 billion so far to settle claims that Roundup and glyphosate cause cancer, there is concern about the long-term availability of glyphosate as a tool in production agriculture, including no-tillers and strip-tillers who use the approved chemistry to kill weeds and reduce or eliminate the need for tillage.
In this episode of the No-Till Farmer podcast, brought to you by Yetter Farm Equipment, Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance (founded by Bayer), details the organization’s work to protect the availability of crop protection tools such as glyphosate.
She also highlights state and federal legislation that has been introduced that could limit or end the litany of legal claims, and she predicts what effects a ban on glyphosate would have on farmers and conservation efforts.
Related Content
- [Podcast] The Big Picture of Glyphosate Resistance in The U.S. and The United Kingdom
- How Would You Keep No-Tilling if Glyphosate was Banned?
- New Ag Chemical Label Illuminates EPA ‘Mission Creep’ Beyond Environment
No-Till Farmer's podcast series is brought to you by Yetter Farm Equipment.
Yetter Farm Equipment has been providing farmers with residue management, fertilizer placement, and seedbed preparation solutions since 1930. Today, Yetter equipment is your answer for success in the face of ever-changing production agriculture challenges. Yetter offers a full lineup of planter attachments designed to perform in varying planting conditions, multiple options for precision fertilizer placement, strip-till units, and stalk rollers for your combine. Yetter products maximize your inputs, save you time, and deliver return on your investment. Visit them at yetterco.com.
Full Transcript
John Dobberstein:
Well, hello, everyone and welcome to the No-Till Farmer Podcast, brought to you by Yetter Farm Equipment. I'm John Dobberstein, Senior Editor at No-Till Farmer and the host of this podcast. Well, in this episode we're discussing an issue that is central to the heart of farm production in the US, including all of you who are engaged in no-till, strip-till practices and cover crop management and doing what's right for soil conservation. Joining us today is Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, who serves as the Executive Director of the Modern Ag Alliance, where she leads the Alliance's efforts to advocate for US farmers continued access to essential crop protection tools. Elizabeth has extensive ag policy and political experience across the Midwest. Throughout her professional career, she specialized in helping farmers and rural agricultural businesses, sustain their voice in the political process. I had like to welcome you to the show, Elizabeth, and before we get into the in-depth questions, why don't you have you explain the genesis of the Modern Ag Alliance and who founded it and how the Alliance plans to achieve their goals. What does success look like?
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
Sure. I appreciate you having me on today, John. It's always good to get in front of more farmers and appreciate that very kind introduction. I know you've got quite a big reach, so I'll give a nod to my family that farms still in the Eastern part of the state of Iowa and many of the farmers I've worked with throughout the Midwest over my career and thrilled to have been able to join Modern Ag here at the first part of this year. At its core, Modern Ag was founded a little over a year ago. We are today, I think as of this week we've surpassed the hundred mark, so we have well over a hundred different groups from, I used to say coast to coast, but we also have some colleagues that have joined onto the effort there in Hawaii as well.
So really all across the United States, these organizations that have come together recognizing that there is truly a threat on a growing threat to those chemistries that farmers depend upon moving forward. And so I work on a day-to-day basis with many of the commodity associations, state farm bureaus, agribusiness associations and things like that in different states across the US that are part of our membership or our partners proactively on policy initiatives to help provide some of that consistency and clarity that so many of us in the crop protection space have been looking for for years.
John Dobberstein:
Obviously glyphosate is in Roundup as the chemistry that Bayer is trying to say that is generating a major amount of litigation to put it mildly. Do you have a feel for what Bayer is looking at in terms of glyphosate? I read in the E-newsletter recently that they might break it out into another business unit. You're certainly concerned about the financial implications of the litigation. From a company point of view, what do you see them trying to explore or accomplish to keep this chemistry going forward?
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
And it's a very good question, John, and I want to caveat to all your listeners. Bayer is one of our partners, one of our, again, many, many partners across the footprint, but I work for all of our organizations. So I think what agriculture is seeing is that the litigation that you just described there that has transpired with Roundup and specifically around glyphosate as the active ingredient, they are very concerned that that becomes a bellwether of what could potentially to come of other chemistries. So what we risk potentially losing if this litigation continues to move forward with the muster that it has in the recent years, and also then what that could mean to other tools or chemistries that farmers have in the toolbox today. And does that effectively screech to a halt all of the R&D that industry is developing right now? We have very few tools in the toolbox for lack of reiterating that reference.
In fact, I was talking with one of our bill sponsors in his state here just a few days ago. He happens to farm himself and he's in his mid-40s or so, and he said, "Elizabeth, in my farming career, I have only seen two new chemistries, two new tools to be able to put in the toolbox." How many iterations of iPhones have we had in the last how many years, right? In the last 40 years we had no iPhones to... I don't even know what number we are on now. Every industry has been able to develop and grow and bring new tools forward. We need to have an environment where that exists in chemistries as well.
John Dobberstein:
So are you basically describing a chilling effect here that the litigious environment is creating a chilling effect in the R&D sector?
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
I think it certainly is a fair way to look at it, that if there are not proactive changes and clarity adopted and not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but that is the goal of this legislation that we are working on. Not to debate, but we do believe that as we're working towards those solutions that that helps lessen that risk, not just for, like you said, glyphosate, Roundup, which is so widely utilized, but also creates a better environment for companies that are bringing new technologies forward. So absolutely, yes.
John Dobberstein:
Right. Many studies that show crop protection products are safe, glyphosate included, given that it's an approved product, how is this litigation continuing and what claims are these plaintiffs hanging their hats on where this issue is allowed to continue?
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
It was interesting to me, just in full disclosure, I am an attorney, so got my law degree there at Drake in Central Iowa. They have a great ag law program for any young aspiring lawyers that are out there. I highly recommend that program in my alma mater. But what has been interesting to find in this space is when you break it down of what is the responsibility of manufacturers, it really falls into three major buckets. Manufacturers of any type of product have a duty and a responsibility to design a safe and effective product, right? Think of that as one leg of the stool. They also have a duty or responsibility to manufacture that product according to those design standards. And the third leg of the stool being you have a responsibility as a manufacturer to warn of inherent dangers. The lawsuits that we have seen to date, a predominant amount of those sit in that third bucket or that third leg of the stool regarding the label.
And to put an even higher level point on it, the litigation industry has said, "We are going to continue to sue manufacturers on the label saying that we want these additional disclosures, be it cancer warnings or additional warnings like that." On the flip side or what I sometimes call rock in a hard place, so you have rock litigation industry with this continued threat of lawsuits, hard place being, you've got a regulatory entity with the EPA that has very clearly said, "We will not allow registrations of specifically glyphosate if it has cancer warning labels on it. That is something that has no scientific justification and we just won't do it."
So put yourself in the shoes of a manufacturer, agriculture as a whole, right, over here you say, "If we don't put labels on, we are basically saying we're going to allow litigation to continue to barrage, or we do what these trial lawyers would like to see and add a label and then the EPA says we can't have a registered product." It's truly an untenable pathway forward. But for being able to provide that clarity and that at the end of the day is exactly what these bills are looking to provide.
John Dobberstein:
Right. And we've seen recently in Georgia there is a very large verdict against Bayer and then you look at, I believe it was Australia, where they decided recently they were not going to allow this type of litigation against this product go forward anymore. So I'm sure it's very confusing for the farmers to know what to do or prepare for in addition to the manufacturers trying to figure out the environment.
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
Yes, and we're talking again to the heart of your question is how is this happening? It is really the label. There is a dispute about today about what satisfies an appropriate label. And until we have a sufficient definition of that, which again, hat tip, wink, wink, that's what these bills do is provide that definition of how does a manufacturer satisfy their state requirement on a warning? It spells it out, it doesn't do away with that requirement. And I think that may be something we can talk about in greater detail down the road too. In this conversation it basically says, "This is your responsibility and here's how you meet it." We think that that is what should help hamper some of the litigation that we've seen today in this space.
John Dobberstein:
Recently there was a meeting with a handful of farmers and Robert Kennedy at the White House and they had some discussions about crop protection and I think glyphosate was part of that in Roundup Ready technology. What are you hearing at Capitol Hill right now about this issue and do you really anticipate any legal bans against crop protection products based on what you're seeing right now, how hopeful or not hopeful is the environment?
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
Well, in full disclosure, I'm an optimist, right? So I do think that science prevails at the end of the day and we continue to fight to have tools and keep the tools that we have today and grow that space moving forward. But specifically to your question, I think the Trump administration and RFK sits within the Trump administration. If we look to the Trump 1.0 administration, they were actually in charge when we saw some of this unfold with California and their Prop 66 endeavors with the IARC WHO study that came out around glyphosate way back when, and they are the ones that drew the line in the sand and said, "We are not going to allow this flawed junk science, I think was their terms, from California or overseas to circumvent what is a very firm regulatory process here in the United States." So I think Trump has regularly said he stands for farmers, he recognizes the importance of American made products across the board, and that's what we're working towards, right?
We want to make sure that we're still manufacturing the inputs into agriculture in this country so that our farmers in this country can continue to be profitable and productive. So we're optimistic that that will continue to reign under a Trump 2.0 administration. We've seen conversations continue to take place within the EPA, that at the end of the day is the agency that is tasked with oversight and the approval of these labels. So additionally, I think it was in the last week or two, time gets away from me, but we saw about 18 different state attorney generals. So think of those are the leading lawyers in each of these states come forward and petition the EPA for clarity on this topic, specifically on uniformity in ag labels on pesticide products. So I do think that we'll continue to have conversations about it. I do think that we'll probably see some activity out of the EPA, but I think the groundswell is in our favor that we're going to get the clarity that agriculture needs and deserves.
John Dobberstein:
So about legislation specifically, there've been some measures that have been introduced in several states about the litigation issue. I'm sure there's some discussion about it at the federal level. Can you tell me what the legislative efforts look like right now and what you think their chances are of passing, if you dare to predict the future?
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
If I could look into the crystal ball, yes, well, like I mentioned before, I'm an optimist and I've spent quite a bit of time on the road here over the last three months or so that we've been working on this. Been in a lot of different states across the countryside and having a lot of good conversations. This bill was teed up so far as of us recording this today has been teed up in 11 different states. We have passed it fully in one, so in Georgia already we've got one, it's awaiting the signature from the governor. I'm coming to you live today from North Dakota where we just had a hearing this morning. North Dakota was one of the first to pass it this year. It moved 88 to 0 on the floor of the house, which is fantastic. We've seen bipartisan support in a variety of jurisdictions, but North Dakota certainly a hat tip to our folks there that really recognize the importance and value of this.
So we're looking forward to having that conversation on the floor of the Senate here very shortly. My home state of Iowa just recently passed it through the Senate just yesterday afternoon. We have similar bill that's moved through the house in Missouri. Legislation continues to be talked about and has been introduced in Florida, Oklahoma, and I shouldn't have started lists because I'm sure I'm going to miss one or two in there that we're continuing to work on, but it's not just in one region, unfortunately, not just in one time zone because that would make my life too easy too. But we've got really a lot of different efforts that are moving and I think recognition on both sides of the aisle that this is important.
We did some polling work along that as well recently to gauge not only what the general public sees on this, but in terms of the risks, so what the threats are to Joe, public consumer, if farmers were truly to lose some of these particular tools. And everyday consumers are recognizing this, not only the fact that this has the potential to impact their bottom line, their grocery bills at the end of the day, but they also support legislators that are taking action and helping provide this clarity like we've been talking about throughout this session.
John Dobberstein:
We'll come back to the episode in a moment, but first I'd like to thank our podcast sponsor Yetter Farm Equipment. Yetter Farm Equipment has been providing farmers with solutions since 1930. Today, Yetter is your answer for the tools and equipment you need to face today's production agriculture demands. The Yetter lineup includes a wide range of planter attachments for different planting conditions, several equipment options for fertilizer placement, and products that meet harvest time challenges. Yetter delivers a return on investment and equipment that meets your needs and maximizes inputs. Visit them at Yetterco.com. Before I ask you the grand question, let me share some numbers with you for the use of glyphosate and Roundup Ready products specifically, and this is taken from our annual benchmark operational survey we do with our readers every year. Roundup Ready soybean trades, 85% use in 2015, 46% for this year. Now that's something that's been declining.
However, Roundup Ready corn, 81% plan to use that this year, and that stayed pretty consistent through the years. Terminating cover crops, 90% of our readers use a herbicide to terminate cover crops, and of those 97% use glyphosate among other products. So that's clearly got some implications for people who are in conservation programs. And keeling weeds, 87% used glyphosate used it last year and 89% used it in soybeans. The first number of was for corn. So clearly among our farmers who are some of probably the most advanced farmers in the US, they use a lot of different conservation practices. They care for the land. Losing this tool would have a lot of implications for them. What do you see the repercussions of bears no longer able to sell this chemical or they are forced to decide not to make it anymore? How does it affect the supply chain and how does it affect farmers who still want to source the product for use on their farm? What would that look like?
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
I think you've laid out some really compelling statistics too that showcase just the broad adoption, not only for how impactful that one tool is, but how important it is not only to the productivity of the crop, but our ability to progress on conservation tools and tactics. The way that we farm today looks a lot different than it was 10, 15, even 30 years ago, even though glyphosate, Roundup has been on the market for 50 plus years, longer than I've been alive. So I think you're asking a good question, and the way that I tee it up to folks too is what would it look like to go back 50 years in any industry? Do we want to go back to what it was like to farm 50 years ago? I can't think of any technology that we would generally want to go back 50 years in, let alone the chemistries that we've been able to put on the market.
So the adoption rates that we have seen in things like no-till and cover and stuff like that, you definitely move backwards but for having these tools available. I think the second part of your question is does this pull the chemistry itself completely off the market? Likely not, right? So there are a number of providers, it's been off patent for a number of years. I don't have that number off the top of my head, but we do have product that comes in from overseas. If we don't have a business climate in this country that allows for manufacturers to be able to produce products in this country, we're at the mercy from importing, and that's the case regardless of we're talking about chemistries or any other inputs, but do we really want to be in a position where we are at the mercy of inputs of these tools from foreign countries, which can have in generally countries that are not necessarily our friends.
So I think it's important and in what we're stressing with lawmakers, and I think farmers continue to do so as well, is that we want a business climate in this country that's conducive to American manufacturing, American farmers, and making sure both are prosperous. And that's what at the end of the day is what we're working towards. It's not just like financial prosperity. We have made leaps and bounds of progress in the conservation sector because of technologies like this. Not to take another quote, but we had a farmer in Missouri that testified as part of the hearings in that state, and he said that taking away these chemistries is just as bad as if you were to take away my tractor.
John Dobberstein:
Yeah, that's saying a lot.
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
Yes.
John Dobberstein:
Is conservation and the gains we've made in conservation programs because of technology like this, is that really on the radar with lawmakers in Washington? Do they really, I know they get immersed in the human aspects of this, but do they really understand the gains that made in conservation because of this?
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
Unfortunately, I'm going to say I don't think so. I don't think that those two dots have been connected well enough. So that's another piece I would tee up to your listeners is don't separate those topics. Let's definitely... When we're talking about the ability to adopt conservation practices, many of those today are only a viable pathway because we have technologies available to us to be able to manage those pieces. We don't do cover crops as a cash crop. We can't do no-till absent these chemistries. And I don't know that at the end of the day, your listeners, myself, we had the benefit of growing up in agriculture. We have a fundamental understanding generally of what it's like to put in a crop, take a crop out, and see the broader supply chain.
I think general, everyday Americans just haven't had the ability to see that or understand that process. And so farmers are a trusted voice though. So I think that is incredibly important that we've been talking about that all throughout my career, that farmers need to tell their story, tell their story. That's true today here just as much, telling their story about what they use, why they use it, and how certain tools unlock their ability to continue to amend or upgrade practices is an incredibly important piece to tell.
John Dobberstein:
One issue that we've had with Roundup is resistant weeds, and there's really no doubt that that has become a problem, especially for soybeans. And this may be brought up by some people in arguing against the use of this product is we had a weed resistance issue that we're dealing with. Is there any way that your alliance has been able to counter that or what's your argument about that issue?
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
I think it's a very fair question, and I think it's also a good point to tee up the fact, back to my comment about the legislator, that's also a farmer that has only seen so many new technologies. We need a variety of tools to be able to choose from, to help push back against and not build up tolerances or resistances. And so I think back to that fundamental also why this is important. We need to have an environment where R&D can continue to be able to funnel more and more technology into this sector, not less. And right now we are at a point where it is incredibly difficult to do so, and the uphill battle, even after you bring a chemistry to market, is nearly insurmountable by what the legal community has put forward. So this industry, it needs clarity, it needs consistency, or we're not going to see folks enter the market and thus we're going to just have less tools available. And that's how you result in some of those outcomes like you teed up there.
John Dobberstein:
I wanted asking about the survey that you unveiled at Commodity Classic, people's attitudes, the public's concerns about litigation on food security and inflation. And I wanted to see if you could just kind of recap quickly what you found in this survey and if there was anything that you read that kind of surprised you.
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
Sure. So what we did, we did a national poll, again, recognizing that the policy is important, but policymakers generally ask or take action when they know that their constituents recognize that this is important. And so just like in any political issue, we went out and did a nationwide poll. We also did some distilled down data points into some key ag states. So folks that want to dig into it a little bit deeper, if you go to our modernagalliance.org website, you can see some of the state specific data points. But what was telling to me is I would say four big buckets of what we asked of, is there a recognition of these tools? Not only we looked at farmers or we asked farmers specifically, and then a cross section of just the general public, so urban, suburban, all across the board. And there was not only a recognition that farmers need these tools, there was a recognition that the availability of these tools have a direct impact on an individual's financial bottom line.
So your ability to put food on the table. The third piece of that is consumers are looking at this big picture. They're recognizing that this not only directs their dinner plate and their trip to the grocery store, but also the national security component pieces of it, right? Because food security is a critical piece when we're looking at national security. And last but not least, but I think that is probably most telling and a piece that I carry around specifically is that overall, so we found that 97% of farmers and 73% of just the general public overall said that they support legislative leaders that take action on solutions to these problems, i.e., this is a majority of their constituents are saying, "Legislators, this is a problem and we want you to fix it."
John Dobberstein:
Right. And we certainly hope that there'll be clarity in this issue as time goes on this year. Obviously, from an agricultural point of view, there's a lot of things that are troubling the ag economy right now and certainly going to be an interesting year. Well, I really want to thank you for speaking with us during this podcast. We are certainly dialed into this issue because it's so important to our audience, and we look forward to having you back sometime soon to provide an update about what's happening, who knows what state you'll be in next time, but we really appreciate your time and effort and bringing some important information to our audience. So thank you.
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
Thank you so much for having me, John. And just one last plug for those that want to learn more about the problems we talked about, the solutions that we're teeing up or some of the data that we've talked through, or frankly want to find ways to engage with their lawmakers on this topic, I would encourage them to reach out to modernagalliance.org, wealth of information, and we have a way to contact us through there too. So we'd love to hear from folks that may have questions or want to get involved.
John Dobberstein:
Great. Thank you, Elizabeth. Thank you for joining us today, and thank you for all this great information you supplied to us. Much appreciated.
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson:
Thank you.
John Dobberstein :
That's it for this episode of the No-Till Farmer Podcast. Make sure to check out notillfarmer.com for all the latest news about federal ag policy and conservation programs. We also want to thank our sponsor, Get Our Farm Equipment, for helping to make this podcast possible. The transcript of this episode and our archive of previous podcast episodes are both available at notillfarmer.com/podcasts. I'm John Dobberstein. Thanks for listening. Keep on no-tilling and have a great day.
