Glyphosate Deserves Careful Consideration
In a world without glyphosate, there would be more weeds, soil erosion and carbon emissions and smaller crop yields.
By Nevil Speer, an industry consultant in Bowling Green, Ky.
Published June 6, 2025 on Feedstuffs
My travels recently had me flying to Kansas City and then driving west to Dodge City, Kan. I’ve done that trip umpteen times – but rarely does it happen in the rain. This time was different. My drive was the fourth day (out of five) in which Dodge City had received rain, with about 3 in. during that time. There was standing water everywhere – and that got me thinking about wet fields and farming.
Too much rain can devastate a crop. That was especially true when cultivators were the primary weed technology. It was a waiting game to get into the field – and the waiting cascaded with each passing day because, comparatively speaking, it was relatively slow going once you did. In the race against time, the weeds got the upper hand – hence the old adage, “Dry years scare you; wet years kill you.” (Or something to that effect.)
The key phrase above is “comparatively speaking.” That’s because glyphosate changed the game. Even in tough, wet conditions, the technology allows farmers to get in the field sooner and cover more ground in a shorter period of time. So, glyphosate helps prevent against playing catchup in a race that’s often all about timing. That cushion is especially important in wet years that might’ve previously devastated a crop. Not to mention it’s even better with the invention of spray drones.
So, that got me thinking: What IF glyphosate didn’t exist?
The best answer to that question comes from Aimpoint Research. The food / ag wargame group published a report several years ago titled “A Future Without Glyphosate,” which explains (emphasis mine):
“Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the United States, as it is effective in controlling weeds, cost efficient compared to alternatives and has enabled farmers to widely adopt conservation practices such as reduced tillage and expanded cover cropping. Its loss as an agricultural production tool would not be trivial. Ultimately, markets would be forced to reluctantly adapt through substitution and adjusted practices, but at substantial cost to farmers and the environment.”
In a world without glyphosate, there’d be more weeds and reduced crop yields. But let’s also not overlook the indirect consequences – namely, more soil erosion and carbon emissions.
Perhaps the biggest impact of all comes on the fuel side. Aimpoint’s report cites work done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as part of its Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP).
NRCS has published two project surveys: 2003-06 (CEAPI) and 2010-14 (CEAPII). Between those two periods, the agency reported, “More efficient conservation tillage systems, particularly no-till, became the dominant form of tillage, reducing erosion and fuel use.” And as part of those practices, “Average annual fuel use dropped by 110 million gallons of diesel fuel equivalents, avoiding associated greenhouse gas emissions of nearly 1.2 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.”
Let’s put that in perspective by reviewing a column I had in Feedstuffs back in 2019: “Blame the planes, not the cows.” As explained in the column, my portion of a roundtrip flight to London, England, from Orlando, Fla., equaled roughly 1,950 kg of CO2. Assuming around 450 people on the plane, a 747 roundtrip total is equivalent to nearly 970 tons of CO2. The fuel savings associated with reduced tillage detailed above – 1.2 million tons – represents the equivalent of 1,250 trans-Atlantic flights every year!
My soggy Kansas trip was timely. It got me thinking about glyphosate in a new and different way. Meanwhile, the topic is front and center lately, stemming from the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s report.
Glyphosate is an important piece of technology that benefits everyone – both directly and indirectly. And as such, it deserves careful consideration to ensure we’re not too hasty lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Read the original article on Feedstuffs »
Canadian Researchers Look for Alternatives to Glyphosate
The goal is to evaluate different tank mixtures that could do the same job as glyphosate and delay herbicide resistance
By Robert Arnason
Published September 11, 2024 on Alberta Farmer Express
Fifty-nine weed species around the world have developed some resistance to glyphosate, according to data from the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds.
Countries and regions including Mexico and the European Union have come close to banning its use, based on perceptions or misperceptions of its safety and the risk to human health.
Considering these factors, Canadian farmers may need alternatives to glyphosate in the future. A masters’ student from the University of Alberta and other researchers have been working to identify products that are just as effective.
Shane Collins, a student in the renewable resources department, has been evaluating herbicides that could replace it for application in late summer and early fall.
“At some point, farmers are going to need more options for herbicides that (they) can apply on wheat,” said Collins, who is part of a group testing herbicides in plots at sites throughout the Prairie provinces.
“We are hoping to come up with some tank mixtures that we can eventually use to hopefully delay herbicide resistance …. (The) tank mixtures we use will not include glyphosate. We’re looking for herbicides that can completely replace or be an alternative to glyphosate.”
Collins shared information on the research project at a University of Manitoba plant science field day in late July at Carman. The group of researchers, which includes Guillermo Hernandez Ramirez from the U of A, have tested 13 herbicides.
They seeded hairy vetch with wheat in test plots to understand how the herbicides perform.
“Come the fall, we will apply the herbicides … and we will evaluate them on their desiccation … and weed control,” Collins said.
The project is in early stages, but he has identified four herbicides that could possibly be used in tank mixes to replace the popular herbicide. One large challenge will be the price per acre because glyphosate is relatively inexpensive.
“We’ve been in discussions about doing an economic analysis,” Collins said. “We are hoping to understand if these herbicides can be sustainable financially as well.”
Will glyphosate be used in Canada by 2040? Answering this question could be the subject of a book. A lot depends on crop rotations, usage patterns, export markets and a list of known and unknown risks.
However, some scientists predict it will become ineffective on major weeds in Canada and the U.S. unless growers change their habits.
In 2014, Australian weed scientist Stephen Powles said glyphosate will be “driven to redundancy” in large parts of North America. That outcome can be different if North American farmers adopt diverse tactics to control weeds, such as weed seed destruction at harvest and strategic tillage, Powles said.
“If the (herbicide only system) is replaced by diversity, then herbicides can be much more sustainable.”
Read the original article on Alberta Farmer Express »
MAHA Report Points Fingers at Pesticides, Farm Industry Responds
By John Dobberstein, No-Till Farmer Senior Editor
Published May 22, 2025 on No-Till Farmer
The much-anticipated Make American Healthy Again report assessing key drivers of childhood disease across the U.S. was released Thursday, and it places at least some of the blame on farmers’ use of labeled, approved crop protection products.
The Department of Health and Human Services touted the 68-page report generated by a presidential commission as “exposing a range of contributing factors” in childhood chronic disease, including poor diet, accumulation of “environmental toxins, inadequate physical activity, chronic stress and over-medicalization.”
The report specifically called out the presence of glyphosate, chlorpyrifos and atrazine in food, water and dust, along with household products, for contributing to childhood health issues. MAHA says the assessment, “arms stakeholders and partners and partners with clear evidence that will support the development of effective policy interventions where they can deliver the greatest impact.
“We will end the childhood chronic disease crisis by attacking its root causes head-on — not just managing its symptoms,” said U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a statement Thursday as the report was released. “We will follow the truth wherever it leads, uphold rigorous science, and drive bold policies that put the health, development, and future of every child first.”
The MAHA commission has 82 days to produce the Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy based on the findings.
‘Heart of the Solution’
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, who has vowed in her first few months in office to be a voice for farmers, said Thursday that more must be done to improve the health outcomes of children and families, “and President Trump knows agriculture is at the heart of the solution.” She indicated she would continue to work with Kennedy and MAHA Commission members on improving the nation’s health.
“America’s farmers and ranchers dedicate their lives to the noble cause of feeding their country and the world, and in doing so have created the safest and most abundant and affordable food supply in the world,” Rollins said. “We are working to make sure our kids and families are consuming the healthiest food we produce.”
In public testimony recently, Kennedy said MAHA wants to work with farmers, and the effort to improve health outcomes won’t work without their cooperation. But the inference of pesticides being responsible for at least some health problems in children is hard to ignore in the report.
One section of MAHA’s report addressed farmers specifically, referring to “crop protection tools” such as pesticides, herbicides and insecticides. More than 8 billion pounds of pesticides are used each year in food systems around the world, with the U.S accounting for roughly 11%, or more than 1 billion pounds.
The report says some studies have, “raised concerns about possible links between some of these products and adverse health outcomes, especially in children, but human studies are limited.” A “selection” of research studies on glyphosate have noted a range of possible health effects, ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation and metabolic disturbances, according to the report.
Common exposures to these chemicals include farming, and pesticide residues. But MAHA’s report also notes a large-scale FDA study of pesticide residues from 2009 to 2017 found greater than 90% of samples were compliant with federal standards.
More recent data from the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program found that 99% of food samples tested in 2023 were compliant with EPA’s safety limit. MAHA says federal government reviews of epidemiologic data for the most common herbicide did not establish a direct link between use according to label directions and adverse health outcomes, and an updated U.S. government health assessment on common herbicides is expected in 2026.
MAHA’s own report appears to acknowledge what impact the sudden curtailment of crop protection products would have on agriculture.
“American farmers rely on these products, and actions that further regulate or restrict crop protection tools beyond risk-based and scientific processes set forth by Congress must involve thoughtful consideration of what is necessary for adequate protection, alternatives, and cost of production,” the report says.
“Precipitous changes in agricultural practices could have an adverse impact on American agriculture and the domestic and global food supply. The federal government will continue to regularly review the safety of these important crop protection tools.”
Host of Challenges
The Modern Ag Alliance was critical of the report Thursday, saying there is “clear science” behind the safety and benefits, and that the report leans on “previously discredited studies and reports.
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, Executive Director of MAA, says the report raises the possibility that the federal government could take a position to restrict farmers' access to essential inputs, which would, “undermine existing science-based frameworks, and ultimately jeopardize the affordability and security of America's food supply.”
MAA asserts that if glyphosate was lost, crop yields would decline, input costs would surge by 150%, and food inflation would more than double.
"Farmers are already facing a host of challenges—uncertainty about their access to critical crop protection products shouldn't be added to the list,” she says. “Crop protection tools are not only safe, they are essential to food security, affordability and the survival of family farms all across this country.”
“We’ve already seen the disastrous effects of policies like those that have been contemplated by certain leaders of the MAHA Commission,” said Burns-Thompson. “When Sri Lanka prohibited the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers in 2021, crop yields fell by over 50%, forcing the government to import massive amounts of food just to meet basic needs. We should be focused on moving American agriculture — and the country — forward."
Making America Hungry Again?
For no-tillers, glyphosate is a widely used tool for controlling weeds and also burning down cover crops efficiently and effectively so they work within farm systems. Many no-tillers and farmers in general are concerned how a ban or reduction in access to crop protection tools could hurt conservation efforts.
“For wheat farmers like myself crop protection tools are not optional. They are essential,” says Chris Tanner, president of the Kansas Assn. of Wheat Growers. “They enable us to implement conservation-friendly practices, including no-till farming, which would be impossible without them.
“Through their responsible use, we maintain consistent production despite challenging weather conditions, while keeping food prices affordable for American consumers and supporting the economic viability of farms like mine and the rural communities that depend on agriculture.”
“Without access to these products, the combination of insects, pests, weeds, and diseases would decimate not only canola production, but all other commodity and specialty crops,” says Braidy Haden, President of the Pacific Northwest Canola Assn.
Ahead of the report’s release, two veteran no-tillers expressed skepticism about the report’s anticipated conclusions and potential policy changes that would be unfriendly to agriculture and conservation as well.
5 Decades of Use
Blake Hurst, whose family has no-tiled corn and soybeans in northwestern Missouri for decades, says farmers lose about 40% their crop due to weeds and diseases and that figure would double without the help of crop protection chemicals.
“Glyphosate has been around for almost 50 years and there’s a reason why we still use it,” Hurst said in a podcast hosted by MAA Wednesday. “As a corn and soybean farm, I use it to control weeds, keep my yields up and my costs down. Without it, I'd be stuck using alternatives that don't work as well and might not be as safe.”
Scott Henry, a fourth-generation corn and soybean farmer from central Iowa, runs Longview Farms alongside his parents and brother, and they’re also concerned about potentially losing crop protection products. They’re already fighting low commodity prices, high input costs and interest rates and trade uncertainty, and could lose their ability to efficiently burn down winter annual and spring-season weeds
“Glyphosate makes it possible to cut out three or four tillage passes and save a tremendous amount of diesel, a tremendous amount of carbon emitted in the atmosphere and, most importantly, millions and millions of tons of soil. So it's a big deal. It truly is a big deal,” Henry says.
“If the MAHA Commission’s report drives future policy decisions, food prices will go up and instead of Making America Healthy Again, we'll be making America hungry again."
Read the original column on No-Till Farmer »
