Agrichemicals Firm Corteva Explores Splitting Seed and Pesticide Units

Published September 12, 2025 on Wall Street Journal via Reuters

U.S. agrichemicals firm Corteva is exploring a breakup that would separate its seed and pesticide businesses into two separate companies, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Separating its crop-seed unit from its pesticide business could help shield its seeds from any potential future liabilities associated with its pest and weed-killing chemicals, the report said, adding that the company is expected to reveal plans soon, barring any last-minute snags.

Corteva, spun off from chemical conglomerate DowDuPont in 2019, did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. Its shares rose 1.6% in extended trading and it had a market capitalization of nearly $50 billion as of Friday.

"If Corteva decides to separate... it would give investors better choices as there would be a pure-play leading seeds company and pure-play leading crop protection firm," said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein.

Corteva's possible split underscores a growing wave of corporate separations in 2025, as major companies such as Honeywell, Kraft Heinz  and Warner Bros Discovery respond to investor calls for restructuring.

The agrichemicals industry has been grappling with a potential fallout from shifting tariff policies, which are expected to lower demand and curb farmers' spending.

Corteva is among the largest crop-protection product makers in the U.S., competing with Syngenta and German firms BASF and Bayer.

DowDuPont was formed in 2017 after the merger of DuPont and Dow Chemical. Two years later, it spun off its chemical business as Dow and the agribusiness division into Corteva, with DuPont remaining on as the company it is today.

Read the original article on Wall Street Journal via Reuters »

Technical Thinking: Killing Weeds Like it’s 1974

By Mark Jones
Published September 12, 2025 on Design News

Technology has come a long way since 1974, but some products introduced that year have had lasting impacts. Consumer pagers were introduced by Motorola, starting the march to the cellphones of today. The Intel 8080 and the Altair 8800 both came that year. Both figure prominently in the history of computing. 

And 1974 was also the year Monsanto gave us Roundup. While computers and cellular communications have changed dramatically, Roundup, unchanged since 1974, is now the most used agricultural chemical in the world. As a consumer, the Roundup I can purchase isn’t Roundup anymore.

Roundup used to mean glyphosate, the active herbicide ingredient. Back in ’74, Monsanto introduced a new mode of action that effectively killed almost all vegetation. It was also far less toxic and persistent than the common herbicides of the day.

Years have passed since I sat in a tractor tilling a field, but in the early 1970s, I did. Soil conservation was becoming a concern, and no-till methods were beginning to be used. They relied on herbicides to prepare the fields. Competition from weeds reduces yields. Every pass across a field costs, and herbicides reduce passes across the field. 

The herbicides in the quiver when Roundup came to market in 1974 were things like Diquat, Paraquat, 2,4-D, and Dicamba. The acute toxicity of those herbicides made Roundup seem like a godsend.

Let’s shoot the elephant in the room before we go on. Debate about no-till agriculture is ongoing. Some tout the advantages of no-till techniques reliant upon herbicides as better for the land and producing increased yields. The counterpoint, exemplified by recent reporting from Friends of the Earth, concludes that the chemical impacts on soil and human health outweigh the benefits. 

Farmers are decidedly in the first camp, as evidenced by the markets for the herbicides used in no-till farming. The debate will continue, but many of the academic articles I find are lucky to reproduce yields possible with no-till. The advantages I experienced firsthand seem to be advantages still.

The development of Roundup-Ready crops pushed Roundup — glyphosate — to become the most used agricultural chemical ever. The most recent data, now a couple of years old, is that 280 million pounds are being used on 298 million acres of U.S. cropland. Whether for farm use or in the white jugs sold at garden centers, if it said Roundup on the label, it meant glyphosate, at least until recently. 

Lawsuits alleging Roundup caused cancer led to the shift. The scientific data and the actions of regulatory bodies are not consistent and not fully aligned with legal judgments. Bayer pulled all glyphosate off the consumer market in 2023 while still selling it for farm use. The minor market was scrapped while the major market remained.

Jugs labeled Roundup at the garden center no longer contain glyphosate. Instead, they are mixtures of herbicides with completely different modes of action, with many of the problems Roundup addressed at its introduction. They harken back to some of the earliest classes of herbicides. 

One class of herbicides now used in Roundup formulations are the auxin inhibitors. One of the oldest continually used herbicides is 2,4-D. It is in this class. First commercialized in the 1940s, 2,4-D led to many others in the same class, notably Dicamba and Trichlpyr, with many of the same problems. These are used today in Roundup formulations, as is Diquat. Diquat’s toxicity led to bans in the EU, UK, China, and others, yet it is now in consumer Roundup in the U.S. Mixtures attempt to address some of the shortcomings and equal glyphosate’s broad spectrum efficacy. The shortcomings that led to glyphosate replacing them. Drift, acute toxicity, and even chronic impacts remain.

The Roundup story is the biggest technology rollback of all time. After 50 years of use, consumers are now forced to use technology that predates Roundup’s introduction, technology Roundup replaced because it was superior. Rolling back other technologies we use to 1974 seems laughable. Giving up my laptop for an Altair 8800? Giving up my iPhone for a pager? Unimaginable. 

Read the original article on Design World »

Viewpoint: Activist Hyped Study ‘Proving’ that Glyphosate Can Cause Leukemia is Junk Science

By Cami Ryan, Bayer Crop Science
Published August 21, 2025 on Genetic Literacy Project

The discussion around glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, is becoming increasingly charged, especially with new studies surfacing that suggest a potential link to cancer. One such study from the Ramazzini Institute (Panzacchi et al 2025) has caught attention for its claims regarding the effects of glyphosate on Sprague-Dawley rats. While the findings indicate a rise in leukemia among the treated rats, a closer examination reveals some nuances that warrant attention.

What are Sprague-Dawley Rats Anyway?

Sprague-Dawley rats are a common choice in scientific research, particularly in toxicology and cancer studies, due to their calm demeanor and consistent performance in experiments. However, the findings from the Ramazzini study prompt us to reflect on how these rats have been used in research historically. A notable example is the Seralini et al. (2012) study, which gained significant media attention, complete with a book launch and press conference, as it claimed to link genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and glyphosate to cancer. 

A key aspect that made a huge splash was the striking image of the white rats with numerous tumors. However, this picture raised important questions, particularly because it did not include control rats — likely because the control rats also had tumors. This highlights a critical issue with the Sprague-Dawley strain, which is known for its high rate of spontaneous tumors. The sensationalized findings of the Seralini study were later retracted due to methodological issues, yet the original (retracted) journal article continues to be cited to this day. This connection to the Ramazzini study underscores the need for caution when interpreting research involving this strain of rats.

Rats and Revelations: What the Study Uncovered

The Ramazzini Institute reported a “notable” increase in leukemia cases among rats exposed to glyphosate, while control groups – those not treated with the herbicide – showed no cases at all. At first glance, this seems alarming. However, the absence of leukemia in the control rats contradicts historical data indicating that these rats often develop spontaneous tumors – by design. This raises questions about the interpretation of the results and whether the significance of the treatment groups might be overstated.

The study found that the number of tumors in rats treated with glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations was pretty low, with leukemia showing up in just 1.96% of the cases. This figure matches what we’ve seen in past research on spontaneous tumors. Interestingly, none of the control rats developed leukemia, which is different from what other studies have reported. The absence of a clear link between the dose of glyphosate and tumor development adds even more uncertainty to the study’s conclusions.

Another point of concern is that the study’s design does not fully adhere to international guidelines for carcinogenicity studies. For example, the survival rates of the rats fell below 50%, which is contrary to recommendations from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This invites one to consider how the study was conducted and whether it was set up to provide reliable insights.

Behind the Scenes: Methods, Ethics and Rat Tales

The methodology employed in this research has faced scrutiny, particularly regarding its long-term implications. When studies seem to prioritize headlines over rigorous scientific inquiry, it can detract from our collective understanding of critical issues. The quest for attention can sometimes overshadow the pursuit of genuine knowledge.

Additionally, the study appears to favor literature that supports its conclusions while overlooking studies that might present a different perspective. This selective approach can raise eyebrows and lead to questions about the overall integrity of the research.

There are also inconsistencies in reporting initial body weights and water consumption, which could introduce bias into the findings. The absence of detailed pathology reports and tumor evaluations further complicates our ability to assess the biological relevance of the results.

Moreover, the ethical considerations surrounding the treatment of the rats and adherence to established guidelines for prenatal dosing and carcinogenicity testing should not be overlooked. Ensuring ethical standards in animal research is crucial for maintaining public trust in scientific inquiry.

What Do Regulatory Bodies Say?

On a broader scale, regulatory agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and others around the world (including Health Canada) have concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans, based on comprehensive reviews of scientific studies. This perspective highlights the importance of a balanced view in the ongoing debate surrounding glyphosate.

Conclusion: A Thoughtful Approach to Science

In summary, the study by Panzacchi et al. (2025) presents significant methodological challenges, particularly regarding its control data and study design. The findings seem to diverge from historical data on spontaneous tumor rates in Sprague-Dawley rats, and the research has faced scrutiny for its selective use of literature and ethical considerations.

As we navigate this complex conversation, it’s vital to approach the topic with a critical yet open mind. The evidence from this study does not definitively support the claim that glyphosate and GBHs are carcinogenic. Let’s continue the dialogue, ensuring that it is grounded in integrity and a commitment to sound scientific principles.

Cami Ryan is a social and behavioral scientist working in agriculture at Bayer CropScience. 

Read the original article on Genetic Literacy Library »

On the Ground with Dani Nierenberg: To Roundup or Not to Roundup

By Dani Nierenberg
Published September 8, 2025 on Food Tank

Advocates of agroecology and organic agriculture—people like me—often criticize conservation agriculture because it allows for artificial fertilizers and herbicides. But during my recent trip to Ethiopia, I was reminded that conservation agriculture can also be a powerful and practical tool for farmers, especially when resources are scarce.

I like to think about agrochemicals as medicine. They’re not something farmers should rely on every day or every season. But they can help treat problems—like degraded soils that won’t otherwise be productive, or overwhelming weeds when labor is short.

At the same time, I’ve seen how conservation agriculture practices—more diverse cropping systems, intercropping, no-till, and agroforestry—can reduce or even eliminate the need for those inputs. This can create a win-win-win scenario: farmers save money, natural resources are protected, and food and nutrition security improve.

“It’s not only an increase in yield, but diversity,” said Alemayehu Koysha, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Manager at the Terepeza Development Association (TDA). “And diversity has meaning for income.”

His colleague, Tilahun Tadesse, a Senior Programs Manager at TDA, put it another way. “It’s not the size of the land, but the productivity that matters.”

For the past three years, the Scaling Conservation Agriculture-Based Sustainable Intensification (SCASI) initiative—a collaboration between the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and regional partners like TDA—has worked with nearly 75,000 farmers in southern Ethiopia to promote context-specific practices. The approach is not prescriptive and gives farmers the opportunity to experiment in the field and learn from one another.

Choices Don’t Come Easy

Switching away from conventional agriculture isn’t easy. Farmers everywhere are risk averse—if your livelihood depends on your harvest, it makes sense to stick with what you know. That’s why cluster farming and farmer-to-farmer mentoring are so important. In Ethiopia, I saw groups of three to five households working together, experimenting, and sharing knowledge. Farmers trust each other more than outside experts, and seeing success firsthand makes change more likely—and less risky—because they see their neighbors doing the same thing.

One way farmers are working together is by coordinating the use of herbicides like Roundup. Roundup is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, produced by Bayer, with glyphosate as its active ingredient. It’s effective against broadleaf plants and grasses, and it can help regulate plant growth and ripening. But it’s also controversial.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it is “not likely to be carcinogenic.” Beyond human health, glyphosate can leach into groundwater, affect soil microorganisms, and harm insects and plants it wasn’t meant to target.

Still, agronomists like Daniel Markos Bura at the Hawassa Agricultural Research Center and Birhan Abdulkadir, a Research Officer at CIMMYT, explained to me that on severely depleted soils, glyphosate can sometimes help farmers produce enough biomass to eventually move away from herbicides altogether. With mulching and other regenerative practices, reliance on chemicals can decline over time.

Government extension agents often recommend Roundup, even though it’s expensive. As Tadesse told me, it can be “tough to get extension agents to surrender” their attachment to herbicides. But when agents compare demonstration plots—conventional agriculture versus conservation agriculture—they begin to see how conservation agriculture can work without chemical inputs.

What struck me most in Ethiopia was the resilience and creativity of farmers. As Bura put it, “Farmers are trying everything.” They grow staples like maize and taro, but also coffee, turmeric, soy, yams, honey, and indigenous crops like enset (false banana).

“If not for enset, people would not survive,” he told me. It’s the crop that gets families through the hunger season, bridging the gap between harvests. It’s also a reminder that resilience comes from diversity—not dependence on a single crop or a single tool.

So, to Roundup or not to Roundup? The answer, as always in agriculture, is complex. Farmers need choices, flexibility, and the power to decide what works best in their fields. Agroecology and conservation agriculture both have a role to play, and what matters is ensuring that farmers have the support to experiment, adapt, and thrive, not just survive.

Danielle Nierenberg is President of Food Tank and an expert on sustainable agriculture and food issues. She has written extensively on gender and population, the spread of factory farming in the developing world and innovations in sustainable agriculture.

Read the original article on Food Tank »

Read more from the "In the Weeds" Series »