In a recent legal skirmish with a federal appeals court, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) back-pedaled on its interim decision regarding the use of glyphosate. As a result, no-tillers can continue to use glyphosate without any added restrictions at least through 2026.

The use of glyphosate for weed control is a big deal for no-tillers, according to data from our 14th annual No-Till Operational Farmer Benchmark study. It shows 83% of No-Till Farmer readers use glyphosate on no-till soybeans and 65% on no-till corn.

The EPA’s unusual legal maneuver means the agency will now only undertake a final review of glyphosate, which had already been scheduled for 2026. Based on a review of more than 800 glyphosate studies conducted worldwide, the EPA insists the herbicide is safe to use and does not cause human health concerns. Current glyphosate label uses remain unaffected by this EPA action.

This one-upmanship legal move took place after the EPA argued it could not complete an ecological review of the compound by the Oct. 1 deadline set by the Ninth Court of Appeals in June of 2022. When the proposed interim decision was originally published in May 2019, the EPA received 283,000 public comments. It took more than 9 months for EPA scientists to review these documents.

Immediate Glyphosate Cancellation Denied

In June, the appeals court judges agreed with farm worker, environmental and food safety advocacy groups that the EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and threatens a number of  endangered species. Litigation efforts by these groups had begun after the EPA reauthorized the use of glyphosate in 2020. The groups recently asked for immediate cancellation of all glyphosate products, which was denied by the appeals court.

Regulators first approved the world’s most widely used herbicide for use in the U.S. 48 years ago. Bayer, which inherited the most popular version of glyphosate with its purchase of Monsanto’s Roundup, is defending the compound against hundreds of lawsuits alleging the product is carcinogenic. They are phasing it out for lawn and garden use because most legal claims against Roundup have come from consumers, rather than the ag community. 

Bayer has won a half dozen Roundup lawsuits. They have been unsuccessful in gaining a Supreme Court review of an argument that EPA’s glyphosate approval has preempted state courts from ordering cancer warnings on Roundup labels.

The EPA earlier reviewed  more than 40 years of science regarding glyphosate. They concluded glyphosate-based herbicides were safe and non-carcinogenic to both humans and wildlife. 

There are also other concerns with glyphosate among environmental groups. For example, a recent project conducted by Moms Across America that measured levels of pesticides, heavy metals, veterinary drugs, hormones and nutrients in 43 school lunch items gathered from public school cafeterias in 15 states showed concerns with glyphosate. Among these items, 95% contained detectable levels of glyphosate. 

Some 74% of these school lunch products contained at least one of 29 pesticides. All of the samples contained heavy metals. Veterinary drugs were found in 20% of the lunch samples. 

No-Till’s Bottom Line

With the numerous benefits from using glyphosate for low-cost weed control, a total ban would make it more difficult and costly to control weeds in no-till situations. Even with restrictions, growers would be able to continue to no-till with alternative herbicides and other weed control measures, but it could not be done as easily, efficiently or economically.

In fact, a French study indicated a glyphosate ban would boost cropping costs by $35.20 per acre for U.S. farmers. Others argue that banning glyphosate would increase U.S. no-till weed control costs by $18 per acre. In Canada, no-tilling glyphosate-resistant seed slashed weed control budgets by $35-40 per acre.

Not only would a glyphosate ban have a huge impact on the no-till acreage, but it would also make it much more difficult for growers to sequester carbon to help solve the world’s changing climate concerns. Any additional restrictions will also make it more difficult to meet the food needs of the world’s growing population.

As a no-tiller, take advantage of this legal delay by letting lawmakers and ag groups understand the importance of glyphosate in feeding the world. You can’t afford to lose a herbicide that may save you $25 or more per acre in weed control costs.