Regulators and environmentalists have been throwing shade at glyphosate for a long time, in spite of the effectiveness and efficiencies it brings growers.

Even though the chemical is effectively used on many no-tillers’ farms for controlling weeds and burning down cover crops, the explosion of glyphosate-resistant weeds has forced the farm industry to make adjustments. And the debate about the chemical’s safety for human consumption rages on.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, will likely not be a friend to glyphosate if he is confirmed. Previous comments in the media suggest a Kennedy-led agency will take a hard look at chemicals used in U.S. food production that aren’t allowed in other countries — pointing out that this has become a trade barrier for the U.S. Kennedy has been sharply critical of glyphosate, calling it a “poison.”

The Des Moines Register, in an editorial, recently stated that for Iowa farmers, glyphosate is “more than a chemical — it’s an indispensable tool. For the average consumer, it’s the reason food remains affordable and accessible. The consequences of drastic changes in pesticide policies could ripple through grocery stores, small businesses, and dinner tables across America.” 

Kennedy, however, looks at glyphosate as a threat to public health and to the soil — which, of course, no-tillers have spent years or decades bringing back to healthy production. Much of that has occurred in spite of them utilizing glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant cropping systems.

The Register believes rather than an outright ban that could cripple rural economies, Kennedy should push for investment in research and development of tools to replace glyphosate, provide transitional support, collaborate with farmers on policies and educate the public on the challenges of farming and the need for farmer-friendly solutions.

Cost of a Ban

The Directions Group recently announced the release of a new report, “Farm Bill Programs and the Role of Crop Protection Tools” which identifies significant impacts on the farm bill and federal agricultural policy if U.S. farmers lost access to glyphosate.

Using open-source research and economic modeling, the firm’s analysis shows disruptions to glyphosate availability would have costly consequences for farmers, consumers, and the environment.

Dave Juday, executive advisor to The Directions Group and lead economist for the report, says the loss of glyphosate could undermine the farm bill and put pressure on policymakers to slash budgets for key programs in response to rising costs.

“The increase in production costs would ripple through the economy, creating substantial challenges for both farmers and policymakers,” he notes.

The report found that:

• Food inflation could surge by 2.4 times based on 2025 forecasts.
• Farmers could lose $2.89 billion in annual net farm income.
• Nutrition program outlays for programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) could increase by $7.1 billion over the life of a 2025-2029 Farm Bill.
• Crop insurance costs may increase by $2.946 billion over the life of a 2025-2029 Farm Bill.
• CO₂ emissions would likely rise by 33.72 million additional tons every year.
• The 2018 Farm Bill’s $632 million investment in cover cropping would be undermined, reversing two decades of conservation gains in carbon capture, sediment loss, and nutrient runoff reduction.

To access and read the full report, visit: www.report-directionsgroup.com.

The debate about glyphosate use comes at a critical time, as Congress is trying to pass a new Farm Bill — which was last approved during the Trump administration in 2018.

No-tillers who’ve participated in our No-Till Operational Benchmark Study have for several years been ratcheting down their use of glyphosate on their operations. At one point more than 90% were utilizing it in corn and soybeans, but in 2023 that dropped to 82% for corn and 84% for soybeans.

The vast majority (83.7% for corn and 80.2% for soybeans) of no-tillers only use other herbicides when they are tankmixed with glyphosate. Only 12.7% of corn growers and 12.4% of soybean growers use other chemistries in rotation with glyphosate, while less than 5% don’t use glyphosate at all.

As for the seed that no-tillers planned to use this year, Roundup Ready was the most popular corn hybrid, with 83% of no-tillers planning to plant it this year. For soybeans, Roundup Ready followed second at just under 40%, while Enlist was the top choice.

All of this should make for some reflection as farmers — and the public — sit down to enjoy their Thanksgiving meal.

What Looms Ahead

Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, has been a vocal critic of Roundup, which contains glyphosate. He and his legal team represented Dewayne Johnson, a former school groundskeeper who alleged that prolonged exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

The jury awarded him $289 million, and the verdict opened the floodgates for thousands of lawsuits against Monsanto that have resulted in more than $6 billion in judgements.

At least two other major judgements against the Monsanto worth more than $4 billion were later reduced by a judge.

If Kennedy is confirmed as DHHS secretary, observers say his leadership could influence the Roundup litigation. Stricter oversight of herbicides and pesticides is likely, and the EPA or FDA may be forced to re-evaluate the safety of glyphosate. This would do nothing but strengthen legal claims that Roundup is hazardous and inadequately regulated.

If the government was to do away with glyphosate, who should bankroll the cost of that transition and accept the blame for rising prices — which are already too high? Is it the consumers, who have come to demand easy and plentiful access to cheap food? Or should it be the government and vendors, which approved the use of glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crops without, apparently, considering how weeds would eventually evolve to become resistant?

And what responsibility do farmers share for this mess if they haven’t used glyphosate responsibly and aren’t rotating their modes of action?

There are no easy answers here. But if the U.S. government moves forward with an eventual ban, following suit with other countries, federal agencies need to provide a sensible runway to do this rather than tanking a struggling farm economy even further.