Glyphosate access concerns farmers

September 12, 2024 | Kriss Nelson

The absence of clear legislation on pesticide labeling has led to expensive legal battles and allowed states like California to regulate pesticides in a way that contradicts federal law and congressional intent, based on unscientific factors. Today, the future of valuable crop protection tools and critical innovations may be at stake if the topic of glyphosate is not addressed.

Led by Bayer and a diverse group of key agricultural stakeholders, including the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA), Modern Ag Alliance is an organization that is fighting to protect U.S. farmers’ access to the crop protection tools.

Glyphosate has become a focal point in discussions about sustainable agriculture and environmental conservation. Glyphosate is currently applied to approximately 73% of soybean acres and 60% of corn acres in Iowa. The Muscatine facility supplies 70% of North America's RoundUp®, reinforcing the herbicide's critical role in ensuring efficient and sustainable agricultural practices. However, access to glyphosate could go away in the future if trial lawyers continue to be successful in their lawsuits against manufacturers.

To mitigate future risks, manufacturers actively support legislative efforts across several states, including Iowa, Missouri and Idaho, while pursuing federal regulatory strategies.

ISA, alongside other farmer organizations, has previously supported this bill in the 2024 Iowa legislative session and recognizes glyphosate's vital role in modern farming.

This legislation clarifies EPA’s role in evaluating labels of all manner of farm chemicals. It removes the ability to sue a manufacturer on the basis they “failed to warn” of a product’s potential carcinogenicity. This legislation is not broad tort reform. Glyphosate would still be regulated by EPA and the agency could choose to request updated health and environmental effects data at any time. At any time, EPA could require a new label for glyphosate which, if the data warrants, could warn the user the product is a potential carcinogen.

 “Passage of this legislation is crucial at the state and federal levels,” says Matt Herman, ISA’s chief officer of demand and advocacy. “The Iowa Soybean Association believes the litigious attacks on Bayer and glyphosate are just the beginning. If successful in forcing Bayer and other manufacturers to pull glyphosate from the U.S. market, these same environmental groups and trial lawyers will target other common products that Iowa farmers rely upon.”

During the Farm Progress Show held last month in Boone, Dave Struthers, ISA District 5 director and farmer from Collins, joined Minden-area farmer Kevin Ross and Ben Gleason, environmental director with the Iowa Agribusiness Association of Iowa on a panel to give their perspective on being able to have access to crop protection tools.

The moderator for the Modern Ag Alliance Farmer Panel was Martha Smith, member of Bayer CropScience stakeholder relation team.

“Farmers need crop protection tools to supply a robust, affordable, safe food supply here in the United States,” says Smith.

Panel Discussion

Smith: Why did the Iowa Soybean Association become involved with the Modern Ag Alliance?

Struthers: We understand the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be the final say on regulations regarding crop protection productions. When you start giving states the rights to make their own rules or decisions, they may not have the science-based research that has come from years of testing EPA has. Not just farmers in Iowa, but across the country understand the value of having glyphosate in our toolbox for weed control.

Smith: Why is this important to you as a farmer and what role does glyphosate plays on your farm?

Struthers: My first active use of glyphosate was when I started farming in 1985. We didn’t have glyphosate-tolerant crops; we tired of walking beans and could move up to a bean bar, mounted on the front of the tractor where we spot-sprayed. Glyphosate has been important at the start of my operation, yet today is still very important, especially in the grass control arena which is not only a safe but economical weed control product.

Smith: How are ag chemicals used on your farm, and what gives you confidence in their safety for the environment and the people who work on your farm?

Ross: On our farm, just like most farmers across the state, we use chemicals to control weeds and other pests. Right now you are seeing the August Uglies out there across the state when weeds are poking through in August, especially in bean fields. We don’t realize how much weed seed is out there in the ground. I drove by a neighbor’s field on the way to the Farm Progress Show where it appears there was no weed control or their program failed. I don’t know what happened, but it is horrendous when you do not have weed control. I can guarantee their yields will be at least 50% below normal. We do not realize the amount of weed seed that lies dormant in the soil. You do not see these types of situations very often, but it gives you a quick realization of what can happen without roundup and other generic glyphosate or other chemistries out there to control weeds, and just what kind of damage those weeds can do.

Chemicals, such as glyphosate has allowed farmers to do a lot of things from a conservation standpoint. For my operation, it has helped us become a no-till farm. No-till is certainly one of those ways to conserve soil and glyphosate is a big part of what we need to do that.

Smith: What would change about your operation if tools like glyphosate were no longer available? Why is it important for Modern Ag Alliance to fight to uphold the approval of federally approved crop-production products?

Ross: Farmers need a lot of different tools in the toolbox. There are chemistries we use to control weeds, but if you take away one, especially one that has been proven safe, such as glyphosate, one that has been around 50 years, you start to reduce the amount of tools that a farmer can use. I think we would have major problems ahead of us from a crop protection standpoint. I look at other industries such as biofuels. If we don’t have a safe, consistent supply of what we come to know as a 14 to 15-billion-bushel corn crop that trickles down to those industries. It would not only affect the farmer at the point but will hit the consumer in different ways as well.

Smith: Does an ag retailer and commercial pesticide applicator rely on guidelines regarding to the safety of a product like glyphosate?

Gleason: Ag retailers and their commercial applicators have license requirements to apply pesticides for hire. We have rules in place to make sure our applicators are following the label and doing things right – not only from an environmental safety standpoint, but also making sure the product works as best as it can. In order to kill small weeds, or different weeds that may react differently to different chemistries, we have to mix multiple modes of action together, so if we lose one of those, we are starting over. Ag retailers and their commercial applicators have to be able to react in a short amount of time and need to have certainty these products will be available. Farmers like Kevin and Dave are selecting their seeds for next year and a lot of these chemistries go along with those seed decisions. Do we know what products will be available next year? Not right now we do not.

Smith: Pesticide manufacturers are the target of litigation. Does your organization have any concerns of how this could impact retailers or commercial pesticide applicators if that liability was to fall on them?

Gleason: Any commercial business has a lot of liability for the products and services they provide to their customers. If there is a failure from an efficacy standpoint, that farmer doesn’t get what they pay for as far as controlling weeds and certainly applies potential failures for those products, that is certainly top of mind and insurance for that coverage isn’t getting any cheaper. Ag retailers see that not just for spraying operations, but any sort of property insurance as well. Ag retailers are well aware of those risks, including injury from drift and try to minimize them so when you have any sort of additional threat of other lawsuits, it compounds the liability issues for those applicators

Smith: What do you wish lawmakers knew more about legislation to ensure you continue to have access to crop protection tools?

Struthers: They need to realize testing has been done by the EPA that shows this product doesn’t do what some claim it does as far as hazards and injuries. Glyphosate has had enough exposure to enough populations, use and testing to show by the broad range it is not a dangerous product. It is a safe, affordable, effective product we need to continue to produce safe, affordable food.

---

Back