What is glyphosate?

Glyphosate-based herbicides are among the most widely used crop protection products in the world, helping farmers manage a variety of weeds, protecting crops and land. For 50 years, glyphosate-based herbicides have been approved and used safely as directed in modern agriculture and food production. Due to glyphosate’s extensive history, rigorous testing and oversight, it’s one of the most studied herbicides in the world.

Weeds are among the biggest factors affecting farm productivity and environmental sustainability. Farmers need multiple tools available to effectively manage them.

Unlike most herbicides, glyphosate controls a wide array of weeds – including both grass and broadleaf weeds that have the biggest impact on agricultural productivity– making it one of the most important tools for weed management.

Like all herbicides, glyphosate has been subject to rigorous testing and oversight by regulatory authorities. The leading health regulators around the world have repeatedly concluded that glyphosate-based products can be used safely as directed.

Most recently, in November 2023, the EU Commission re-approved glyphosate for 10 years, following the favorable scientific assessments by its health and safety agencies, including the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which “did not identify any critical areas of concern.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the regulatory authorities in Japan, Australia, Korea, Canada, New Zealand, and elsewhere have also recently reaffirmed that glyphosate-based products can be used safely as directed.

The loss of glyphosate as an agricultural tool would have significant economic and environmental repercussions:⁵

• While current alternative herbicides exist, they can be more expensive, potentially increasing herbicide input costs by two to two-and-a-half times per acre.
• Without glyphosate, farmers would need to rely more on soil tillage for weed control, raising production costs and increasing carbon emissions due to higher fuel use and as a result of disturbing soil where carbon is stored.
• Losing a rigorously studied and proven safe tool like glyphosate would stifle research and development into new agricultural technologies.
• Commodity production costs would rise for food and feed use, with the aggregate higher cost being passed through to end users of renewable fuels and meat, poultry, dairy and eggs.

Current alternatives to glyphosate come with higher environmental and financial costs. Likely replacements would increase the cost of herbicide inputs by two to two-and-a-half times per acre. This would raise production costs for farmers and potentially lead to higher food prices for consumers.⁵

Yes. All pesticides, including glyphosate, are subject to rigorous testing and oversight protocols set by the EPA (and other regulators worldwide). Before companies are allowed to sell pesticides, EPA experts review and assess over a hundred studies. Approved products are also routinely re-evaluated by the EPA, to ensure they are up to date with and meet current scientific standards.

Presence of a chemical does not mean there are safety concerns, and nearly any part of food can be harmful in excess. Minute traces of pesticides can sometimes be found in or on food at harvest – think a few drops in an Olympic-sized pool, if present at all. These are called residues. There are many measures in place to make sure food is safe. To protect human health, regulators set conservative maximum residue limits, which are the maximum amount of a pesticide that is allowed to remain in or on a food (included cooked, peeled or otherwise processed foods and animal products like milk).

Regulators are intentionally conservative and set residue limits far below levels of toxicity – with the official safety limit set at least 100x lower than the dose tested to be safe. And because organic production, just like other farming, relies on pesticides such as pyrethrins, spinosad, and copper sulfate, detectable residues are in many organic foods as well.

Current scientific evidence does not establish a direct causal link between glyphosate exposure and autism. Regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have evaluated glyphosate’s safety and have not identified it as a neurodevelopmental hazard.

No. Claims of association between exposure to pesticides like glyphosate and instances of chronic diseases and conditions do not withstand the weight of evidence from scientific evaluations, based on a comprehensive analysis of all relevant studies and findings.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are among the world’s most extensively tested products, with about 2,400 studies and 50 years of research, and leading regulators and credible scientific studies have repeatedly found glyphosate is safe to use as directed.