What is Glyphosate?
Why we need to control weeds
Each year, between 26% and 40% of the world's potential crop production is lost due to weeds, pests, and diseases. Without crop protection, these losses could easily double.1
First introduced in the 1970s, glyphosate is an extremely effective herbicide with a 50-year history of safe use.
Weeds, pests and diseases destroy between 26% and 40% of the world’s potential crops annually. Without crop protection, those losses could easily double.1
In the past, controlling weeds had to be done by hand — an incredibly difficult and time-, labor- and cost-intensive process. Modern crop protection tools made this process easier by allowing farmers to precisely spray weeds. To maximize food production from the available cropland and produce enough food to feed a growing population, we need to effectively control weeds.
Today, glyphosate-based products are the most widely used weed control products in the world. They are not only highly effective and drive economic and environmental benefits, but they also have a strong safety profile. Due to its long history of use, rigorous testing and oversight, glyphosate is also one of the most studied herbicides in the world.
Fact
Without crop protection, groceries would be 48% more expensive for a family of four in the U.S.2
Food Prices
Glyphosate's ability to enhance agricultural productivity and cost-efficiency helps keep food prices stable and accessible for all:
- Herbicides and other crop protection innovations save the average family of four up to 48% on their average grocery bill.2
- For fruits and vegetables alone, crop yields could fall by 50%-90% without glyphosate, leading to consumer price increases for those products of 35%-45%—on top of existing inflation.3,4
Our Environment
As the population grows, farmers are continuously working to grow healthy crops with less impact on the environment. That means using less land and natural resources, preserving biodiversity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping to ensure that soil stays rich with nutrients. Glyphosate plays an important environmental role:
- Glyphosate minimizes the need for plowing. By not disturbing the soil, no-till farming enables more carbon to be stored in the soil, thereby contributing to lower greenhouse gas emissions. And, by decreasing the need for tilling, crop protection products reduce fossil fuel use in farm equipment by 558 million gallons per year.2
- Today, about 400 million acres in the U.S. are used to raise crops. Without herbicides like glyphosate, farmers would need to put more land into production to produce the same amount of food – the equivalent of about 800 million acres or 42% of the total land area of the lower 48 states in the U.S.4
Overall, glyphosate plays a vital role in promoting regenerative agriculture practices that benefit both the ecosystem and agricultural productivity.
Crop protection products like glyphosate boost the value of agricultural production, which in turn supports more than a million jobs, generating over $33 billion in wages.2
Our Economy
Crop protection products provide many benefits to the U.S. economy, including:
- Increased Crop Value: Crop protection products boost the value of agricultural production. They contribute to about 36% of the total crop value. In fact, nearly half of the states in the U.S. see crop values over $1 billion each, thanks to these essential products.2
- Job Creation and Wages: This boost in agricultural production supports an additional 1,040,661 American jobs, generating more than $33 billion in wages.2
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.
Yes. For more than 40 years, glyphosate has been widely used by farmers in Europe to maintain productive, sustainable operations and help keep food affordable.
In 2020, the European Commission started their re-evaluation of glyphosate and, in 2023, renewed their approval of its use in the EU for another 10 years. This evaluation was informed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)’s assessment, which was the most comprehensive and transparent assessment of a pesticide that EFSA and the EU Member States had ever carried out. It found “no risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate.”
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.
There is no definitive scientific evidence that pesticides cause autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) notes that autism is a complex condition primarily influenced by genetic factors, and that environmental exposures, including certain pesticides, are not considered primary or definitive causes of autism.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted comprehensive evaluations of pesticide safety which have not established pesticides as a cause of autism
There is currently no established link between PFAS exposure and autism. Studies have examined possible links between per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but no causal relationship has been established.
There is no definitive scientific evidence that pesticides cause Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) conducted a review of the association between ADHD and environmental chemicals which did not find sufficient evidence to support a direct link between pesticide exposure and the development of ADHD.
There is no conclusive scientific evidence that pesticide exposure causes mental health disorders. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), all registered pesticides undergo rigorous health and safety evaluations, including assessments of potential impacts on the nervous system. To date, these regulatory reviews have not confirmed a direct causal link between approved pesticide use and mental health disorders when products are used according to label directions.
Yes, some, as is standard practice across countries and regulators. Regulatory agencies require hundreds of studies evaluating all circumstances of human health and environmental impact. Some studies may be funded by the company with the product undergoing regulatory review, in compliance with regulation, but the studies are designed and validated by regulatory authorities and conducted by independent labs in compliance with globally recognized standards for data quality and integrity.
However, there are thousands of independent studies and assessments conducted and available to the public. The evidence is publicly available and can be found on our safety study page as well.
Bayer’s research on glyphosate (and other pesticides) is carried out in compliance with Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs). Research following this international framework allows third-party audits of safety studies to ensure data is reproducible, reliable, traceable and credible. Facility inspections, audits and intense data reviews are performed randomly by regulatory authorities (like the EPA), and raw data from the studies are archived for at least 15 years. This research is often conducted at the behest of the EPA and the Agency also provides clear direction about how studies should be conducted, either by manufacturers or at third-party labs. Some studies may be conducted by the company that makes the product, which is standard practice and done in compliance with regulations around the world. Many others are conducted by independent labs but funded by the manufacturer. The process is open and transparent, with all scientific data available for public scrutiny.
References
1. PesticideFacts.org: https://pesticidefacts.org/topics/necessity-of-pesticides/
2. CropLife America: The Contribution of Crop Protection Products to the United States Economy: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5faeee45a363746603d1c6e1/t/611d35b595cd13289c8d8a1d/1629304246771/The%2BContribution%2Bof%2BCrop%2BProtection%2BProducts%2Bto%2Bthe%2BUS%2BEconomy.pdf
3. CropLife Foundation: The Value of Fungicides in U.S. Crop Production: https://croplifefoundation.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/completed-fungicide-report.pdf
4. CropLife America: Pesticides FAQ: https://www.croplifeamerica.org/pesticide-faqs
5. Aimpoint Research: A Future Without Glyphosate: https://d1adyp7rxou94w.cloudfront.net/website/A-Future-Without-Glyphosate-Final-Executive-Summary.pdf
