After studying glyphosate for the last 20 years and having become a go to resource for brands, NGOs and government policy makers around the world on this subject, it has been an interesting few days, to say the least, since the President Trump’s Executive Order on the world’s most used weed killer.
Editorial By Henry Rowlands, Chief Editor, Sustainable Pulse
Glyphosate is the foundational chemical for the current food system, which is a fact that no one can escape from. It is with this fact in mind that we need to approach glyphosate carefully, so as to quickly reduce its use but not to create sudden problems for America’s farmers.
The Executive Order issued by U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday has whipped up a massive negative reaction from Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) supporters as well as many NGOs involved in the food and environmental spaces in the U.S. and around the world. It has meanwhile received a chorus of support from the U.S. chemical herbicide manufacturers and their lobby groups. ‘Glyphosate’ was even trending on X across North America at the end of last week.
The Executive Order was followed by an excellent post on Sunday on X by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert. F Kennedy Jr, which outlined that although the Trump-led U.S. government currently sees glyphosate as critical for economic and national security, it should not remain that way and that a serious plan for alternatives to glyphosate is underway.
“We are accelerating the transition to regenerative agriculture by expanding farming systems that rebuild soil, increase biodiversity, improve water retention, and reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals, including pre-harvest desiccation.
“We are also driving the rapid adoption of next-generation technologies, including laser-guided weed control, electrothermal and electrical systems, robotics, precision mechanical cultivation, and biological controls that replace blanket spraying with precision intervention.
“These solutions are not theoretical. Farmers are already putting them to work. Markets are scaling them. Now the federal government will act with urgency to expand their reach and accelerate adoption nationwide,” Kennedy stated.
Glyphosate will now become a central feature of the campaign ahead of the midterm elections in the U.S., the results of which will help to form the global political landscape for the following 2 years.
What are the Key Quotes from Trump’s Executive Order?
- “United States-based production of glyphosate-based herbicides is central to American economic and national security.”
- “Accordingly, the Secretary shall ensure that any order, rule, or regulation issued under this section does not place the corporate viability of any domestic producer of elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides at risk.”
- “As the most widely used crop protection tools in United States agriculture, glyphosate-based herbicides are a cornerstone of this Nation’s agricultural productivity and rural economy, allowing United States farmers and ranchers to maintain high yields and low production costs while ensuring that healthy, affordable food options remain within reach for all American families.”
- “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity. Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.”
Each separate quote is vital to address to enable a balanced reaction to the Executive Order that considers the serious concerns of economic and national security and also understands that glyphosate is a cancer-causing chemical that is causing havoc to America’s public health:
Firstly, it is of course logical that Trump and the U.S. government should support localized production of farm chemicals, rather than relying almost totally on global supply chains, which in the case of glyphosate are totally dominated by China.
Secondly, protecting producers of glyphosate and other pesticides from legal action from the American people, many of whom have been harmed by the chemicals that are being produced is not correct and the Supreme Court will hopefully soon rule in favor of the people and public health on this matter. Glyphosate causes multiple types of cancer and other illnesses, as was recently proven by the Global Glyphosate Study, which is the most comprehensive study ever undertaken on a herbicide or pesticide of any kind.
Thirdly, it is vital that farmers are not financially damaged by any U.S. government decision and a sudden ban on glyphosate would cause financial distress and would most likely reduce the amount of unhealthy food currently being produced. Current short-term support for the localized production of glyphosate-based herbicides is vital for supporting the current status quo, however this should not lead to mid-term or long-term support, as glyphosate-based herbicides need to be phased out, as non-toxic alternatives enter the market, to support America’s farmers and to protect U.S. public health.
What is the answer to the Glyphosate Dilemma?
The U.S. pesticide industry that has directly caused much of the current chronic disease crisis, has been subsidized indirectly through federal farm policies for decades that encourage intensive, chemical-dependent industrial agriculture. Subsidies, such as crop insurance and commodity support programs, reduce the risk of high-input farming, while federal funding for agricultural research frequently supports pesticide-heavy systems.
The U.S. government can now take real action to change this paradigm by:
- Creating the first ever long-term plan to support non-toxic alternatives to glyphosate, other chemical herbicides and pesticides, including similar financial incentives that have been indirectly provided to the pesticide industry
- Encouraging and funding independent gold standard science, including the ongoing Global Glyphosate Study, and making sure the results of such science are supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Targeting pre-harvest desiccation, an off-label use of glyphosate, in which it is sprayed to dry out crops just before they are harvested. This controversial practice is the reason so much glyphosate enters the food supply, as can be shown from multiple recent testing projects, including on food provided to the U.S. military and on cereal and bread products.
- Support independent clean label certifications, including Made Safe, Glyphosate Residue Free and CleanScan that provide consumers the right to know whether glyphosate is in the products they buy for themselves and their children.
The short history of glyphosate is a shocking one to read and the topic surrounding the world’s most used herbicide is now more politically charged than ever. The U.S. government now has the opportunity to solve the Glyphosate Dilemma, at the same time as putting public health and America’s farmers first!
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
