Glyphosate, a widely-used herbicide, has garnered significant attention in recent years, especially in the context of sustainable agriculture. Last Thursday, the EU made a pivotal decision to extend the legal use of glyphosate for another 10 years. In short: this is not good news.

What Is Glyphosate, and why was this vote so important?

Glyphosate is a synthetic herbicide that was first introduced by Monsanto in the 1970s under the brand name Roundup. Since then, it has become one of the most widely used herbicides globally. Its efficiency and affordability made it very popular in agriculture. It is a non-selective herbicide, meaning it will kill most plants that it comes in contact with unless that plant has been genetically modified for resistance. 

What impact can glyphosate have on soil, animal, and human health?

While glyphosate is effective at killing weeds, the consequences of its use are of growing concern. It can reduce the diversity of beneficial microorganisms in the soil, leading to less fertile and resilient ecosystems. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that repeated use of glyphosate may contribute to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, posing a long-term challenge for farmers.

The potential health risks associated with glyphosate have also sparked extensive debate. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization, classified Glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015. This finding raised concerns about the herbicide’s safety. However, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that there are “no critical areas of concern” regarding the effects of glyphosate in their latest study from July 2023.

So which is it? 

In early November 2023, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) published their views on the subject: “The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) has serious reservations about the position of “no critical areas of concern” adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the herbicide active ingredient glyphosate and the European Commission’s subsequent proposal to renew its market approval. We note that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and subsequently EFSA have neglected to consider extensive, damning scientific evidence from laboratory studies, which demonstrate that glyphosate and its commercial formulations can give rise to toxicity and serious diseases through different mechanisms of action. This includes induction of fatty liver disease, oxidative stress, DNA damage, neurological damage and cancer.”

The conclusions reached by the EFSA and ECHA were based on studies conducted by none other than the chemical industry itself. These were deemed “unreliable” by the ENSSER, who also claimed that glyphosate’s impact on biodiversity was “grossly underestimated” in the assessment.

Bayer, the German chemical company responsible for producing glyphosate and holding the license, recently lost three legal cases in the U.S. against cancer patients attributing their illness to Roundup weed killer, and they still face close to 40,000 Roundup-related cases. 

Can we live without glyphosate?

Within the current food system, farmers have been facing a crisis. In short, costs keep rising, and the prices that farmers receive for the food they produce are not. (In some cases they even decrease.) In this context, for most farmers, the only way to survive is to keep costs as low as possible. Glyphosate is an effective herbicide with a very low cost and is therefore a popular product in the sector. In fact, there is a wide variety of herbicides on the market today, some with similar effects to glyphosate, but generally more expensive. And this is why most farmers around the world are not in favour of a ban.  

As consumers, we often tend to look for the cheapest product when we go to the supermarket. We end up buying products of lower quality, less nutritious and even from toxic agriculture, therefore reinforcing even further farmers’ dependence on glyphosate and other chemical inputs. So, to the question “Can we live without glyphosate?”, we believe the answer is yes.  But this requires a systemic change from farmers to consumers, and everyone has a part to play. 

To address the issues associated with glyphosate (and the negative impact of chemical inputs in general), farmers need to explore alternative practices.  

 A  regenerative approach can be a great ally to avoid glyphosate use since it focuses on building soil health, diversifying crops, and achieving an ecosystem balance that enables the reduction of chemical inputs. Plus, organic farming certifications ban glyphosate use, so organic-certified farmers have already proved it is possible. 

For example, Paco Marín from Fincas Refijo & Marroquino hasn’t used any chemical inputs since he joined CrowdFarming in 2020. “Four years ago, I made the decision to stop using glyphosate and other chemicals on my farm. Initially, I was scared of the uncertainty and doubted whether my crops and business could thrive without them. However, after overcoming that fear and despite scepticism from my neighbours, my production has increased. I’ve learned to manage it differently, and I’m now more confident and pleased to no longer depend on chemical products. It’s not just about my farm; it’s about the health of my family, workers, and the entire ecosystem we live in,” shares Paco.

By supporting farmers like Paco and encouraging consumers to be conscious of what really lies behind the price tags, we can create a world where glyphosate (and all chemical inputs) can, and must, become redundant.

Who should be involved? 

Farmers and consumers need to play their part, but those of us marketing, distributing, and regulating food also have a huge responsibility in ensuring that a different approach is possible. 

Government institutions face such strong lobbies regarding these decisions that they risk becoming unreliable as drivers of change, especially when it comes to sustainable agriculture. It’s essential to be aware of the ongoing discussions, as they have far-reaching consequences for the environment, agriculture, and public health. 

It’s time for a thorough examination of the herbicide’s long-term effects and the development of accessible and sustainable alternatives. The result of the EU vote has highlighted a lost opportunity for concerned citizens, farmers, and policymakers to make a real difference and change the future of our food system for the better.

Despite the results of Thursday’s vote, we can live without glyphosate. Although transitioning to a glyphosate-free (and in general chemical-free) food system can be a difficult and daunting task —  it is essential.