Farmers warn that access to cornerstone herbicides like glyphosate is not just a policy debate but a make-or-break factor for conservation, food prices and the future of U.S. agriculture.
On a media call hosted by the Modern Ag Alliance on Friday, three veteran Midwest farmers say they are farming through some of the tightest margins of their careers while shouldering growing uncertainty over crop-protection tools. They argue that science-based regulation, consistent labeling and a predictable legal environment are essential if they are to keep adopting conservation practices and stay competitive globally.
“We depend on crop-protection tools every single day that we’re raising a crop,” says northwest Missouri farmer Blake Hurst, who grows corn and soybeans. “Losing access to crop protection chemicals like glyphosate would be a terrible blow, a disastrous blow for farmers, as we’re facing these tough times.”
The discussion on Friday morning came about as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in the Monsanto v. Durnell case scheduled for Monday, April 27. At the same time, Congress continues work on the farm bill, which contains provisions that could shape how crop-protection products are regulated.
Modern Ag Alliance Executive Director Elizabeth Burns-Thompson says the organization sees the Supreme Court case and farm bill development as landmarks.
“At the end of the day, I think the crux of the question is, if we cannot get the clarity or consistency around labeling, what does that mean big picture?” Burns-Thompson says.
She argues that without clear, uniform federal rules on what constitutes a sufficient label, companies may pull back on manufacturing or innovation, particularly inside the United States.
The Economic Reality Of Crop Protection
Hurst says farmers already operate on “margins that are negative,” forcing them to stretch machinery life, cut back on inputs and take on more debt just to stay in business. If a widely used and relatively affordable herbicide like glyphosate becomes unavailable or more difficult to access, he says the resulting cost increases will ripple from the farm field to the supermarket.
“That eventually shows up on food prices and grocery store shelves,” Hurst says. “We don’t have the margins to absorb major increases in costs, so we will pass those costs along eventually.”
Mark Jackson, who farms with his son southeast of Des Moines, says glyphosate is tightly linked to the conservation systems he has spent decades building. Jackson, a fifth-generation Iowa grower describes a lifetime of watching soil erosion give way to the use of more sustainable practices.
He says his farm has been in no-till for at least 25 years, a shift he also sees is taking root across much of Iowa.
“Roughly 40% or better of Iowa is in no-till conservation status, which is a tremendous mindset and a cultural mindset,” Jackson says. “When you talk about glyphosate leading the charge in conservation, I think we also need to remind people that we don’t use chemicals just willy-nilly.”
Relying On Science-Based Regulation
Jackson points to multiple federal agencies involved in approving and reviewing pesticides as evidence that farmers are using tools vetted by science and regulation.
“They have been approved by the EPA, the FDA, the USDA — you might say all the A’s in the government have gone through the pipelines to allow these chemicals to be used, and then they are reviewed at regular intervals,” he says. “So, I think we need to have confidence in what our government is there for, which is to maintain quality. We still do have the best and most consistent food supply in the world.”
Jackson also cites long-running health research involving farmers as pesticide applicators. Referring to a large North American study that monitored tens of thousands of farmers, including on his own farm, he says the findings in the study do not match public fears about glyphosate.
“Let’s not let emotion drive the conversation, but let’s follow the science,” he says.
Current Agronomic Tools Are Invaluable
For Bill Couser, a central Iowa corn and cattle producer who is “very heavily involved” in the ethanol industry, access to reliable herbicides is part of a larger system that includes livestock feed and low-carbon fuel markets. He says any disruption in tool availability quickly translates into higher input costs and lost opportunity.
“When I grow the feed, I have to make sure I have the lowest cost feedstuffs I can going into my farming operation, and also the safest feedstuffs that we can,” Couser says.
He ties herbicide use to carbon intensity scores that increasingly shape ethanol markets. No-till practices and efficient weed control, he says, help farmers lower carbon intensity levels, which in turn benefits both farmers and ethanol plants.
“When you look at just the state of Iowa and the 43 [ethanol] plants here, why, the way we bring this to our plants and to our livestock operations is huge,” Couser says.
Couser, who serves on an EPA Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities advisory committee, says having farmers at the table with regulators is essential.
“It gives the farmer a seat at the table, and we’re not on the menu,” he says. “We have to make sure that we sit with these industry leaders and make sure that we help them understand and educate them about the science and the products that we need to be able to use to be able to stay profitable in this industry.”
Stifling Innovation And The Path Forward
The farmers on the call said they accept that some older products have been removed from the market for safety reasons. Much of their concern now is that litigation and regulatory uncertainty could chill innovation and push companies to avoid introducing new technologies in the U.S. altogether.
“If we get a negative ruling [on Monday], that is going to make it easier to sue over not only glyphosate, but the other products we use, that means we won’t have new products introduced, because what company will take that risk?” Hurst says, referencing billions of dollars in legal costs tied to glyphosate litigation.
What worries him, he adds, is not just losing glyphosate, but the outlook for future products and continued innovation.
“The question that has to be asked and never is, is what next?” Hurst says. “We’re not going to go back to farming like we did in 1990. We don’t have the labor, we don’t have the diesel, we don’t have the people, and people won’t want to pay what food costs will be if we don’t have these products. So, what next? We’re going to use other chemicals that are more expensive, increasing feed costs, that are more dangerous.”
The farmers describe a common expectation of federal oversight and a shared belief that existing science supports continued use of glyphosate under current labels. Burns-Thompson says that is exactly why the Alliance is pushing for national clarity on labeling standards.
“By having shades of gray state-by-state, as to how that is ultimately satisfied, [it] creates a patchwork of confusion,” she says. “At the end of the day, the product doesn’t change from state-to-state. So neither should the safety warnings.”
For these farmers, what they say they want from policymakers and courts is not a free pass, but a stable, science-led framework that lets them plan years ahead — and keep farming with the next generation.
“We know this thing is changing again,” Couser says, noting that his sons are now the fifth generation on the family operation. “How do we make sure we continue that legacy to make sure they can farm in the future?”
