Editor’s Note: With over 80% of U.S. no-till soybean and corn growers using glyphosate for weed control, this worldwide news roundup deals with concerns about the herbicide’s future use, possible banning, use strategy, new restrictions, health and environmental concerns. Our twice-a-month No-Till Farmer “In the Weeds” series will keep you updated on the latest glyphosate news from around the world. — Frank Lessiter, Editor, No-Till Farmer
By Jeff Bessen PhD candidate in chemical biology, Harvard University
Published January 17, 2025 on Real Clear Health
The introduction of commodity genetically modified crops (GMOs) in 1996 sparked a fierce backlash from environmental activists and consumers concerned that ‘manipulating nature’ could lead to potentially dire, unforeseen consequences. But there was almost no public outcry when the techniques of genetic engineering were first developed in the 1970s and used to commercialize pharmaceutical applications, such as GMO insulin, in 1982.
So why does the public view crop biotechnology and biomedicine so differently?
The public perceives biomedicine more favorably, experts say, because it directly benefits them by preventing and treating serious diseases that afflict millions of people worldwide. The benefits of commodity crop biotechnology — including better yields and lower production costs — go first to the farmer and have remained largely unseen and thus underappreciated by consumers. Additionally, the anti-GMO movement has capitalized on consumer ignorance with an effective marketing campaign against GMOs, financed largely by organic food proponents and environmental organizations.
Despite ample evidence that GMO crops do not threaten human health, a large portion of the general public remains skeptical of agricultural biotechnology. According to a June 2018 poll, just over 50 percent of U.S. consumers say they would avoid foods that were labeled as “bioengineered.” That contrasts with scientists who see bioengineered crops as safe and beneficial. A 2015 Pew poll found that 88% of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) scientists believe the technology is perfectly safe.
When it comes to medical advancements, however, Americans aren’t as apprehensive. In the same 2015 study, which also considered American opinions on biomedicine, The Pew Research survey asked the general public whether or not they felt the use of bioengineering to create artificial organs was an “appropriate use of medical advances” or was “taking such advances too far.” Fully 74% of adults say that bioengineering of organs is appropriate.
Consumers are clearly split about how they think about genetic engineering. GMOs (transgenics), which involves moving genes from one animal or plant into another, seems artificial to many people, a violation of nature’s order, especially when it comes to something as personal and visceral as food. It’s not clear how the public will respond to the introduction of CRISPR gene-edited crops, which are expected to hit the market in the coming years, but anti-GMO activists are beginning to sound the alarm about the alleged dangers of gene editing as well.
Yet the use of transgenics in biomedicine creates very little controversy, even though the process to develop a medical product is almost identical to the one used to create a GMO seed. Both are the result of very long and careful screening processes to find the right molecules and proteins, and the genes that code for them. In both cases, various organisms are engineered for use as factories to produce the engineered product. Bacteria are the preferred option, as they are the easiest to grow and scale-up for production. But depending on the complexity of the drug’s molecular structure, other organisms such as yeasts and mammalian cells can also be used to express the final product.
As one example, scientists use biotechnology to analyze new diseases and manufacture vaccines to protect against them. Harvard University chemist Jeff Bessen:
Many vaccines and top-grossing pharmaceuticals contain proteins as the main ingredient. Proteins are too costly and delicate to manufacture from scratch. But living cells must make proteins to survive, and they can be coaxed to produce medical proteins in bulk, requiring little more than the DNA instructions and sugary broth as fuel. Since these genetic blueprints must be inserted into the cells, many vaccines and drugs are technically the product of GMOs.
While the techniques used to modify the organisms in making drugs and creating new crops are similar, the intent couldn’t be more different. Pharmaceutical companies look to manufacture drugs intended to have deliberate effects on the biochemistry of their targets, to treat or cure a disease. Agricultural companies add traits to plants that will help farmers without harming consumers or the environment. The next step is to take the candidate genes and insert them into the appropriate host crop. Then begins the painstaking operation of selecting the organism or plant that expresses the desired trait.
This leads to the last commonality between biotech crops and drugs: both go through a multi-year approval process. The process for drug products ensures that it does what it is designed to do, with minimal side effects. Because these compounds are designed to have profound biological impacts, they have a more in-depth approval process. They must not only be shown to be safe, but effective for the condition they are targeted to treat.
The approval process for agriculture is far more limited in principle, supposedly only concerned with safety and substantive equivalence. The process confirms that the crop is as safe to eat or use as its non-GMO counterpart, and that it does not pose a risk to the environment. Currently only a few genetic changes are made to a crop, which ultimately result in the expression of well understood proteins. That makes checking for known allergens and digestibility a relatively straightforward process. These safeguards are doing their job, as the scientific consensus is quite clear: the currently approved GMO crops pose no greater health or environmental concerns than their non-GMO counterparts. But the approval process has been so politicized that it takes on average 13 years and $130 million to get a crop approved; the only bioengineered animal to be approved, AquaBounty’s sustainable salmon, took 17 years, and still is not on the market because of a political fight led by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski who fears the engineered Atlantic salmon will threaten the wild Pacific salmon.
Nonetheless, the public perceives biomedicine as much more palatable than crop biotechnology. The reasons are twofold. Most importantly, medical innovations have immediate, palpable impacts on public health. For example, diabetes, which was once a “death sentence” according to former FDA scientist Henry Miller, is now manageable for millions of diabetics thanks in part to inexpensive insulin mass produced with genetically-engineered bacteria. FDA-approved gene therapies are now available to mute the effects of leukemia and lymphoma ,diseases that kill just over 40,000 people a year. Both treatments involve genetically engineering a patient’s immune cells to attack the diseases.
Research suggests that consumers are more willing to accept genetic engineering when they experience direct benefits. A 2016 study published in PLOS One found that 68 percent of consumers were willing to accept genetic engineering when used to improve human health. Consumer acceptance dropped to 49 percent when genetic engineering was applied to agriculture.
With the notable exceptions of vitamin-enhanced Golden Rice (still not in distribution) and the disease-resistant Hawaiian papaya, both of which were developed largely independently of multinational corporations, the agricultural applications of biotechnology have been predominantly designed to address the practical concerns of farming, such as controlling destructive insects and weeds. Herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant crops have given farmers more choices and reduced agriculture’s environmental footprint.
Consumers benefit, but indirectly in the form of significantly lower food prices for many products, according to the USDA. But it’s farmers who actually benefit from improved crop yields and lower costs. Beginning in the late 1990s, many organic food proponents and environmental groups have capitalized on consumer ignorance about genetic engineering, launching well-funded, anti-GMO campaigns. Aided by widespread media coverage, activists raised “unnecessary anxiety among consumers,” says University of California, Riverside molecular geneticist Alan McHughen, which gave rise to the ongoing controversy over crop biotechnology.
Anti-biotech activists first tried to stifle genetic engineering in the late 1970s and early 1980s when the technology was used to develop the first biotech pharmaceuticals. They failed, experts say, because the medical benefits of the technology were tangible to the public. Research confirms that communicating consumer-focused benefits of current and new generation gene edited crops, including lower prices and increased nutrition, might quell unfounded fears of crop biotechnology, as it did with biomedicine. The authors of a 2018 study summarized what might be done:
Our research points to the need for the GM industry to change how it’s promoting the products, and to begin producing foods that directly benefit consumers. The agricultural biotechnology industry needs to place consumer interests at the center of their focus, not only at the time of selling their products, but also during the research and development processes.
University of Saskatchewan agricultural economist Stuart Smyth speculates that the anti-GMO movement, by so fervently attacking GMOs, has galvanized scientists and science journalists to engage the public in conversation about crop biotechnology, which could also improve consumer acceptance.
As the public continues to learn about and experience the benefits of genetic engineering, claims about GMO “frankenfoods” could begin to fall on deaf ears. If that happens, the public may gradually embrace GMO crops and next-generation gene edited foods as they do bioengineered pharmaceuticals.
Read the original article on Real Clear Health ”
Published September 22, 2025 by Data Intelligence Market Research
The global glyphosate market has become one of the most crucial segments of the agrochemical industry, primarily due to its widespread use as a systemic, broad-spectrum herbicide. Glyphosate is widely adopted in large-scale agricultural operations, especially for genetically modified (GM) crops that tolerate herbicide applications without damaging the main crop. According to DataM Intelligence, the global glyphosate market reached US$9,507.88 million in 2024 and is projected to hit US$15,422.61 million by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 6.23% during the forecast period (2025-2032). The surge in global food demand, coupled with the adoption of conservation tillage practices and the expansion of GM crop acreage, are among the strongest growth drivers.
Asia-Pacific and North America lead the market, but for different reasons. North America dominates due to extensive GM crop cultivation and advanced agricultural practices, while Asia-Pacific is witnessing rapid adoption due to government support for higher yields, expanding commercial farming, and rising food security concerns. Among segments, the agricultural application is the clear leader, as glyphosate is indispensable in soybean, corn, cotton, and wheat farming across major economies like the U.S., Brazil, and Argentina.
The glyphosate market is segmented by crop type, formulation, mode of action, application, and region.
North America dominates the global glyphosate market, driven by extensive adoption of herbicide-resistant GM crops, conservation tillage practices, and strong agrochemical supply chains. In the U.S., over 90% of soybean and cotton crops are glyphosate-resistant, ensuring continued reliance on the herbicide. Canada follows closely, especially in canola and wheat production.
South America, particularly Brazil and Argentina, is another key region. With more than 90% of soybean and maize acreage genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate, these countries rank among the highest consumers globally. Glyphosate’s role in large-scale commercial farming has made it a cornerstone of South American agriculture.
Asia-Pacific is projected to witness the fastest growth, driven by rising adoption in India, China, and Southeast Asia. Indian firms like UPL Ltd. and Rallis India are scaling up glyphosate portfolios to cater to rural demand during planting seasons. Government initiatives to improve productivity and food security further enhance growth prospects.
Europe, however, remains a challenging market due to strict regulations. While some countries like Germany and France have announced phase-outs or restrictions, others are still debating glyphosate’s future use.
The primary driver is the expansion of GM crop cultivation, with 209.8 million hectares grown in 2024 globally. Glyphosate’s ability to deliver broad-spectrum weed control while being crop-friendly makes it essential for modern farming. Growing global food demand, combined with conservation tillage practices, further fuels adoption.
Stringent regulatory restrictions and bans in several countries significantly hinder growth. Health and environmental concerns — particularly links to cancer and ecological impact have led to lawsuits, consumer resistance, and stricter EU regulations. Weed resistance is another key challenge, forcing farmers to rotate herbicides and diversify their weed management strategies.
Innovation presents strong opportunities. Agrochemical companies are investing in bio-based formulations and combination herbicides to reduce resistance and environmental footprint. Emerging economies with growing food demand and favorable government policies represent untapped potential for market expansion.
The glyphosate market remains a vital component of global agriculture, providing efficient weed control across millions of hectares of farmland. While facing regulatory scrutiny and environmental challenges, its role in enhancing productivity and supporting conservation tillage ensures strong demand. North America and South America continue to dominate usage, while Asia-Pacific emerges as the fastest-growing region. With innovation in bio-based alternatives and integrated solutions, the glyphosate market is set for sustained but evolving growth through 2032.
Read the original article on EIN Presswire ”
Read the original report on Data Intelligence Market Research ”
A Letter to the Editor from Janice Mitchell Tehkummah
Published August 27, 2025 on The Manitoulin Expositor
The Traditional Ecological Knowledge Elders held a highway protest last week near Serpent River on Highway 17. This group has been vocal for several years, as reported by this newspaper, national media outlets and a CBC documentary, ‘Into the Weeds.’ Many of you may see their billboards on the northern highways: “glyphosate kills all.” Many of you may have also seen the Facebook posts by a nonprofit group “Stop the Spray,” which was started by Joel Thériault, a Northeastern bush pilot, noticing a loss of forest diversity as visible from the air.
Their protest was held as the Ministry of Natural Resources was commencing August 1 the aerial spraying of glyphosate in a large swath of the Spanish forest bordering Elliott Lake, Blind River and Espanola “to control competing vegetation” (as quoted on their Facebook site). They also continue to tout the line that glyphosate is deemed safe if used correctly, although this safety margin was last evaluated in 2017 and will not be reviewed until 2032. There are numerous meta-analyses to date and mounting data that demonstrate the harm to all microbiomes of human, mammal, soil and insects, to which I have personally demonstrated high levels of this known carcinogen in my dead bee colonies. (Note: meta-analyses are examination of data from a number of independent studies of the same subject, in order to determine overall trend. In other words, powerful evidence.)
Take note: It is not just the MNR spraying our forests, it is also the forest companies. Why? To selectively destroy the deciduous trees in favor of the more profitable coniferous trees — more profit. This is much like the approach of the industrial farming model in the south. The use of this herbicide that is sprayed approximately 1/2-1 litre/acre on the cash crop lands of corn, soy and canola, to name a few. Thus, our province gets ubiquitous application of this compound in the north by forest companies and the MNR, highway roadside application by the MTO and most of our agricultural lands predominantly in the south and here on Manitoulin Island. As the famous 1500s Swiss physician Paracelsus stated: “the dose makes the poison.” How much total herbicide is applied in a year in just our province alone? Only the companies that make this known by their profit margins.
But here’s the clincher: for all these forest fires that we have been experiencing lately, one has to recognize that glyphosate is making our forests dry as tinder. Glyphosate is a desiccant. And also in destroying the deciduous trees that act as a natural buffer for wildfires, we lose that protection. Our forests are now ready to go up in flames at any lightning strike. Just take a look at the title of an article in the Narwhal publication of December 2024 “Aspen is a natural fire guard. Why has BC spent decades killing it off with glyphosate?”
It baffles me how the powers that be discuss carbon taxes and promote electric vehicles, and yet continue to allow this harmful compound to be sprayed year after year in our skies, on our land and spill off into our waters and a lot of this application is funded by you and me — the taxpayers.
I am just hoping that there are more fires that are lit, not in our forests but in the hearts of concerned Canadians like our TEK elders to speak out against this herbicide misuse. To quote Peter Gabriel: “You can blow out a candle, but you can’t blow out a fire. Once the flame begins to catch, the wind will blow it higher.” Stop the spray.
Read the original article on The Manitoulin Expositor ”
By Nevil Speer
Published September 2, 2025 on Feedstuffs
Despite having written four prior columns related to glyphosate (read one, two, three and four), there remains (at least in my mind) some things that need to be said. Namely, it strikes me that sometimes while fretting about the world, we (collectively) miss the bigger picture. And perhaps some historical perspective regarding food and hunger might prove useful.
My previous column highlighted the fact that 10 years ago, I was writing about genetically modified organisms (GMOs); glyphosate wasn’t even on the radar. That all changed when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).”
That served as the opening for the media and the attorneys; they went to work and successfully changed the discourse from GMOs to glyphosate. Hence, my reference to Roseanne Roseannadanna: “It’s always something. If it isn’t one thing, it’s another.”
As a reminder for the doomsayers, the Environmental Protection Agency classifies glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
With that, let’s turn to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s August World Agricultural Supply & Demand Estimates report. The agency pegged this year’s corn production at 16.74 billion bushels. The estimate beats the previous record of 15.34 billion in 2023 by nearly 10%! There’s a long way to go before the crop is in – but however it turns out, this year is shaping up to be another huge crop.
What does any of that have to do with glyphosate? Here’s where some perspective becomes important. Consider that just 20 years ago, the U.N. Food & Agriculture Organization estimated that about 12% of the global population (6.6 billion people) was suffering from hunger / malnutrition – the equivalent of about 800 million people. Now fast-forward to 2025: The world population has surged to 8.2 billion people (+25%). However, the number of hungry / malnourished people has declined; FAO pegs it at about 750 million people – or roughly 9% of the world’s population.
Stated another way, during the past two decades, we’ve added nearly 1.6 billion (yes, billion!) people to the planet. Yet, global agriculture is not only feeding those additional people but also ensuring that hunger, at the very least, has remained in check. Sure, there are still too many people suffering from hunger, but often it’s not due to food; it results from politics. We take it for granted. Agriculture’s success story doesn’t get enough credit in the public discourse.
In my previous column, I referenced a story from 2013 about a man protesting GMOs (remember, glyphosate wasn’t even on the radar yet). At the time, I explained there’s seemingly this “widespread notion that agriculture’s increased productivity is in some way detrimental for society.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The column further stated this:
“Consider that over the past 100 years we’ve been able to reallocate human labor to some other endeavor besides just feeding ourselves. That’s led to an amazing boom of specialization and creativity providing all sorts of advancements in other areas. The likes of which we would NOT enjoy if weren’t for the ability to produce more food with less labor and fewer resources. Not to mention, there’d be far more hungry people on the planet.”
This all started with the first column noting that “Glyphosate deserves careful consideration.” That same principle holds true for all advancements. Agriculture’s productivity not only ensures we all get fed, but it has also allowed society the luxury to chase other pursuits. In the absence of more food, our collective world view would assuredly be different – and not for the better.
So, next time someone begins to tell you about the terrors of glyphosate (despite evidence to the contrary) or the dangers of any other technology, maybe just pause and ask, “How might the world be without it?”
