Make no mistake — the loss of glyphosate would be astonishingly expensive and bad for agriculture.
There are several camps among the myriad lobby groups, internet sites and self-described health campaigners that would have the public believe otherwise, but there can be no other outcome if an outright ban were to be implemented.
And as the growing of food became more expensive and difficult and farm outputs dwindled, it wouldn’t be long before the effects were passed on down the food chain to food companies and consumers.
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
There are no winners in a total ban on glyphosate and we should challenge claims that state otherwise. Simply put, it is not sustainable.
However, glyphosate could be more judiciously used. The task ahead is to determine more exacting recommendations for when it should and should not be used.
Not only would that help calm some of the consumer concerns around glyphosate, but it would also serve farmers by eliminating some of the unnecessary uses, which would help fight the problem of glyphosate resistant weeds.
Currently, the forces working against glyphosate are many. There are campaigns in most regions of the world seeking at least to restrict glyphosate use, if not have it banned out right. Recently, an agency of the World Health Organization classified glyphosate as a likely carcinogen, health and consumer groups have raised concerns and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has developed a plan to place restrictions on glyphosate use, although it has not released details as yet.
The issue of destroying butterfly habits and milkweed, a major monarch butterfly food source, has added to the clamour.
As well, recently, the EPA announced that it may start testing food for glyphosate residue. That is a positive development. If we believe glyphosate to be as safe as reported, we should not fear honest testing and transparency.
The case for glyphosate is simple. If not the safest herbicide ever developed, it is certainly one of the safest. Despite its main purpose to kill plant matter, it has low toxicity for animals and the environment.
But the most intense battle over glyphosate will be fought in the political arena, not so much in science institutions and laboratories.
That’s why it’s important that farmers take what action they can to influence change before other parties desiring more wholesale changes gain the upper hand.
If glyphosate use was stopped today, the alternatives farmers would be forced to use are much more toxic or environmentally harmful.
And the arguments that the world could get by on organic production alone does not stand up. Organic farming forms an important part of the agricultural industry but it cannot sustainably feed the world population.
If glyphosate was taken away from farmers tomorrow, it would mean more tillage and fuel usage, as well as acres and acres of natural habitat that would have to be plowed under to compensate for lower production.
That’s why it is important for all of society, not just farmers, to treat the issue seriously, but with common sense.
Glyphosate is at danger of becoming a victim of its own success. Because it is so easy to use and relatively safe, it has fallen into overuse. Farmers can help glyphosate’s public perception by stopping its prophylactic use and using only best management practices.
It will make some aspects of farming a little more difficult and inconvenient, but there is much at stake.
