Failure to pass glyphosate legislation could affect Missouri and possibly national security.
This session the Missouri General Assembly is being asked to consider passing legislation that could affect the state’s most prominent industry, that being agriculture. Whether it be ending the sunset on various agricultural tax credits, or legislation to help bring affordable healthcare to those in rural Missouri, the state’s Ag industry is asking legislators to address serious issues this year.
One of those issues is the regulation/labeling of glyphosate products, mainly Roundup.
Glyphosate is an essential herbicide for Missouri’s agriculture, playing a vital role in helping farmers effectively control weeds and boost crop production. According to one study, 91% of Missouri soybean farmers use glyphosate as well as 66% of Missouri’s corn farmers.
With rising demand for food and the challenges posed by invasive weed species, many farmers in the state rely on glyphosate to keep their fields productive and ensure food supplies are secure for local and national markets. The herbicide’s effectiveness in managing a variety of weeds has made it a go-to option for many, allowing farmers to maximize their yields and lower production costs.
While many voices express concerns about the dangers of glyphosate, it’s important to recognize the extensive research and evaluation that underpin its approval by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for safety and efficacy.
The EPA’s endorsement is based on thorough scientific reviews that assess glyphosate’s effects on human health and the environment, considering factors such as toxicity and exposure levels. Following rigorous testing protocols, the EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose significant risks when used according to label instructions.
Despite ongoing debates about its safety, the EPA’s continued support highlights glyphosate’s essential role in modern agriculture and pest management, reassuring users of its responsible use and effectiveness.
The major concern that has been raised is based on a study published by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015. The study came to this conclusion based on “limited evidence” of cancer in humans and “sufficient evidence” in experimental animals.
The study has been criticized for some of its conclusions due to several factors.
First, the IARC focused primarily on limited data sources, which some experts argue did not encompass all relevant scientific studies, potentially leading to incomplete assessments of glyphosate’s safety.
Additionally, critics have pointed out that the methods used to classify glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” relied heavily on animal studies and epidemiological data that were not uniformly robust.
Furthermore, the IARC’s approach to risk assessment was seen as diverging from regulatory agencies, which often consider a broader range of data and the weight of evidence.
As a result, the findings have led to significant debate and concern among scientists, health professionals, and industry stakeholders regarding the actual risks posed by glyphosate.
Despite the concerns over the accuracy of the study, the study opened the door to lawsuits against Bayer and the RoundUp product.
RoundUp has seen serious lawsuits brought against it for supposedly causing cancer. Bayer, the company that acquired Monsanto which is responsible for RoundUp, has committed to paying $10.9 billion to resolve thousands of Roundup-related lawsuits, with around 165,000 lawsuits already filed and more than 60,000 additional cases still pending.
One case here in Cole County, Missouri saw a jury award each plaintiff $500 million in punitive damages as well as $5.6 million and $38 million in compensatory damages. The end of the trial led to Bayer paying a combined $1.56 billion to three individuals who claimed their cancer was caused by the weed killer Roundup.
While the jury and others like them across the country may have sided with the plaintiffs, in the end juries don’t decide science.
As concerns grow over potential restrictions on herbicides like glyphosate, many farmers are understandably worried that limiting its use could make weed management more challenging and adversely affect their yields.
Farmers know all too well how difficult it can be to maintain productivity without the right tools. This proposed bill addresses those concerns directly, aiming not only to recognize glyphosate’s significant economic importance but also to highlight its role in protecting crops from diseases and supporting overall food sustainability.
By securing access to glyphosate, Missouri farmers can mitigate risks related to crop loss and maintain a steady supply of food, which is vital for both state and national food security.
Additionally, there is a pressing national security angle to consider. The Chinese Communist Party has been making moves to gain a stronghold on the glyphosate market, which poses a potential threat to U.S. agriculture.
In 2015, China produced over 800,000 metric tons of glyphosate which accounted for nearly 70% of the world’s glyphosate production. Since then Chinese production of glyphosate has decreased, in 2021 it still managed to produce 760,000 metric tons which accounted for 60% of global glyphosate creation.
Chinese domination of glyphosate production could create dependencies that would pose serious risks for American farmers and the food security of the entire nation. In this context, protecting glyphosate use in Missouri could be even more urgent, highlighting the need for the U.S. to maintain its independence in agriculture and to strengthen local farming practices.
This is not just about ensuring that farmers have access to the chemicals they need; it’s about safeguarding the entire agricultural infrastructure of the country from foreign control.
Whether or not the legislation passes through the Missouri General Assembly, it’s clear that this bill will affect Missouri’s top industry and possibly national security.
