<p>Chemistry is not a bad thing; life depends on it. And just because a pesticide or herbicide is natural or synthetic has practically nothing to do with its toxicity. Many so-called natural or organic pesticides are many times more potent than widely-used synthetic ones, as <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/11/22/myth-busting-natural-pesticides-really-safer-synthetic-ones/?mc_cid=0b51d1b46a&amp;mc_eid=d552c8b21b" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> mentions.<br><br>As to whether or not Glyphosate is necessary, <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/11/28/eu-re-approval-glyphosate-herbicide-dodges-farming-economic-woes-now/?mc_cid=110fedeb39&amp;mc_eid=d552c8b21b" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> explains some of the economic impacts from an outright Glyphosate ban. Some of the effects include:<blockquote>...French research institute Arvalis suggested a ban would cost that country’s agriculture industry 976 million euros ($1.1 billion). And in Germany, the Kleffmann Group said restrictions could hurt barley and corn output—with profit margin shrinkage between 40 and 70 percent–as farmers start planting alternative, more profitable crops.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, where in 2014 2.2 million hectares of farms—a third of arable land—was treated with glyphosate, Oxford Economics estimated the impact would reduce wheat yields by 12 percent, oilseed/rape yields by 14 percent, and cereal production by 15 percent. Agricultural contributions to the nation’s GDP would shrink by about £930 million ($1.23 billion).</blockquote><br>In another article I recall reading (but can't find the citation for), Glyphosate is applied at a rate of only one pint per acre. Farms are not drenched in it as many anti-Glyphosate advocates would have us believe.<br><br>As to whether or not Glyphosate is a carcinogen, <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/11/27/french-scientist-calls-inquiry-iarcs-misbehavior-glyphosate-cancer-study/?mc_cid=110fedeb39&amp;mc_eid=d552c8b21b" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> calls much of that into question. Apparently, there were individuals involved who might have benefited substantially by having Glyphosate declared a human carcinogen.<br><br><b>Edit:</b>Some other interesting articles:<br><br><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/glyphosate-cause-cancer/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article </a> from Factcheck.org had this interesting tidbit<blockquote>Q: Does the herbicide glyphosate cause cancer? </p>

<p>A: There is evidence to suggest it may cause cancer at very high doses, but not at the low doses typically found in foods.</blockquote>and<blockquote>
The European Chemicals Agency...concluded in March 2017 that “the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen.”</blockquote><br>And <a href="https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/50921/title/Long-term-Study-Finds-That-the-Pesticide-Glyphosate-Does-Not-Cause-Cancer/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> from the-scientist.com said <blockquote>A new study has found no conclusive link between exposure to glyphosate—the main ingredient in a popular weedkiller—and cancer.</blockquote><br>And Reuters in <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this piece </a> said:<blockquote>
The World Health Organization's cancer agency says a common weedkiller is "probably carcinogenic." The scientist leading that review knew of fresh data showing no cancer link - but he never mentioned it and the agency did not take it into account.</blockquote></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-02T00:13:38.977Z
Thank you very much for that quote and article, exactly the kind of information I was looking for. Did my question seem in any way biased against Glyphosate to you, though? Interesting that you immediately feel the need to make a case for it. Also I find your first sentence is completely meaningless. You might as well say "Atoms aren't a bad thing--life depends on it". Well yeah, but so does Sarin.
smcs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-02T18:54:47.817Z
As a chemist I get a knee jerk reaction to any discussion about chemicals. It seems to me that as soon as soon as the general public hears the word *chemical* that there is a massive negative reaction. What the public fails to realize is that although a strawberry isn't *a* chemical, it has thousands of them. // I'm certainly not for polluting chemicals, or misusing chemicals. I just prefer to recognize that for our modern society that chemicals are necessary.
MaxW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-02T21:07:46.490Z
@speedymcs, sorry. That first sentence was motivated by some of the comments left by those responding to your original question and had nothing to do with your original question. Again, my apologies.
BillDOe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-03T10:58:08.603Z
Could you please bring up some neutral scientific references? The articles your reference are all from the same website and I expect them to be biased in one specific direction.
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-03T12:17:54.563Z
The cost estimations are probably based on current marked prizes. The actual financial problem for farmers are people, who want to buy (without having any financial pressure) the cheapest milk, bread, cheese, meat, etc. If we increased food prizes slightly, it could considerably counteract the mentioned financial losses. An order of magnitude: 20 EUR per person and year sum up to 1 billion EUR in a 50 million people country. Thus, paying less than 0.1 EUR in addition (20 EUR/365 days) per day and per person will counteract the negative financial impacts of a Glyphosate ban.
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-04T08:15:02.887Z
@daniel.neumann the GLP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Literacy_Project looks quite neutral to me. Although something published in a scientific journal would be probably more neutral. Since the main evidence GLP provides in the latter article for non-carcinogenicity of glyphosate to be a unpublished broad research; it would be nice to get more evidence on that.
Communisty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-04T08:31:25.357Z
@Communisty Thanks for the remark. I just looked at some other articles at this website.
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-04T21:05:22.030Z
Looking at the next step: Without herbicides, to raise about the same amount of food;  Farmers would burn more fossil fuel to cultivate and possibly use hydrocarbon flames to kill weeds.  Then some would object to  using more fuels. People should just eat less.
blacksmith37
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-05T09:51:02.537Z
@Max and Bill I sort of understand that reflex (been there in discussions about e.g. 'big pharma') However, people that think of themselves as scientifically minded often make a passionate stand for GMOs or in this case pesticides. I don't see how anyone profits from that, apart from the industry. This discussion is now focused on health effects, but that's just one possible side effect--after all we're influencing a system whose complexity is way beyond our ability to predict.
smcs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-05T09:53:47.963Z
E.g. it might very well be that we're taking away the habitat of insects on a huge scale by "sterilizing" farm land. You've probably heard of the recent publication mentioned here: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html
smcs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-05T19:38:49.120Z
While glyphosate can be broadly called a pesticide, it is, of course, a herbicide, meant to control weeds, not insects. As such, I don't see how glyphosate could influence insect populations, except possibly reducing the number of "weeds" that those insects might feed off of, and I would expect that effect to be minimal.
BillDOe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-01T22:06:28.890Z
2017-12-04T19:26:37.240Z
2017-12-04T19:26:37.240Z
BillDOe
<p>Glyphosate is the most important herbicide in agriculture by quantity. A committee of the European Union just recently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/27/controversial-glyphosate-weedkiller-wins-new-five-year-lease-in-europe" rel="nofollow noreferrer">voted</a> against a ban of the substance, after much debate around possible negative effects on human health. I now see a lot of petitions popping up on social media, calling for an immediate ban. This got me wondering: if Glyphosate would be banned in the near future, say in the course of next year, what problems would arise for farmers? Are there viable alternative weed killers, and would productivity be significantly reduced without using one?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-01T10:51:57.267Z
As this question seeks the answer related the relative good produced by using glyphosate shouldn't it also try to answer what is the relative bad it produces. As I recall IARC in has listed it as possible carcinogen.
Communisty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-01T12:50:38.760Z
I would say that would be a question on its own with completely different answers and a much larger potential for debate, since apparently there have been multiple conflicting studies about Glyphosate and human health. I also do not think that our agriculture depending on widespread use of chemicals is a positive thing. Not at all actually, and I'm interested whether Glyphosate specifically is necessary for today's life standard and land use or not.
smcs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-01T13:27:31.250Z
Good point. Though I'm not sure if this question could be better answered in Chemistry SE or Biology SE.
Communisty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-02T03:21:13.350Z
@Communisty: But if you want to be technical, everything is a possible carcinogen - including the oxygen in the air: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0306987783900336
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-02T16:45:55.323Z
Dah... Glyphosate is a herbicide not a pesticide. // PS - Don't eat anything since all food contains **chemicals**.
MaxW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-02T18:29:07.377Z
@MaxW Dah.. a herbicide is a type of pesticide. But why not be as specific as possible I guess. Also, I think it should be clear from context that by "chemicals" I was referring to plant and weed killers. Should..
smcs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-02T18:45:13.837Z
@speedymcs - Thanks! I thought a pesticide was an insecticide. I didn't realize that the term included herbicides too.
MaxW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-02T19:45:33.640Z
@MaxW Neither did I, but you made me look it up. So we both learned something today--cheers!
smcs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-03T11:06:22.747Z
Glyphosate is not applied individually but in combination with other substances, which make it more effective (e.g. that it is taken up by relevant plants). Some studies evaluated these glyphosate-containing products and found carcinogenic effects. These might be related to Glyphosate, to the other substances, or to a combination of both. Carcinogenicity for humans is difficult to identify because it is no short term effect (like acute toxicity). Also it is difficult to derive dose-response relationships. This makes it difficult to evaluate the effects of Glyphosate.
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-03T11:15:33.473Z
The big players on the pesticide marked probably already have successor products prepared. If Glyphosate is phased out the next product will be available at the marked. Therefore, I think that banning Glyphosate will not be a problem for those looking for alternatives (that is my purely personal opinion and not covered by any facts!).
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-03T11:30:04.253Z
Stopping to use any pesticides from today to tomorrow will probably cause problems for those, whose agricultural practices is based on the use of pesticides. In short term, it might be a problem. Recently, I heard a scientific talk of a scientist of the soils science department of the University of Rostock on improved phosphate uptake of crop plants caused by some weeds living in symbiosis with them. This work is not peer-reviewed published yet. What I want to say: just comparing using-Glyphosate with not-using it might not be a reasonable comparison.
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-03T11:36:43.500Z
There are a lot of farmers who don't use Glyphosate. They can life from selling their plants. If we talk about financial aspects, we also need to talk about the long term costs which pesticides cause to human health. These are difficult to evaluate.
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-03T11:45:05.273Z
Currently, we are sufficiently productive to (a) feed our crop to animals and then eat these animals, (b) to use crop for things like bio-fuel, and (c) to plants flowers on fields (but them on a table for one week and dispose them). As long as we do this: I don't see any food production shortage (even if we loose 10% productivity or more). Background for (a): For 1 kg of beef meat one needs approximately 8 kg of vegetables (fish and chicken has a better ratio). Thus, eating meat is quite in effective. *Disclaimer: I don't say that you shouldn't eat meat. I just state this information here.*
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-03T11:48:47.370Z
To my second comment: It might be reasonable to further use a _problematic_ pesticide (whatever problematic might be), which we know, and just try to reduce its usage instead of banning it and throwing the next substances on our fields, which we don't know (and also which negative impacts we do not know).
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-05T10:03:21.957Z
@daniel.neumann Yes, long time health effects are hard to predict, as are long term effects on the eco system as a whole. Care to write an answer? I think you're making some good points about productivity--Bill's answer will remain accepted though as it is more specifically answering my question.
smcs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-05T14:25:29.463Z
@speedymcs : Thanks for the invitation to write an answer. My comments do not really answer your question. I actually have similar open questions than you have. Therefore, I don't feel competent to write an answer.
daniel.heydebreck
<environmental-protection><agriculture>
How much does the productivity of modern agriculture depend on Glyphosate?
smcs
# How much does the productivity of modern agriculture depend on Glyphosate?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-12-01)

Glyphosate is the most important herbicide in agriculture by quantity. A committee of the European Union just recently [voted](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/27/controversial-glyphosate-weedkiller-wins-new-five-year-lease-in-europe) against a ban of the substance, after much debate around possible negative effects on human health. I now see a lot of petitions popping up on social media, calling for an immediate ban. This got me wondering: if Glyphosate would be banned in the near future, say in the course of next year, what problems would arise for farmers? Are there viable alternative weed killers, and would productivity be significantly reduced without using one?

**Tags:** environmental-protection, agriculture

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: As this question seeks the answer related the relative good produced by using glyphosate shouldn't it also try to answer what is the relative bad it produces. As I recall IARC in has listed it as possible carcinogen.  
> **username_0**: I would say that would be a question on its own with completely different answers and a much larger potential for debate, since apparently there have been multiple conflicting studies about Glyphosate and human health. I also do not think that our agriculture depending on widespread use of chemicals is a positive thing. Not at all actually, and I'm interested whether Glyphosate specifically is necessary for today's life standard and land use or not.  
> **username_1**: Good point. Though I'm not sure if this question could be better answered in Chemistry SE or Biology SE.  
> **username_2**: @username_1: But if you want to be technical, everything is a possible carcinogen - including the oxygen in the air: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0306987783900336  
> **username_3**: Dah... Glyphosate is a herbicide not a pesticide. // PS - Don't eat anything since all food contains **chemicals**.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Dah.. a herbicide is a type of pesticide. But why not be as specific as possible I guess. Also, I think it should be clear from context that by "chemicals" I was referring to plant and weed killers. Should..  
> **username_3**: @speedymcs - Thanks! I thought a pesticide was an insecticide. I didn't realize that the term included herbicides too.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Neither did I, but you made me look it up. So we both learned something today--cheers!  
> **username_4**: Glyphosate is not applied individually but in combination with other substances, which make it more effective (e.g. that it is taken up by relevant plants). Some studies evaluated these glyphosate-containing products and found carcinogenic effects. These might be related to Glyphosate, to the other substances, or to a combination of both. Carcinogenicity for humans is difficult to identify because it is no short term effect (like acute toxicity). Also it is difficult to derive dose-response relationships. This makes it difficult to evaluate the effects of Glyphosate.  
> **username_4**: The big players on the pesticide marked probably already have successor products prepared. If Glyphosate is phased out the next product will be available at the marked. Therefore, I think that banning Glyphosate will not be a problem for those looking for alternatives (that is my purely personal opinion and not covered by any facts!).  
> **username_4**: Stopping to use any pesticides from today to tomorrow will probably cause problems for those, whose agricultural practices is based on the use of pesticides. In short term, it might be a problem. Recently, I heard a scientific talk of a scientist of the soils science department of the University of Rostock on improved phosphate uptake of crop plants caused by some weeds living in symbiosis with them. This work is not peer-reviewed published yet. What I want to say: just comparing using-Glyphosate with not-using it might not be a reasonable comparison.  
> **username_4**: There are a lot of farmers who don't use Glyphosate. They can life from selling their plants. If we talk about financial aspects, we also need to talk about the long term costs which pesticides cause to human health. These are difficult to evaluate.  
> **username_4**: Currently, we are sufficiently productive to (a) feed our crop to animals and then eat these animals, (b) to use crop for things like bio-fuel, and (c) to plants flowers on fields (but them on a table for one week and dispose them). As long as we do this: I don't see any food production shortage (even if we loose 10% productivity or more). Background for (a): For 1 kg of beef meat one needs approximately 8 kg of vegetables (fish and chicken has a better ratio). Thus, eating meat is quite in effective. *Disclaimer: I don't say that you shouldn't eat meat. I just state this information here.*  
> **username_4**: To my second comment: It might be reasonable to further use a _problematic_ pesticide (whatever problematic might be), which we know, and just try to reduce its usage instead of banning it and throwing the next substances on our fields, which we don't know (and also which negative impacts we do not know).  
> **username_0**: @daniel.neumann Yes, long time health effects are hard to predict, as are long term effects on the eco system as a whole. Care to write an answer? I think you're making some good points about productivity--Bill's answer will remain accepted though as it is more specifically answering my question.  
> **username_4**: @speedymcs : Thanks for the invitation to write an answer. My comments do not really answer your question. I actually have similar open questions than you have. Therefore, I don't feel competent to write an answer.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-12-01. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

Chemistry is not a bad thing; life depends on it. And just because a pesticide or herbicide is natural or synthetic has practically nothing to do with its toxicity. Many so-called natural or organic pesticides are many times more potent than widely-used synthetic ones, as [this article](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/11/22/myth-busting-natural-pesticides-really-safer-synthetic-ones/?mc_cid=0b51d1b46a&mc_eid=d552c8b21b) mentions.  
  
As to whether or not Glyphosate is necessary, [this article](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/11/28/eu-re-approval-glyphosate-herbicide-dodges-farming-economic-woes-now/?mc_cid=110fedeb39&mc_eid=d552c8b21b) explains some of the economic impacts from an outright Glyphosate ban. Some of the effects include:

> ...French research institute Arvalis suggested a ban would cost that country’s agriculture industry 976 million euros ($1.1 billion). And in Germany, the Kleffmann Group said restrictions could hurt barley and corn output—with profit margin shrinkage between 40 and 70 percent–as farmers start planting alternative, more profitable crops.
>
> Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, where in 2014 2.2 million hectares of farms—a third of arable land—was treated with glyphosate, Oxford Economics estimated the impact would reduce wheat yields by 12 percent, oilseed/rape yields by 14 percent, and cereal production by 15 percent. Agricultural contributions to the nation’s GDP would shrink by about £930 million ($1.23 billion).

  
In another article I recall reading (but can't find the citation for), Glyphosate is applied at a rate of only one pint per acre. Farms are not drenched in it as many anti-Glyphosate advocates would have us believe.  
  
As to whether or not Glyphosate is a carcinogen, [this article](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/11/27/french-scientist-calls-inquiry-iarcs-misbehavior-glyphosate-cancer-study/?mc_cid=110fedeb39&mc_eid=d552c8b21b) calls much of that into question. Apparently, there were individuals involved who might have benefited substantially by having Glyphosate declared a human carcinogen.  
  
**Edit:**Some other interesting articles:  
  
[This article](http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/glyphosate-cause-cancer/)  from Factcheck.org had this interesting tidbit
> Q: Does the herbicide glyphosate cause cancer?
>
> A: There is evidence to suggest it may cause cancer at very high doses, but not at the low doses typically found in foods.

and
> The European Chemicals Agency...concluded in March 2017 that “the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen.”

  
And [this article](https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/50921/title/Long-term-Study-Finds-That-the-Pesticide-Glyphosate-Does-Not-Cause-Cancer/) from the-scientist.com said
> A new study has found no conclusive link between exposure to glyphosate—the main ingredient in a popular weedkiller—and cancer.

  
And Reuters in [this piece](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/)  said:
> The World Health Organization's cancer agency says a common weedkiller is "probably carcinogenic." The scientist leading that review knew of fresh data showing no cancer link - but he never mentioned it and the agency did not take it into account.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you very much for that quote and article, exactly the kind of information I was looking for. Did my question seem in any way biased against Glyphosate to you, though? Interesting that you immediately feel the need to make a case for it. Also I find your first sentence is completely meaningless. You might as well say "Atoms aren't a bad thing--life depends on it". Well yeah, but so does Sarin.  
> **username_3**: As a chemist I get a knee jerk reaction to any discussion about chemicals. It seems to me that as soon as soon as the general public hears the word *chemical* that there is a massive negative reaction. What the public fails to realize is that although a strawberry isn't *a* chemical, it has thousands of them. // I'm certainly not for polluting chemicals, or misusing chemicals. I just prefer to recognize that for our modern society that chemicals are necessary.  
> **username_5**: @speedymcs, sorry. That first sentence was motivated by some of the comments left by those responding to your original question and had nothing to do with your original question. Again, my apologies.  
> **username_4**: Could you please bring up some neutral scientific references? The articles your reference are all from the same website and I expect them to be biased in one specific direction.  
> **username_4**: The cost estimations are probably based on current marked prizes. The actual financial problem for farmers are people, who want to buy (without having any financial pressure) the cheapest milk, bread, cheese, meat, etc. If we increased food prizes slightly, it could considerably counteract the mentioned financial losses. An order of magnitude: 20 EUR per person and year sum up to 1 billion EUR in a 50 million people country. Thus, paying less than 0.1 EUR in addition (20 EUR/365 days) per day and per person will counteract the negative financial impacts of a Glyphosate ban.  
> **username_1**: @daniel.neumann the GLP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Literacy_Project looks quite neutral to me. Although something published in a scientific journal would be probably more neutral. Since the main evidence GLP provides in the latter article for non-carcinogenicity of glyphosate to be a unpublished broad research; it would be nice to get more evidence on that.  
> **username_4**: @username_1 Thanks for the remark. I just looked at some other articles at this website.  
> **username_6**: Looking at the next step: Without herbicides, to raise about the same amount of food;  Farmers would burn more fossil fuel to cultivate and possibly use hydrocarbon flames to kill weeds.  Then some would object to  using more fuels. People should just eat less.  
> **username_0**: @Max and Bill I sort of understand that reflex (been there in discussions about e.g. 'big pharma') However, people that think of themselves as scientifically minded often make a passionate stand for GMOs or in this case pesticides. I don't see how anyone profits from that, apart from the industry. This discussion is now focused on health effects, but that's just one possible side effect--after all we're influencing a system whose complexity is way beyond our ability to predict.  
> **username_0**: E.g. it might very well be that we're taking away the habitat of insects on a huge scale by "sterilizing" farm land. You've probably heard of the recent publication mentioned here: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html  
> **username_5**: While glyphosate can be broadly called a pesticide, it is, of course, a herbicide, meant to control weeds, not insects. As such, I don't see how glyphosate could influence insect populations, except possibly reducing the number of "weeds" that those insects might feed off of, and I would expect that effect to be minimal.  

---

