Glyphosate at the Crossroads: Balancing Productivity Growth with Health and Environmental Priorities

July 11, 2025

ARTICLE

The escalating debate over glyphosate regulation under the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement presents a critical juncture for U.S. agricultural productivity growth. With glyphosate supporting three-quarters of U.S. cropland and enabling the widespread adoption of conservation agriculture practices, potential restrictions could fundamentally reshape American farming’s ability to meet rising food demands while managing environmental impacts.

Recent economic modeling reveals the stark productivity growth implications of glyphosate restrictions. A 10 percent tax on glyphosate would result in $98 million in annual losses due to increased costs for farmers and decreased corn production, with farmers unable to fully compensate through alternative herbicides. The cascading effects extend beyond individual farm operations—input prices for farmers could more than double without access to glyphosate, threatening the efficiency gains that have driven U.S. agricultural productivity growth for decades.

The productivity growth challenge becomes more acute when considering glyphosate’s role in enabling conservation agriculture systems. By facilitating no-till and reduced-tillage practices on over half of U.S. cropland, glyphosate has been instrumental in maintaining soil health while reducing labor and machinery costs. The technology has enabled farmers to eliminate multiple tillage passes, saving fuel, reducing carbon emissions, and preserving millions of tons of soil annually.

Alternative weed management strategies present significant productivity growth obstacles. Chemical alternatives can cost producers up to 2.5 times the cost of glyphosate on a per acre basis, while mechanical tillage would nearly double costs compared to current glyphosate applications. Moreover, most alternatives demonstrate higher toxicity profiles—glyphosate has lower acute toxicity to humans than 94 percent of all alternative herbicides, complicating efforts to balance productivity growth with safety concerns.

The global context underscores the productivity growth risks of precipitous regulatory action. When Sri Lanka prohibited synthetic pesticides and fertilizers in 2021, crop yields fell by over 50 percent, forcing massive food imports. Mexico postponed its glyphosate ban in March 2024, citing inability to identify alternatives without sacrificing productivity. These experiences demonstrate how regulatory restrictions without viable alternatives can devastate agricultural productivity growth and food security.

The 2024 GAP Report’s findings provide crucial context for understanding these challenges. With global average annual total factor productivity (TFP) growth falling to just 0.7 percent during 2013-2022—far below the 2 percent target needed to sustainably meet 2050 food demands—any policy that further constrains productivity growth warrants careful scrutiny. The report emphasizes that bridging the “Valley of Death” between innovation and adoption requires bundling productivity-enhancing tools with appropriate distribution mechanisms, socio-economic support, and enabling policies.

Recommendations for Stakeholders:

Research and Development Priorities: Public and private sectors must accelerate investment in next-generation weed management technologies that maintain productivity growth while addressing health concerns. Priority areas include precision application systems reducing herbicide use rates, plant breeding for enhanced weed competitiveness, and biological control innovations. As the GAP Report notes, sustained R&D investment remains vital for TFP growth, though it alone will not suffice without effective innovation systems.

Policy Framework Evolution: Regulatory agencies should develop adaptive frameworks that evaluate productivity growth impacts alongside health and environmental considerations. Rather than binary ban-or-allow decisions, tiered approaches could restrict uses in sensitive areas while maintaining access for productivity-critical applications. The GAP Report’s emphasis on robust and resilient market access underscores how policy stability enables sustainable productivity growth.

Cross-Sector Collaboration: Agricultural innovation systems must bridge the gap between productivity growth imperatives and health advocacy concerns. Multi-stakeholder platforms bringing together farmers, health professionals, environmental scientists, and policymakers can identify win-win solutions. The GAP Report’s bundling framework—combining productivity tools with distribution mechanisms and policy support—offers a pathway for navigating these complex tradeoffs.

The glyphosate debate exemplifies the broader challenge of achieving sustainable productivity growth while addressing legitimate health and environmental concerns. Success requires moving beyond polarized positions to evidence-based approaches that recognize agriculture’s central role in feeding a growing population. Without strategic action to develop and scale alternatives while maintaining productivity growth trajectories, restrictions on essential tools like glyphosate risk undermining decades of efficiency gains and jeopardizing global food security objectives.