When a recent AgriView article declared glyphosate “indispensable” to U.S. corn production, it painted a familiar picture: higher yields, lower costs, environmental benefits, and a food system that simply can’t survive without it. At first glance, it reads like a triumphant case study in modern agriculture. But take a step back—and a different story emerges.
One that sounds less like innovation and more like dependency.
The Myth of the Indispensable Chemical
According to the article, glyphosate is used on over 90% of U.S. corn acres. Atrazine, another controversial herbicide, trails close behind. This isn’t a triumph of choice—it’s a signal of reliance. In other words: if your farming system falls apart without a single chemical input, maybe it’s time to question the system.
The piece claims that removing glyphosate would spike production costs, drive inflation, and endanger food security. It’s a familiar line. We’ve heard versions of it before: “We need it to feed the world.” But what we rarely hear is what this reliance is costing us in the long term—ecologically, economically, and ethically.
“You don’t build resilience by depending on one chemical. You build fragility.”
Cost-Efficiency or Short-Term Thinking?
Glyphosate is cheap—about $7–$15 per acre, the article says. That’s less than many alternatives like glufosinate ($12–$48) or stacked herbicide regimes, which may cost upwards of $60. But focusing only on upfront cost ignores the bigger picture.
What about:
- The cost of weed resistance requiring higher and more frequent applications?
- The cost to soil microbiomes and long-term fertility?
- The human health costs—especially for rural communities?
- The environmental price of chemical runoff and loss of biodiversity?
As we discussed in The Cheapest Option Isn’t Always the Smartest, the sticker price isn’t the full price. Glyphosate appears cheap because the true costs are externalized—onto ecosystems, consumers, and future generations.
Conservation Tillage or Chemical Captivity?
The AgriView article touts glyphosate as a friend to the environment—reducing carbon emissions, erosion, and sediment loss thanks to no-till practices. But this is where the narrative bends the facts.
No-till farming doesn’t require glyphosate. It’s just that chemical companies have successfully marketed no-till as chemical no-till. In reality, regenerative practices like cover cropping, mulching, and crop rotation can achieve the same soil benefits—without the chemical crutch.
In New Zealand, organic and regenerative farmers are already proving that you can control weeds without resorting to blanket herbicide use. Yes, it takes more planning. Yes, it might cost a bit more up front. But unlike glyphosate, it builds long-term soil health and resilience.
When Efficiency Becomes Addiction
The article praises genetically modified crops and “targeted-action herbicides” as the reason U.S. corn yields have risen 49% since 1990. But yields are only one part of the equation.
What about:
- Nutrient density of the food?
- The collapse of beneficial insect populations?
- The rise of superweeds?
- The loss of diversified farming systems?
This isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about control. Glyphosate isn’t just a product. It’s part of a vertically integrated system that locks farmers into certain seeds, certain chemicals, and certain supply chains. It’s not feeding the world. It’s feeding a business model.
New Zealand Still Has a Choice
Here’s the key difference: New Zealand hasn’t gone down that path. Yet.
Our farmers don’t rely on glyphosate the way American corn growers do. We haven’t built a monoculture system around a single chemical. But proposals like the MPI’s plan to increase glyphosate residues by up to 100-fold are pushing us in that direction.
Do we really want to replicate the U.S. model—where food security is held hostage by a single herbicide? Or do we want a food system built on diversity, regeneration, and independence?
Final Thought
When an industry says it can’t survive without a product, that’s not an argument for keeping it.
It’s a warning sign that something’s gone terribly wrong.
Resources & References
AgriView: Glyphosate, atrazine continue as critical herbicides
The original article this piece responds to. Framed as a defense of glyphosate use in U.S. corn production.
https://agupdate.com/agriview/agriview/markets/crop/article_9dadaa46-1d75-46e6-93b8-8b62dcde668a.html
Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science
By Carey Gillam
A journalist’s deep dive into glyphosate’s history, industry tactics, and regulatory capture.
Whitewash [Our review]
The Yield Myth: Does Glyphosate Really Feed the World?
An internal article that challenges the “more food with glyphosate” claim.
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/glyphosate-yield-myth/
The Weed Resistance Crisis in New Zealand
Why overuse of glyphosate is causing more problems than it solves.
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/weed-resistance-crisis-new-zealand/
Image Source & Attribution
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by pat138241.
