We have reached a point where the mere mention of glyphosate reflexively triggers public reactions of fear, regardless of whether even a slight actual cause for concern has been raised.
While the application of the chemical for the production of wheat is much rarer than for most other major crops, wheat has become a lightning rod for glyphosate critics. Glyphosate is used on roughly a third of wheat acres, compared with more than 90% for corn, soybeans, cotton and sugar beets.
The latest controversy stems from a state-level initiative Healthy Florida First, which seeks to “identify and evaluate chemical contaminants that may be present in products commonly consumed by the general population.” State officials voiced concern after glyphosate was detected at levels up to 191.04 parts per billion in bread. “Florida Testing Shows High Levels of Weed Killer in Popular Bread Brands,” warned one headline.
In fact, the measurements were quite low based on tolerances established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which allows for residue of up to 30 parts per million for flour. The EPA tolerances, 157 times greater than the residues detected in the bread in Florida, are set at levels providing immense margins of error out of an abundance of caution, to keep consumers safe.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” but the EPA is hardly the only global regulatory body that considers the chemical safe to use. More than 100 countries have greenlighted glyphosate’s use, including the European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, Canada and Australia.
It is difficult to overstate the stakes if the principle of accepted thresholds for chemical risk assessment is not upheld. Food manufacturers will be unable to make rational decisions when it comes to product formulation. Consumers will have no basis for making informed choices about what they eat. Avoiding nutritious foods because of ungrounded fears compromises rather than enhances health.
Rigorous science also serves as a safeguard ensuring commercial interests do not come at the expense of consumer health. A 2017 Purdue University study estimated that farm income would fall by $6.7 billion annually if glyphosate were banned with half of the loss occurring in the United States. A robust, transparent, science-based regulatory process is the only practical and effective mechanism to successfully balance the interests of growers and commercial entities with those of consumers and workers.
Related on the SLP
Recognizing the economic stakes of preserving glyphosate, US President Donald Trump on Feb. 18 issued an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act granting immunity to makers of the herbicide. The order, which drew howls of protest from many so-called MAHA moms, gives greater certainty to commercial stakeholders, including producers of glyphosate, growers, processors and food companies.
Still, it would be far better if it were the embrace of science based on sound risk-reward analysis rather than government fiat that provided this certainty. In the absence of publicly accepted scientific standards, unscrupulous politicians from the left and the right, social media influencers and other opportunists do not hesitate to step in, sowing fear and confusion.
Glyphosate application for wheat is limited to a range of specialty uses that in some cases are growing in importance. One example is to help enable no-till practices for regenerative agriculture. Glyphosate applications before planting help control weeds and preserve soil moisture. Another approved and valued use of glyphosate application is before harvest after the wheat kernel development is complete and the plant has shut down. It is estimated glyphosate is applied for this purpose on less than 3% of wheat acres, according to the National Association of Wheat Growers.
Key grain, milling and baking groups have issued a joint statement sharing basic facts about glyphosate in response to Healthy Florida First, seeking to reassure the public about the safety of wheat and wheat-based foods. Amid the hysterical and irrational din, the groups injected a much-needed calm, rational voice.
A version of this article was originally posted at World Grain and is reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit both the GLP and original article. Find World Grain on LinkedIn
