Marketing consultant The Directions Group has released a report titled Farm Bill Programs and the Role of Crop Protection Tools, exploring the consequences of losing access to glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, for U.S. agriculture and federal policy.
The analysis reveals how such a loss would affect key areas of the farm bill, including crop insurance, conservation, nutrition, and commodity programs. By leveraging open-source research and economic modeling, the report underscores the ripple effects that glyphosate restrictions could have on farmers, consumers, and the environment.
Glyphosate plays a critical role in modern farming, enabling practices like no-till farming and cover cropping, which help reduce fuel use, limit carbon emissions, and conserve water. If glyphosate were unavailable, farmers would face significant cost increases, leading to higher food prices and challenges for farm policy.
According to the report, annual net farm income could drop by $2.89 billion, while production costs for alternatives would rise by two to 2.5 times per acre. This would disproportionately impact small farmers already operating on tight margins.
Consumers, too, would bear the burden. Food inflation is projected to increase by 2.4 times, resulting in a $10 billion annual rise in grocery costs. Essential items like meat, dairy, fruits, and vegetables would see price hikes, pushing affordability further out of reach for many households.
The increased costs would also affect federal nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, with an estimated $7.1 billion rise in expenditures over the 2025-2029 farm bill period.
Environmental consequences would be equally severe. Without glyphosate, farmers would rely on traditional tillage to manage weeds, increasing CO2 emissions by an estimated 33.72 million tons annually. This shift would also undermine decades of conservation gains achieved through reduced tillage, including lower soil erosion, better nutrient retention, and enhanced carbon sequestration.
Conservation investments, like the $632 million allocated in the 2018 farm bill to promote sustainable practices, could lose their effectiveness as farmers pivot to more resource-intensive methods.
Crop insurance, another cornerstone of the farm bill, would see costs soar. The report estimates a $589 million annual increase in federal crop insurance expenses, as reduced yields and greater risks drive up payouts. Between 2019 and 2023, glyphosate-enabled practices saved the program nearly $3 billion, highlighting the financial strain its absence could impose.
The Directions Group discussed regulatory clarity to prevent disruptions. Conflicting state and federal pesticide labeling requirements could create additional challenges, restricting access to effective crop protection tools.
“Conflicting state and federal pesticide labeling requirements could create a challenging regulatory landscape for crop protection products,” said Mark Purdy, Executive Vice President of Agri-Food at The Directions Group. “That’s why this research is critical. It shows that losing access to glyphosate could create far-reaching consequences for the farm bill.”
“The increase in production costs would ripple through the economy, creating substantial challenges for both farmers and policymakers,” said Dave Juday, Executive Advisor to The Directions Group and lead economist for the report. “It could undermine the farm bill and put pressure on policymakers to slash budgets for key programs in response to rising costs.”
To access and read the full report, visit the site here.
