Clearing the Way: The Conservation Case for Glyphosate

By: Elizabeth Burns-Thompson

With the growing season underway, farmers face critical decisions that shape not only this year’s harvest but also the long-term health of their land. No-till and cover cropping are cornerstones of conservation agriculture, improving soil health, reducing runoff, and storing carbon. 

Cover crops, for example, can boost soil carbon by up to 30% and cut nutrient losses by 17%—but only if terminated on time. This is where critical tools, like glyphosate, come in. Fast, consistent, and compatible with existing equipment, pesticides allow farmers to transition fields efficiently and avoid additional tillage that would undo soil health gains. That's one of the reasons why glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. and the linchpin of modern conservation agriculture. 

Glyphosate's value doesn't end at planting. It also powers sustainable practices all season, making reduced-tillage and no-till systems possible, conserving fuel, protecting soil structure, and lowering emissions. In fact, conservation tillage supported by glyphosate saves over 800 million gallons of fuel each year and reduces carbon emissions by more than 9 million tons. To put this into perspective, that impact is the equivalent of taking 6.8 million gas-powered vehicles off the road. 

Without access to pesticides, U.S. farmers would need 800 million acres—double today’s farmland—to grow the same amount of food due to reduced yields. Meanwhile, increased tillage would lead to a 19% rise in water usage and erase 20 years of water conservation gains from low- and no-till farming. In short, tools like glyphosate are central to helping farmers do more with less—less fuel, less land, and less water. Losing the ability to adopt no-till and cover cropping would undermine the $632 million in farm bill funding set aside to support conservation practices.

Yet despite its critical role in farming, documented conservation benefits, and strong safety record backed by scientific consensus, glyphosate is under attack. Driven by profit rather than science, the litigation industry continues to target this essential tool with baseless lawsuits. Most farmers—and most Americans—oppose these efforts to limit access to critical crop protection tools because they understand the real-world consequences. If glyphosate is litigated off the market, farmers will be forced to adopt more harmful or less effective alternatives—or abandon conservation systems entirely. Thankfully, on behalf of farmers and the future of our land, water, and food supply, lawmakers are fighting back. Legislation across the U.S.—including in North Dakota and Georgia, where Governors Armstrong and Kemp signed those bills into law—will safeguard farmers’ ability to access the tools that they need to keep our soil healthy and air and water clean. It is incredibly important for lawmakers across the country to build on the momentum seen in North Dakota and stand with farmers to preserve the tools that will safeguard our land, water, and food for generations to come.

Elizabeth Burns-Thompson serves as the Executive Director of the Modern Ag Alliance, where she leads the Alliance’s efforts to advocate for U.S. farmers’ continued access to essential crop protection tools.