From the panhandle to the Snake River Plain, Idaho farmers like me help feed the nation, contributing $8.1 billion to our state economy annually. We are among the top growers of staple crops including sugarbeets, corn, and alfalfa, all of which rely on glyphosate-based pesticides for successful harvests. Unfortunately, this essential tool is at risk of being regulated and litigated away by out-of-state interests.
Growing up on a family farm and dairy in New Plymouth, Idaho I see firsthand the importance of new technologies in agriculture. Crop protection tools, like glyphosate have made a big difference on my farm.
All pesticides are subject to a rigorous scientific review process by U.S. regulators to ensure they can be used safely. It takes 11 years on average for a new pesticide to be introduced into the field, and once approved for use, their registrations are reviewed at least every 15 years. Glyphosate has a 50-year track record of safety in the U.S., allowing American farmers to stay competitive in the global market. However, a recent lack of legislative certainty around pesticide labeling has invited states like California to impose conflicting regulations and allowed the litigation industry to unleash a wave of lawsuits that threaten the future availability of glyphosate.
That is why, last session, Idaho leaders introduced legislation to protect farmers’ access to this critical tool by clarifying that current labeling requirements are sufficient to satisfy health and safety warnings. While Idaho Republicans have long championed farmers’ interests, these efforts, unfortunately, were stalled in the Idaho legislature due to a lack of accurate information and understanding.
The stakes are high for Idaho’s agricultural community, which is under growing pressure, and it is becoming increasingly more difficult for Idaho farmers to stay in business. Losing tools like glyphosate threatens to make matters worse. Facing razor-thin margins, farmers have to manage their expenses very carefully. Glyphosate helps farmers keep their input costs low—creating significant savings compared to pricier alternatives.
Currently, up to 40% of crops are lost to pests and diseases each year, and without pesticides, these losses could soar as high as 85 %. Reduced yields would lead to higher food prices for Idahoans and the rest of the country. Without tools like glyphosate, higher input costs and lower yields would result in higher food prices and more Idaho farmers going out of business.
Glyphosate has also been a critical tool in advancing farmers’ conservation practices, helping them reduce soil erosion and improve water retention through sustainable land management techniques. Farmers, who are natural stewards of the land, recognize conservation is essential for both the health of the environment and the long-term success of their operations. Thanks in large part to glyphosate, 43% of commodity acres In Idaho use reduced tillage practices. Glyphosate has also played a vital role in reducing farm diesel consumption, saving American farmers $72.4 million annually on fuel costs. Without glyphosate, farmers would need twice as much land to produce the same amount of food—a significant challenge for Idaho, where a quarter of our farmland has been lost.
Our state can ill-afford for the misguided legal and regulatory attacks on glyphosate to continue—it will be difficult for farmers like me to stay in business without it. Support for the people who feed us should never fall victim to politics or misinformation from out-of-state interests. Our elected leaders need to do right by Idaho farmers like they have always done in the past. In the next legislative session, it is essential that the legislature safeguards our food security, farmers’ livelihoods, and modern conservation practices by protecting farmers’ access to glyphosate.
(2) comments
Something is very wrong with the food. To suggest that our population represents a 50 year track record of safety is just not consistent with what we know. We're very sick. Everything should be on the table.
very informative article. However I don't understand your statistics and/if they are from some federal data bank or state bank. Also the difference between state and federal data and how it applies to Idaho. California has an entirely different agricultural base than does Idaho growing different crops year round where as Idaho is ruled by a growing season and crops that fit there like potatoes and wheat. In this case federal regulation won't work. It has to be State regulation because Idaho can't function under California agricultural regulations.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In