Marketing consultancy The Directions Group released a report titled Farm Bill programs and the role of crop protection toolsexploring the consequences of losing access to glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, for US agriculture and federal policy.

The analysis reveals how such a loss would affect key areas of the farm bills, including crop insurance, conservation, nutrition and commodity programs. By leveraging open-source research and economic modelling, the report outlines the ripple effects that restrictions on glyphosate could have on farmers, consumers and the environment.

Glyphosate plays a critical role in modern agriculture, enabling practices such as no-till farming and cover cropping that help reduce fuel consumption, limit carbon emissions and conserve water. If glyphosate were unavailable, farmers would face significant cost increases, leading to higher food prices and challenges for agricultural policy.

According to the report, annual net farm income could decrease by $2.89 billion, while production costs for the alternatives would increase by two to 2.5 times per acre. This would disproportionately impact small farmers who already operate on tight margins.

And consumers would bear the burden. Food inflation is projected to increase 2.4 times, resulting in a $10 billion annual increase in food costs. Essential items such as meat, dairy, fruit and vegetables would see price increases, 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 increase in spending over 2025-2029.

The environmental consequences would be just as serious. Without glyphosate, farmers would rely on traditional tillage to manage weeds, increasing CO2 emissions by an estimated 33.72 million tonnes annually. This change would also undermine decades of conservation gains from reduced tillage, including lower soil erosion, better nutrient retention and improved carbon sequestration.

Conservation investments, such as the $632 million earmarked in the 2018 farm bill to promote sustainable practices, could lose their effectiveness as farmers shift to more resource-intensive methods.

Crop insurance, another cornerstone of farm bills, would drive up costs. The report estimates a $589 million annual increase in federal crop insurance spending as lower yields and higher risks drive higher payouts. Between 2019 and 2023, glyphosate-enabled practices saved the program nearly $3 billion, highlighting the financial strain its absence can impose.

The Steering Group discussed regulatory clarity to prevent disruptions. Conflicting state and federal pesticide labeling requirements could create additional challenges, limiting 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.”

“Increasing production costs would hurt 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 pressure policymakers to cut budgets for key programs in response to rising costs.”

To access and read the full report, visit site here.