Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide worldwide and the key ingredient in Roundup, the highly effective weed killer. Its effectiveness and impact on tea crop yields are illustrated by the three-year legal ban on its use in Sri Lanka, officially ended in 2018. Industry tea associations reported the cost of overgrowth of weeds resulting in high manual labor costs totaled $100 million in the first 18 months, with corresponding erosion of export revenues.
The global market for glyphosate is expected to grow slightly faster than that of total tea production between now and 2024: around 5.5% annually versus general forecasts of tea increasing by 4.5%, the overall 2000-2016 average. The main drivers of the growth will be the need to increase crop yield per hectare to meet the demands of population increases and the likely expansion of GM (genetically modified) crops, for which Roundup has become a key resource in improving efficiency. GM is expected to enable technological developments in breeding plants for weed resistance and to increase consumer awareness and acceptance. GM crops are forecast to grow at 6%.
All these figures are expert judgments but still not reliable predictors. There are just too many uncertainties to permit extrapolation from historical trends. The most obvious are climate change and the escalating scale and disruptions of a shift in seasonal rain patterns, widespread drought, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity.
What does seem clear is that the glyphosate market will move very much in sync with that of GM crops. Here, the issues center on safety. The immediate rationale for the sudden ban in Sri Lanka was concern that glyphosate is cancerous and was the cause of widespread reports of epidemics of kidney disease in agricultural communities. The consensus in the scientific community has been that this was not accurate, but the issues of GM, Roundup, and cancer remain a constant public concern. There are documented though largely out-of-date disagreements among health and safety regulators about the science. The most noted is the contrast between the World Health Organization’s 2015 declaration that “Glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans” and that of the European Union Food Safety Authority in 2017 that it is not likely to cause DNA damage or cancer.
Here are a few other research claims that have been widely reported:
- Animal studies suggest that it may disrupt beneficial gut bacteria in humans and that harmful ones may be resistant to it.
- Farmers and others who work closely with glyphosate, especially those who do not use gloves, are the ones showing most adverse effects, including residues in the blood and urine and problems in pregnancy.
- A longitudinal study that tracked 57,000 farmers for 20 years found no evidence of any health risks.
- Regulators in most nations publicly afform there is no link with cancer, with around 800 scientific studies and reviews supporting their conclusions.
Many advocacy groups are not convinced and the landmark punitive damages in multiple US court cases, ranging from $300 million to $2 billion, show that public and legal opinion remains in flux. That may or may not lead to new regulatory restrictions, development of alternatives herbicides or consumer resistance. For now, the estimate of market growth for glyphosate of about 5% a year seems a likely base forecast.