"Alternatives to glyphosate are more costly, require more manual labor, and are worse for the environment. I estimate that it would cost me $10 to $15 more per acre to switch to either tillage-based farming or another herbicide."

“If glyphosate-treated crops become undesirable in the market, that would have an avalanche effect. Grain elevators with existing stock would have more product than they could sell, which would impact us in the form of the price we would receive for our products. We are already working on slim margins in farming, and farmers would lose a lot of money if the demand for glyphosate-treated crops drops."

“If you took glyphosate away from farmers in North Dakota, food would become very expensive. Or, many companies would stop sourcing durum from the United States."

"There is a long history of glyphosate and its use on agricultural crops, and the research indicates that glyphosate is safe and does not cause cancer. But California’s listing indicates otherwise, and impacts businesses that sell glyphosate, sell food products treated with glyphosate or handle grain grown using glyphosate herbicides. Creating an unsubstantiated concern by listing glyphosate as a carcinogen, or compelling a cancer warning to be put on glyphosate-treated products, will impact each of these types of businesses."

“Even if growers stop using glyphosate, they would still be injured by needing to incur the burden and expense of changing their preferred farming practices. Alternative herbicides may not be adequate substitutes for glyphosate as their environmental impact can be harsher. Some alternatives have already been restricted by state and national regulatory agencies."