“The unified voice of this diverse coalition of agriculture and business groups illustrates the devastating impact California’s flawed action would have across the country. California’s erroneous warning about glyphosate is unconstitutional and would result in higher food costs, crushing blows to state and agricultural economies and lost revenue up and down the entire supply chain.”
Gordon Stoner
FORMER President of the National Association of Wheat Growers
"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."
Blake Hurst
President, Missouri Farm Bureau
“I estimate that our infrastructure companies would have to spend billions of dollars completely changing the infrastructure that our entire agricultural industry has been built upon if segregation of crops treated without glyphosate were required."
Blake Inman
Vice President, Board of Directors, United States Durum Growers Association
“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."
Mark Jackson
Grower, Iowa Soybean Association
“Alternatives to using glyphosate, such as the practice of till-farming or the use of other herbicides, are less effective, more labor intensive, more expensive, and worse for the environment."
Dan Mehan
President, Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry
“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."
Mark Martinson
President, United States Durum
Growers Association
“I estimate that the glyphosate warning requirement will cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. I also will be burdened by the false label that will harm the reputation of my crops."
Blake Hurst
President, Missouri Farm Bureau
"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."
Joel Brinkmeyer
CEO, Agribusiness Association of Iowa
“If my products must contain a false cancer warning to avoid the prospect of costly litigation, it is going to impact the demand for my glyphosate-treated inputs—either because suppliers will stop purchasing those inputs or customers will reduce their consumption of the final food products."
Mark Jackson
Grower, Iowa
Soybean Association
“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."
Chris Novak
CEO, National Corn Growers
“Protecting the reputation of my crops is very important to me, and if my crops are ultimately labeled, it will require me to effectively endorse a disparaging falsehood about my own products.”
Greg Kessel