Glyphosate – one of the world’s most widely used herbicides – is once again under scrutiny in the UK, as campaign groups intensify calls to restrict its use as a pre-harvest desiccant.
The debate comes ahead of a two-month consultation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) this summer on whether to renew approval for glyphosate, with a final decision expected in December. The outcome could determine how the chemical is used in the UK for the next 15 years.
At the centre of the latest campaign is a push, led by the Soil Association and allied environmental groups, to ban glyphosate applications immediately prior to harvest – a practice widely used in cereals and oilseed rape to dry crops evenly and improve harvest efficiency.
Campaigners push for restrictions
Through its “Cut the Chemicals” campaign, the Soil Association has argued that pre-harvest use contributes directly to residues in everyday foods, including bread, cereals and beer. According to its analysis, banning the practice could prevent glyphosate being applied annually across up to 780,000 hectares – roughly five times the size of London.
Cathy Cliff, campaigns co-ordinator at the Soil Association, said: “No-one wants a chemical linked to cancer in their sandwiches or breakfast cereal… The government must act to protect public health by stopping this toxic chemical from being sprayed on our food at harvest.”
The campaign follows renewed scrutiny of glyphosate’s safety profile, including an expert statement published after the Seattle Glyphosate Symposium, which concluded that evidence of harm to human health has strengthened.
A diverging regulatory landscape
The UK now faces a key policy choice.
In 2023, the EU renewed glyphosate approval for 10 years, but imposed restrictions – including limits on its use as a pre-harvest desiccant. By contrast, UK farming organisations such as the NFU continue to support the practice, arguing it remains critical for efficient and predictable harvesting.
At the same time, industry groups including the Glyphosate Renewal Group – representing manufacturers – are reportedly advocating for the UK to maintain more flexible rules, potentially diverging from the EU approach.
This leaves policymakers balancing three competing pressures: public health concerns, trade alignment with European markets and farm-level practicality and costs.
Why glyphosate is hard to replace
At the heart of the debate lies a deeper challenge: glyphosate is not easily substituted.
Used as a pre-harvest desiccant, it enables farmers to dry crops quickly and evenly, reduce weather-related harvest risks, improve grain quality and consistency and operate more efficiently at scale
While alternatives exist, none replicate this full package.
Cliff acknowledged that transition will not be straightforward, telling AgTechNavigator: “Some farmers will find it challenging to end the use of glyphosate as a desiccant… the best solution will depend on the farm system, the crop, and the ecological context.”
Possible alternatives include swathing (cutting and drying crops in the field); grain dryers; stripper headers; and improved timing through monitoring tools.
However, these approaches often involve trade-offs in cost (fuel, labour, equipment), complexity and weather exposure.
Innovation pressure builds
Campaigners argue that restricting glyphosate could act as a catalyst for change.
“We hope that a ban on pre-harvest desiccation would create a level playing field to spark innovation,” Cliff said, calling for increased funding for research into alternatives and stronger policy support for farmers.
There are signs that pressure from regulators and campaigners is already driving innovation across precision agriculture (and reducing inputs rather than replacing them), biological crop protection and mechanical and robotic weeding.
But many of these solutions remain at varying stages of maturity, and few are currently able to operate at the scale, speed and cost demanded by large arable systems.
The economic reality for farmers
For many farmers, the question is less about whether glyphosate should be replaced, and more about how and at what cost.
Cliff said impacts vary widely:
“Some farmers… report reduced costs from moving away from glyphosate… [but] impacts on yield or fuel costs… will depend on the context and will not always be significant.”
However, she also acknowledged the need for more support for farmers to shift practice – without these, there is a risk that restrictions could increase financial pressure on already strained farm businesses.
“Government farming policy, such as the Sustainable Farming Incentive, needs to provide clarity to farmers and should incentivise practices that protect both nature-friendly and protect public health,” she said. “It is also essential for government to fund research into alternatives, particularly farmer-led research on real farms. In the transition period, if the supply chain paid farmers a premium that incentivised crops produced without a desiccant, this could also help to spark innovation.”
A transition without a silver bullet
As the UK moves toward a decision, the debate around glyphosate is likely to intensify. For the industry, that presents both a challenge and an opportunity.
On one hand, removing glyphosate could expose the structural reliance of modern farming systems on a single, highly effective tool. On the other, it may accelerate innovation across a wider ecosystem of solutions.
Either way, the direction of travel is becoming clearer: pressure to restrict glyphosate is likely to reshape how weed control is approached across the entire agricultural system.
