A group of Midwestern row-crop growers told reporters they face tight finances and a looming generational squeeze if courts or regulators restrict access to glyphosate-based herbicides. On a media call hosted by the Modern Ag Alliance, three veteran farmers linked herbicide availability to conservation practices, food costs and the ability to plan long-term. The growers pressed for what they called predictable, science-based rules as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear Monsanto v. Darnell next week.
“Losing access to crop protection chemicals like glyphosate would be a terrible blow, a disastrous blow for farmers,” said northwest Missouri corn and soybean grower Blake Hurst, who described operations running on exceptionally tight margins. Hurst said producers are stretching machinery life, trimming inputs and taking on more debt, and that higher input costs will eventually appear at the grocery checkout. The group emphasized that current economics leave little room to absorb large cost increases or sudden shifts in available products; they framed the situation as Negative farm margins already pressuring decisions on seed, tillage and fertilizer.
Iowa grower Mark Jackson tied glyphosate to long-term erosion control and widespread adoption of reduced-tillage systems across the Corn Belt. Jackson said his farm has been in no-till for “at least 25 years” and that roughly 40% of Iowa acreage is now in some form of no-till conservation status, a shift he credited in part to reliable, affordable herbicides. He urged regulators and the public to weigh conservation outcomes when evaluating crop-protection policies, adding, “we don’t use chemicals just willy-nilly,” to describe targeted herbicide use.
Regulation and labeling
The farmers argued regulation already involves multiple federal agencies and regular reviews, pointing to EPA, USDA and other processes as proof of science-based oversight. Modern Ag Alliance Executive Director Elizabeth Burns-Thompson said inconsistent state-by-state interpretations of labeling could prompt manufacturers to limit U.S. production or delay new products, creating a patchwork that undermines clarity for users. She urged national standards that define what constitutes a sufficient label to avoid uneven regulatory expectations.
Costs, markets and innovation
Central Iowa producer Bill Couser, who also supplies ethanol plants and runs cattle, described how herbicide-driven no-till and weed control feed into lower carbon intensity scores for ethanol and into lower-cost feedstuffs for livestock. He said disruptions to available tools would raise input costs and reduce opportunities for both farmers and biofuel plants. The growers also warned that heavy litigation tied to glyphosate — including the large legal bills seen in recent years — could chill innovation and discourage chemical companies from introducing new products in the U.S.
The group did not seek a blanket exemption for pesticide safety reviews; rather they asked for consistency and predictability so farmers can plan operations and pass farms to the next generation. Congress is working on the farm bill this year, a process the Alliance said could influence labeling and regulatory clarity. Oral arguments in Monsanto v. Darnell are scheduled for April 27, 2026.
Photo - assets.farmjournal.com
