Glyphosate ban will have economic impacts on European agriculture but effects are heterogeneous and uncertain

Efficient pest and weed management is crucial for global food security. However, the widespread use of pesticides like glyphosate raises concerns about environmental and human health. Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in Europe, accounts for one-third of all herbicide use. Its application spans various uses: weed control in annual and perennial crops, cover crop termination, grassland renewal, crop desiccation, and harvest aid. Increasing herbicide resistance necessitates its continued use. Debates surrounding a potential glyphosate ban intensified after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' in 2015. While subsequent assessments by the European Food Safety Authority and European Chemical Agency did not classify it as a carcinogen, ongoing discussions have led to a 5-year renewal of its approval (extended to 6 years in 2022), with several European countries announcing future bans or restrictions. Decisions on renewal consider environmental and health risks but must also account for the economic implications. This study reviews the literature on the potential economic impacts of a glyphosate ban in European agriculture.

The authors conducted a systematic review of scientific literature using databases like Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, including both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies across various languages. They also consulted a Europe-wide network of integrated pest management experts. The search focused on studies assessing the economic implications of a glyphosate ban at the farm level in European countries, including both EU and non-EU members. The rationale for including non-EU countries stems from the interconnected nature of European agricultural systems and policies. Studies were chosen based on their assessment of economic impact arising from a glyphosate ban. Studies focusing on impacts outside farm level (downstream industries or societal impacts) were excluded.

The study employed a triangulation of methods to identify relevant studies: a systematic review of scientific literature using databases such as Web of Science and Scopus, supplemented by Google Scholar to capture grey literature; expert consultation with a Europe-wide network of integrated pest management experts to identify national reports on economic implications; and a snowballing procedure to identify additional relevant articles based on the initial search results and expert recommendations. The search covered English, German, French, Swedish, and Danish literature. The team reviewed study titles and abstracts to select articles meeting their inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they originated from European countries and assessed the economic implications (cost increases or profit reductions) of glyphosate non-use or a ban at the farm level. Studies assessing impacts on downstream industries or other factors were excluded. In instances where different versions of the same study existed (e.g., a peer-reviewed English version and a non-peer-reviewed French version), the most recent version was selected. The collected information included: publication year, country, crop and production system, analyzed agronomic practices, estimated economic impacts, methodology used, key assumptions, peer review status, and funding sources. Impacts were converted into a per-hectare, per-year basis whenever possible, with economic costs expressed in relative and absolute terms. Due to heterogeneity in underlying analyses and a limited number of observations, a quantitative meta-analysis was not possible; the study provided an overview and synthesis of existing findings.

The review identified 19 studies (10 peer-reviewed, 9 non-peer-reviewed) published between 2010 and 2022, assessing the economic impacts of a glyphosate ban in Europe. These studies revealed a geographically and agriculturally biased representation, with Germany being heavily over-represented. The studies varied in methodologies, including detailed bio-economic modeling, partial budgeting, econometric analyses, and expert interviews. The estimated economic impacts varied substantially. Peer-reviewed studies showed impacts ranging from €2-3/ha in German silage maize to €12-553/ha in French vineyards. While the highest absolute losses were found in high-value perennial crops like fruits and grapevines (up to €1201/ha in German apple production), relative losses (as a percentage of profit margins) were similar for arable and perennial crops due to low profit margins in many arable systems. The heterogeneity of results stemmed from the varying difficulty of substituting glyphosate across different crops and cropping systems, differences in the availability and cost of substitutes, differences in labor and machinery needs, differences in crop prices and revenue, and the various methodological approaches used. Many studies relied on expert interviews or surveys, which may introduce biases. Most studies focused on pre-sowing and post-harvest weed control. There is a lack of data addressing the economic implications on tillage practices (no-till or reduced-till) which may be significantly affected by a glyphosate ban. Most studies assessed short-term impacts; long-term effects could vary depending on the adjustment of farming systems, development of alternative technologies, and potential increases in weed populations.

The findings highlight the significant economic impacts a glyphosate ban could have on European agriculture, especially in the short term. Glyphosate's integration into many farming systems suggests that replacement will require a combination of measures rather than simple substitution. The study's substantial heterogeneity in findings underscores the need for further research. The large variations in the results across studies are partially due to the use of different methodologies, and the study emphasizes the need for more consistent and comprehensive studies, including long-term assessments. The lack of data on various aspects, including the implications for tillage systems and labor demands, necessitates further investigation. The study emphasizes the need for holistic assessments that consider economic, environmental, and health impacts to inform policy decisions.

A glyphosate ban in Europe could have significant short-term economic impacts on farms, particularly those currently relying heavily on glyphosate. The heterogeneity in the results across studies underscores the need for further research that systematically investigates a broader range of countries and cropping systems in Europe. Future studies should account for long-term impacts, including system adjustments, technological advancements, and changes in weed populations. Policy interventions should aim to support the transition to alternative weed management strategies, and the findings highlight the necessity of a comprehensive, holistic approach in assessing the implications of a glyphosate ban.

The study's main limitation is the biased representation of countries and cropping systems in the existing literature. This bias restricts the generalizability of the findings to the entire European agricultural landscape. The reliance on existing studies, some of which may have methodological limitations, presents another limitation. The exclusion of downstream industry impacts or societal effects limits the scope of the economic assessment. Finally, the focus on short-term impacts may not fully capture the potential long-term economic consequences of a glyphosate ban.