American farmers are producing more food on less acreage than ever before. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, between 2017 and 2022, the number of farms in the U.S. declined by 141,733, and total acres declined by 20.1 million. Modern farming equipment and technology has made it possible for our family farms to keep doing what they do best — feeding, fueling and clothing the world — but how long can that continue?
A key pillar of our future ability to fight yield-robbing weeds and implement soil-health conservation practices lies in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. A landmark decision is forthcoming by the court in its review of Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a decision that will have a lasting impact on the foreseeable future. Missouri State Sen. Jason Bean, along with 33 elected officials, the Missouri Soybean Association and seven state agricultural organizations, filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner outlining why the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state failure-to-warn tort claims.
The U.S. is the second largest agricultural trader in the world. Glyphosate has been a significant factor to the American farmers’ ability to increase yield by more than 50% for both corn and soybeans since 1995 — yield increases that keep the cost of feed and animal protein within reason. By growing more with less, we use glyphosate to produce more protein per acre to the benefit of the most vulnerable around the world.
As farmers struggle with record high input costs, maintaining a domestic supply of critical crop protection tools is paramount. Bayer produces 30% to 40% of the world’s glyphosate supply. But since 2000, Chinese companies have gained a dominant position in the market, producing 60% to 70% of the world’s glyphosate supply. The outcome of the Supreme Court decision may determine if U.S. farmers lose a key ingredient to American agricultural production and conservation practices, or at the least shift reliance to Chinese-produced glyphosate entirely.
Regardless, the nearly $18 billion in proposed settlements has been or will be passed on to the U.S. farmer.
Shifting reliance to Chinese-manufactured crop protection tools will remove nearly all legal recourse for product manufacturer wrongdoing. As outlined in the amicus brief, Chinese companies can evade enforcement of tort judgements because of various legal barriers. One reason for this non-enforcement is there is no treaty between the U.S. and China providing for mutual enforcement of judgments. As a result, Chinese companies can afford to ignore U.S. tort law and refuse to cooperate in litigation. The best results U.S. plaintiffs can often achieve against Chinese companies are grossly undervalued and provide little deterrence for malfeasant manufacturers.
International issues for farmers are not defined by China alone, and we are fighting real battles at home. Domestically we have a massive conflict of ideology unfolding on American agriculture. Environmental and humanitarian groups are calling for the ban of glyphosate which would devastate crop yields, while screaming from the rooftops to send more food overseas to nutrient deficient nations. They oppose rigorously regulated livestock producers using secure facilities for healthy animals, while advocating for free-range, disease-prone solutions that could devastate the world’s food supply.
It’s important this issue is being taken up by the Supreme Court as this decision does not stop with glyphosate. If allowed to continue, we can expect lawsuits against all other critical crop protection tools farmers rely on to produce a crop. There is a lot at stake with this decision, and a decision that will have national security consequences for decades.
Kurtis Gregory serves as a member of the Missouri Senate. Casey Wasser is the CEO of Missouri Soybeans.
