Beware National Defense Claims: Why Proof of Glyphosate's Toxicity Won't Win This One

National defense claims protected pesticides in the 1950s. How can we avoid repeating that history?

When President Trump issued an executive order on February 18 declaring glyphosate essential for national defense, the MAHA and organic farming movements were understandably upset. Of course, the biggest response was to reiterate all the reams of evidence that have accumulated proving that glyphosate is toxic. But that’s not going to win this one—and here’s why.

Declaring a chemical essential for national defense overrides toxicity concerns. Everyone agrees that nuclear missiles are extremely hazardous to human health—especially if they’re used. But because they’re considered essential for national defense, we’ve got several hundred of them buried out in the Great Plains, ready to launch Armageddon at a moment’s notice.

The only way to fight this is to prove that glyphosate isn’t essential for national defense. The good thing is that nobody’s talking about using glyphosate as an Agent Orange–style chemical weapon to destroy crops. That would only work against an enemy who didn’t use GMOs—otherwise, they’d thank us for saving them a trip across the field with the sprayer. No, the national defense argument rests solely on the claim that American agriculture couldn’t function without glyphosate. That’s the claim we have to prove isn’t true.

We should not underestimate the strength of the national defense/national security argument. That’s the tactic the chemical industry used way back in the 1950s to quell early concerns about the toxicity of DDT and other novel synthetic pesticides, most of which were even more toxic than glyphosate. In 1950, the US House of Representatives appointed a committee, chaired by James Delaney, to investigate the safety of chemicals in food.

The Delaney Committee heard many convincing testimonies about pesticide toxicity, but they ended up not recommending any major restrictions on the use of pesticides on food crops. Why not? Because scientists and industry representatives successfully convinced them that it wasn’t possible to grow food without pesticides. “Many food crops cannot be brought to complete and fully satisfactory maturity without the use of pesticides,” the committee reluctantly concluded. What made them change their mind? Statements like these:

“Without the widespread use of pesticides, we as a nation would go hungry.”

“To deny agriculture the use of these chemical tools would be to jeopardize our agricultural economy and an adequate, well-balanced food supply for the American public.”

“It is almost a universally accepted fact that the use of pesticides is today essential to the economic production of most farm crops.”

“Fruit and vegetable insects must be controlled by pesticides or the grower will go out of business and the consumer would suffer.”

When I read President Trump’s executive order, my first thought was—Déjà vu. It’s the 1950s all over again. I’d thought that we had made some progress in the past seventy years, but when it comes to claiming that agricultural chemicals are essential for food production, apparently we haven’t. Even the best evidence-supported toxicity arguments can’t stop this. Instead, we need to highlight the thousands of organic farmers in America who prove every day that it is possible and practical to grow good food without glyphosate or any other pesticide. That’s the only thing that can counteract the national defense claim.