EPA just announced its highest-ever renewable fuel mandate. Renewable fuels already use more than 1/3 of U.S. corn and soybean oil. Pushing that even higher will put more pressure on food & fuel prices at a time when many families are already stretched thin.
thebreakthrough.org/press/releas...
It depends how much you trust the safety studies & EPA's standards. Under a worst-case scenario for glyphosate residues from pre-harvest spraying wheat, a small child would still need to eat more than 15 cups of pasta per day to reach EPA’s daily safety limit, which itself has a margin of safety
Rather than seeking to phase out or ban glyphosate, we should aim to preserve its benefits — minimizing weed resistance for instance — while investing in new alternatives: not only pesticide-free systems like robotic weeders but also precision spraying and new herbicides.
None of this means glyphosate is innocuous.
It can still harm ecosystems in some contexts. And weed resistance is a serious & growing problem. But its alternatives are often far worse.
A lot of recent criticism of glyphosate has focused on spraying on wheat and oats to help with drying and harvesting.
While less common & important, even this use has some environmental benefits, reducing crop & yield loss and the need for energy-intensive grain drying.
Glyphosate also has enabled farmers to till their fields less, cutting soil runoff into waterways and fuel use (and GHG emissions) from tractor passes. This also leaves more crop residues on fields for wildlife and improves air quality.
While it accounts for a largest share of herbicide use, glyphosate accounts for a far smaller share of the hazard posed to mammals and many other species.
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide, with over 250 million pounds sprayed on U.S. crops annually.
So its important to scrutinize it closely and compare its impact to the alternative options farmers have.
Glyphosate isn't the terrible herbicide it's made out to be.
I dug deep into its impact. Restricting glyphosate more would likely hurt wildlife and the environment in 3 big ways: increased toxicity, soil erosion, and greenhouse gas emissions. www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/glyphosate...
Have you ever heard that biotechnologyis going to revolutionize agriculture — but wonder where all the supposed products are? There's only 7 kinds of genetically modified produce available. Part of the problem is an inefficient regulatory system.
thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-...
The issue with Casey Means is not just her equivocating on vaccines.
It’s that she brings the anti-vax playbook to food: distrust regulators, fear synthetics and cherry-pick evidence.
That’s a recipe for worse policy, higher food costs, and more public confusion. www.agri-pulse.com/articles/244...
Important new @worldresources.bsky.social research shows that agricultural expansion isn’t only leading to forest loss - it’s leading to loss of grasslands, savannas, & wetlands too.
From 2005-20, the 🌎 lost 95 Mha of non-forest natural ecosystems to annual crops, and another 95 Mha to pasture. 1/
The Surgeon General nominee may be concerned, but you shouldn't be. Glyphosate isn't faultless, but its one of the most studied pesticides and deemed not to pose a health concern by regulators in the US, Europe, Canada and other countries.
USDA approved most biotechnology crops 2x faster last year than before, even though a court ruling in favor of anti-GMO groups had forced the agency to change its regulations, shows this new analysis from @TheBTI.
thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-...
Love this movie. Must have been a trip shooting on location for this.
UPDATE: The Supreme Court just decided to hear the case. Our piece on the case (above) explains why this is a good thing, regardless of what you think of pesticides. apnews.com/article/supr...
The issue with restricting glyphosate isn't just cost. A) The weight of the evidence indicates its not carcinogenic in humans at the rates used. B) Alternative herbicides farmers would replace it with are equally or more toxic. C)Reduced use would increase tillage thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-...
The issue with restricting glyphosate isn't just cost. A) The weight of the evidence indicates its not carcinogenic in humans at the rates used. B) Alternative herbicides farmers would replace it with are equally or more toxic. C)Reduced use would increase tillage
thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-...
UPDATE: The Supreme Court just decided to hear the case. Our piece on the case (above) explains why this is a good thing, regardless of what you think of pesticides. apnews.com/article/supr...
The Supreme Court is considering whether to take up a case on glyphosate. They should.
Otherwise, the growing state patchwork of pesticide labeling laws could force glyphosate or other pesticides off the market, costing farmers over $1 billion. thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-...
While some grazed land is arid, much is not & could store more carbon if not grazed. Our research shows that the large land footprint of grass-fed beef means it has an even bigger carbon footprint than typically thought. It also means improving productivity has big benefits. t.co/51DzPkAypR
No. Grass-fed beef actually has a larger carbon footprint than conventional beef. Not only do grass-fed cattle emit more methane, but they also use more land, which has a big climate cost.
www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/c...
A Poland- or Germany-sized area of land is used to produce biofuels already. Despite the push for electric vehicles, biofuel use is only growing larger. That's a big problem since biofuels are often worse for the climate than fossil fuels.
Link to the full article: www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/california...
You can follow Lauren (or bug her to join bsky) on X @lrntex
But even if the LCFS discredits crop based fuels entirely, it should reconsider whether to keep subsidizing biofuels at all. After all, isn’t the future electric vehicles? Why keep paying to put soybeans and beef tallow in the tanks of cars? Is this the best use of resources?
If California wants to fix its frankly scandalous record on the LCFS it needs to take a VERY hard look at the program. To start, it should make sure we don’t end up forcing Californians to pay for crop-based SAF, which has all the same problems we previously detailed:
It also credits biofuels with lowering emissions by *decreasing global food consumption*. Of course, leading people to go hungry indeed produces fewer emissions. It’s also morally wrong!
Why does GTAP produce such low carbon intensities? It’s rather Orwellian. The model simply does not allow producers to convert unmanaged forest (something that happens all the time in the real world).
Surprising no one, empirical studies now coming out find land use change effects orders of magnitude higher than the ex-ante estimates produced by GTAP. Biofuel subsidies are indeed spurring significant deforestation and land conversion in the US and around the world.
How did this happen? It’s a classic tale of regulatory capture with a healthy dose of technocratic hubris. Captured CARB members insisted on the use of black box general equilibrium models (namely GTAP) that spit out astonishingly low carbon intensities for crop based biofuels.