A growing coalition of health campaigners and environmental advocates is calling for an urgent overhaul of glyphosate use in the UK, warning that the nation has developed a systemic “addiction” to the world’s most controversial herbicide. With the chemical’s license up for renewal this December, the debate has intensified over whether the agricultural benefits of the weedkiller outweigh the potential risks to human health and the environment.
Recent analysis of government data reveals a stark upward trajectory in the chemical’s application. In 2024, farmers sprayed more than 2,200 tonnes of glyphosate across the country, with over half of that volume applied to wheat and other cereal crops. This represents a ten-fold increase in usage over the last three decades, persisting even after global health authorities raised red flags about its safety profile.
As a physician, I have followed the diverging narratives surrounding glyphosate for years. On one side is the industrial necessity of crop management; on the other is a body of evidence suggesting that chronic exposure may be linked to severe systemic illnesses. The tension is no longer just academic—This proves playing out in courtrooms and regulatory chambers across the globe.
The Health Conflict: Carcinogens and Neurological Risks
The controversy reached a tipping point in 2015 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. While the manufacturer, Bayer, maintains that its herbicides do not cause cancer, the legal landscape suggests a different story.
In the United States, the fallout has been financial and legal. Bayer has offered $7.25 billion (£5.4 billion) to settle thousands of lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn users that Roundup, its flagship glyphosate-based product, could cause cancer. Meanwhile, in France, the government has acknowledged a link between the use of certain pesticides, including glyphosate, and Parkinson’s disease, leading to compensation for affected farmers.
From a clinical perspective, the primary concern is the route of exposure. Wayne Carter, an associate professor at the University of Nottingham who specializes in the biological impact of pesticides, notes that toxicity is often a matter of dose and delivery. “As with most things, essentially, the more you’re exposed, the more concern there is,” Carter said. He warned that exposure can occur through diet, inhalation, or direct contact, such as when homeowners apply the chemical in domestic gardens.
The Agricultural Paradox: Saving Soil via Chemicals
To understand why the UK is using more glyphosate now than it did thirty years ago, one must appear at the shift toward “regenerative” farming. While the term suggests a move away from synthetic chemicals, the reality is more complex.
Traditionally, farmers cleared weeds by ploughing the field. But, intensive ploughing can lead to soil erosion and the release of stored carbon into the atmosphere. To protect soil health and build up carbon—key goals of sustainable agriculture—many farmers have turned to glyphosate to kill weeds without disturbing the earth.
Helen Metcalfe, an agricultural ecologist at Rothamsted Research, explains that this has created a dependency. “To be able to do regenerative farming well you need to apply glyphosate,” Metcalfe said, noting that the herbicide is primarily applied before crops are planted to clear the field.
This usage pattern differs significantly from the United States, where the prevalence of genetically modified (GM) crops—engineered to be resistant to glyphosate—allows farmers to spray the chemical directly onto growing crops. The UK, which has not adopted GM crops for commercial farming, uses the chemical as a pre-planting tool or for “desiccation”—the process of killing a crop just before harvest to ensure it dries evenly.
| Feature | United Kingdom | United States |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Method | Pre-planting weed control | Over-the-crop spraying |
| Crop Type | Conventional (Non-GM) | Genetically Modified (GM) |
| Key Goal | Soil preservation/Desiccation | Broad-spectrum weed eradication |
| EU Status | Pre-harvest desiccation banned (2023) | Widely permitted |
A Growing Regulatory Divide
The UK’s current stance is increasingly out of step with some of its closest neighbors. In 2023, the European Union banned the use of glyphosate for pre-harvest desiccation, citing concerns over the chemical’s accumulation in the food supply.
In the UK, however, the practice continues. Nick Mole of Pesticide Action Network UK argues that the government’s reluctance to act is a failure of public health. “The UK’s glyphosate addiction has spiralled out of control,” Mole said, adding that the government must commit to a phase-out to protect wildlife and water sources from pollution.
The UK government has defended its position, asserting that the chemical is subject to strict regulation. A government spokesperson stated that pesticides are only approved if evidence shows they “won’t harm human or animal health, and won’t have unacceptable effects on the environment.”
The historical roots of this practice date back to the 1980s, when Scottish farmers first used glyphosate on wheat in damp glens to accelerate the drying process. What began as a localized solution for wetter climates eventually became a global agricultural standard, creating the systemic reliance seen today.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Please consult a healthcare professional regarding pesticide exposure or health concerns.
The immediate future of glyphosate use in the UK now rests on the upcoming license renewal in December. This regulatory checkpoint will determine whether the UK continues its current trajectory or moves toward the more restrictive measures adopted by the EU.
We invite you to share your thoughts on this balance between agricultural efficiency and public health in the comments below.
