The Global Debate over Glyphosate

Glyphosate is a common weed killer used by farmers around the world to control weeds, protect crops, and reduce the need for labor-intensive hand weeding, such as pulling weeds by hand or using mechanical tools to clear fields. It has also become one of the world’s most debated farm chemicals because of concerns about how its use affects soil, water, and people. At the center of the debate is a difficult food-system question: can the world reduce its reliance on chemicals like glyphosate while still growing enough food for a rising population?

Research on glyphosate has reached mixed conclusions. Supporters argue that glyphosate helps farmers control weeds more efficiently, protect crop yields, and reduce the time and cost of field labor. Critics argue that heavy reliance on glyphosate can harm ecosystems, contribute to herbicide-resistant weeds, and raise concerns about long-term effects on soil, water, and human health. This makes the debate difficult because both concerns are real: governments want safer food and healthier environments, but farmers also need reliable ways to protect harvests. In regions where hunger and food insecurity remain serious, those trade-offs become even harder to ignore. In 2024, hunger affected about 323 million people in Asia and 307 million people in Africa. These numbers do not explain every glyphosate regulation, many of which developed over years, but they show why the question still matters today. 

Any debate over glyphosate has to hold two truths at once: farmers need tools to protect harvests, and communities need food systems that are safer, healthier, and less dependent on chemical inputs. Across Asia and Africa, the debate is no longer just about weeds. It is about what ends up on our plates, how farmers grow our food, and whether today’s food systems can protect both people and the planet. 

Asia: A Patchwork of Bans, Restrictions, and Food-Safety Rules

In Asia, governments and communities want safer food and healthier environments, but they also know farmers rely on herbicides to control weeds, reduce labor and protect yields. So glyphosate policy is not moving in one direction. Some governments are trying bans or restrictions, while others are using food-safety standards, residue limits, and registration systems.

Vietnam

Vietnam shows how a country can restrict glyphosate domestically while still keeping the chemical inside its food-safety system. In 2019, Vietnam moved to ban glyphosate imports and suspended registrations for glyphosate products, citing health and environmental concerns. But Vietnam continued to maintain maximum residue limits for glyphosate in food, showing that glyphosate didn’t disappear from the regulatory system. Instead, this case shows the tension between reducing domestic use and still managing food trade, imported products, and residue rules.

India

India took a different path. In 2022, the government restricted glyphosate use so that it could only be applied through pest control operators. The order cited health hazards and risks to humans and animals. The government later clarified that this was not a full ban on the sale, distribution, or use of glyphosate-based pesticides. For farmers, however, this approach raises a practical challenge: if glyphosate can only be applied by trained operators, farmers need reliable access to those operators at the right time in the growing season. India’s case shows how a restriction can look clear in law but become more complicated in real fields.

Sri Lanka and Thailand

Sri Lanka shows why pesticide reform cannot rely on bans alone. The country banned glyphosate in 2015, partly because of health concerns, but later reversed course after pressure from tea, rubber, and other agricultural sectors. Thailand followed a softer version of the same pattern: it considered stronger restrictions but kept glyphosate legal under limits after farmer, trade, and agricultural pressure.

China, Japan, South Korea

Other Asian countries are taking a more regulatory approach. China, Japan, and South Korea are not mainly trying to ban glyphosate; they are managing pesticide risk through food-safety standards, maximum residue limits, testing, and import controls. China’s 2026 food-safety standard includes 10,749 maximum residue limits and 350 testing methods for 585 pesticides, showing how food safety is increasingly being handled through monitoring rather than prohibition. Japan applies its Positive List System to pesticide residues in food, and its import inspection plan has specifically flagged some foods, such as chickpeas, for the possibility of glyphosate residues over the MRL. South Korea uses its own Positive List System as well: since 2019, agricultural products without an established Korean MRL are generally subject to a default limit of 0.01 ppm, making residue control a strict compliance issue for both domestic and imported foods. 

Together, these cases show that regulation does not always mean a ban; in China, Japan, and South Korea, the main approach is to keep glyphosate inside a controlled food-safety system rather than remove it entirely.

The key lesson from Asia is that safer food systems need more than a simple choice between banning glyphosate and leaving it unregulated. Across Vietnam, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan, and South Korea, governments are trying to reduce risk while still protecting food production, trade, and farmers’ ability to manage weeds. Without practical support for farmers, a ban or restriction may protect consumers in theory while creating new challenges in the field.

Africa: Fewer Bans, But Growing Pressure

In Africa, the glyphosate debate is even more closely tied to food security. More than 20% of Africa’s population faced hunger in 2024, and farmers are also dealing with drought, flooding, high input costs, and limited support. In that context, herbicides can become part of a survival strategy, even when communities worry about exposure and food safety.

South Africa

In early 2026,testing commissioned by the African Centre for Biodiversity in South Africa reported glyphosate and AMPA residues in everyday foods such as maize meal, wheat flour, bread, and infant cereal. Advocacy groups called for stronger action, while producers and industry voices emphasized compliance with existing safety limits. The disagreement is really about trust, people want to know not just whether food is legal, but whether it is truly safe for daily consumption.

Kenya

Kenya points to another growing trend: pesticide debates are moving into courts. In 2025, Kenya’s High Court allowed a pesticide-related petition to proceed as a class action, opening the door for affected communities to join. The case is broader than glyphosate, but it reflects a larger shift that pesticide exposure is increasingly being treated as a public-health, environmental justice, and food-safety issue.

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe shows a third response: using testing and food standards to address public concern. After a public allegation that maize meal imported and processed by Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe members contained harmful glyphosate residues, the Standards Association of Zimbabwe tested six mealie meal samples and reported that the detected levels were below the test method’s 0.5 ppm limit. Zimbabwe’s maize meal standard also requires maize meal to comply with Codex maximum pesticide residue limits. The result is not a ban or a lawsuit, but a regulatory response built around testing, standards, and public reassurance.

The challenge for Africa is turning concern into practical change. Stronger testing and enforcement matter, but farmers also need affordable alternatives, extension services, and support for soil health. Otherwise, pesticide reform can become another burden on the people already carrying the hardest part of the food system.

Can We Grow Enough Food Without Depending on Chemicals?

The need to grow enough food to feed its people drives how countries make regulations and laws governing the use of chemicals like glyphosate. As shown by actions in countries across Asia and Africa, there is no one specific answer. In some places, pressure from the population causes the government to act, while in other places, certain industries have more influence. At heart, the goal is the same – to provide a healthier food future while also protecting people from harm. 

One potential path to farming without chemicals is regenerative farming. Want to know more about regenerative agriculture and EARTHDAY.ORG’s research on food? Check out our Foodprints for the Future articles.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at [email protected]. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.