Cost to Illinois Farmers If Glyphosate Were Banned

A new economic analysis from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and the Illinois Soybean Association warns that a statewide ban on glyphosate could substantially raise production costs for corn and soybean growers. Under a realistic replacement scenario—where farmers would substitute glyphosate with herbicides that are more expensive and modestly less effective—the study estimates potential annual revenue losses of up to $609 million for Illinois farms.

The figure corresponds to an average revenue impact of about 3.6% on top-line returns, with a broader range reported as $300 to $609 million per year (1.8% to 3.6%). Researchers emphasize that even relatively small percentage losses can be difficult to absorb when farm margins are already thin and profitability may be negative in some seasons.

Lead author Sandy Dall’erba, a professor of agricultural and consumer economics at Illinois, built the assessment by first compiling state-level glyphosate usage and expenditures. He then combined published estimates of yield effects from reduced glyphosate use with projections of how farmers might switch to alternative herbicide modes of action, tracking both price increases and efficiency changes.

Study co-author Aaron Hager notes that the proposal is not abstract to producers—reduced revenue translates directly into survival risk for many operations. “I don’t know of any farmer who wants to take a revenue loss,” he said, pointing to persistent financial stress across parts of Illinois agriculture.

The authors chose glyphosate because it is among the most widely used crop-protection tools in the region. They argue that heightened public attention and ongoing legal activity create conditions where additional policy restrictions could be introduced, making it important to quantify potential downstream effects.

While the analysis focuses on farmer-level economics, the researchers acknowledge important omissions. They do not fully capture potential human health and environmental outcomes associated with discontinuing glyphosate, nor do they incorporate all indirect costs tied to other crop-protection strategies.

Glyphosate’s role in conservation tillage is also central to the story. As a “burn-down” herbicide used to clear standing vegetation before planting, glyphosate supports no-till systems at a scale that other tools struggle to match.

Without glyphosate, the study suggests farmers would likely shift toward more conventional tillage, which can increase fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, and input expenses—cost categories not fully estimated in the model.

Overall, the study concludes that the financial consequences of a ban could be “significant” even when the policy change appears straightforward on paper, reinforcing the need for broader assessment beyond direct revenue effects.