ON THE back of the recent findings from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic", it is worth taking a look at the commonly used chemical in broader context.
Glyphosate has been key to modern sustainable agriculture systems such as minimum or zero tillage, allowing significant reduction in erosion and allowing producers to efficiently manage weeds and moisture in our dry environment.
The chemical is ingrained in our food production and where used appropriately is an important tool.
Given the large volume of research that's out there which shows it is not a health risk, there are probably other issues surrounding glyphosate that farmers should be more concerned about, such as widespread emerging resistance in weeds.
The high reliance on glyphosate, not just in agriculture, but also its casual adoption and use by councils and gardeners, has all contributed greatly to the declining effectiveness of this traditionally versatile and cost-effective farming tool.
Like any farming practice, the use of glyphosate has trade-offs and must be managed in a holistic sense.
In this regard, glyphosate has been abused, largely through overuse or poor application.
If we remove glyphosate from the system, the alternative chemicals are generally harsher, sometimes required in greater quantities, or we see a return to increased cultivation, which in our highly variable climate increases the risk of soil loss.
Glyphosate is among the most researched chemicals in the world today, and, while the report released by the IARC expresses there is a high chance glyphosate is carcinogenic, so are many things we are exposed to.
What it doesn't explain is the evidence is not conclusive enough to prove it is a definitive cause of cancer, nor does it explain how glyphosate could behave as a carcinogen.
The release of the information by IARC is therefore light on context and leaves the consumer - who generally does not have the benefit of scientific interpretation - hanging on a thread of concern.
However, regardless of how this might be grabbed and used by anti-chemical lobbies, the bigger issue for farmers is the long-term viability of a chemical which has been taken for granted and through our own poor management might end up becoming redundant anyway.