United Oilseeds (UO) has published the results of a farmer survey which demonstrates the important role glyphosate plays in pre-harvest desiccation of combinable crops in Great Britain.
The co-operative had commissioned the survey as part of its evidence for policymakers, devolved governments and relevant groups to support the re-authorisation of glyphosate in the UK from late 2026. However, it has brought publication forward in response to a widely reported paper from the Soil Association, supported by the Riverford business, calling for the pre-harvest use of glyphosate to be banned.
The survey was carried out by a group of co-operatives in England and Scotland convened by UO to understand glyphosate usage in the UK and the potential impact of its withdrawal for pre-harvest use. It attracted responses from 767 growers across Great Britain between December 2025 and March 2026.
The responses showed that 76% of farmers use glyphosate for pre-harvest desiccation, with oilseed rape the most treated crop by some margin. Losing the active would increase costs, said 675 of the sample; 66% would expect greater risk of crop losses without glyphosate and 72% said some crops could become difficult or impossible to grow. At consumer level, the farmers warned the loss of this tool would translate directly into higher food prices and increased reliance on imports. Furthermore, many of those imports would be derived from crops sprayed with glyphosate pre-harvest, exacerbating the unlevel playing field for UK farmers.
Respondents stressed there is currently no reliable alternative to glyphosate for managing uneven or late-ripening crops. Options such as swathing are limited by weather and cost. Relying on natural ripening increases the risk of crop yield loss and reduced quality. Many said that without glyphosate, they would have to drop key break crops such as oilseed rape and pulses from their rotations, reducing resilience in farming systems.
Campaigns to restrict glyphosate usage from bodies such as the Soil Association are often framed as protecting the environment. But survey responses showed that without it, many would be forced to increase ploughing and soil disturbance; use more fuel for cultivation and crop drying, and abandon practices such as cover cropping – all of which increase carbon use and damage soil health.
The effect would be most severe in Scotland, Northern England and Wales where shorter and less predictable harvest windows make crop timing more challenging. The survey found 97% of respondents in the northern regions currently use glyphosate on one or more of the crops listed.
On the question of glyphosate residues in food, an issue raised by the Soil Association, growers respond that any decisions must consider both regulatory safety standards and the practical realities of producing food in the UK.
UO managing director James Warner comments: “Frankly, it’s very disappointing and somewhat contradictory that an organisation focused on protecting soils is calling for measures that could ultimately damage them.
“Policy must be grounded in practical, evidence-based outcomes and reflect the realities of food production and global supply chains. Measures such as this risk significantly reducing UK oilseed rape production at a time when demand for vegetable oils continues to grow, resulting in increased imports of rapeseed, oilseeds and oils from countries that continue to use glyphosate – and in many cases operate to lower environmental standards – while also adding unnecessary transport emissions.
“The outcome is likely to be reduced UK food security, higher food prices and further pressure on the domestic farming economy.
“Our survey clearly shows the practical reality for farmers across the country: removal of pre-harvest desiccation would have severe consequences for farm businesses and food production. This is further amplified by the UK’s maritime climate, which is very different from many EU countries, meaning that without this tool the impact here would be significantly more damaging for both farmers and the resilience of our food system.
“Decisions on its future use must therefore be proportionate, balanced, and fully reflective of the realities of UK farming.”