And that's why Bayer needs to spent millions to lobby this.

It's not just eliminating unwanted plants, it eliminates biodiversity including needed plants and insects.

It is not containable to the field you bring it on, so it kills plants far away from the fields too, it is in the end in our food and in wildlife and worse, it is part of a cycle that makes it hard to go back to a more environmental and climate friendly way of producing food, which we desperately need to do.

Once you start the cycle you need to buy Glyphosate, need to buy specific plants that get not eliminated by that plant killer (none of them do provide food for insects or if they do kill them), need to buy specific fertilizer, without these plants won't grow and on top this is so expensive that you need to get the most out of your field which means using a huge machine park which hardens the ground which then dries out easily, needs a lot of ground water and can't deal with heavy rainfall and on top is one reason we lose valuable humus that gets washed away.

It is bad for the rich Western countries, it is literally turning places into deserts in the developing world right now. It is not where we need to go and on top of all of that there is a risk of cancer that again they "could not complete a risk assessment" for.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/20/eu-wastes-153m-tonnes-of-food-a-year-much-more-than-it-imports-says-report

The amount of wheat wasted in the EU alone is equal to roughly half of Ukraine’s wheat exports, and a quarter of the EU’s other grain exports, it says.

As long as we throw away what we produce with Glyphosate and the prices are rising anyway, what is the argument here? There is a lot we can do to produce more climate and environmentally sustainable until we actually would start to have less food.

If we keep harming the climate and environment we will lose in the long run way more than if we would short term by stopping Glyphosat. If we never start, this is never going to happen. This could end any chance of a change for 15 years.

At least speaking for Germany we used a.lot more space in nature in the past. The difference is, that in the past it gave room for animals to live, elwhereas today fields are like a desert for wildlife. As long as we had agriculture in a way where it gave place for wildflowers and thereby insects and used hedges, which protected lots of other species, we did not have that much of an ecological problem.

Of course it's better to use less space and have less of a risk for famines, but without the surrounding ecosystems, which we are destroying, this also does not bear much value.

This isn’t the lesser evil because the other choice isn’t evil. In fact, if we keep going like this we won’t just experience a relatively minor reduction in food production, we will have close to no production and little to no suitable soil for agriculture.

Sure, but that's all long term. Whether they really need to extend glyphosate by 15 instead of 5 years however is a good question.