AbstractGlyphosate is the most used herbicide worldwide, which has contributed to concerns about its environmental impact. Compared with most other herbicides, glyphosate has a half-life in soil and water that is relatively short (averaging about 30 d in temperate climates), mostly due to microbial degradation. Its primary microbial product, aminomethylphosphonic acid, is slightly more persistent than glyphosate. In soil, glyphosate is virtually biologically inactive due to its strong binding to soil components. Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate in organisms, largely due to its high water solubility. Glyphosate-resistant crops have greatly facilitated reduced-tillage agriculture, thereby reducing soil loss, soil compaction, carbon dioxide emissions, and fossil fuel use. Agricultural economists have projected that loss of glyphosate would result in increased cropping area, some gained by deforestation, and an increase in environmental impact quotient of weed management. Some drift doses of glyphosate to non-target plants can cause increased plant growth (hormesis) and/or increased susceptibility to plant pathogens, although these non-target effects are not well documented. The preponderance of evidence confirms that glyphosate does not harm plants by interfering with mineral nutrition and that it has no agriculturally significant effects on soil microbiota. Glyphosate has a lower environmental impact quotient than most synthetic herbicide alternatives.
A probabilistic analysis reveals fundamental limitations with the environmental impact quotient and similar systems for rating pesticide risks
