The time when we live is defined in many ways: we talk about the age of digital, of terror, of migration, but without hardly anyone noticing, for years, the era of glyphosate has also begun.

Launched on the U.S. market in 1974 by Monsanto [1] under the name Roundup, it is now one of the most important tools of conventional agriculture, capable of exterminating virtually all types of weeds, in every corner of the planet. In fact, since the existence of glyphosate-resistant genetically modified plants, this herbicide can be used even after planting when it was initially used mostly beforehand to rid fields of weeds.

For some time, however, there have also been hints, rumors, and signs that glyphosate is also harmful to animals, humans, and biodiversity in general, and from there, the ideological battle has begun. For studies conducted on the “pure” compound, the prestigious journal Lancet Oncology [2] concluded that “the evidence that the herbicide causes cancer in animals is sufficient.” In contrast, the evidence regarding the genotoxicity” of the product is “strong. Until now, pesticide exposure had been found to be correlated with increased cases of childhood leukemias and neurodegenerative diseases of which Parkinson’s leads.

But so does glyphosate kill (as environmentalists say) or does glyphosate increase agricultural yields and ensure global food supply (as farmers’ representatives say)?

Numerous authorities have also entered this battle between organic and conventional farming to help people distinguish between truth and propaganda: the first, in order of time, was the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), which concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic,” but shortly after, the EFSA(European Food Safety Authority) declared that glyphosate is “probably not carcinogenic”. Probably carcinogenic. Probably not carcinogenic. A conflict between environmentalists and agricultural industry lobbyists has thus turned into a clash of scientists, and in the middle are politicians and consumers.

The dilemma is faced everywhere, also in Europe, where the agricultural sector contributes 10 % of greenhouse gas emissions. One measure to decrease them has been identified with the proposal to limit the use of pesticides. The production of such chemicals is in fact energy intensive and requires fossil fuels, in addition to having devastating effects on fragile natural ecosystems. And what happens in Italy, a country that makes green agriculture its bulwark? There remains a ban on the use of glyphosate in areas frequented by the population such as parks, gardens, sports fields and recreational areas, children’s playgrounds, courtyards and green areas inside school complexes and health care facilities, but also the use in fields to accelerate ripening and harvesting. Yet, in Lombardy, according to a Legambiente report, “the presence of glyphosate and its metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid, is widely confirmed. In Lombardy, where the substance is present in 31.8 % of surface water monitoring points and the metabolite in 56.6 %. The herbicide is therefore widely used, and if it were monitored everywhere in the same way an increase in noncompliance cases would be very likely [3].

In Trentino, where the agricultural sector is important and the highest national production of apples is located, the dilemma over the use of glyphosate is very much in the air. In addition to use, abuse is also an issue: Coldiretti Trentino has been working for some time to ensure that glyphosate can be spread over an area no more than 20-30 centimeters away from orchards or vineyards. This view stands in stark contrast to practices allowed in other countries such as Canada and Turkey where glyphosate can be spread, directly over large crops, by the use of airplanes. And “The problem arises when some Italian pasta brands, prefer to buy wheat from such crops because it contains a higher percentage of protein.” “Drugged” percentages obtained precisely with the use of this technique banned in Italy. Certainly, the “glyphosate” situation is still evolving: numerous stimuli are on the horizon not least of which is the need to feed ten billion people, which seems to be a necessity that cannot be achieved without the use of glyphosate.