Glyphosate: An Important Update

By Andrea Yoder

We’ve included reports about glyphosate in our newsletters in previous years, but sadly this chemical and its issues have not miraculously disappeared from the headlines or from our lives.  We all have reason to be concerned about this chemical as it is now the world’s most widely used herbicide and can be found extensively throughout our environment, our food supply and in human bodies across the country and world.  Glyphosate has been in the headlines recently, including just last week when the European Union held their initial round of votes on October 25, 2017 regarding the proposed 10 year re-license for glyphosate use within the European Union, which expires on December 15, 2017.   The majority voted against the re-license and has voted to ban glyphosate completely by 2022.  Additionally, they have voted to impose restrictions on its use starting in 2018.  While we could write volumes about glyphosate and the controversy and health & environmental impacts it has caused, we wanted to provide you with a brief update.  For those of you who are not as familiar with glyphosate, its use, etc, we’ve also provided several resources for you to further your own understanding of this dilemma we’re all in, whether we like it or not.  As consumers, we need to practice our right to make informed decisions regarding our purchases, and in this case specifically food purchases.  The choices we make can have great implications on our own health and well-being as well as casting a vote in the marketplace.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, patented in 1974, is now the world’s most widely used pesticide.  When it was initially introduced into the market, farmers used it as a pre-emergent herbicide to kill weeds before planting their fields as well as for weed control in non-crop areas.  In 1987 6 to 8 million pounds of glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) were applied in the US.  The first genetically modified (GMO) seeds were commercially planted in 1996 and were made to have resistance to glyphosate, thus the two were meant to be used together.  By 2007, the amount of GBH being applied in this country rose to 180-185 million pounds.  In more recent years GBH have been used as a pre-harvest desiccant for small grain crops including wheat, barley, oats, lentils, flax and dried beans with the intention of accelerating the dry down of the crop before harvest.  Because the chemical is applied so close to harvest, high levels of the chemical are found in the crop and the food products made from them.  GBH are now being used quite extensively on both GMO and non-GMO crops which has led to even more chemical being applied on US agricultural land.  In 2014, approximately 240 million pounds of GBH were applied in the US alone.

While the manufacturers of GBH continue to claim it is harmless, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.  In 2015 the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen to humans.  On July 7, 2017, California’s Environmental Protection Agency added glyphosate to their Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer.  The IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen prompted many to file lawsuits against Monsanto by people alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop cancer.  There are currently more than 50 lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.   

There are many problems with the use of glyphosate, making it overwhelming to even know where to start.  The use of GBH as a desiccant so close to harvest has led to a significant increase in glyphosate and its primary metabolite in food products including seemingly benign foods like Cheerios!  While food products are not being extensively tested for glyphosate, Food Democracy Now in coordination with the Detox Project requested testing of some food products at a FDA-registered food safety testing laboratory.  They found extremely high levels of glyphosate in common food products including Cheerios breakfast cereal, Ritz Crackers, Oreos, Doritos and even Goldfish crackers.  Glyphosate has also been found in honey, beer and wine.  Last week a research letter was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) regarding the findings of increased levels of glyphosate in urine specimens collected from participants in a prospective study being conducted in Southern California.  The mean glyphosate levels in urine specimens increased from 0.024 ug/L in 1993-1996 rising to as much as 0.449 ug/L in 2014-2016 for 71 participants with detectable levels.  This was a very small study, but nonetheless it raises concern for the rest of us in the population and demonstrates a need for future research to study the relationship between chronic glyphosate exposure and human health impact.

Monsanto has laced the industry with lies and deceit in exchange for economic gain.  They’ve influenced governments to make regulations, or drop regulations based on their proprietary studies which are not available for independent review and the credibility of which are very questionable. Last week a German publication, Spiegel Online, released an article reporting on the recent release of the “Monsanto Papers” which included internal emails, presentations, and memos suggesting they have participated in ghostwriting, scientific manipulation and withholding important information from government regulatory agencies and the public. 

So, where do we go from here?  Do we really know and understand the full impact glyphosate has and is having on human health and our environment?  If we continue on the current trajectory, where will we be in another 10, 20, 30 years?  Cancer, allergies, birth defects, endocrine disorders and the list of possible health concerns associated with glyphosate goes on.  I mentioned the Detox Project earlier.  This is an organization that has set up a means for testing glyphosate levels in participants all across the nation.  Anyone can participate as long as you’re willing to purchase a test kit and submit a urine sample.The purpose of their study and testing is to start tracking glyphosate levels in the population, but also to help individuals understand what their personal exposure is based on the levels found in their own body.  The Detox Project website also has a lot of informative resources for the general public as well as links to scientific research and papers.

The research group that published the research letter in JAMA mentioned above is expanding their work at the University of California, San Diego.  They have initiated the Herbicide Awareness and Research Project to conduct research in the areas of how glyphosate exposure might have changed over time since the introduction of GMO foods and to set up longitudinal epidemiological studies to look at glyphosate exposure and human health. 

A picture of one of our CSA share boxes.
This has become our medicine!

All of these things are good moves in the right direction, but do we have time to wait for the research?  What can we do in the meantime?  Organic food has become our medicine now more than ever.  For those who do not feel comfortable wondering if the foods they eat have herbicides and pesticides in them and/or don’t want to wait to find out if there really are negative health consequences, choosing to eat certified organic food may be the best choice.  Taking it one step further, knowing more about your food and where it comes from is more important now than ever.  Sadly, there is corruption within the organic industry as well and the organic credibility of some companies, both domestic and  international, have been questioned.  “Know your farmer, Know your food” is not just a catchy phrase to support a feel-good campaign to support local farmers.  It’s an important tool in your tool box to help you make informed food purchasing decisions.

I’ve included several resources below and encourage you to do some further investigation into this topic on your own. There really is something for everyone here.  If you’re interested in health and want to read the scientific papers, I’ve included a consensus statement published in Environmental Health.  If you’re interested in the legal issues, policy, etc you might find it interesting to look into the “Monsanto Papers”.  If you just want some easy to read documents to bring you up to speed and guide you in making decisions for your family, I’ve included several good resources for that as well.  I hope you’ll take the time to become more informed, if you are not already, about the realities of glyphosate in our food and environment today.  It’s an issue that impacts us all and we all have the right to know about it.

• Glyphosate:  Unsafe on any Plate-- Food Testing Results and Scientific Reasons for Concern.  www.fooddemocracynow.org
• DetoxProject.org—Information about glyphosate and testing
• US Right To Know (usrtk.org)—Information and links to resources about many different topics related to glyphosate, Monsanto, etc.
• Bethge, Philip.  Monsanto Faces Blowback Over Cancer Cover-Up, Spiegel Online, Oct 24,2017 
• Mills, PJ, et al.  Excretion of the Herbicide Glyphosate in Older Adults Between 1993 and 2016.  JAMA 2017; 1610-1611. 
• Myers JP, Antonious MN, Blumberg B, et al.  Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures:  A consensus statement.  Environ Health  2016;  15:19 
• UC San Diego School of Medicine, Herbicide Awareness & Research Project 

The Monsanto Tribunal: October 14-16, 2016

Photo Borrowed from the Monsanto Tribunal Website

By Andrea Yoder
     This weekend an important international event will take place in the Netherlands, it’s called The Monsanto Tribunal. “The Monsanto Tribunal is an international civil society initiative to hold Monsanto accountable for human rights violations, for crimes against humanity, and for ecocide. Eminent judges will hear testimonies from victims, and deliver an advisory opinion following procedures of the International Court of Justice.” The Tribunal will be held at The Hague in the Netherlands and from October 14-16 individuals from all over the world will gather with the goal of exposing Monsanto, the US based company responsible for producing GMO seeds as well as toxic agrochemicals. Monsanto’s products, which include PCB’s, 2-4-5 T (a dioxin that was part of Agent Orange), and RoundUp (which contains glysophate), have brought direct harm to many farmers and communities across the world causing irreversible damage to human health and our environment. As is stated on the website for the Tribunal, “Monsanto promotes an agroindustrial model that contributes at least one third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; it is also largely responsible for the depletion of soil and water resources, species extinction and declining biodiversity, and the displacement of millions of small farmers worldwide. This is a model that threatens peoples’ food sovereignty by patenting seeds and privatizing life.”
     How has Monsanto gained such an upper hand in our agriculture and food systems to the detriment of our own health?  They are tricky and have managed to intertwine themselves by strategically influencing lobbying regulatory agencies and governments, by financing biased and fraudulent scientific studies which produce results in their favor, but not results that are meaningful or reliable and by manipulating independent scientists as well as the press and media through lies and corruption. “The history of Monsanto would thereby constitute a text-book case of impunity, benefiting transnational corporations and their executives, whose activities contribute to climate and biosphere crises and threaten the safety of the planet.”
     A citizen’s tribunal is a community-led, court-like litigation event that is conducted according to the laws and standards applied to legal proceedings of a similar nature. While this tribunal will not have the power to result in binding legal decisions or to bring justice through their verdicts, the judges hearing the cases presented will use their expertise to deliver a written verdict of guilt or innocence which will serve as a platform for future legal cases. The tribunal “aims to assess these allegations made against Monsanto, and to evaluate the damages caused by this transnational company. The Tribunal will rely on the ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ adopted at the UN in 2011. It will also assess potential criminal liability on the basis of the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002. The Tribunal shall also assess the conduct of Monsanto as regards the crime of ecocide, which it has been proposed to include in international criminal law. It shall examine whether the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court in force since 2002 should be reformed, in order to include the crime of ecocide and to allow for the prosecution of individual and legal entities suspected of having committed this crime.”
     While Monsanto and other biotech companies want us to believe their “advances” in technology will help us “feed the world” and benefit society, their motives are actually to gain power and control over our food supply with the end goal of increasing their profits. Political decisions have been based on biased research meant to “slide” things through regulatory agencies. Products have been released into the market without proper evaluation of their safety and all of us, without consent, have been part of the largest human health study ever conducted. Their chemicals are irreversibly changing our landscape. We now have to worry about chemical drift and genetics from altered plants and animals spreading into non-GMO species; and there’s no turning back. Novel proteins are in our food supply and are causing a myriad of devastating health problems. Farmers’ health and livelihoods have been destroyed, children have been born with birth defects, farmers in India and around the world are committing suicide because they see no other way out of this tangled web of deception they’ve been drawn into.
     The tribunal has been organized by a steering committee of individuals who, in a variety of ways, have been instrumental in protecting people and the environment against the harmful effects of biotechnology. Some come from a legal background while others have been involved in scientific research, human rights defense, environmental protection and more. The full list of indivduals as well as more thorough background information about The Monsanto Tribunal and the five judges who will be delivering the verdict may be found at the official website: monsantotribunal.org. The proceedings of the Tribunal may be viewed at this website as well and will be streamed live once the proceedings are underway. The court will hand down its decision in December 2016.
     This is an important event and, while Monsanto is the example, they are not the only biotech company responsible for these allegations. We’ll be reporting more information about the Tribunal as it becomes available, but we also encourage each of you to take a look at the tribunal website and educate yourselves on the background behind and potential impact of this important event: monsantotribunal.org.

Glyphosate Use as Pre-Harvest Desiccant in Small Grain & Dried Bean Crops

by Andrea Yoder & Richard de Wilde

Last summer we published a collection of articles entitled “The Silent Spring Series.”  Within this series we discussed the impact glyphosate, the world’s most widely used weed killer, is having on our environment as well as human health.  Glyphosate, originally patented by Monsanto and the main ingredient in Roundup®, is now widely used in many herbicide products around the world.  Glyphosate was originally discovered in 1950 by Dr. Henri Martin, a chemist working for a pharmaceutical company.  There were no pharmaceutical uses discovered at that time, so the molecule was sold to other companies who proceeded to test other applications to find a use for it.  In 1970, a Monsanto chemist discovered glyphosate could be used as an herbicide which led to the development of Roundup®, first sold commercially in 1974.

Last year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.  This has caused a heightened interest in the potential negative impacts this herbicide has on human health, specifically because even trace amounts are thought to be harmful due to exposure over time.  In addition to being a carcinogen, glyphosate has been linked to a host of health concerns including its impact as an endocrine disrupter, connection to birth defects and reproductive issues, and the negative impact it can have on beneficial gut bacteria to name a few.  Despite the fact that glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide, it has not been routinely included in testing by the USDA & FDA for residues on food crops.  However, the FDA is preparing to start testing this year.  FDA spokesperson Jason Strachman Miller stated “The FDA has not routinely looked for glyphosate in its pesticide chemical residue monitoring regulatory program in the past for several reasons, including that available methods for detecting glyphosate were selective residue methods that would have been very cost and labor intensive to implement in FDA field labs.”  Soybeans, corn, milk and eggs are on the list of potential foods which may contain glyphosate and will be tested.

While glyphosate use in conjunction with producing genetically engineered herbicide tolerant crops such as soybean, corn and cotton is well-known, there are some lesser known uses of glyphosate that have not been as well-publicized.  In the most recent issue of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, editor Ken Roseboro discusses the use of glyphosate as a desiccant in some crops just prior to harvest.  While the pre-harvest use of glyphosate is not new, it is very concerning with respect to human health because it results in higher residues of glyphosate on the food product.

Dr. Charles Benbrook discusses the pre-harvest use of glyphosate in his paper titled “Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally” which was published last month in Environmental Sciences Europe.  Glyphosate is sprayed on a crop just before harvest to help speed up the dry-down process and allow farmers to harvest a crop sooner.  This is advantageous in northern, colder regions as well as in a year when conditions are wet and it takes a while for the crop to dry down before harvest.  This use is referred to as a “harvest aid” or “green burndown.”  While this process started in Scotland in the 1980’s, since the mid-2000s it has become a more common practice in the United States as well as in northern Europe and Canada.  It is mostly used on small grain crops such as wheat, barley and oats.  However, its use extends to many other concerning food crops including dried beans, lentils, peas, corn, flax, rye, triticale, buckwheat, millet, canola, sugar beets, potatoes and sunflowers.

Unfortunately this practice is not something most consumers are aware of, yet its use amongst conventional growers and the industry in North America is more extensive than any of us might like to admit.  Roseboro quotes Tom Ehrhardt, co-owner of Albert Lea Seeds in Minnesota, who identifies the challenge of sourcing grains that have NOT been desiccated with glyphosate prior to harvest.  “I have talked with millers of conventionally produced grain, and they all agree it’s very difficult to source oats, wheat, flax, and triticale, which have not been sprayed with glyphosate prior to harvest.  It’s a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell policy’ in the industry.”

Dr. Benbrook stated in his most recent paper that “Because such applications occur within days of harvest, they result in much higher residues in the harvested foodstuffs.”  Gerald Wiebe, a farmer and agricultural consultant interviewed by Roseboro states his concern that “Consumers don’t realize when they buy wheat products like flour, cookies, and bread they are getting glyphosate residues in those products.  It’s barbaric to put glyphosate in food a few days before you harvest it.”

We’ll wrap up this discussion with a comment from Dr. Benbrook which Roseboro included in his article.   His message is as follows:  “It may be two percent of agriculture use, but well over 50 percent of dietary exposure.  I don’t understand why Monsanto and the food industry don’t voluntarily end this practice.  They know it contributes to high dietary exposure (of glyphosate).”

References:

Benbrook CM.  “Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally.”  Environmental Sciences Europe (2016, 28:28) DOI:  10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0.
Gillam C.  “FDA to Start Testing for Glypohsate in Food.”  Civil Eats.  February 17, 2016
Roseboro K.  Grim reaper.  “Many food crops sprayed with weed killer before harvest.”  The Organic & Non-GMO Report.  2016; 161: 4-6.

GMO Update:  The DARK Act

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 the DARK Act was defeated by a vote of 49-48 in the Senate.  Bill S. 2609, commonly referred to as the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know), would have allowed for voluntary labeling of food products containing GMOs (genetically modified organisms).  Additionally, this bill would have preempted the Vermont State law requiring the labeling of all foods containing GMOs by July 1, 2016.  Other states including Connecticut and Maine have passed state labeling standards but have not implemented the standards yet.  New Jersey, Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois and Massachusetts are also considering state labeling standards for foods containing GMOs.

Voluntary labeling of food products at the federal level would have been based primarily on QR codes, websites and call in numbers for consumers to use to inquire about the presence of GMOs.  Sadly, this method discriminates against Americans who do not have access to the necessary technology or services that would be required to find this information.

The Center for Food Safety sites 64 countries around the world already have laws in place requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs.  In a recent poll, 89% of American voters are in favor of mandatory labeling of products containing GMOs and feel Americans have the right to know and decide for themselves.

Silent Spring #5- Reflections on the Precautionary Principle

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz
After spending the last several weeks exploring the implications that pesticides like neonicotinoids and glyphosate have on our pollinators and other beneficials, this week we bring the precautionary principle into the conversation. Now more than ever, we can be brutally honest and ask ourselves: how did we get here?

The precautionary principle (PP) was first formulated and invoked in the 1980s, primarily through the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Its basic tenant mandates that: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically” (Raffensperger, 1998). In the event that this is true, the burden of proof falls to those who endorse and promote the activity, not the general public. For example, in accordance with the PP, instead of waiting until people become sick, the responsibility of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to extend to the public a reasonable expectation that we are shielded from danger. An informed, transparent, and democratic process must accompany the application of the PP, and the possibility of taking no action (as in, not moving forward with the marketing, sale, and widespread use of a potentially harmful pesticide) must be given equal weight when considering the range of alternatives (Raffensperger, 1998).

Unfortunately, as we touched on in our earlier conversation about glyphosate, the FDA is often presented with industry studies—studies that are conducted entirely by corporations like Monsanto and Dow Chemical Company and that are, apart from FDA review, classified. By attaching a commercial-in-confidence label to these reports, corporations manage to side step having to offer up their studies for review and assessment by external scientists, researchers or even the general public—groups who are less likely to be burdened by any conflicts of interest (Leu, 2014). As the Union of Concerned Scientists has noted, “By creating obstacles to independent research on its products, [corporations like] Monsanto make it harder for farmers and policy makers to make informed decisions that can lead to more sustainable agriculture” (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2012).

In the U.S., we depart starkly from Europeans, Canadians, Australians and others who tend to subscribe to the notion that it is better to prevent damage than to repair it. As Mark Bittman has commented, “We ask not whether a given chemical might cause cancer but whether we’re certain that it does” (Bittman, 2015). For an interesting contrast, let’s take the European Commission, which, in 2013, voted to impose a two-year ban on the use of certain neonics. Faced with incomplete data and uncertainty as to whether neonics are irrefutably related to the decline of bee populations, the European Commission erred on the side of caution in imposing the ban. The U.S., on the other hand, is still reviewing the evidence. According to Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA is allowing science to inform the regulatory actions they do and do not take. Operating in this manner allows them to “make sure that [they] make accurate and appropriate regulatory decisions as opposed to [doing] things that could lead to meaningful societal cost without any benefit whatsoever” (Plumer, 2013). As Plumer has commented, where the European Commission is siding with the environment on this one, the U.S. is clearly letting economic considerations take center stage. “It’s still not clear that neonicotinoids are to blame, and pesticides are a billion-dollar industry, so regulators are moving slowly in setting restrictions” (Plumer, 2013).

Unsurprisingly, there are many in the U.S. who question the usefulness and the practicality of the PP. These critiques primarily fall in line with the question of weighing risks. Michael Specter, longtime staff writer at The New Yorker, insists that we “…have to be aware of blindly invoking the ‘precautionary principle’” (Specter, 2015). After all, risk is subjective and safety is difficult to prove. But when we really get down to it, what truly needs protecting here? The economy, silly! As we know (and as we can deduce from Mr. Jones’ comment above), the pesticide industry is a billion-dollar entity and in the U.S., we’re hooked on industrial agriculture, quick fixes and cheap food. All of these things are intimately tied to the convenience that comes with agro-chemicals. To move away from pesticides like neonics and glyphosate would be to unravel the model of agriculture we’ve worked so diligently to put in place since chemical fertilizers first appeared on the scene after World War II and Earl Butz so tenderly cooed, “Get big or get out” (Philpott, 2008).


Over 20 years ago, Farmer Richard spent some time in Holland. During this time, he met with several Dutch farmers, a majority of whom grew vegetables in greenhouses using hydroponic methods. They recounted to Richard that some months before, they had noticed a decline in the aquatic life and, by extension, the water birds that lived near and fed from the canals that traversed their region. The farmers quickly traced the problem back to their hydroponic systems—the water that was being discharged was making its way into the canals, and it was taking the farmers’ fertilizer and other chemicals along for the ride.

Despite being competitors in the same marketplace, these farmers came together to collectively recognize the problem and identify a solution. Though the cost was considerable, the farmers decided that the most effective solution would be to install recycling systems, which would work to clean the discharged water. Driven by the conviction that making this change was the right thing to do, and having faith that consumers would be willing to pay a few cents more for their produce, the farmers invested in the necessary infrastructure. Before long they began to notice that, in the absence of polluted water, the canals’ rich aquatic life had begun to rebound, along with other valuable species like birds.

This “do the right thing” mentality and attitude made a lasting impression on Farmer Richard—one that he has carried with him over his many years of farming. Where the Dutch farmers recognized the need for and ultimately embraced change, many farmers in our country tend to stick to the status quo—despite the fact that we need to adjust the overarching principles that drive large-scale conventional agriculture. As Farmer Richard has noted, here we are more likely to see farmers banning together in opposition to change. In advocating for “right to farm” laws (often with backing from the Farm Bureau), it becomes less likely that farmers will have to take a serious look at and acknowledge the detrimental impacts some of their farming practices are having on the health of their families and friends, employees, pollinator helpers and their own land.


In reflecting on our current state of affairs—our country’s ongoing dependence on pesticides and our populace’s relegation by the FDA to the de facto status of guinea pigs—I found this commentary by Mark Bittman (2015) particularly appropriate: “We don’t need better, smarter chemicals along with crops that can tolerate them.” Rather, Bittman argues that what we truly need is fewer chemicals and a heavy infusion of agroecology—intercropping, crop rotation, organic fertilizers, cover crops and other methods that are ecologically informed, environmentally safe, and demonstrated to be economically beneficial.
We should hold tightly to this image, as a future reality to strive for. In the meantime, however, at a time when our regulatory bodies are slow to take preventative, protective action on our behalf, we can use our own knowledge and understanding in deciding whether or not to apply the precautionary principle on a personal level, a household level or, as we’ll see next week, on a city-wide level….because it’s the right thing to do.

References

Bittman, M. (2015, March 25). Stop making us guinea pigs. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/opinion/stop-making-us-guinea-pigs.html?_r=0

Leu, A. (2014). The myths of safe pesticides. Austin, TX: Acres U.S.A.

Philpott, T. (2008, February 8). A reflection on the lasting legacy of 1970s USDA Secretary Earl Butz. Retrieved from http://grist.org/article/the-butz-stops-here/

Plumer, B. (2013, May 3). Why are bees dying? The U.S. and Europe have different theories. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/03/why-are-bees-dying-the-u-s-and-europe-have-different-theories/

Raffensperger, C. (1998). The precautionary principle: A fact sheet. Science & Environmental Health Network. Retrieved from http://www.sehn.org/Volume_3-1.html

Specter, M. (2015, April 10). Roundup and risk assessment. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roundup-and-risk-assessment

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2012). Eight ways Monsanto fails at sustainable agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/eight-ways-monsanto-fails.html#.VcoKzzBViko

Silent Spring #4 - Glyphosate-Roundup's Best Friend Part 2

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz

This week, we’ll keep our attention squarely focused on glyphosate, the active ingredient in commonly used herbicides like Roundup. While we considered the potential as well as the demonstrated implications glyphosate has on human health in the previous article, this week we’ll explore what glyphosate’s widespread proliferation has meant for animal life and for our environment in general.

Bee in Tomatillo field.

Thirty years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that glyphosate might be a cancer-causing agent. By 1991, however, the agency had reversed its stance, citing—rather ironically—the same study on which it had based its original, precautionary decision. Fast-forward to March 2015 and this study has once again found itself in the crosshairs, as a 17-member panel of researchers compiled by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed it as supporting evidence in its declaration of glyphosate as a human carcinogen.

In exploring glyphosate’s potential as a human carcinogen, IARC panelists examined circumstances under which glyphosate might cause cancer. While Monsanto and others have pointed to a preponderance of negative studies, the IARC stands firm in its insistence that even a handful of positive studies—those that suggest there is a linkage—can justify naming a substance as hazardous. In the case of this highly cited study, three of the 50 mice exposed to a specified amount of glyphosate developed an unusual type of kidney cancer. According to Dr. Aaron Blair, a retired National Cancer Institute epidemiologist and chairman of the IARC researchers, “that type of tumor is rare…they literally don’t occur, but they occurred when rodents were dosed with this stuff” (Pollack, 2015).

Researchers’ sights are not solely set on understanding the connection between glyphosate exposure and cancer, however. In general, the primary question guiding many is more broad and centers on understanding the potential health effects of low dose exposure over an extended period of time. This is a question we do not yet have an answer to. Yet as studies continue to develop—especially longitudinal studies—we may begin to put more of the puzzle pieces into place. In Germany, for instance, researchers found glyphosate in the urine of dairy cows, rabbits and humans at levels ranging from 10 to 35 parts per million (ppm) (Krüger et al., 2014). Recall from our discussion last week that chemicals like glyphosate are biologically active at parts per billion (ppb) levels (Hemmelgarn, 2015). Upon dissection, the tissues of each cow’s kidneys, liver, lungs, spleen, muscles and intestines were found to contain similar amounts of glyphosate residue as their urine. As Leu (2015, p. 91) explains, “this means that glyphosate is not being passed through urine without affecting the organism, and that meat and dairy are an additional source of glyphosate for humans.”

Bee in strawberry blossom.

A number of studies have also documented the various ways in which glyphosate has resulted in teratogenicity (birth defects) in animals. In 2003, researchers found that of those tadpoles exposed to glyphosate at rates commonly found in the environment, 55 percent experienced deformities to their tails, skulls, mouths, eyes and vertebrae (Lajmanovich, Sandoval, & Peltzer, 2003). Meanwhile, Dallegrave et al. (2003) found that rats that were exposed to glyphosate produced offspring that were more likely to have skeletal abnormalities. Perhaps most significantly, a 2010 study demonstrated the ways in which glyphosate actually causes teratogenicity (Paganelli, Gnazzo, Acosta, López, & Carrasco, 2010). Paganelli et al. found that at levels as low as 0.5 ppm, glyphosate is able to disrupt the retinoic acid signaling pathway—a crucial biochemical mechanism. All vertebrates (yes, that includes humans) use this mechanism in order to ensure that bones, organs and tissues develop at a specific time and in the correct place within embryos. If malformations begin to occur, the mechanism enables corrective action. Disrupting this mechanism is akin to scrambling a motherboard—essentially, signals may be sent at the wrong time, resulting in the incorrect formation of organs and tissues and leaving malformations uncorrected.

Much like neonicotinoids, research suggests that glyphosate also has sub-lethal impacts on honeybees. Honeybees that were fed sub-lethal doses of glyphosate spent more time—and more often took indirect paths—returning to their colonies. As the authors note, the navigation of these honeybees appears to be impacted by consuming concentrations of glyphosate that are commonly found in agricultural settings—a factor that may have “long-term negative consequences for colony foraging success” (Balbuena et al., 2015).

Bee in melon blossom.

Environmentally speaking, glyphosate residues—primarily glyphosate’s degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)—have been detected in soil, air, surface water and seawater. Studies show that these residues persist and accumulate over time with ongoing agricultural use (Leu, 2015). While glyphosate attaches firmly to soil initially, these particles eventually migrate throughout the environment until they finally dissolve in water (Grossman, 2015). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently sampled a collection of rivers, streams, ditches and wastewater treatment plant outfalls in 38 states. Their findings revealed that a majority of those waterways tested contained glyphosate residues, as did 70 percent of rainfall samples (Grossman, 2015).

Though glyphosate’s weed-killing capabilities have had a number of major environmental impacts, one has received a great amount of attention as of late: the decimation of milkweed plants.  As the usage of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready crops have proliferated throughout the Midwest, the application of Roundup has wiped out enormous tracts of this plant, which serves as the monarch caterpillar’s sole source of food (Pleasants & Oberhauser, 2012). In the last 20 years, it is estimated that the North American monarch butterfly population has declined by 90 percent. This decline coincided with the loss of over 165 million acres of habitat—owing primarily to the pervasive use of glyphosate (The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2014). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently conducting a review to determine whether to place the North American monarch population under Endangered Species Act protection. Tierra Curry, a senior researcher with the Center for Biological Diversity, believes that this is the “most powerful tool” we can leverage to save America’s monarch population (The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2014).
In agricultural applications, glyphosate has been touted as a tool that will ultimately assist in reducing pesticide use, as Roundup ready crops will theoretically thrive with fewer applications of only one herbicide throughout the growing season. However, as many conventional farmers have come to rely almost exclusively on Roundup year-in and year-out, weeds that have been able to survive have spread their seeds. Now, what we’re left with is an evolutionary inevitability—Roundup resistant weed species. Facing this new dilemma, agro chemical companies are looking to develop the next GM varieties of corn and soybeans that can withstand chemical formulations like those that make up 2,4-D and dicamba, which can be described as potentially more dangerous than glyphosate (Bohnenblust, Vaudo, Egan, Mortensen, & Tooker, 2015). Unsurprisingly, this has been embraced as a “new era,” representing “a very significant opportunity” for chemical companies like Dow Chemicals (Johnson, 2013).

We opened our first Silent Spring article with news that The White House had taken an historic step in revealing the National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. Investing in the protection, restoration and enhancement of pollinator habitats is a critical piece in proactively responding to the rapid decline of various pollinator populations within North America. In a similar vein, designating North American monarchs as an endangered species would, in theory, work to protect them and increase their odds of long-term survival. However, without a rigorous plan to curtail the use of harmful pesticides like neonicotinoids and glyphosate—classes of compounds and chemicals which we now know more than ever are undeniable points of concern for the health of humans, animal life and our environment more broadly—these efforts may ultimately be for naught. Even with the establishment of widespread tracts of native prairieland, pollinators and other beneficials will continue to be exposed to these harmful chemicals for the simple fact that they are not sedentary organisms. They move. They pollinate. As Dr. May Berenbaum says, “pollinators are [a]…keystone species. You know how an arch has a keystone? It’s the one stone that keeps the two halves of the arch together…If you remove the keystone, the whole arch collapses” (PBS Nature, 2007).




Next week, we’ll turn our attention to the precautionary principle and how it has—or has not—been applied in relation to the adoption and widespread application of such substances as neonicotinoids and glyphosate.

References

Balbuena, M. S., Tison, L., Hahn, M., Greggers, U., Menzel, R., & Farina, W. M. (2015). Effects of sub-lethal doses of glyphosate on honeybee navigation. The Journal of Experimental Biology. doi: 10.1242/dev.117291.

Bohnenblust, E.W., Vaudo, A.D., Egan, F., Mortensen, D.A., & Tooker, J.F. (2015). Effects of the herbicide dicamba on non-target plants and pollinator visitation. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, online 17 July.

Dallegrave, E., Mantese, F.D., Coelho, R.S., Pereira, J.D., Dalsenter, P.R., & Langeloh, A. (2003). The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicology Letters, 142(1-2), p. 45-52.

Grossman, E. (2015, April 23). What do we really know about Roundup weed killer? National Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150422-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-weeds/

Hemmelgarn, M. (2015). Little things, big impacts. Acres, U.S.A.

Johnson, N. (2013, October 14). Roundup-ready, aim, spray: How GM crops lead to herbicide addiction. Grist. Retrieved from http://grist.org/food/roundup-ready-aim-spray-how-gm-crops-lead-to-herbicide-addiction/

Krüger, M., Schledorn, P., Schrödl, W., Hoppe, H., Lutz, W., & Shehata, A. (2014). Detection of glyphosate residues in animals and humans. Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, 4(2).

Lajmanovich, R.C., Sandoval, M.T., & Peltzer, P.M. (2003). Induction of mortality and malformation in Scinax nasicus tadpoles exposed to glyphosate formulations. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Toxicology, 70(3), p. 612-618.

Leu, A. (2015). Glyphosate under the gun: World Health Organization weighs in. Acres U.S.A.

Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., López, S.L., & Carrasco, A.E. (2010). Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 23(10), p. 1586-1595.

PBS Nature. (2007). Silence of the bees.

Pleasants, J.M., & Oberhauser, K.S. (2012). Milkweek loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: Effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 6(2), 135-144.

Pollack, A. (2015, March 27). Weed killer, long cleared, is doubted. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/business/energy-environment/decades-after-monsantos-roundup-gets-an-all-clear-a-cancer-agency-raises-concerns.html?_r=0

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. (2014). Monarch butterfly moves toward endangered species act protection [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.xerces.org/2014/12/29/monarch-butterfly-moves-toward-endangered-species-act-protection/

Silent Spring #4-Glyphosate: Roundup's Best Friend Part 1

A Note from Farmer Richard

“Before we introduce the next topic in our ‘Silent Spring Series,’ I wanted to interject a comment about this series and our overall goal in publishing these articles.  We understand the topics in this series can be of a “depressing nature”  and we’ve received some comments to this point from some members.  This series of articles has grown out of our initial interest in preserving pollinators and responding to the White House’s National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators.  Throughout our research, we are coming to understand that these systemic pesticides, neonics and glysophate, and GMO crops are having a wide-spread impact resulting in systemic contamination that is impacting our entire ecosystem and food chain.  Sarah has fearlessly attacked the research to get to the heart of the matter and we have found this has been quite an education for us in this process.  
So, I’d encourage you to please bear with us!  Once we understand the extent of this complex problem, there are many positive things that we can all participate in to turn this around.  Next week we are hosting a group of visitors representing the Xerces Society as well as federal representatives from NRCS & the USDA who are interested in looking at what we’ve done to establish pollinator habitats on our farm.   Stay tuned!”

Silent Spring #4- Glyphosate-

Roundup’s Best Friend Part 1

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz
In this fourth article in our Silent Spring series, we turn our attention to glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. We’ll start by briefly exploring the development and proliferation of this chemical—primarily through the use of Roundup and genetically modified Roundup Ready seeds. From there, we’ll consider the implications glyphosate’s use has for human health and, in the subsequent article, for our world’s animal life and our environment overall.
In 1974, Monsanto introduced Roundup, a chemical formula anchored by glyphosate that kills weeds by blocking key proteins that are essential to their growth. Today, Roundup is the most commonly used herbicide in the world (Grossman, 2015). Early uses were focused on lawns, recreational spaces and cropland. With the creation and release of Roundup Ready seeds in 1996, however, agricultural applications skyrocketed. Using seeds that had been genetically engineered to withstand Roundup, farmers were suddenly able to spray entire fields without the worry of destroying their crops. As a result, today nearly all of the U.S.’ corn, soybean and cotton crops are regularly treated with Roundup. Chemically speaking, this translates to over 300 million pounds of Roundup being applied to cropland each year (globally, this number is near the 1.4 billion mark).
As the use of glyphosate has increased dramatically over the last two decades, Grossman (2015) echoes a concern that has long been held by many: we have a dearth of research that explores what happens once glyphosate is released into the environment. Though Monsanto (2015) maintains that Roundup is “supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product,” Leu (2014) makes an astute (and rather obvious) point—one that may be missed by those operating outside of the scientific community. What it comes down to is a convenient designation called commercial-in-confidence. A majority of the studies Monsanto points to as working in its favor are classified as industry studies, which means they are not available for external scientists and researchers to review and assess. What is even more alarming is that these in-house studies—rather than independent studies published in peer-reviewed journals—are most often utilized by regulatory bodies as they make their safety assessments (Leu, 2014).
Unfortunately for Monsanto and their bedfellows, in March of this year, glyphosate was officially classified as a probable carcinogenic to humans (Reuters, 2015a). Operating under the auspices of the United Nation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 17 experts from 11 countries reviewed animal, cell and human studies before reaching their decision. Among these studies were cases in which glyphosate was found in farmworkers’ urine and blood, cells were shown to have experienced chromosomal damage, exposed humans demonstrated a higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposed animals were prone to tumor formation (Grossman, 2015). Aaron Blair, a retired National Cancer Institute epidemiologist and chairman of the 17-member team of reviewers, said that the decision to classify glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was unanimous. “All three lines of evidence…said the same thing, which is we ought to be concerned about this” (Pollack, 2015). In lieu of the IARC’s findings, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, although it has maintained since 1991 that glyphosate is safe, has announced plans to review and revisit its official stance.
Having been officially regarded as a chemical free from safety concerns, the U.S.’ regulatory infrastructure surrounding glyphosate is virtually non-existent (Reuters, 2015b). As U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Paul Capel points out, our country’s regulatory practices do not mandate that glyphosate residue be tested for in food or in human blood and tissues. “As a result there is no information on how much people are exposed to from using it in their yards, living near farms or eating foods from treated fields” (Grossman, 2015).
We do, however, have a growing number of studies to look to that suggest that our concern is justified. As Leu (2014, p. 62) observes, “the regulation of glyphosate is a good example of authorities ignoring an extensive body of published scientific study showing the harm that can be caused by this widely used pesticide.” In one peer-reviewed, U.S.-based study, researchers found a strong correlation between a rapid increase in glyphosate use and 22 diseases, including cancers of the kidney, liver, thyroid and bladder and urinary systems (Swanson, Leu, Abrahamson and Wallet, 2014). Another peer-reviewed study found that glyphosate—even at levels that are commonly found in humans—caused estrogen-sensitive human breast cancer cells to multiple at a rate five to thirteen times greater than they normally would in the absence of the chemical (Thongprakaisang, Thiantanawat, Rangkadilok, Suriyo, & Satayavivad, 2013).
Glyphosate has also been detected in human breast milk and is capable of crossing the placental cells (Leu, 2015). One study demonstrated that within 18 hours of exposure, glyphosate had caused damage to human placental cells, even at concentrations lower than those found in commercially available pesticides and herbicides (Richard, Moslemi, Sipahutar, Benachour, & Seralini, 2005). As Hemmelgarn (2015, p. 5) notes: “the chemical industry is quick to tell us not to worry about low levels of contaminants, such as pesticide residues on produce or the BPA that migrates out of food packaging and can linings into our food. However…the chemicals designed by drug companies, such as Ritalin to control hyperactive behavior in children, are active at levels similar to, or even lower than, the levels of toxins found in the blood of children and pregnant women.”
Another group of researchers, after studying four different commercial glyphosate formulas, detected breaks in 50 percent of the DNA strands present in the human liver cells of subjects (Gasnier et al., 2009). This damage compromised the DNA’s ability to communicate with various physiological systems, including the endocrine system. These breakages occurred at doses of 5 parts per million (ppm). As Hemmelgarn (2015) explains, chemicals like glyphosate are biologically active at parts per billion (ppb) levels. To give you an idea, 1 ppb is equal to 2 tablespoons of sugar dissolved into an Olympic sized swimming pool.
These findings represent a tiny fraction of the data that is currently available to us—data that has been gathered through transparent, independent scientific studies, with results rigorously reviewed prior to publishing. Despite this, Monsanto, in reacting to the IARC’s decision earlier this year, declared that the agency must have “an agenda” against the company and their good work. Vice President Philip Miller stated that designating glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was “starkly at odds with every credible scientific body that has examined glyphosate safety” (Pollack, 2015). Well, I suppose when you have Big Ag and a commercial-in-confidence hand trick on your side, anything becomes possible!
Join us again next week as we turn our attention to glyphosate and its impacts on animal life and the environment.

References

Gasnier, C., Dumont, C., Benachour, N., Clair, E., Chagnon, M.C., & Seralini, G.E. (2009). Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology, 262(3), 184-191.

Grossman, E. (2015, April 23). What do we really know about Roundup weed killer? National Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150422-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-weeds/

Hemmelgarn, M. (2015). Little things, big impacts. Acres, U.S.A.

Leu, A. (2014). The myths of safe pesticides. Austin, TX: Acres U.S.A.

Leu, A. (2015). Glyphosate under the gun: World Health Organization weighs in. Acres U.S.A.

Monsanto. (2015, March 20). Monsanto disagrees with IARC classification for glyphosate. Retrieved from http://news.monsanto.com/news/monsanto-disagrees-iarc-classification-glyphosate

Pollack, A. (2015, March 27). Weed killer, long cleared, is doubted. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/business/energy-environment/decades-after-monsantos-roundup-gets-an-all-clear-a-cancer-agency-raises-concerns.html?_r=0

Reuters. (2015a, March 20). Monsanto weed killer can ‘probably’ cause cancer: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/us-monsanto-roundup-cancer-idUSKBN0MG2NY20150320

Reuters. (2015b, April 20). Regulators may recommend testing food for glyphosate residues. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/20/us-food-agriculture-glyphosate-idUSKBN0NB1N020150420

Richard, S., Moslemi, S., Sipahutar, H., Benachour, N., & Seralini, G.E. (2005). Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(6), 716-720.

Swanson, N.,L., Leu, A., Abrahamson, J., & Wallet, B. (2014). Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America. Journal of Organic Systems, 9(2), 6-37.

Thongprakaisang, S., Thiantanawat, A., Rangkadilok, N., Suriyo, T., & Satayavivad, J. (2013). Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 59, 129-136.