RoundUp, cancer & the future of food

[valley ranch]

Home » PAN Blog
RoundUp, cancer & the future of food

• Apr 16, 2015 by Marcia Ishii-Eiteman
  
  
  
  
  If you’ve been following the recent big news about Monsanto’s infamous weedkiller RoundUp and cancer, you’ll have heard that industry’s “dirty little secret” just got dirtier.
  
  In case you missed it: the international scientific community sent us two very loud wake-up calls last month. First, the UN World Health Organization’s prestigious International Agency for Research on Cancer released a consensus report that glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp, is a “probable carcinogen.” A few days later, a team of international scientists based in New Zealand reported that widely available commercial formulations of RoundUp, 2,4-D and dicamba can lead to the development of antibiotic resistance in common disease-causing bacteria.
  
  In addition to these findings, there's a growing body of evidence on health impacts associated with exposure to glyphosate or RoundUp, such as endocrine disruption, organ damage and birth defects.
  
  More toxic soup? No thanks!
  Who should be concerned? Every single one of us. For one thing, exposure to this probable carcinogen is virtually unavoidable at this point. Since Monsanto introduced its RoundUp-Ready seeds engineered to be resistant to its top-selling herbicide 20 year ago, herbicide use in this country has skyrocketed. More than 500 million additional pounds — most of it RoundUp — have been applied since then. Not surprisingly, the US Geological Survey has found RoundUp in our air, rain, streams and surface water.
  
  And it’s showing up in our food, reports Reuters: in honey, soy sauce, flour and breast milk, for starters. The fact that we don’t even know what other foods are contaminated or how much glyphosate we carry in our bodies is simply because we’re not looking for it, explains Consumer Reports.
  
  It's our food and farming system that's at stake — not Monsanto's.
  
  But it’s not just about RoundUp. Many other pesticides commonly used in U.S. agriculture have been linked to cancer, birth defects, hormone disruption, neurological and developmental damage and other harmful health and environmental effects. Atrazine, for example — the 2nd most widely used pesticide in the U.S. — is a possible carcinogen, endocrine disruptor and groundwater contaminant.
  
  And 2,4-D (the ingredient which, along with glyphosate, is in Dow's Enlist Duo weedkiller) is a reproductive and developmental toxicant, suspected endocrine disruptor and probable carcinogen, with links to non-Hodgkins lymphoma and birth defects of the heart and circulatory and respiratory systems.
  
  I say “every one of us” should be concerned for another reason as well: it’s our food and farming system that’s at stake. It belongs to us — to ordinary rural and urban families, farmworkers and communities across the U.S., not to Monsanto. The ubiquitous presence of hazardous pesticides — in our food and on our farms, in the air we breathe and water we drink, in our children’s bodies — is not something that any of us ever asked for.
  
  In point of fact, pesticide-intensive agriculture is not even working for farmers. RoundUp resistance and the epidemic of “superweeds” infesting over 60 million acres of American farmland is but one indicator of the utter failure of this model to provide food, jobs or livelihoods in an ecologically sustainable, economical or equitable way.
  
  Most importantly, this disaster is definitely not something we have to put up with.
  
  Indecent exposure
  No farmer should have to choose between cancer striking his or her family and making a decent living. But apparently EPA and USDA consider this a reasonable choice. I consider it obscene, and I hold our public agencies responsible for the disastrous predicament that American farming is in.
  
  In reality, this is a false choice. It is possible to grow corn, soybeans, small grains and all manner of fruit and vegetable crops in biologically based, diversified farming systems. Agroecological practices such as ecological weed and insect pest management, combined with smart soil and water conservation practices are being employed by innovative farmers all over the U.S.
  
  The problem we’re facing, however, is not about lack of sustainable solutions. The problem is that Big 6 pesticide companies like Monsanto — supported by USDA and backed by the U.S. government's export-driven trade agenda — have built up an agricultural economic system that puts multinational corporations' profits above people's well-being, and locks farmers into these unsustainable practices.
  
  As Iowa corn and soybean farmer George Naylor explains:
  
  “Farmers are trapped in an economic system that forces them to keep producing corn and soybean in very destructive ways. It’s all about converting bushels of corn and soybean into pounds of oil, carbs or protein for agrofuels and livestock feed. This system of all-out production at any cost will only change if sensible people demand different policies and create new markets.”
  
  EPA will decide whether or not to re-register glyphosate later this year; the two recent scientific reports on the direct and indirect health harms associated with glyphosate raise the stakes of this decision dramatically. PAN is calling on EPA to fulfill its obligation to protect public health and produce an action plan within the next 45 days, with an expedited timeline to phase out our farmers’ dependence on and exposure to glyphosate. The agency must also, as a matter of highest priority, immediately cancel its recent approvals of Dow’s new 2,4-D and glyphosate-containing product, Enlist Duo, and deny Monsanto’s application for dicamba use in GE cotton and soybean production.
  
  EPA & USDA: Fix your broken systems
  USDA and EPA are putting corporate interests above farmers and public health.
  Tell them to stop.
  
  Meanwhile, USDA must stop greenlighting Monsanto and Dow’s products, and instead develop its own action plan — complete with timeline and benchmarks — for how the agency will spearhead a country-wide transition to least-toxic ecological weed management. The new plan must break the cycle of weed resistance that keeps farmers on a pesticide treadmill, and phase out reliance on health-harming herbicides like glyphosate, atrazine and 2,4-D.
  
  Now more than ever, American farmers need support in shifting from today’s toxic, ineffective and unsustainable model of agriculture into one that is productive, ecologically resilient, healthy and safe. Such system-wide changes cannot happen overnight. But getting this urgently needed process started is essential, and requires leadership and a serious commitment at the highest level.
  
  
  
  
  Marcia Ishii-Eiteman
  is director of PAN’s Grassroots Science Program and a Senior Scientist with a background in insect ecology and pest management. Her campaign work focuses on supporting and strengthening agroecology movements and policies in the U.S. and globally, in addition to challenging corporate control of our food and seed systems. Follow @MarciaIshii
  
  • 
  • Marcia Ishii-Eiteman's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
  • 
  • 

 

[valley ranch]

International weekly journal of science
Advanced search

• Home
• News & Comment
• Research
• Careers & Jobs
• Current Issue
• Archive
• Audio & Video
• For Authors

• News & Comment
• News
• Explainer
• 2015
• June
• Article

Nature | News: Explainer

Sharing

• 
• 
• 
  
  

Widely used herbicide linked to cancer
As the World Health Organization's research arm declares glyphosate a probable carcinogen, Nature looks at the evidence.

• Daniel Cressey

24 March 2015
Article tools
Rights & Permissions

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty

Glyphosate, a chemical found in Monsanto's 'Roundup' herbicide product, has been declared "probably carcinogenic to humans".

The cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization last week announced that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, is probably carcinogenic to humans.1 But the assessment, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, has been followed by an immediate backlash from industry groups.

On 23 March, Robb Fraley, chief technology officer at the agrochemical company Monsanto in St Louis, Missouri, which sells much of the world’s glyphosate, accused the IARC of “cherry picking” data. “We are outraged with this assessment,” he said in a statement. Nature explains the controversy.

What does the IARC report say?
The IARC regularly reviews the carcinogenicity of industrial chemicals, foodstuffs and even jobs. On 20 March, a panel of international experts convened by the agency reported the findings of a review of five agricultural chemicals in a class known as organophosphates. A summary of the study was published in The Lancet Oncology1.

Related stories

• Paper claiming GM link with tumours republished
• A growing problem
• Genetically modified crops pass benefits to weeds

More related stories

Two of the pesticides — tetrachlorvinphos and parathion — were rated as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, or category 2B. Three — malathion, diazinon and glyphosate — were rated as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, labelled category 2A.

Why should I care about glyphosate?
Glyphosate is the world’s most widely produced herbicide, by volume. It is used extensively in agriculture and is also found in garden products in many countries. The chemical is an ingredient in Monsanto's weedkiller product Roundup, and glyphosate has become more popular with the increasing market share of crops that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide.

What evidence is there for a link between glyphosate and cancer?
The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.

But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.

Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”

But not everyone agrees?
An industry group of agrochemical companies [Monsanto]called the Glyphosate Task Force said that the agency’s evaluation “demonstrates serious deficiencies in terms of methodological approach and the overall conclusion is inconsistent with the results of all regulatory reviews concerning glyphosate’s safety profile”.

Monsanto — a member of the task force — said that relevant scientific data that showed no risk was excluded from the review, and the IARC “purposefully disregarded dozens of scientific studies”, specifically genetic toxicity studies.

But Guyton strongly defends the IARC process and insists that there is a set of clear rules that lays out which studies can be considered by the experts convened by the IARC. These are broadly limited to peer-reviewed publications and government reports, leading to the rejection of a number of industry-submitted studies.

Some academic scientists have sounded notes of caution over the IARC report. Oliver Jones, an analytical chemist at RMIT University in Melbourne, told the Science Media Centre in London: “IARC evaluations are usually very good, but to me the evidence cited here appears a bit thin.” He added: “From a personal perspective, I am a vegetarian so I eat a lot of vegetables and I’m not worried by this report.”

Doesn’t just about everything cause cancer if you look hard enough?
The IARC classifies compounds on a scale of decreasing certainty: group 1 is for agents that are definitely carcinogenic to humans; 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans; 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans; 3, not classifiable; and 4, probably not carcinogenic to humans.

Monsanto said in its statement, “IARC has classified numerous everyday items in Category 2

But the IARC classified most of these items at the less dangerous 2B level, whereas glyphosate is in the 'probably carcinogenic' 2A category. Of Monsanto's list, only emissions from high-temperature frying and the occupational exposure experienced as a barber are rated as 2A.

What happens next?
It is not part of the IARC’s process to quantify any increased risk of cancer due to a chemical, or to recommend a safe exposure level, although its studies can be influential. Rather, regulatory agencies around the world will have to decide what to do with the agency’s finding. The US Environmental Protection Agency is currently conducting a formal review of the safety of glyphosate (which it does not consider carcinogenic in humans) and said that it would give “full consideration” to the IARC study.

Nature
doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17181

 

[valley ranch]

Argentina's Roundup Human Tragedy
Ten years of GM soy and glyphosate poisoning have escalated the rates of cancer and birth defects. Claire Robinson

Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website


Announcing a new Report from ISIS. The most complete up-to-date summary of the dangers of GM agriculture in 52 pages. Buy Now, or download here
GM soy a death sentence for humans and the environment
Argentina has become a giant experiment in farming genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready (RR) soy, engineered to be tolerant to Roundup, Monsanto’s formulation of the herbicide glyphosate. The Argentine government, eager to pull the country out of a deep economic recession in the 1990s, restructured its economy around GM soy grown for export, most of which goes to feed livestock in Europe. In 2009, GM soy was planted on 19 million hectares - over half of Argentina’s cultivated land - and sprayed with 200 million litres of glyphosate herbicide [1]. Spraying is often carried out from the air, causing problems of drift.

In 2002, two years after the first big harvests of RR soy in the country, residents and doctors in soy producing areas began reporting serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers [2]. Environmental effects include killed food crops and livestock and streams strewn with dead fish [2, 3].

One of the first medical doctors to report problems from glyphosate spraying of GM soy was Dr Darío Gianfelici, from Cerrito, Entre Ríos, Argentina. According to Gianfelici, there are two levels of toxic effects from glyphosate: acute effects, such as vomiting, diarrhoea, respiratory problems, and skin rashes; and chronic effects, which take 10–20 years to show up. These include infertility and cancer [4].

Gianfelici said [4]: “Our town experienced drastic changes before and after soy. I’ve seen people die from cancer at age 30. I have witnessed pregnancy problems and a significant increase in fertility problems. I have seen an increase in respiratory diseases, as has never been seen before.

“GM soy has been a death sentence for humans and for the environment. No money can compensate for the damage that has been caused – the contamination, the deaths, the cases of cancer and malformations.”

Scientists corroborate birth defects & threatened by organised mob
Reports of birth defects in glyphosate-sprayed areas of Argentina gained scientific credibility in 2009, when senior Argentine government scientist Prof. Andrés Carrasco went public with his research findings, fully published a year later [1], that glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying (see [5] Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects, SiS 48). “The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” said Carrasco [6], “I suspect the toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low ... in some cases this can be a powerful poison.”

At a recent conference, Carrasco, professor and director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), said a frequent result of malformations in human embryos is miscarriage. He said that it was now not unusual for women in GM soy producing regions of Argentina to have up to five miscarriages in a row [7].

The research findings of Carrasco and his colleagues were not welcomed by some sectors of government and industry. After he announced them, four people from Argentina’s crop protection trade association CASAFE were sent to try to search his laboratory and he was “seriously told off” by Lino Barrañao, Argentina’s science and technology minister [6].

Things took a violent turn in 2010, when an organized mob of thugs attacked people who gathered to hear Carrasco talk in La Leonesa, an agricultural town that has become a centre for activism against agrochemical spraying of soy and rice crops. Three people were seriously injured. Carrasco and a colleague shut themselves in a car and were surrounded by people making violent threats and beating the car for two hours [8]. Witnesses said the attack was organized by local officials and a local rice producer to protect the economic interests behind local agro-industry. Amnesty International has called for an investigation.

Revolutionary ruling ban agrochemical sprays
Based on Carrasco’s findings and other reports of health problems from spraying, the Environmental Lawyers Association of Argentina petitioned the Supreme Court of Argentina to ban the use of glyphosate (see [9] Glyphosate Herbicide Could Cause Birth Defects, SiS 43). But such is Argentina’s dependence on the GM soy farming model that Guillermo Cal, executive director of CASAFE, said [6] a ban would mean “we couldn’t do agriculture in Argentina”. In addition, the cash-strapped Argentine government relies heavily on tariffs levied on soy exports and is protective of the industry.

No national ban on glyphosate has yet been implemented. But in March 2010, just months after the release of Carrasco’s findings, a lawsuit brought by sprayed residents resulted in a regional court banning the spraying of agrochemicals near populated areas of Santa Fe province [10]. The ruling was revolutionary in that it implemented the precautionary principle and reversed the burden of proof [11]. No longer do residents have to prove that agrochemical spraying causes harm, but the government and soy producers have to prove it is safe.

Viviana Peralta, a housewife, instigated the lawsuit. She and her family were hospitalized following aerial spraying near her home. Her newborn baby had turned blue and Peralta herself suffered respiratory problems. Peralta said, “When I saw my baby like that, I said [11], “Enough. This cannot go on.” ”

State commission reports birth defects up fourfold in ten years
Shortly after the residents’ court victory, a commission of the provincial government of Chaco state reported that between 2000 and 2009, the rate of childhood cancers tripled in La Leonesa and the birth defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire province [12]. These staggering rises in disease coincided with the expansion of the agricultural frontier into Chaco province and the resulting rise in agrochemical use. The commission identified the main problem as glyphosate and other agrochemicals applied to “transgenic crops, which require aerial and ground spraying (dusting) with agrochemicals”.

A member of the Chaco commission, who did not want to be identified due to the “tremendous pressures” they were under, said [13], “all those who signed the report are very experienced in the subject under study, but rice and soy planters are strongly pressuring the government. We don’t know how this will end, as there are many interests involved.”

Embryonic defects at well below legal exposure levels
Speaking at a conference, Carrasco noted the irony that Argentina’s people are suffering from the production of a commodity (GM soy) destined for Europe, which European consumers do not want [7]. Europe imports around 38 million tonnes of soy per year [14], much of which is GM soy sprayed with glyphosate. Because of consumer resistance to GM, most of it ends up hidden in animal feed.

Carrasco found malformations in frog and chicken embryos injected with 2.03 mg/kg glyphosate – nearly ten times lower than the maximum residue limit (MRL) for glyphosate allowed in soy in the EU (20 mg/kg) [15]. Soybeans have been found to contain glyphosate residues at levels up to 17mg/kg [16].

Defenders of glyphosate may say that these figures do not show a risk to consumers, because embryos are designed to keep toxins out. However, studies show that the added ingredients (adjuvants) in Roundup make cell membranes more permeable to glyphosate, increasing its toxicity to cells [17, 18].

Even without soy, glyphosate is all around us. Apart from its use in agriculture, Roundup is marketed to home gardeners as safe to use around children and pets. It is sprayed on schoolyards and verges by local authorities. The myth of Roundup’s safety persists despite two court rulings forcing Monsanto to withdraw advertising claims that Roundup is biodegradable and environmentally friendly [19, 20].

Long list of peer-reviewed studies document glyphosate toxicities
In reality, the research of Carrasco’s team is the latest in a long list of peer-reviewed studies showing dangers to health and the environment from glyphosate. Many of these studies are collected in a new report co-authored by nine international scientists [21], “GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible”. The report challenges claims of sustainability for GM soy and the glyphosate herbicide on which it relies. Published by GLS Bank, Germany and ARGE Gentechnik-frei, Austria’s GM-free industry association, the report has been released together with the powerful testimonies of Argentine people affected by glyphosate spraying on GM soy [22].

Carrasco remains humble about his study, saying [11], “The origin of my work is my contact with the communities victimized by agrochemical use. They are the irrefutable proof of my research.” So the final word on the claimed safety of glyphosate and other agrochemicals sprayed on GM soy must go to Peralta. She said [11]: “I do not know about chemistry, I did not go to university, but I know what my whole family has suffered. To people who are not familiar with this model of agriculture, I say: Do not trust these companies. Reject agrochemicals. Do it for the life of your children.”

References
1. Paganelli A, Gnazzo V, Acosta H, Lopez SL and Carrasco AD. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signalling. Chem Res Toxicol, August 9. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

2. Gianfelici, D.R. 2009. La Soja, La Salud y La Gente. http://zatega.net/zats/libro-quotla-soja-la-salud-y-la-gente-quot-dr-dario-gianfelici-27052.htm

3. Branford, S. 2004. Argentina’s Bitter Harvest. New Scientist, April 17, 40-43. http://www.grain.org/research/contamination.cfm?id=95

4. Dr Darío Gianfelici, Interview by Darío Aranda, August 2010. http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?opt...e&id=12484:reports-dario-gianfelici-interview

5. Ho MW. Lab study establishes link to birth defects. Science in Society 48 (to appear).

6. Webber, J., Weitzman, H. 2009. Argentina pressed to ban crop chemical after health concerns. Financial Times, May 29. http://www.gene.ch/genet/2009/Jun/msg00006.html

7. Prof. Andrés Carrasco, speaking at the GMO-Free Regions Conference at the European Parliament, Brussels (September 16–18, 2010)

8. Amnesty International. 2010. Argentina: Threats deny community access to research. 12 August 2010. http://bit.ly/cJsqUR

9. Ho MW. Glyphosate herbicide could cause birth defects. Science in Society 43, 36, 2009.

10. Romig, S. 2010. Argentina court blocks agrochemical spraying near rural town. Dow Jones Newswires, March 17. http://bit.ly/cg2AgG

11. Dario Aranda, Interview with Viviana Peralta, instigator of the lawsuit, August 2010. http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?opt...le&id=12486:reports-viviana-peralta-interview

12. Comision Provincial de Investigación de Contaminantes del Agua. 2010. Primer informe. Resistencia, Chaco. April. Report available in original Spanish: http://www.gmwatch.eu/files/Chaco_Government_Report_Spanish.pdf or in English translation: http://www.gmwatch.eu/files/Chaco_Government_Report_English.pdf

13. Aranda, D. 2010. La salud no es lo primero en el modelo agroindustrial. Pagina12, June 14. http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-147561-2010-06-14.html

14. Cert ID. Cert ID Certified ‘Non-GMO’ Soy Meal and Other Soy Products: Volumes Available from South America. Porto Alegre, Brazil, July 14, 2008.

15. Pesticide residues in food – 1997: Report. Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues. Lyons, France, 22 September – 1 October 1997. http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8141e/w8141e0u.htm

16. Pesticide residues in food – 2005. Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues, Geneva, Switzerland, 20–29 September. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 183, 7.

17. Haefs R, Schmitz-Eiberger M, Mainx HG, Mittelstaedt W, Noga G. Studies on a new group of biodegradable surfactants for glyphosate. Pest Manag. Sci. 2002. 58, 825–33.

18. Marc J, Mulner-Lorillon O, Boulben S, Hureau D, Durand G, Bellé R. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin B activation. Chem Res Toxicol. 2002, 15, 326–31.

19. Attorney General of the State of New York, Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Bureau. 1996. In the matter of Monsanto Company, respondent. Assurance of discontinuance pursuant to executive law §63(15). New York, NY, Nov. False advertising by Monsanto regarding the safety of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate).

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-v-AGNYnov96.htm

20. Monsanto fined in France for “false” herbicide ads. Agence France Presse, 26 Jan 2007. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4114.cfm

21. Antoniou M., Brack P, Carrasco, A., Fagan, J., Habib, M., Kageyama, P., Leifert, C., Nodari, R., Pengue, W. 2010. GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? GLS Gemeinschaftsbank and ARGE Gentechnik-frei. Download full report and summary from: http://bit.ly/9D9J2k. At the time of writing, the full report is available in English or Portuguese, but will soon be available in French, German, and Spanish translations.

22. Interviews with Argentine people affected by glyphosate spraying, conducted in August 2010 by journalist Dario Aranda, are available here: http://www.gmwatch.eu/component/content/article/12479-reports-reports