THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Compelling Link Between Glyphosate-based Herbicides and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Glyphosate is the most widely used broad-spectrum systemic herbicide in the world. It is extensively used in conjunction with genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops. A recent meta-analysis (Items 1 & 2) investigated whether there was an association between high cumulative exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in humans. It found that people with high exposures to GBHs had a 41% increased risk of developing NHL, concluding that there is “a compelling link” between the two factors.
The researchers say their meta-analysis evaluated all published human studies, including a 2018 updated government-funded study known as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). They focused on the highest exposed group in each study because those individuals would be most likely to have an elevated risk if in fact GBHs did cause NHL. This made it less likely that confounding factors would skew the results. In addition to human studies, the researchers also looked at many animal studies involving glyphosate.
The study’s findings contradict the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) assurances of safety over the weed killer and come as regulators in several countries consider limiting the use of glyphosate-based products in farming.
Monsanto and its German-owner, Bayer AG, face more than 9,000 lawsuits in the US brought by people suffering from NHL who blame Monsanto’s GBHs for their disease. In August 2018, the first plaintiff to go to trial won a unanimous jury verdict against Monsanto with damages amounting to $289 million. The judge in the case later lowered the amount to $78 million.
In March 2019, a federal jury ruled that Monsanto was liable for a California man’s cancer and ordered the company to pay $80 million in damages. The ruling is the first of its kind in US federal court. The jury ruled that Roundup’s design was “defective”, that the product lacked sufficient cancer warnings, and that Monsanto was negligent in its failure to warn the plaintiff of the NHL risk (Item 3).
With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twn@twnetwork.org
Websites: http://www.twn.my/and http://www.biosafety-info.net/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net
____________________________________________________________________________
Item 1
EXPOSURE TO GLYPHOSATE-BASED HERBICIDES AND RISK FOR NON-HODGKIN LYMPHOMA: A META-ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Luoping Zhang, Iemaan Rana, Rachel M. Shaffer, Emanuela Taioli, and Lianne Sheppard
Science Direct
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.02.001
10 Feb 2019
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887
Abstract
Glyphosate is the most widely used broad-spectrum systemic herbicide in the world. Recent evaluations of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) by various regional, national, and international agencies have engendered controversy. We investigated whether there was an association between high cumulative exposures to GBHs and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in humans. We conducted a new meta-analysis that included the most recent update of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) cohort published in 2018 along with five case-control studies. Using the highest exposure groups when available in each study, we report the overall meta-relative risk (meta-RR) of NHL in GBH-exposed individuals was increased by 41% (meta-RR=1.41, 95% CI, confidence interval: 1.13–1.75). For comparison, we also performed a secondary meta-analysis using high-exposure groups with the earlier AHS (2005), and we determined a meta-RR for NHL of 1.45 (95% CI: 1.11–1.91), which was higher than the meta-RRs reported previously. Multiple sensitivity tests conducted to assess the validity of our findings did not reveal meaningful differences from our primary estimated meta-RR. To contextualize our findings of an increased NHL risk in individuals with high GBH exposure, we reviewed available animal and mechanistic studies, which provided supporting evidence for the carcinogenic potential of GBH. We documented further support from studies of malignant lymphoma incidence in mice treated with pure glyphosate, as well as potential links between GBH exposure and immunosuppression, endocrine disruption, and genetic alterations that are commonly associated with NHL. Overall, in accordance with evidence from experimental animal and mechanistic studies, our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL.
Item 2
WEEDKILLER ‘RAISES RISK OF NON-HODGKIN LYMPHOMA BY 41%’
Carey Gillam
The Guardian
14 Feb 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/weed-killing-products-increase-cancer-risk-of-cancer
Study says evidence ‘supports link’ between exposure to glyphosate and increased risk
A broad new scientific analysis of the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate herbicides, the most widely used weedkilling products in the world, has found that people with high exposures to the popular pesticides have a 41% increased risk of developing a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The evidence “supports a compelling link” between exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides and increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the authors concluded, though they said the specific numerical risk estimates should be interpreted with caution.
The findings by five US scientists contradict the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) assurances of safety over the weed killer and come as regulators in several countries consider limiting the use of glyphosate-based products in farming.
Monsanto and its German owner Bayer AG face more than 9,000 lawsuits in the US brought by people suffering from NHL who blame Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides for their diseases. The first plaintiff to go to trial won a unanimous jury verdict against Monsanto in August, a verdict the company is appealing. The next trial, involving a separate plaintiff, is set to begin on 25 February, and several more trials are set for this year and into 2020.
Monsanto maintains there is no legitimate scientific research showing a definitive association between glyphosate and NHL or any type of cancer. Company officials say the EPA’s finding that glyphosate is “not likely” to cause cancer is backed by hundreds of studies finding no such connection.
The company claims the scientists with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) who classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015 engaged in improper conduct and failed to give adequate weight to several important studies.
But the new analysis could potentially complicate Monsanto’s defense of its top-selling herbicide. Three of the study authors were tapped by the EPA as board members for a 2016 scientific advisory panel on glyphosate. The new paper was published by the journal Mutation Research /Reviews in Mutation Research, whose editor in chief is EPA scientist David DeMarini.
The study’s authors say their meta-analysis is distinctive from previous assessments. “This paper makes a stronger case than previous meta-analyses that there is evidence of an increased risk of NHL due to glyphosate exposure,” said co-author Lianne Sheppard, a professor in the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences department at the University of Washington. “From a population health point of view there are some real concerns.”
Sheppard was one of the scientific advisers to the EPA on glyphosate and was among a group of those advisers who told the EPA that it failed to follow proper scientific protocols in determining that glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer. “It was wrong,” Sheppard said of the EPA glyphosate assessment. “It was pretty obvious they didn’t follow their own rules. “Is there evidence that it is carcinogenic? The answer is yes.”
An EPA spokesperson said: “We are reviewing the study.” Bayer, which bought Monsanto in the summer of 2018, did not respond to a request for comment about the study.
A Bayer statement on glyphosate cites the EPA assessment and says that glyphosate herbicides have been “extensively evaluated” and are proven to be a “safe and efficient weed control tool”.
The study authors said their new meta-analysis evaluated all published human studies, including a 2018 updated government-funded study known as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Monsanto has cited the updated AHS study as proving that there is no tie between glyphosate and NHL. In conducting the new meta-analysis, the researchers said they focused on the highest exposed group in each study because those individuals would be most likely to have an elevated risk if in fact glyphosate herbicides cause NHL.
Looking only at individuals with real-world high exposures to the pesticide makes it is less likely that confounding factors may skew results, the authors said. In essence – if there is no true connection between the chemical and cancer then even highly exposed individuals should not develop cancer at significant rates.
In addition to looking at the human studies, the researchers also looked at other types of glyphosate studies, including many conducted on animals.
“Together, all of the meta-analyses conducted to date, including our own, consistently report the same key finding: exposure to GBHs are associated with an increased risk of NHL,” the scientists concluded.
David Savitz, professor of epidemiology in the Brown University School of Public Health, said the work was “well conducted” but lacking “fundamentally new information”.
“I would suggest it sustains the concern and need for assessment but doesn’t put the question to rest in any definitive sense,” Savitz said.
In a statement Bayer later said” “[The study] does not provide new epidemiology data; instead, it is a statistical manipulation that is at odds with the extensive body of science, 40 years of real world experience and the conclusions of regulators.”
It added: “[The study] provides no scientifically valid evidence that contradicts the conclusions of the extensive body of science demonstrating that glyphosate-based herbicides are not carcinogenic.”
——————————————————————————————————————
Item 3
MONSANTO FOUND LIABLE FOR CALIFORNIA MAN’S CANCER AND ORDERED TO PAY $80M IN DAMAGES
Sam Levin
The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/27/monsanto-trial-verdict-cancer-jury
27 March 2019
Agrochemical corporation found responsible for Roundup weedkiller’s health risks in ‘bellwether’ federal trial
A federal jury ruled that Monsanto was liable for a California man’s cancer and ordered the Roundup manufacturer to pay $80m in damages.
The ruling on Wednesday, which holds the company responsible for the cancer risks of its popular weedkiller, is the first of its kind in US federal court and a major blow to Monsanto and its parent company, Bayer. A representative said Bayer would appeal.
In a verdict during an earlier phase of the trial, the jury in San Francisco unanimously ruled that the herbicide was a “substantial factor” in causing the cancer of Edwin Hardeman.
Hardeman, a 70-year-old Santa Rosa man, was the first person to challenge Monsanto’s herbicide in a federal trial, alleging that his exposure to the glyphosate weedkiller caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), a cancer that affects the immune system.
The case has attracted international attention and raised new questions about the potential health hazards of Roundup. It also challenged the conduct of Monsanto, now owned by the German pharmaceutical company Bayer. The corporation is facing more than 9,000 similar lawsuits across the US that allege Roundup has caused cancer.
The jury ruled that Roundup’s design was “defective”, that the product lacked sufficient cancer warnings, and that Monsanto was negligent in its failure to warn Hardeman of the NHL risk. The jurors ordered the company to pay Hardeman $75m in punitive damages, $200,000 for past economic losses and $5.6m in non-economic losses.
“As demonstrated throughout trial, since Roundup’s inception over 40 years ago, Monsanto refuses to act responsibly,” Hardeman’s lawyers said in a statement. “It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup.”
Hardeman’s case is considered a “bellwether” trial in the federal court system, meaning the verdict could have an impact on how future litigation and potential settlements are resolved. In a historic verdict last year, a state jury ruled that Roundup caused the terminal cancer of Dewayne Johnson, a former school groundskeeper, and that Monsanto had “acted with malice or oppression” and owed the plaintiff $289m in damages.
The second phase of Hardeman’s trial focused on allegations that Monsanto for years worked behind the scenes to control research, sway regulators and shape public opinion about the safety of its product. The case built on the Johnson trial, which alleged that Monsanto “bullied” scientists, fought to suppress damning research about Roundup and helped “ghostwrite” studies that encouraged continued usage.
Aimee Wagstaff, Hardeman’s lawyer, told the jury that Monsanto had a “cozy relationship” with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees and had also paid “prestigious” scientists to author “favorable” studies: “Monsanto has influenced and manipulated the science through its relationships with regulatory officials and through ghostwriting.”
Hardeman testified that he had sprayed the herbicide for nearly three decades and at one time got it on his skin, before he was diagnosed with cancer. He used the chemical to control weeds and poison oak on his properties, starting in 1986. He also said in court he would not have used the product if it had come with a cancer warning.
Bayer has continued to argue that Roundup is safe to use, doesn’t cause cancer and does not require a label warning. The corporation’s attorney, Brian Stekloff, told the jury before the verdict that their decision should not be a “popularity contest” about the company: “Monsanto, consistent with the science, consistent with how the science was being viewed around the rest of the world, did act responsibly.”
The company said in a statement on Wednesday that it was “disappointed” with the decision, but said the “verdict does not change the weight of over four decades of extensive science and the conclusions of regulators worldwide that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic”.
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s international agency for research on cancer (IARC) ruled that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans”, based on a review of existing research. The EPA, however, has deemed glyphosate safe for use.
Hardeman’s legal team said the unanimous ruling made a strong statement about the company’s behavior over the years: “Today, the jury resoundingly held Monsanto accountable for its 40 years of corporate malfeasance and sent a message to Monsanto that it needs to change the way it does business.”