THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Dear Friends and colleagues,
RE: Why the World Should Roundup Glyphosate
A new report by GM Freeze and Greenpeace analysing almost 200 independent and peer-reviewed scientific studies shows that the widely used herbicide glyphosate is far from safe.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, produced by Monsanto. Studies link exposure to glyphosate with cancer, birth defects and neurological illnesses (including Parkinson’s). Lab testing suggests that glyphosate can cause damage to cells, including human embryo cells. Studies also indicate that glyphosate can interfere with our hormonal balance.
Evidence also shows that glyphosate can negatively affect rivers and aquatic life, as well as could disrupt nutrients in soil, exposing plants to disease, and could end up contaminating drinking water.
Glyphosate is widely used in the cultivation of Roundup Ready GM crops which are tolerant to the herbicide, allowing for massive spraying of Roundup to eliminate weeds. It has resulted in weeds that are becoming increasingly resistant to glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup, prompting farmers to use more and more toxic chemicals to fight a new breed of "superweeds". This escalation in the pesticides “arms race” has put an enormous toxic burden on people’s health and the environment.
The full report is available at:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/agriculture/2011/363%20-%20GlyphoReportDEF-LR.pdf
With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister,
10400 Penang,
Malaysia
Email: twnet@po.jaring.my
Website: www.biosafety-info.net and www.twnside.org.sg To subscribe to other TWN information lists: www.twnnews.net
—————————————————————————————————————-
Item 1
Herbicide Tolerance and GM Crops: Why the world should be ready to roundup glyphosate Greenpeace and GM Freeze
Executive Summary
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides sold throughout the world, including the well-known formulation, Roundup. Glyphosate based herbicides are used widely for weed control because they are non-selective; glyphosate kills all vegetation.
Glyphosate has been promoted as ‘safe’. However, mounting scientific evidence questions the safety of glyphosate and its most well known formulation, Roundup. The evidence detailed in this report demonstrates that glyphosate-based products can have adverse impacts on human and animal health, and that a review of their safety for human and animal health is urgently needed.
The widespread and increasingly intensive use of glyphosate in association with the use of GM (genetically modified, also called genetically engineered or GE) crops poses further risks to the environment and human health. GM crops specifically engineered to be tolerant to glyphosate are known as ‘Roundup Ready’ (RR). These RR varieties allow farmers to spray the herbicide over the top of the growing crop, killing virtually all weeds without affecting the crop.
The use of glyphosate on GM RR crops such as soy, maize and cotton has increased dramatically in North and South America, where they are predominantly grown. GM RR crops are marketed by the US agrochemical giant Monsanto, and are associated with its own formulation of glyphosate herbicide, Roundup. Monsanto’s sales pitch to farmers promised, and still does, reduced labour and financial savings by simplifying and reducing the costs of weed control. The reality is turning out to be different, with increasing health, biodiversity and environmental concerns and the development of weed resistance.
Given the problems that are now evident, no new GM glyphosate-tolerant crops should be authorised. In broader terms, GM herbicide-tolerant crops have been developed for an industrial farming model. They are therefore intrinsically linked to unsustainable farming practices that damage the basic natural resources food production is based upon, and their cultivation should be banned.
Exposure to glyphosate
People, plants and animals can be exposed to glyphosate and Roundup in many ways. Farmers, bystanders and other operators can be exposed during its application, and neighbouring natural habitats by drift from the area where it is being applied. Aerial application is used on some crops, such as on the vast monoculture plantations of GM RR soya in the Americas, which greatly increases the chances of accidental exposure of neighbouring populations or habitats.
Exposure to glyphosate and Roundup also occurs via their residues, frequently found in food and the environment. The Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) in food for glyphosate and its breakdown product were agreed by the UN-based Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2006, but appear to be related more to the type of agricultural practices characteristic of each food crop rather than to safety thresholds for human health.
In light of the new scientific evidence on the health and environmental impacts of glyphosate it is essential to re-evaluate MRLs in order to align them with updated safety assessments.
In the environment, glyphosate can held in the soil by binding to particles but, depending on soil chemistry, can also leach into groundwater. Glyphosate can also wash directly into drains and surface waters and it has been detected in both. Glyphosate and its degradation product have been detected in studies of drainage surface waters in Canada, the US and Denmark. These finding have implications for surface water quality and drinking water quality.
Given the evidence that glyphosate can cause harm to health and the environment, the leaching of glyphosate has also serious implications for aquatic life. Glyphosate is present in soils, waters and our food as a result of its use as an herbicide. Therefore, rigorous assessment of the safety of glyphosate to plant, humans and animals is of great importance.
Human health problems related to glyphosate
Independent scientific studies are underscoring the call for an urgent reassessment of glyphosate and its related products. These studies associate exposure to glyphosate with a number of negative effects on human and animal health, including long term or chronic effects:
• Birth defects in the Argentinean state of Chaco, where GM soya and rice crops are heavily sprayed with glyphosate, increased nearly fourfold over the years 2000 to 2009. Similar defects were also found in woman from Paraguay exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides during pregnancy. These defects were compatible with those induced in laboratory experiments at much lower concentrations than normal commercial glyphosate concentrations.
• Glyphosate is a suspected endocrine disruptor. This means it could disrupt production of vital reproductive hormones, such as progesterone and oestrogen. Published studies demonstrate various endocrine effects in animals and human cells associated with glyphosate.
• Studies of illness patterns human populations (epidemiological studies) have linked glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (a type of blood cancer) whilst laboratory studies have confirmed that glyphosate and/or its associated products exhibit characteristics typical of cancer causing agents (i.e. genotoxicity or mutagenicity) in animals and both human and animal. Together, these studies suggest that glyphosate may contribute to cancer. Evidence that glyphosate may also affect the nervous system and may even be implicated in Parkinson’s disease.
Scientific evidence highlighting these health effects must be taken very seriously. An urgent reassessment of the health impacts of glyphosate and its related products must take place.
Glyphosate affects biodiversity
Glyphosate can impact on biodiversity in a number of different ways and can have short and long term, as well as direct and indirect negative effects. Evidence is accumulating that glyphosate can have a damaging impact on aquatic organisms as a result of its normal use in agriculture or forestry. Several studies have suggested that, under close-to-field conditions, glyphosate-based products, including Roundup, have a direct toxic effect on the adults and tadpoles of a range of amphibian species.
Despite these findings, Monsanto still claims that Roundup has ‘no adverse effect on aquatic animals’ (Monsanto 2010a).
Many aquatic animals – from microscopic algae to fish and mussels – have been found to be affected by exposure to glyphosate and/or Roundup. The observed effects included: shorter life spans and reduced reproductive rates in rotifers (a type of freshwater invertebrate); changes in population structure in phyto- (or plant-) plankton; increased mortality in aquatic worms; and changes in liver cells in carp. A recent study found genotoxic effects in the red blood cells of European eels when exposed to Roundup for a short period.
There is also a suggestion that glyphosate may affect the nervous system of aquatic animals in a manner similar to an organophosphate. Glyphosate can also have a direct impact on non-target plants in the environments where it is used through spray draft or deliberate over spraying. This could lead to the loss of rare or endangered species or an overall reduction in diversity and numbers. Research carried out in the UK on the use of glyphosate on GM RR beet showed significant indirect effects of this form of weed control. These included reduced weed numbers in arable fields and reduced weed seed production both of which are potentially deleterious to species further up the food chain, including threatened bird species, if repeated over a number of years.
‘…If GM herbicide-tolerant beet were to be grown and managed as in the FSEs [UK Farm Scale Evaluations 2000- 2003] this would result in adverse effects on arable weed populations, as defined and assessed by criteria specified in Directive 2001/18/EC, compared with conventionally managed beet. The effects on arable weeds would be likely to result in adverse effects on organisms at higher trophic levels (e.g. farmland birds), compared with conventionally managed beet’ (ACRE 2004)
It is apparent that glyphosate and its formulated commercial products (e.g. Roundup) can be harmful to species at many stages along the food chain, including the aquatic food chain.
Regulators must ensure that usage of herbicides is safe for wildlife when it is used for purposes it has been approved for. Therefore, the safety of glyphosate to biodiversity urgently needs to be re-assessed.
Glyphosate impacts on the soil-plant system
The impact of glyphosate on soil biodiversity and the soil-plant system is of concern because of the effects observed with GM RR crops. Glyphosate enters the soil by being directly sprayed on it, via the roots of plants that have been sprayed, or from dead vegetation. Importantly, glyphosate affects the rhizosphere – the region of the soil surrounding the roots that is essential to the health and nutrient uptake of the plant.
Surprisingly, the approvals processes for glyphosate and its formulated products around the world, including the EU, currently do not require exhaustive testing of its soil impacts.
Studies of earthworms exposed to glyphosate showed reduced growth rate, reduced cocoon hatching and behaviour to avoid treated areas. Earthworms are vital to soil health so any adverse effect on them is likely to affect soil health.
Independent researchers are now publishing studies showing that glyphosate has an impact on key functions of the rhizosphere. These include:
• Reduction in the uptake of essential micronutrients by crops
• Reduction in nitrogen fixation, resulting in reduced yields
• Increased vulnerability to plant diseases
Such changes can have a direct impact on the health and performance of crops. Plant diseases – such as take-all in cereals, damping off, root rot and sudden death syndrome in soya – are encouraged by the changes in soil biology and chemistry that glyphosate induces. These impacts are of concern to farmers and environmentalists and need to be addressed urgently.
Glyphosate and the plague of resistant weeds
When glyphosate first appeared in the mid 1990s, weed resistance to herbicides as a result of GM RR crops was rarely discussed, although the phenomenon of weed resistance to herbicides was well known. Now, 15 years later, weed resistance to glyphosate is one of the most well documented effects and is a major environmental concern of the cultivation of GM RR crops.
Since the introduction of RR crops, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of weed species exhibiting glyphosate resistance. Glyphosate resistance has now been confirmed in over 20 species, with over 100 resistant strains identified, primarily in the Americas. Many scientists attribute this increase to the over reliance on glyphosate to control weeds in fields of GM RR soya, maize and cotton.
‘No-tillage corn and soybean production has been widely accepted in the mid-Atlantic region, favouring establishment of horseweed. Within 3 years of using only glyphosate for weed control in continuous glyphosate resistant soybeans, glyphosate failed to control horseweed in some fields.
Seedlings originating from seed of one population collected in Delaware were grown in the greenhouse and exhibited 8- to 13-fold glyphosate resistance compared with a susceptible population’ (Van Gessel 2001)
Controlling glyphosate-resistant weeds in GM RR crops is now a major problem for farmers. Monsanto acknowledges this, and has published guidance on how to deal with the growing weed resistance problems in GM RR crops. Monsanto’s recommended strategies include:
• the use of either stronger formulations of glyphosate or of mixtures of glyphosate and other herbicides, e.g. the notorious 2,4-D – one active ingredient of Agent Orange, the defoliant used by the US Army during the Vietnam; and
• producing GM seeds with several herbicide tolerant genes (gene stacking), which would allow other herbicides, in addition to glyphosate, to be sprayed over crops.
These strategies add to the amount of herbicides being used therefore increasing the overall toxic burden from GM RR crops and continue the industrial agriculture treadmill of herbicide usage and resistance. The development of more weeds with resistance to multiple herbicides seems probable. The widespread nature of weed resistance, and the additional herbicides required to control these weeds means that Monsanto’s promise of cheaper and easier weed control with GM RR crops has not been delivered.
The toxicological profiles for mixtures of herbicides are not clear. However, it is clear that GM RR crops have brought about an escalation in the pesticides ‘arms race’ with an increasing toxic burden on the environment and people.
Conclusion
Recent studies demonstrate that glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Roundup, can have harmful effects to human health and the environment. Exposure of humans to glyphosate has been linked to various health effects including reproductive effects, cancer and neurological effects. Glyphosate interacts with soil chemistry and biology, resulting is a variety of impacts including reduced plant nutrition and increased vulnerability to plant disease. Glyphosate may also leach into surface and groundwaters, where they may damage wildlife and possibly end up in drinking water. Glyphosate and Roundup are far from benign herbicides and a review of their safety for human and animal health and for the environment is urgently needed.
GM RR crops have greatly increased glyphosate usage, especially in the Americas where they are primarily grown. Given the new evidence of glyphosate toxicity, this of great concern. The rise in glyphosate resistant weeds is associated with GM RR crops, and the escalation in the ‘arms-race’ against these resistant weeds fuels concerns that even more glyphosate will be used in the future with GM RR crops, in stronger formulations and possibly with additional herbicides. This facet of GM herbicide-tolerant crops should be enough to lead to a ban on their cultivation.
GM herbicide-tolerant crops, as epitomised by GM RR crops, are not part of sustainable agriculture practices. They are part of an industrial agriculture system that involves large-scale monocultures that depend on costly, polluting inputs such as herbicides.
There is no doubt that there is an urgent need to find sustainable solutions to agriculture. As the recent UN/World Bank global assessment of agriculture (IAASTD) recently stated, ‘business as usual is no longer an option’ (IAASTD 2009b). Sustainable solutions will not come from GM crops, and definitely not from GM herbicide-tolerant crops.
———————————————————————–
Item 2
Immediate release (30 Jun 2011)
The Human Cost of the War on Superweeds
New report from GM Freeze and Greenpeace International links herbicides to cancer, birth defects and water pollution
From flower boxes in city gardens to intensive farming on a massive scale, weed killers are used under the assumption that they are safe. Roundup, one of the most common herbicides, is marketed by US agrochemical company Monsanto as “safe” for the environment and for humans – deadly for weeds. But are all herbicides really as safe as Monsanto and others are telling us?
Whether we live in cities or in the countryside, we are all exposed to herbicides: sometimes from aerial spraying, sometimes through chemical residues in our food and sometimes because of chemical run off from agricultural land into nearby fields, seas or rivers. Recent polls indicate that people want to know more about what this means for our health and the environment.
An extensive survey on attitudes to the environment published by the European Commission last week shows that, across the board, Europeans feel they need more information on chemicals and farming. [1]
One of the things people often do not know is that when the European Union (EU) and other regulators declare a product like Roundup as safe, they rely heavily on research provided by the companies who produce herbicides and whose business it is to sell them. However, a new report by GM Freeze and Greenpeace and GM Freeze analysing almost 200 independent and peer-reviewed scientific studies, mostly carried out in the last decade, demonstrates that herbicides like Roundup are far from benign. [2]
One of the main ingredients of Roundup and several other herbicides is a chemical known as glyphosate. Studies associate exposure to glyphosate with cancer, birth defects and neurological illnesses (including Parkinson’s). Alarmingly, lab testing suggests that glyphosate can cause damage to cells, including human embryo cells. Studies also indicate that glyphosate may be a gender-bender chemical that interferes with our hormonal balance.
The environmental impacts of glyphosate are not much better. Evidence shows that the chemical has a damaging impact on our rivers and on the animals that live in them. It disrupts nutrients in soil, exposing plants (that are not weeds) to disease and could end up contaminating drinking water.
Of particular concern is the association of glyphosate with the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) herbicide-tolerant crops, known as Roundup-Ready. These crops, which so far are mostly grown in the Americas, are genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate so that they can survive massive spraying of Roundup to eliminate weeds. The problem is that weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup.
Resistance to glyphosate has now been confirmed in over 20 weed species, with over 100 resistant strains identified, covering nearly 6 million hectares, primarily in Argentina, Brazil and the U.S. Controlling these glyphosate-resistant weeds growing amongst GM crops has become a major problem for farmers.
This has prompted manufacturers of glyphosate and GM crops like Monsanto to recommend further increases in the deployment and concentration of herbicides – including the use of chemicals that are even more toxic than glyphosate. This escalation in the pesticides ‘arms race’ has put an enormous toxic burden on people’s health and the environment, creating a vicious circle that is producing a new breed of superweeds.
The EU can no longer ignore growing scientific evidence on the dangerous effects of glyphosate and must start an immediate and extensive review of its use. Given the problems identified so far, no glyphosate-tolerant GM crops should be authorised in Europe or elsewhere. With a major reform of European farming policy just underway, governments need to recognise that the industrial agriculture system where GM crops and chemicals thrive is profoundly unsustainable. Failure to act will threaten food production, jeopardise human lives and put the environment severely at risk. It is time to round up glyphosate for good and embrace ecological farming.
Ends
Calls to:
Pete Riley, GM Freeze +44 (0)7903 341 065
Dr Janet Cotter, Greenpeace +44 (0)7812 174 783
Marco Contiero, Greenpeace +32 (0)477 777 034
Notes
[1] See http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_365_pres_en.pdf
[2] See Herbicide Tolerance and GM Crops – Why the world should be ready to Round Up glyphosate