Part 2 – What We Can Surmise
The safety of Roundup is an extremely heated debate topic, and I personally know people firmly in each camp. A quick internet search will show you the extent of the ferocity with which some of these people adhere to their positions, with charged article titles like “If You Accept Science, You Accept Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer”[1] and “Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells”.[2] Spoiler alert, these headlines are not from independent blogs, but the American Council on Science & Health and Scientific American, respectively.
It was actually an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal from this past April that first made me think to explore this topic in my blog. The author chided people voicing concerns about the herbicide’s safety, saying “aggressive estimates of cancer risk from glyphosate are comparable to cancer risk from eating a lot of bacon (colorectal cancer) or drinking really hot tea (esophageal cancer).”[3]
Aside from the fact that Christian and I each have one of those cancer risks covered (bacon for him, tea for me), I am concerned about what goes into my garden. A small part of my concern comes from unknowns about how Roundup might affect us, but a much greater part of that concern is for the animals that are subject to my purchasing decisions. I have constructed my garden to be a safe haven for them, and the last thing I want to do is jeopardize that with a chemical whose impacts are still actively being debated.
So with that, I will continue to share my research about various studies and subsequent court cases, both of which Monsanto (and now Bayer) have fought bitterly.
Image credit:[4]
The Battle Commences
The US Right to Know organization is a nonprofit devoted to “pursuing truth and transparency in America’s food system.” Their website does not strike me as unbiased (but neither does Bayer’s). I was impressed, however, with the depth of research and the sheer number of references they share. After several hours of reading a single page on their site, I had two pages of dense notes and twenty sources linking to reports, studies, and discovered documents in court cases.
Most of the information in this next section, particularly the quotes, is cribbed from the US Right to Know page on glyphosate. [5] I have included their references to primary sources here for your convenience should you want to follow the links (rather than clicking through their page to find them), but if this topic interests you at all, I encourage you to take some time to explore the extensive research presented on their site.
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world. 1.8 million tons have been applied in America since its introduction to the market in 1974, and 9.4 million tons have been sprayed on fields worldwide. Glyphosate use has increased 15-fold since Roundup Ready crops were introduced. At the moment, 90% of corn and 94% of soybean crops in the US are engineered to tolerate herbicides, according to the USDA. “A 2017 study found that Americans’ exposure to glyphosate increased approximately 500 percent since Roundup Ready GMO crops were introduced in the US in 1996.”
While there were vocal opponents from the start of the GMO crop introduction, as far as I can tell, the battle really hit a fever pitch in 2015 when a report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization) concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
In September 2016, the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) fired back with a report[6] stating that “glyphosate was ‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’ at doses relevant to human health.”
Image credit:[7]
However, the EPA then convened a Scientific Advisory Panel in December 2016 to “review the CARC report conclusion that glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic. The scientific advisory panel members were divided in their assessment of EPA’s work[8], with some finding the EPA erred in how it evaluated certain research.
“Additionally, the EPA’s Office of Research and Development determined that the agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs had not followed proper protocols in its evaluation of glyphosate. An [Office of Research and Development] memo[9] stated that the government scientists agreed in part with [the International Agency for Research on Cancer] and believed EPA was not properly following guidelines in coming to the conclusion that glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic.”
To make matters more confusing, the World Health Organization then seemed to reverse its position when the WHO/FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues “determined that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.”[10] However, that finding was highly scrutinized due to conflict of interest concerns[11] “after it was revealed that certain members of the group, including its chair, worked for the International Life Sciences Institute, a group funded in part by Monsanto and one of its lobbying organizations.”
An NPR piece from May of this year recapped the history of these reports and asked David Eastmond from University of California, Riverside about his take on the issue. He previously helped with a glyphosate review for the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues and said “from my reading of things, if glyphosate causes cancer, it’s a pretty weak carcinogen, which means that you’re going to need pretty high doses in order to cause it.”
He explained that the difference in the report conclusions comes from the fact that “IARC just looks at whether glyphosate can cause cancer; regulators, on the other hand, have to decide whether it actually will, considering how much of it people are exposed to.” The other factor at play here is that IARC only looks at studies that are publicly-available. The “EPA considered a large number of studies that aren’t publicly available because Monsanto paid for them and submitted them to the agencies.” Eastmond still believes the Monsanto-funded studies are credible, despite the conflict of interest.[12]
Image credit:[13]
Legal Proceedings
Since some of the more damning studies have been released, people have started to take action. In 2017, California added glyphosate to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer.[14] Monsanto sued, but the case was dismissed. In a separate case, the state was blocked from requiring cancer warnings on products containing glyphosate.
Additionally, “More than 11,000 people have filed suit against Monsanto Company (now Bayer) alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that Monsanto covered up the risks.”
The real surprise that arose during discovery proceedings in these trials was found in internal emails at Monsanto. Some of the evidence leveled in court included emails describing interactions with the EPA, in which an EPA official had said “I don’t need to see any more studies. I’m going to declare Roundup safe, and I’m going to stop another agency from looking at it.” Conversations with regulators about whether or not they’re going to regulate your product would seem to cast suspicion both on your product and on the impartiality of the regulators.
Even more damning on Monsanto’s part was evidence that an executive “discussed ghostwriting papers on the safety of glyphosate that scientists could publish under their own names.” The article I mentioned at the top of this post (“If You Accept Science, You Accept Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer”) argues that science should be decided by scientists, not juries. Nevertheless, The Monsanto Papers[15], as they are called, aren’t the kind of thing you want to put in front of a jury if you are trying to inspire confidence in either a multinational corporation or a federal regulatory agency.
As of the writing of this post, the first three trials have taken place, and all were found in favor of the plaintiffs. Bayer has appealed and/or is appealing each of its three guilty verdicts, but the outlook is not great for the company, whose stock has dropped $40 billion (with a B) since the first verdict last year.[16]
The next glyphosate trial is set for August in St. Louis. You can follow along with the Roundup Trial Tracker [17] , managed by US Right to Know.
What are your thoughts on who is right and wrong here? Are opponents justified in their concern, or are they still making mountains out of molehills?
Tune in next week to read about findings from some of the more recent small-scale studies that Bayer insists are unfounded.
Thanks for reading!
[1] https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/09/if-you-accept-science-you-accept-roundup-does-not-cause-cancer-13490
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/
[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-causes-cancer-its-complicated-11554160217
[4] https://theecologist.org/2014/apr/01/extreme-levels-roundup-are-norm-gmo-soya
[5] https://usrtk.org/pesticides/glyphosate-health-concerns/
[6] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/glyphosate_issue_paper_evaluation_of_carcincogenic_potential.pdf
[7] https://newfoodeconomy.org/glyphosate-safety-debate/
[8] https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0385-0526
[9] https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ORDcommentsonOPPglyphosate.pdf
[10] https://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf
[11] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/unwho-panel-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-glyphosates-cancer-risk
[12] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/05/30/727914874/safe-or-scary-the-shifting-reputation-of-glyphosate-aka-roundup
[13] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jury-orders-monsanto-pay-290m-roundup-trial-n899811
[14] https://oehha.ca.gov/public-information/press-release/press-release-proposition-65/glyphosate-be-added-proposition-65
[15] https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/
[16] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/05/30/727914874/safe-or-scary-the-shifting-reputation-of-glyphosate-aka-roundup
[17] https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tracker-index/
3 Comments
Brian · July 21, 2019 at 1:16 pm
I’m not above using Round Up on my sidewalk and driveway where I don’t want any plants to grow, ever. But in my garden or my lawn? No way!
As for health conconcerns, I think people who work with it in an industrial level are being done an injustice. I know they take precautions, but they need us (and more importantly, Bayer) to acknowledge the risk to them.
But on the private individual level where it’s being used on a small scale two or three times a year, I don’t think there’s much to be concerned about as long as you wear PPE (gloves, at least) and aren’t using it in your garden or lawn where you’ll come in contact with it later.
Alison · July 21, 2019 at 8:40 pm
Brian, given what I’ve read, I tend to think you are correct – that small-scale, occasional applications, following the instructions for proper use, etc. are probably unlikely to pose a significant risk for human health.
That being said, I am very curious to hear your thoughts after next week’s post. (Spoiler alert: bee studies)
Beyond Impossible: Meatless Meat, Part 1 – Radical Moderate · August 25, 2019 at 12:05 pm
[…] [8] https://radicalmoderate.online/roundup-and-glyphosate-part-2/ […]