Tag Archives: glyphosate

Health, Politics

European Scientists Split Over Glyphosate Cancer Claims

Leave a comment

European Union scientists are facing off over a World Health Organization study which indicated the popular herbicide glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic” to humans.

The head of the EU’s European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) disagrees with the conclusions of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

In March 2015, Truth In Media reported that the IARC published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.

The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in biotech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. Glyphosate is only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer, however. In June the IARC also found that the weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

Bernhard Url, Executive Director of the EFSA, does not support the conclusions of the IARC study.

The EFSA issued an official opinion on the matter in November 2015, stating “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential.”

Url’s position did not sit well with environmental activists who agreed with the study’s findings.

As Reuters reports, “Ninety-six academics from around the world signed an open letter to European Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, dated Nov. 27, urging EU authorities to ignore the European watchdogs’s opinion.”

“We urge you and the European Commission to disregard the flawed EFSA finding on glyphosate in your formulation of glyphosate health and environmental policy for Europe,” the letter said.

The letter was written by Christopher Portier of the non-governmental organization the Environmental Defense Fund. Portier was a specialist consulted as part of the IARC study on glyphosate. Portier’s letter called for “a transparent, open and credible review of the scientific literature”.

On Wednesday, Bernhard Url responded to Portier’s letter. “I strongly disagree with your contention that EFSA has not applied open and objective criteria to its assessment,” Url wrote.

“We should not compare this first screening assessment with the more comprehensive hazard assessment done by authorities such as EFSA, which are designed to support the regulatory process for pesticides in close cooperation with member states in the EU,” Url told Reuters.

Url also said representatives of the EFSA and the IARC will likely meet to clarify their differences. Reuters reported the meeting would likely take place in Brussels in mid-February.

If the European Union’s 28 members decide to yield to the EFSA’s opinion, it could lead to overturning the ban on glyphosate.

Stay tuned to Truth In Media for more details.

Featured, Government Accountability, Health

EPA Reverses Approval of Controversial Herbicide

Leave a comment

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency decided to reverse their approval of Dow Chemical’s Enlist Duo which contains the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate.

The EPA told the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco that they had discovered new information which suggests 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, could be more toxic than the agency previously believed. The agency claimed it initially did not recognize that glyphosate and 2,4-D were possibly a toxic combination.

“E.P.A. can no longer be confident that Enlist Duo will not cause risks of concern to nontarget organisms, including those listed as endangered, when used according to the approved label,” the agency said in a court filing. The EPA also said they realized they “did not have all relevant information at the time it made its registration decision.”

The EPA’s decision is related to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of U.S. farmer and environmental groups represented by Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety who are seeking to overturn the approval of Enlist Duo.

Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system. The weed controls system is the latest effort to combat the growing problem of so-called “super weeds” that have resulted from the abundant use of glyphosate-based herbicides. In order to fight off the tougher weeds, Dow and Monsanto partnered together to produce Enlist Duo.

 “Glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and is wiping out the monarch butterfly, 2,4-D also causes serious human health effects, and the combination also threatens endangered wildlife,” said Earthjustice’s Managing Attorney Paul Achitoff. “This must not, and will not, be how we grow our food.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council reports that more than 200,000 people signed a petition they circulated which asked Dow to cancel its plans to sell Enlist Duo. Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist at the NRDC, said her organization was “delighted” by the news but also called on regulators do a proper job the first time. “EPA needs to do better in protecting human health and the health of the plants and animals in the ecosystem,” she said.

Dow has until December 7 to respond to the EPA’s decision and then the court will decide if 2,4-D should be removed from commercial products. If the court agrees with the EPA, it will likely delay the introduction of genetically engineered foods that were created to be resistant to 2,4-D.

The New York Times reports that in September the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the E.P.A.’s approval of another Dow pesticide known as sulfoxaflor because of concerns the chemical was insufficiently studied and possibly harmful to bee populations.

Earlier this year, Truth In Media reported that both 2,4-D and glyphosate had been linked to cancer in studies conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The IARC found that Glyphosate “probably” causes cancer and found 2,4-D to be “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic”.

Stay tuned to Truth In Media for more details on this developing story.

Government Accountability, Health

USDA Approves New Monsanto Corn

Video Leave a comment

Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved a new genetically modified type of corn produced by Monsanto Company. The announcement comes from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Reuters reports that APHIS conducted a review and concluded the product posed no significant threat to agricultural crops, other plants or the environment. Monsanto’s MON 87411 maize is designed to protect plants against corn rootworms and have a tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Glyphosate is not only recognized as the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products.

Before officially being allowed on the market, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must conduct their own reviews. According to Reuters, the EPA’s scientific advisory panel has criticized the guidelines as “weak”. The panel is attempting to understand the potential impact on pollinators, such as the dwindling bee population.

APHIS also said it was extending the comment period for genetically-engineered corn developed by Syngenta Seeds Inc. Syngenta’s MZHG0JG corn is also resistant to glyphosate. Critics have long said that perpetual reliance on herbicides like glyphosate is leading to an increase in herbicide-resistant plants which itself leads to an increased use of the chemicals.

The USDA’s preliminary findings of Syngenta’s petition found 14 different glyphosate-resistant weed species as of 2014. The agency also stated the risk of herbicide-resistant weeds will be an ongoing problem as long as herbicides are used.

Fighting herbicide resistance is only one of Monsanto’s current problems, however. In March of this year, Truth In Media reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides.

The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the EPA had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.
The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.
Glyphosate is not the only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer. In June the IARC also found that the weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans. 

Since the IARC’s rulings, Monsanto has faced a wave of lawsuits as personal injury lawyers are now looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed by the corporations products. 

Monsanto continues to deny the charges against its products. Company spokewoman Charla Lord told Reuters, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. The most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product contradict the claims in the suits.”

In 2013, Ben Swann examined several controversies surrounding Monsanto in a Truth in Media episode, seen below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YC7M6j-dGs

Health, US

Monsanto Asks California to Halt Plan Listing Glyphosate as Cancer Cause

Leave a comment

Monsanto Company is fighting back against California’s recent decision to list glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s popular herbicide RoundUp, as a cancer-causing chemical.

In late September, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a notice stating that glyphosate would be added to the state’s list of cancer-causing chemicals under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65.

The decision was made after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the research agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), published a report in March that classified glyphosate “as probably carcinogenic to humans.” State officials said this decision is a requirement following the IARC’s findings.

[Read more: World Health Organization: Monsanto’s RoundUp ‘Probably’ Causes Cancer]

In response to the IARC report in March, Monsanto announced its plans to hire Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy to provide a third-party review of IARC’s claims. The Guardian later reported that a separate assessment performed by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessments (BfR) “has drawn contrary conclusions from the IARC’s data. The BfR paper also relied heavily on unpublished papers provided by the Glyphosate Task Force, an industry body dedicated to the herbicide’s relicensing. Its website is run by Monsanto UK.”

[Read more: Monsanto Seeks Third-Party Review of Cancer Claims]

Monsanto filed formal comments on Tuesday stating that California’s plan may be illegal, and claimed that the state was insufficient in seeking valid scientific studies before moving forward with adding glyphosate to its Proposition 65 list. The IARC said that before making its classification, the agency had examined several scientific studies including two from Sweden, one from Canada and at least three from the United States.

Monsanto stated in its filing that California’s decision “has the potential to deny farmers and public agencies the use of this highly effective herbicide.” Monsanto further claimed that “global regulatory authorities… agree that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.”

The WHO’s classification of glyphosate as a probable cause of cancer has led to several lawsuits filed against Monsanto. A number of the lawsuits claim that the glyphosate in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused cancer in individuals exposed to the ingredient. Monsanto responded that those claims are “without merit,” according to Reuters.

Health

Monsanto Seeks Third-Party Review of Cancer Claims

3 Comments

In March of this year TruthInMedia reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

 The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Bio-Tech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. At the time Reuters reported that Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president of global regulatory affairs, was unsure “how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.” The corporation stated that scientific data does not match the claims and called for an emergency meeting between Monsanto and WHO officials.

Now Reuters reports that Monsanto has announced they have hired Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy to form “a panel of internationally recognized scientific experts to review IARC’s work. The experts include medical doctors, cancer experts, and individuals with doctoral degrees who are specialists in public health, the Creve Coeur, Missouri-based company said.”

Monsanto President Brett Begemann told Reuters that Monsanto is “confident in the safety of its herbicide products” but the review is being done to reassure consumers of the safety of the popular herbicide.

“It has created a lot of confusion,” Begemann told Reuters. “This panel is going to review the data thoroughly, and they are going to make their findings available to everyone for review.”

 

Monsanto promised a fair and transparent review.

Glyphosate is only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer, however. In June the IARC also found that the  weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

The IARC reviewed the latest scientific research before deciding to classify 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic”. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been receiving pressure to restrict or prohibit the use of 2,4-D, while some farm group and pesticide industry groups say the chemical does not need any more restriction.

Of particular interest with the recent findings is the fact that in April the EPA approved the use of Dow AgroScience’s Enlist Duo herbicide which contains 2,4-D and glyphosate. Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system.

Monsanto has not released a statement on whether or not they will also convene a panel to study the IARC’s claims about 2,4-D.

 

Government Accountability, Health

EPA Will Study Effect of Glyphosate on Endangered Species

2 Comments

As part of a settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Protection Agency will be forced to study the impacts of the two most commonly used herbicides on endangered plants and animals within the United States.

The Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places, filed a lawsuit with the EPA for not studying the effects of pesticides and herbicides on endangered species. The nonprofit also agreed to a settlement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requiring the agency to analyze impacts on endangered species across the country from five pesticides.

The EPA will now analyze the impacts of atrazine and glyphosate. The agency will complete the assessments by June 2020. Atrazine has been linked to an increased risk of birth defects. Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp, has also been called “probably carcinogenic” by the World Health Organization.

Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the settlement was “the first step to reining in the widespread use of dangerous pesticides that are harming both wildlife and people.”

“This settlement will finally force the EPA to consider the impacts of glyphosate — widely known as Roundup — which is the most commonly used pesticide in the United States, on endangered species nationwide,” said Hartl.

The EPA has not studied the ecological impacts of glyphosate since 1993.

In other herbicide news, the EPA also rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), that was seeking a review of glyphosate “to prevent unreasonable adverse effects” to the monarch butterfly.

“The agency at this time has not determined that glyphosate causes unreasonable adverse effects to the monarch butterfly,” noted EPA in its response. The EPA highlighted the fact that President Obama recently launched the White House Pollinator Task Force Plan.

Agri-Pulse reports that the NRDC also sued the EPA in October in an attempt to block the approval of Monsanto and DOW’s Enlist Duo herbicide, which they say is also responsible for the loss of monarch butterflies. The product is a combination of glyphosate and another herbicide known as 2,4-D.

NRDC said in a statement that since 1993 use of glyphosate “has increased 10-fold, yet the agency has never considered the herbicide’s impact on monarchs.”

 

Government Accountability, Health, US

UPDATE: Environmental Protection Agency May Begin Testing Food For Glyphosate Residue

6 Comments

Following a recent study which found the popular herbicide Glyphosate  ‘probably’ causes cancer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has stated they may begin testing food for residue of the product.

On Friday the EPA released a statement to Reuters discussing the possible changes.

“Given increased public interest in glyphosate, EPA may recommend sampling for glyphosate in the future.”

The move comes after a study in March by the World Health Organization‘s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The IARC published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Bio-Tech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. Reuters reports that Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president of global regulatory affairs, was unsure “how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.” The corporation says scientific data does not match the claims and called for an emergency meeting between Monsanto and WHO officials.

However, WHO scientists say they stand behind their assessment. Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, told Reuters, “There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged chromosomes.”

The battle around glyphosate is also closely linked to the debate around Genetically Engineered or Modified foods. The herbicide is typically used on GM crops such as corn and soybeans that have been specifically modified to survive the harmful effects of the herbicide. Corporations like Monsanto are heavily invested in the success of the chemical. The herbicide has been found in food, water, and in the air in areas where it has been sprayed.

Currently, the EPA tests thousands of food for pesticide residues, but does not test for glyphosate. This is because the EPA, and the European Union, believe glyphosate to be safe. The agency also told Reuters that the decision to test depends on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Pesticide Data Program. However, Peter Wood, spokesman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, told Reuters that the “EPA makes the determination which commodities and pesticides are tested.” Until the WHO study, the EPA was unwilling to believe glyphosate might be harmful and previously said the chemical did not pose a risk to human health.

What are your thoughts? Is the fear of glyphosate and Monsanto legitimate? Is it unnecessary?