Does it Cause Cancer? The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a subgroup of the World Health Organization (the WHO) made waves in 2015 when they declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen, or cancer-causing product. Despite this agency’s sciencey-sounding name, they are not researching cancer, but jumpstarting research collaborations between different governments through lobbying. And I’m not saying that’s delegitimate—only differentiating the materials they publish from the peer-reviewed literature encapsulating cancer research. In fact, the WHO themselves later denounced these claims. The European Union (EU), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) echo assurances of glyphosate’s safety. Read the research for yourself: “The IARC conclusion was not confirmed by the EU assessment or the recent joint WHO/FAO evaluation, both using additional evidence. The EU assessment did not identify a carcinogenicity hazard. Actual exposure levels are below these reference values and do not represent a public concern.” Tarazona, Jose V. “Glyphosate Toxicity and Carcinogenicity: a Review of the Scientific Basis of the European Union Assessment and Its Differences with IARC.” Archives of Toxicology, vol. 91, no. 8, 2017, pp. 2723–2743. “Following the review of the totality of the evidence, the Panels concluded that the data do not support IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is a ‘probable human carcinogen’ and, consistent with previous regulatory assessments, further concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.” Williams, Gary M, et al. “A Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate by Four Independent Expert Panels and Comparison to the IARC Assessment.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology, vol. 46, 2016, pp. 3–20. “A joint panel from the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations issued a summary evaluation of glyphosate in May 2016, concluding it poses no cancer risks as encountered in food and does not impact our genes.” Patocka, Jiri. “IS GLYPHOSATE REALLY HAZARDOUS FOR HUMAN HEALTH?” Military Medical Science Letters, vol. 87, no. 4, 2018, pp. 169–183. “Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic…. Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.” Williams, Gary M, et al. “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 31, 2000, pp. 117–165. Lawsuits
Application Rates Obviously, RoundUp in these studies was evaluated in the context of agricultural applications. If you drank the ingredient, of course you would become ill. Researchers, regulators, licensed applicators, and manufacturers all stress the importance of following label instructions. And not following herbicide label instructions is grounds for lawsuit. Contrary to the idea of megafarmers drenching their crops in chemicals, the amount of glyphosate that comes into contact with your food is unimpressive at best. The RoundUp formulation contains 41% glyphosate. At the general recommended rate of 32 fluid ounces per acre, 1 ounce of glyphosate covers over 3,300 square feet of a crop field—the size of a three bedroom home. To put it in perspective, that amount of land produces 45 pounds of soybeans (or 113 servings) and 67 pounds of corn (246 servings). All of that food only receives one ounce of glyphosate. Definitely still wash your fruits and veggies—but the idea that your produce is dripping in frankin-chemicals is a far cry from the truth. Glyphosate’s Role in Food Security Aside from the question of glyphosate’s link with cancer, it’s important to consider other impacts it may have on our health. With world populations rapidly expanding and so many going without reliable access to food, making crops more sustainable so that the land can provide for many years to come is arguably a more impactful measure of effects on health. Food security is a world-wide problem that impedes people in every single nation. However, in developing regions, glyphosate is an inexpensive ingredient that can bring increased yields to farmers in need. “Glyphosate is a global herbicide because of its versatility in controlling economically a very broad spectrum of weeds under varied agricultural, industrial, amenity and domestic situations. Overall it allows simple, cheap, flexible and effective weed control while possessing excellent environmental properties.” Baylis, Alan D. “Why Glyphosate Is a Global Herbicide: Strengths, Weaknesses and Prospects.” Pest Management Science, vol. 56, no. 4, 2000, pp. 299–308., doi:10.1002/(sici)1526-4998(200004)56:4<299::aid-ps144>3.0.co;2-k. Sustainability Benefits
“The effects of Roundup on soil fauna and functioning were minor and transient and no glyphosate remains were found in the soil at the end of the experiment.” Hagner, M., Mikola, J., Saloniemi, I. et al. Effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide on soil animal trophic groups and associated ecosystem functioning in a northern agricultural field. Sci Rep 9, 8540 (2019). By allowing soil microorganisms to function naturally, soil health is protected keeping the ground fertile for repetitive harvests. GMO Crops and Herbicides The discussion of glyphosate is often tied in with the organic versus GMO debate. Soybeans, in particular, have been criticized for being genetically engineered to resist glyphosate so that the herbicide only attacks the undesired weeds and not the crop to be harvested. Scientific attitudes are split on the impact this will have. Despite decades of research into this technology, questions of consumer safety are left unanswered. Furthermore, the weeds themselves, through natural selection, are becoming resistant to glyphosate, meaning RoundUp applications may not be effective anymore, forcing farmers to switch their efforts to pre-emergent pesticides. In other words, our ability to protect our food from herbicides is being outpaced by nature, rendering the herbicide ineffective before we can capitalize on its use. However, other groups have forecasted what phasing out glyphosate-resistant varieties would do to the world’s grain supply, and concluded that this technology is very necessary: “A ban on the use of glyphosate that resulted in GM HT (tolerant to glyphosate) no longer being grown will affect global crop production. Production of soybeans, corn, rapeseed, cotton and sugar beet will be affected directly in regions using GM HT seed technology. Production of soybeans will drop significantly in the US, Canada, and South America by 1.9% (1.6 million tonnes), 5.6% (0.2 million tonnes), and 17.1% (10.5 million tonnes) respectively.” Brookes, Graham, et al. “The Contribution of Glyphosate to Agriculture and Potential Impact of Restrictions on Use at the Global Level.” GM Crops & Food, vol. 8, no. 4, Feb. 2017, pp. 216–228., doi:10.1080/21645698.2017.1390637.
However, glyphosate-resistant soybeans are only a small piece of the pie. Genetic modification in food crops has many uses, including balancing nutrient levels, promoting growth with lower levels of fertilizer, or allowing plants to grow in climates that they wouldn’t be able to survive in ordinarily. “Woke” consumers who write off GMOs “because glyphosate” are ignorant to the wide range of uses genetic engineering has, most of which have nothing to do with herbicides. The truth is that pesticides are applied to all crops—yes, especially organic ones! The USDA permits hundreds of pesticides and growth supplements, both naturally-occurring and man-made, to be used on organic crops. And this is a great example of how genetic modification can resolve consumer fears. Crops created to grow stronger with fewer inputs through gene manipulation are more likely to outcompete with weeds on their own, without support from herbicides. In this respect, organic operations have to use more herbicides than conventional counterparts. Even though they’ll be able to tell their consumers that their tofu has never encountered the much-feared glyphosate, organic farmers are purchasing greater volumes of other types of pesticides. In Conclusion Like almost every other topic I frequent, the media and the science are water and oil on the topic of glyphosate. It’s almost as if well-researched pesticides that boost yields in developing communities don’t get clicks. The truth is that there are thousands of very qualified people working in international agencies that have signed their name on literature that exonerates glyphosate. We should always be stringent on pesticide applicators to make sure they’re held accountable to following label instructions. However, everyone wins when we use glyphosate. Farmers win because of lower prices. The public wins because there’s more food being produced. And future generations win because the land is preserved.
2 Comments
Jake
1/10/2021 09:23:30 pm
I have never seen a more dishonest and misleading website. I have a degree in environmental sciences and I have read through various posts on this website and they are all extremely biased. You can fact check them yourselves. What is posted sounds logical at first glance and can easily deceive someone who is not knowledgeable on the topic. Whatever you do, even if you don't believe me, go fact check this website or get some other opinions. This guy literally must be funded by big livestock corporations or something, it's really that evident.
Reply
Vicente
1/31/2021 12:03:47 pm
You haven’t debunked them yourself on the web?
Reply
Leave a Reply. |