GLYPHOSATE: Experts want re-evaluation

GLYPHOSATE: Experts want re-evaluation

Postby Oscar » Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:33 am

Experts call on feds to re-evaluate the world’s most heavily used herbicide

[ ... or-science ]

Health scientists—in a review of the published data on glyphosate—see a “desperate need” for federal regulators around the world to revisit the herbicide's health impact

February 17, 2016 By Brian Bienkowski Environmental Health News

U.S. and European health officials need to take a fresh look at assumptions about the safety and health impacts of glyphosate herbicides, according to a group of health scientists worried about the chemicals’ explosive worldwide growth.

A scientific review [ ... 016-0117-0 ] released Tuesday warns that use of glyphosate has skyrocketed, growing 15-fold in the 20 years since "Roundup Ready" genetically engineered crops were introduced. Government health agencies, they said, have failed to adequately monitor how much of the herbicide is getting into food and people and what impacts it might be having on our health.

“It’s time to call on the global science and regulatory community to step back and take a fresh look at glyphosate since everyone on the planet is or will be exposed,” said senior author Charles Benbrook, an agricultural economist and consultant at Benbrook Consulting Services.

Use of glyphosate in herbicides has increased exponentially since it was first used in the 1970s, according to the review. The study, published in the journal Environmental Health, was authored by 14 health scientists mostly from universities. Pete Myers, founder and chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, publisher of, was the lead author of the report.

Glyphosate, known most famously as Roundup but also sold under a variety of brand names, is the most heavily used farm chemical in the history of the world. Across the globe roughly 9.4 million tons of the chemical have been sprayed on fields since 1974. Nearly 75 percent of that use has come in the last 10 years, according to a separate report Benbrook issued earlier this month. [ ... 016-0070-0 ]

That growth, said scientists reviewing the data, means government benchmarks and safety levels are out of step with the reality of exposure risk—for both the public and the environment.

Federal health agencies—such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment—simply haven’t kept up, according to the report.

“Since the late 1980s, only a few studies relevant to identifying and quantifying human health risks have been submitted to the U.S. EPA,” the authors wrote, adding that such assessments need to be based in “up-to-date science.”

Glyphosate—a key ingredient in many weed-killer herbicides—works largely by inhibiting a plant enzyme that doesn’t exist in mammals, so it was initially thought the chemical posed little risk to humans and other vertebrates.

However, evidence has been mounting that exposure to glyphosate may not be so innocuous. The U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2011 found glyphosate in 90 percent of 300 soybean samples, and the UK Food Standard Agency found it in 27 out of 109 bread samples in 2012.

It’s been linked to liver and kidney problems [ ... -toxic-gmo ] , birth defects, and it potentially disrupts the proper functioning of hormones. In recent years, scientists have increasingly suspected it might be at least partially behind a widespread kidney disease epidemic in Sri Lanka and parts of India and Central America. [ ]

Last year the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in March changed glyphosate’s status from a “possible” to “probable” human carcinogen.

One of the main gaps identified in the report is the lack of endocrine disruption testing, said Frederick vom Saal, University of Missouri biologist and co author of the report. There is increasing evidence that glyphosate may impact human hormones, which can spur numerous later health impacts.

"Since the late 1980s, only a few studies relevant to identifying and quantifying human health risks have been submitted to the U.S. EPA."-report authors

Standard federal testing is mostly done by dosing lab animals with high amounts of a chemical, and then looking for obvious impacts such as changes to organ weights and other malformations, said vom Saal. “Very little is done in the way of looking at developmental issues.”


[ ... or-science ]
Site Admin
Posts: 9213
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Return to Pesticides

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest