Glyphosate (RoundUp) is toxic, get yourself tested!

 

I am an avid cyclist, and during a recent ride, I passed a man walking around his yard carrying a container of RoundUp in one hand—the large container filled with this herbicide—and in the other hand the wand that applies the herbicide to the identified undesirables growing in his nearly perfectly manicured lawn.

 

This scene forced me to contemplate yet again why there is such a strong desire to dominate and control nature to achieve a perfect aesthetic ideal, while also using products that have severe consequences for our health as humans, and also for the health of other living beings and ecosystems.

 

RoundUp is Monsanto’s commercial brand name of the herbicide glyphosate. It was originally patented by Stauffer Chemical as a chemical chelator and used primarily to clean mineral deposits from pipes, heaters, and boilers. The product was later brought to the market by Monsanto in the 1970s for agricultural use and has earned widespread use by farmers in conjunction with “Roundup Ready” plants that have been genetically engineered (GE) to resist the toxic effect of glyphosate. 

 

As a result, when this herbicide is sprayed on a crop field, the crop continues to grow as the unwanted non-GE plants around it die. However, the effectiveness of glyphosate will dwindle over time as plants that are destroyed die out, but other plants within the species that resist the herbicide continue to grow and reproduce, thus allowing the plant to develop a resistance against the herbicide. The result is the so-called “superweed” that requires greater application of the herbicide in an attempt to kill the plants that are not destroyed by the same level of application. Unfortunately, more and more of the herbicide must be used in order to achieve the same impact for weed control.

 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), glyphosate was the most commonly used active ingredient in conventional pesticides  in U.S. agriculture in 2006 and 2007 (most recent years for which data are available).  The term “pesticide” includes the subcategories herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, and a number of other “-cides” to mitigate “pests.” Glyphosate is also the most used pesticide in agriculture since 2001. During these years, 180-185 million pounds of glyphosate were used in the United States, while the next most commonly used pesticide active ingredient was atrazine at 73-78 million pounds (less than half that of glyphosate).

 

Research indicates that the growing use of glyphosate may be impacting wildlife and has been identified as one of the major causes of the decline of the monarch butterfly.  A study published in the March 2013 edition of Insect Conservation & Diversity reports examining the impact of the use of the herbicide glypho-sate and the resulting reduction of milkweed in agricultural fields. Monarch butterflies cannot survive without milkweed since adults lay their eggs in milkweed plants and the diet of caterpillars is limited exclusively to milkweed. Last year this resulted in the lowest count of monarchs that migrated to Mexico since records have been kept. 

 

Glyphosate is also entering the food chain directly and thus having an impact on human health through food consumption. Crops genetically engineered to resist glyphosate absorb it directly or through the soil; thus, glyphosate remains inside the plant and cannot be washed off, and humans who consume plants (especially staples of the Western diet—sugar, corn, soy, wheat, canola, and alfalfa) or animals raised on these crops are eating glyphosate in their diet. Research indicates the toxicity of glyphosate can lead to kidney damage, DNA damage, problems with pregnancy, and endocrine disruption.

 

Research also indicates that glyphosate may be carcinogenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), conducted a study and published a summary of their findings in The Lancet Oncology, stating that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. The EPA is also starting to pay greater attention to the impact of glyphosate and indicated that food regulators may start testing food for glyphosate residue.

 

The attention that glyphosate has garnered due to its negative impact is certainly welcome, but immediate action seems unlikely, and long-term action will be slow and surely met with strong opposition from the chemical and biotech industries—quite unfortunate given that glypho-sate has permeated our food systems, natural resources, and environment to such an extent. 

 

In fact, glyphosate has invaded our living environment to such an extent that it is showing up in our bodies—an example of the “toxic trespass” that Sandra Steingraber writes about in Living Downstream:  An Ecologist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment:  “the involuntary use of one’s body as a receptacle for someone else’s chemicals.” 

 

The Organic Consumers Association and Feed the World have recently begun to offer glyphosate testing for individuals. You can submit samples of tap water, urine, and breast milk to be tested for glyphosate levels; the cost per sample is $110—a hefty fee, but worth knowing the extent to which glyphosate has accumulated in your water and body, and to also begin collecting data on how extensively it has impacted our communities. Visit https://www.organicconsumers.org for more information.

In addition, please talk with your elected officials about glyphosate, especially how the genetic engineering industry is driving the increased use of this herbicide and that this is not a sustainable model to follow for feeding future generations. 

 

Supporters may argue that genetically engineered crops will be the only way that we could possibly feed a growing human population, but this is not a long-term solution. In the initial years, farmers may see increased yield by planting genetically engineered crops, but these are short-term results that will not last. The intensity of the production cannot be sustained and the farmers will have to purchase and apply more and more herbicides and intense fertilizers to their crops, thus also creating a financial hardship on farmers. When you talk with your elected officials about glyphosate, you can ask them to submit their own samples for glyphosate testing—it’s equally important that they know the extent to which glyphosate has accumulated in their water or bodies.

 

The Atlantic Chapter is working with other organizations to push for mandatory labeling of foods made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Please sign our petition at http://newyork.sierraclub.org and urge your elected officials to co-sponsor the bill [Assembly: A.617 (Rosenthal) / Senate: S.485 (LaValle)] and vote for mandatory labeling of food made with GMOs.