regulators and Big AG consider Roundup one of the safest herbicides….oops!!

Scientists call for new review of herbicide, cite ‘flawed’ U.S. regulations

U.S. regulators have relied on flawed and outdated research to allow expanded use of an herbicide linked to cancer, and new assessments should be urgently conducted, according to a column published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.

There are two key factors that necessitate regulatory action to protect human health, according to the column: a sharp increase in herbicide applied to widely planted genetically modified (GMO) crops used in food, and a recent World Health Organization (WHO) determination that the most commonly used herbicide, known as glyphosate, is probably a human carcinogen.

The opinion piece was written by Dr. Philip Landrigan, a Harvard-educated pediatrician and epidemiologist who is Dean for Global Health at the Mount Sinai Medical Centre in New York, and Chuck Benbrook, an adjunct professor at Washington State University’s crops and soil science department.

“There is growing evidence that glyphosate is geno-toxic and has adverse effects on cells in a number of different ways,” Benbrook said. “It’s time to pull back … on uses of glyphosate that we know are leading to significant human exposures while the science gets sorted out.”

The column argues that GMO foods and herbicides applied to them “may pose hazards to human health” not previously assessed.

“We believe that the time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology,” the column states.

The authors also argue that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has erred in recently approving a new herbicide that uses glyphosate because it relied on outdated studies commissioned by the manufacturers and gave little consideration to potential health effects in children.

Glyphosate is best known as the key ingredient in Roundup developed by Monsanto Co (MON.N), one of the world’s most widely used herbicides, but it is used in more than 700 products.

It is sprayed directly over crops like corn genetically engineered to tolerate it and is sometimes used on non-GMO crops, like wheat before harvest. Residues of glyphosate have been detected in food and water.

The WHO’s cancer research unit after reviewing years of scientific research from different countries on March 20 classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

But regulators and agrichemical companies in the United States and other countries still consider glyphosate among the safest herbicides in use.

In July, Monsanto said it had arranged for an outside scientific review of the WHO finding.

from Reuters

(Reporting by Carey Gillam in Kansas City, editing by G Crosse)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/19/health-cancer-herbicide-idUSKCN0QO28D20150819

TE’s Previous Posts on this:

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/how-about-we-let-dow-and-monsanto-poison-our-food-with-agent-orange-and-roundup/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/epa-mo-poisons-mo-money/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/america-the-sick-huge-increase-in-22-chronic-diseases/

Why it’s so hard to pinpoint what causes cancer

From Fortune:

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in herbicides like Roundup, has been identified as “probably” carcinogenic. Here’s why regulators and scientists may never know for sure.

Thirty years ago the Environmental Protection Agency warned that glyphosate–the world’s most widely-used herbicide by volume and the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup–might cause cancer. The EPA never outright banned or limited its use, though, and six years later, in 1991, it reversed that decision and declared it safe based on a lack of “convincing carcinogenicity evidence.”

Today, glyphosate generates nearly $6 billion a year in revenue for Monsanto MON -0.45% and other, generic manufacturers, according to Transparency Market Research. But its potential for harm is back in the spotlight after the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the branch of the World Health Organization that specializes in cancer research, declared in March that it “probably” causes cancer.

This puts glyphosate in the same category as Alar, red dye no. 2 and saccharin — all chemicals that have at one point or another been connected to cancer, but ultimately inconclusively. Some, like red dye no. 2, were banned altogether while others, like saccharin, are still widely used.

IARC’s announcement could present a headache for farmers and manufacturers, alike. Use of glyphosate, which is now available generically, has climbed over the last twenty years due to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, which are genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide. Most corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. come from these genetically protected seeds. The EPA, which has authority to limit the herbicide’s usage, is also currently re-evaluating glyphosate, and said it will consider the IARC’s findings in its own review.

But the controversy also raises a wider question: Why is it so hard to determine whether or not a given chemical is carcinogenic?

Despite what the public might glean from over-simplified headlines, it’s not always easy to derive a direct connection between a chemical and its role in causing cancer. There’s a few reasons for this, but first you need to understand the gold standard for determining carcinogenicity: a controlled clinical study in humans that unequivocally shows an association between exposure to the chemical and the onset of cancer.

That’s best case scenario, but it almost never happens.

“With some chemicals, you have a strong response and others, a weaker,” David Eastmond, a research toxicologist at the University of California, Riverside, told Fortune. “Determining if that is a true effect from the chemical or variation in the population is very difficult to determine.”

To put it in layman’s terms: Individual cancer victims are very different from one another, in ways that make the causes of their cancer very hard to pinpoint. Scientists can’t control for every risk factor when it comes to people. Someone with cancer could get sick from a different disease, or drink more than other study subjects, or may be taking a specific medication — it’s hard to parse out all of the variables to conclusively prove what’s causing what. (Not to mention the moral dilemma of intentionally exposing people to a harmful substance, which is usually not done. Most research into potential carcinogens involves observational studies of people already exposed; thus it’s harder to control for the true dose.)

That’s when scientists turn to animal studies and mechanistic studies (studies that show how a chemical actually causes damage), which have their own challenges and limitations. “Each chemical is unique in terms of the database that it has,” said John Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program, the U.S. agency that evaluates and reports on the toxicity of chemical agents. “In many cases, there’s an insufficient database to make decisions.”

For instance, a chemical may not be the subject of any studies in humans, but there may be very strong evidence of its effect on animals or how it causes damage to a cell’s DNA. “You really have to be an expert in how these studies are carried out before you know how to give credence to each,” he said.

That’s where it becomes a judgment call using the evidence at hand. (Glyphosate is not on the NTP’s list of cancer-causing agents, which like IARC’s list identifies which chemicals are actual, possible and potential carcinogens, and may be considered by regulators in deciding whether to restrict their use.)

“Often times the results that happen don’t give you a clear answer,” said Eastmond. “It gives you one of these shades of grey and then you have to look to other evidence to try to make a decision.”

IARC, made the call after nearly a year of reviewing all three types of studies (human, animal and DNA). An independent group of scientists evaluated glyphosate’s toxic potential and came to the conclusion that it’s “probably” carcinogenic. That conclusion is still a step below a firm cancer-causing determination, “because of limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in animals,” said Kate Guyton, a toxicology expert at IARC.

IARC’s evaluation is simply a hazard assessment, which answers whether the chemical in question has the ability to cause cancer. It doesn’t determine conclusively whether, in reality, it will cause cancer in humans given certain levels or exposures. It is up to regulatory agencies, like the EPA, to complete a risk assessment and determine at what levels it’s safe to use glyphosate; it remains at the discretion of each group within each country to decide what level–if any–is safe.

It’s the same risk-versus-reward decision that regulators have to make everyday. For instance, sunlight, alcohol and diesel exhaust are all known carcinogens. But the EPA and lawmakers have determined safe levels of exposure well short of a ban so that society can reap the benefits of each. The level of danger comes down to dosage, said Eastmond. “We are exposed to carcinogens quite a bit in our daily lives. We try to keep those exposures low, and that’s where we depend on our regulatory agencies,” he said.

Regulators are tasked with determining the right level to limit dangerous exposure while letting the general public reap wider benefits, like a cocktail after work, a day at the beach–or in the case of herbicides and pesticides, a steady food supply.

http://fortune.com/2015/04/15/roundup-monsanto-cancer-link-hard-to-prove/

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “regulators and Big AG consider Roundup one of the safest herbicides….oops!!

  1. If Roundup is so safe why is that guy wearing all that protective gear?

    Liked by 2 people

    • I was thinking the same thing. You see people spraying their yards (where the kids and dogs play) not wearing any protective mask or gloves. I guess because they use it and don’t immediately become ill they think everything is fine.

      Liked by 3 people

    • You ever seen a farmer spray a field that size by hand? Maybe a TE “staff” member dressed up for a photo op.

      Like

  2. The Fortune article is very good at describing the science, but it doesn’t give the background why cancer is singled out as the disease to be used for environmental regulation. The answer is a specific Federal law that gives that specific regulatory authority to the FDA. At the time “the big C” was as scary to people as the H bomb and so cancer and birth defects became privileged above others.

    But cancer medical treatment has greatly improved and its no longer as life affecting as when the law was passed. And preventions like regulation of smoking, asbestos, workplace safety have reduced those cancer risks. And that’s good.

    So now there are many other more serious illnesses like ADHD, Tourette’s, fibromyalgia, lupus, Alzheimer’s, diabetes that are more prevalent and life affecting today. All likely have environmental components in their causes. But they aren’t mentioned in the article simply because FDA has no specific authority to consider them in their regulations.

    So cancer is the only hook on which regulations can be written. And as the article points out, its a soft hook because of the difficulty in linking cancer to causes. If more diseases were included in the law, scientists would have funding to study a broader range of connections between disease and environmental factors.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s