A widely-used herbicide which accounts for 48% of the Malaysian market in pesticides may not be safe to use.  A recent study which shows clear links between exposure to the herbicide  glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), a form of cancer that afflicts the lymphatic system, has caused worldwide concern over the safety of the herbicide on humans.

Subject: Is Roundup Killing More Than the Weeds?-----
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:17:54 -0400
From:     StephenTvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To:     Lyndon Hawkins <hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov>

Lyndon - I thought you might like to read an article from The Sun (Malaysia), Friday August 20, 1999:
 

Concerns Over Glyphosate Use

Monsanto and PAN are embroiled in a hot debate over safety of a widely-used herbicide.  S.Puvaneswary has both sides of the story.

A widely-used herbicide which accounts for 48% of the Malaysian market in pesticides may not be safe to use.  A recent study which shows clear links between exposure to the herbicide  glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), a form of cancer that afflicts the lymphatic system, has caused worldwide concern over the safety of the herbicide on humans.

The study was conducted by eminent oncologists Dr Lennart  Hardell  and Dr  Mikael Eriksson of Sweden and published in the journal  Cancer by the American Cancer Society on March 15.

It maintains that exposure to glyphosate "yielded increased risks for NHL". "What these scientists unearthed is indicative of the long-term chronic effects of pesticides", said Sarojeni V. Rengam, executive director, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Asia and the  Pacific. "In this case, where there are serious implications to human health, the  precautionary principle must apply," she said.  "We have to take precautions against using these dangerous chemicals."

The widely-used herbicide glyphosate indiscriminately kills off a wide variety of weeds after application and is primarily used to control annual and perennial plants.

PAN has called on the government to look at its regulatory standards on glyphosate residues because if such monitoring is not immediately done, the health of Malaysians would be at risk as glyphosate accounts for about 48% of the Malaysian market in pesticides, according to AGROW Crop Protection Report, 1996.

The Hardell study is the centre of a debate between Monsanto, which refutes its findings, and PAN which upholds the study. The US firm manufactures Roundup, a glyphosate herbicide.

The arguments and counter-arguments of both parties relating to the study were sent to the SUN.
 

Monsanto's Argument:

Previous evaluations conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest that glyphosate is not mutagenic or carcinogenic. WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have approved the safety of glyphosate residues in genetically-engineered Roundup Ready soya beans.
 

PAN's Counter Argument:

The EPA and WHO evaluations were done more than five years ago and are based mainly on data submitted to them by Monsanto. These evaluations did conclude that "there is no evidence of mutagenicity or carcinogenicity" based on the available data, but they do not support definitive assertions that glyphosate "is not mutagenic or carcinogenic".  (Nor did they look at the entire poison formula, contaminants and/or synergistic effects.)  Previous EPA and WHO evaluations which made similar claims for other chemicals had to be revised as new evidence came to light.   The establishment of the WHO's Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is based on limited studies using limited parameters which do not account for vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, the  sick and other groups that might have increased susceptibility to glyphosate exposure.
 

Monsanto's Argument:

Well-characterised scientific literature reviewing over 1,000 studies over the last 25 years demonstrates that extraordinary safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient of roundup herbicide.  (Lyndon, I thought it was against the Federal Law to say even the labeled use of any economic poison was "safe" - obviously this does not apply to the poison producers.)
 

PAN's Counter Argument:

There are very few independent studies on glyphosate available in published scientific literature and no responsible reviewer of health science literature, health scientist, or toxicologist would claim "extraordinary safety" for glyphosate.  Data from independent sources indicate serious concerns about glyphosate  toxicity.  In 1995, the National Poisons Centre reported an increase of glyphosate poisonings in Malaysia. In the UK, it was reported that glyphosate was the most frequent cause of complaints and incidents  from pesticides recorded by the Health and Safety Executive.
 

Monsanto's Argument:

The epidemiology study conducted by oncologists Hardell and Eriksson did not find statistically significant associations between NHL and reported  cases of fungicides and herbicides.  Reported use of glyphosate, along with reported use of several other herbicides showed a weak, not statistically significant association with NHL.
 

PAN's Counter Argument:

A weak association is an association nevertheless, and could be statistically significant given that 211 million kg of glyphosate were used last year and the volume is growing at an average of  20% per year.  The Hardell study observed a positive association between exposure to glyphosate and NHL, in which, chance and bias could be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
 

Monsanto's Argument:

Exposure to glyphosate is not likely to be meaningful.  Exposure opportunity is almost exclusively through dermal contact.  Glyphosate has shown very low skin penetrability in experimental studies.
 

PAN's Counter Argument:

Scientific principles, particularly toxicokinetics, must apply.  The exposed person will be subjected to risks of adverse effects, known or unknown.  Even if the chemical has low vapor pressure, appreciable inhalation exposure can occur since micro-droplets can form and particulates can be carried by movement of air.  Oral intake can also occur through contaminated food or water.  The fact that glyphosate is a systemic herbicide and persists in the environment for a relatively long period of time (as long as 3 years in soil) makes it likely to enter the body through residues (contamination) in food and water. Residues are unlikely to be removed from plant tissues and use of glyphosate in animal feed can result in residues in animal food products such as meat, milk and eggs. Residues are stable to up to one year in plant materials and water and up to two years in animal products in storage.

Finally PAN upholds the right of farmers, workers and consumers to be informed, and to have access to all the information on poisons that they are using, spraying, and possibly consuming.

In its statement to the SUN, PAN upholds the right of people to make informed choices on what they may be exposed to, and whether they are willing to be exposed to these chemicals.

-------------------------- Article ENDS ------------------------

PAN Asia Pacific
P.O. Box 1170
10850 Penang
Malaysia
Tel.:   604-6570271
        604-6560381
Fax.:   604-6577445
http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap

Well Lyndon, it certainly appears to me (and others) that Round-up is killing more than weeds.  When will it be "legal" in your opinion to use safer alternatives in California?  Respectfully,  Stephen L. Tvedten.

---

[Pesticide Poisoning and Kids] * [Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning]