Glyphosate - GBH

Published in Environment

GBH is the acronym for Grievous Bodily Harm, a criminal offence in UK law. It also stands for glyphosate-based herbicides...

In view of the increasing knowledge about the harm which glyphosate can cause, the shared acronym can seem appropriate. Concerns have been voiced by scientists and environmentalists over the safety of GBHs. Much has been written about their possible and known risks. Worries have been multiplying over the years since glyphosate was first introduced in 1974. In 2001, the Pesticide Action Network (UK) published a report highlighting the discrepancies between the manufacturer's claims for the herbicide and its real effects (1). Since then, much more has been observed in practice, and a lot of research has been done, all of it pointing in the same direction, that glyphosate is damaging to humans and the environment (2). In 2009 a report by the Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PANAP) put forward a comprehensive review of the areas of concern, and suggested practical ways of improving the situation (3). In the last several years, scientists have been proving not only that glyphosate-based herbicides can be harmful, but also the mechanisms by which they cause harm.

For more details, please refer to our listing of scientific works in peer-reviewed journals relating to glyphosate and its risks. The list is updated regularly.

Approvals given on unscientific grounds

It is surprising how many supposed experts deny that there is any scientific evidence that herbicides are dangerous. On the contrary, there is plenty, published in a wide variety of respected peer-reviewed journals. I found no evidence that any of it had been properly considered when approval was sought for the pesticides. In fact, approval for glyphosate herbicide use has been given primarily on the basis of laboratory experiments on animals, experiments which were almost exclusively carried out by or on behalf of the agrochemical companies themselves, and which have mostly remained unpublished. There are hundreds of these unpublished studies.

Later reviews by responsible bodies, such as the 2004 World Health Organization document document produced in response to concerns about the high levels of glyphosate residues found in groundwater in Denmark and Greenland, and the report submitted to the EU by rapporteur state Germany in 2014 have largely focussed on whether the protocols for the studies carried out by the agrochemical companies were followed correctly. Reviewing those protocols has been done many times over the past few years. It evades the issues of concern. It is not a guarantee of pesticide safety, and does nothing towards reassuring the public that safety measures are at the forefront of official policies regarding these herbicides.

The effects of glyphosate-based herbicides vary according to specific conditions. In some places, glyphosate-related problems have shown up without room for doubt. This happened, for instance in Sri Lanka, which in 2014, became the first country to ban the sale of Roundup following publication of a report linking glyphosate to chronic kidney disease in rice-producing areas of the country (4). Disappointingly, the ban was not total. Following representations from the plantation lobby, which claimed to rely heavily on herbicides rather than using manual labour, the ban was restricted to those areas where chronic kidney disease was manifestly prevalent.

'Safe limits' in the human food chain?

Glyphosate residues have been found in many different fruits and vegetables, and have even been detected in harvested foodstuffs which were planted several months after the glyphosate application (5).

The authorities responsible for approving glyphosate and other pesticides have set so-called 'safe limits' for the amounts of the pesticides which can be present in the environment and the human food chain. Their assumption is that at these levels the pesticides will not cause harm. The defined limits are extrapolated from animal studies. Each time it turns out that the 'safe limits' have been exceeded, the amounts allowed are raised, apparently arbitrarily.

There are absolutely no scientific grounds for defining what might be a safe limit for human consumption. The only way they could be established realistically would be for all the animal studies to be repeated using humans as the guinea pigs. When new medicines are being researched, the process starts with animal studies in the laboratory, and then moves on to human trials before a medicine is passed for production. Why should poisons which are destined to permeate our soils, water and air, and to enter our food chain, be accepted without this vital second stage of research?

Of course, detailed human testing of the kind that has been done on animals would be unacceptable on ethical grounds. But by allowing the use of pesticides without human trials, everyone exposed to the pesticides, whether knowingly, unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly, has become the human guinea pig for their safety or otherwise. The results in practice show that a great deal of harm is being done.

Scientific evidence against pesticides ridiculed and/or suppressed

Energetic attempts have been made to discredit scientists who have systematically tried to show that pesticides pose risks to human health. Specially virulent attacks were aimed at Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team, who have vigorously rebutted the criticisms and continue to work on identifying the extent of the health risks involved. Under pressure from agrochemical lobbyists, a study they published was retracted by journal editors in 2013, despite the authors standing by their results. The study was republished in 2014.

Complex factors in pesticide use not taken into account

In practice, the effects of GBHs have been shown as more complex and more dangerous than those revealed in the laboratory experiments (1), (6), (7). The European Union regulators have come under fire for allegedly basing approval for glyphosate and Roundup on outdated, industry-sponsored tests while ignoring or suppressing scientific studies revealing the damage caused by Roundup and glyphosate, and for delaying the review of the herbicide, due in 2012, until 2015 (8). In 2013, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which issues the permits for pesticides, raised the levels of glyphosate permissible in oilseed and food crops - despite the fact that there is no proof that any level of herbicide is safe.

Empirical evidence

Scientific evidence takes a long time to accumulate. Practical experience revealed problems very many years ago. In the United Kingdom, for instance, medical specialists were commenting privately on the high incidence among farmers of myalgic encephalomyelitis (M.E., a chronically debilitating disease) back in the 1980s. There was speculation that this might be because of the heavy use of organophosphates, including glyphosate herbicides. In the 1990s, evidence was already accumulating about the harmful effects of glyphosate in practice (9).

My own first experience of glyphosate happened in around 2000, when I picked up a piece of litter from a flower bed in my street in London. I noticed that there was a stickiness on the leaves of the plants I touched, but thought nothing of it, until an hour later, when my hand swelled up and became excruciatingly painful. This hampered my afternoon's work with patients very badly. I contacted my local Council, who told me they had sprayed the flower bed with a herbicide which was "safe enough to drink": Roundup.

It is now known that ingesting Roundup can cause serious problems, including gastrointestinal corrosion, inability to swallow (dysphagia), epigastric pain, kidney and liver impairment, kidney failure, breathing difficulties, reduced consciousness, heart abnormalities and even death (10). These effects are known through observation of what happens when people ingest glyphosate, whether deliberately or unwittingly, or through environmental exposure. Obviously, no 'scientific studies' have been done on humans: it would be unacceptable to give humans poisons to eat or drink in order to see how much would do them harm, and how long it would take. Animal lovers would argue that it is equally unacceptable to perform these painful and destructive experiments on any living creature.

Glyphosate actions and reactions

Glyphosate kills weeds by inhibiting the shikimic acid pathway: shikimic acid is part of a process vital for plant survival. It was thought that this mechanism did not exist in humans (11). However, it is now recognized that the shikimate pathway exists in humans in the regulation of bacteria in the gut, and these gut bacteria are vital for the human immune system (12). Most people are now aware that it is the suppression of vital gut bacteria by the overuse of antibiotics which has led to the rise of the so-called 'superbugs'. Understanding that herbicides can also disrupt vital gut activity is an important step towards understanding how harmful herbicides can be to human health.

Glyphosate use proliferating

Glyphosate has been heavily promoted since its introduction in the 1970s by Agrochemical firm Monsanto, who still market it in the herbicide Roundup (Croatian Cidokor), which was banned in Europe in October 2016. The US patent for glyphosate expired in 2000, allowing other companies to produce GBHs, such as Syngenta, who make Touchdown (Croatian Ouragan). Monsanto had meanwhile broadened the market for GBHs by introducing Glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) genetically engineered crops in 1996. Roundup is now produced in several different formulations and increasing concentrations.

Independent review of glyphosate safety urgently needed

There is more than enough evidence to suggest that there is an urgent need to review the safety of glyphosate in particular and pesticides in general, without basing the review on material submitted by the agrochemical companies, and without allowing intervention by those companies.

1) the risks of glyphosate were underestimated when the product was launched as a herbicide;

2) largely unpublished studies submitted by the agrochemical companies were a poor scientific basis for asserting that glyphosate was 'safe';

3) the process of granting approval for glyphosate as a herbicide was therefore flawed;

4) there has been no long-term scientific study of the effects of glyphosate in the field under different conditions;

5) there is no scientific proof that any level of pesticide ingestion is safe for humans;

6) there is no scientific proof that pesticide use does not harm the environment or wildlife.

BAN PESTICIDES APPROVED UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM!

It is highly debatable whether chemical pesticides are needed at all. At the very least, a new, independent and more stringent approval system should be put in place. The use of pesticides which have been approved under the current system should be suspended pending objective assessments which take into account all the available evidence of possible harm to humans and the natural environment. Pesticide use in the environment should be reconsidered. Alternative methods of controlling unwanted vegetation and insects should be investigated and put to use.

SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR WORRIES ABOUT GLYPHOSATE

Below is a brief summary of some of the scientific evidence relating to the main areas of concern. Most of the references lead to other papers and studies, and of course much more can be found by searching for 'Glyphosate problems' on the Internet, especially through the archives of relevant scientific journals.

GLYPHOSATE AND HUMAN HEALTH CONCERNS

Cancers. Clear laboratory and epidemiological evidence that glyphosate is potentially carcinogenic has been suppressed over many years (13). Glyphosate has been implicated in a number of cancers in humans, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma  (14, 15, 16) and multiple myeloma (17). Glyphosate has been shown to affect human oestrogen receptors, and to cause proliferation in human hormone-dependent breast cancer (18). Apart from consumers or potential consumers, there is particular concern for those who handle pesticides (19).

Birth defects and endocrine disruption. Birth defects have been found in humans (8 (20). Glyphosate has been shown to be an endocrine disruptor in human placenta cells (21, 22, 23). A study on three generations of aquatic snails showed that by the third generation glyphosate had adverse effects on the snails' reproduction and development, which could also have implications for humans (24). Glyphosate has been implicated in the malformations in piglets born in Denmark (25): these findings apparently contradict the assertion "Glyphosate does not cause mutations" in the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in September 1993 (26).

DNA damage. A study on human-derived buccal epithelial cells (taken from inside the mouth) showed that glyphosate and Roundup had cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties (27).

Genotoxic effects. Glyphosate was shown to cause clastogenic and cytotoxic effects in bone marrow cells in mice, resulting in chromosomal damage (28).

Male infertility. In vitro it has been shown that glyphosate and Roundup cause damage to rats' testicular cells (29). Male reproductive functions in rats have been shown to be disrupted by low doses of Roundup (30).

Disruption of the gut bacteria. Glyphosate fed to rats is largely taken up in the gastrointestinal tract (31). It causes depletion of essential minerals and amino acids in dairy cows (32). In humans, glyphosate has been shown to disrupt bacteria in the gut (12).

Possible consequences of gut bacteria disruption include: 

     Crohn's disease (12)

     digestive problems (12)

     obesity (12)

     depression (12)

     Alzheimer's disease (12)

     Parkinson's disease (12) Glyphosate has been strongly linked to Parkinson's disease in humans (33)

     liver conditions (12)

     autism (12) (34)

     cancer (12)

     Coeliac disease (15)

     gluten intolerance (15)

Immune system disruption. A study of 258 dairy cows on 14 farms in Germany showed that animals with a high concentration of glyphosate in their urine revealed changes reflecting an adverse influence on their immune system. (32)

Damage to stomach, liver, kidney, brain, pancreas and spleen. A study on rats showed widespread damage to multiple organs from glyphosate, but also that zinc supplementation beforehand mitigated some of the effects (35).

Kidney damage (15) (4)

Thyroid disease (15)

Neurotoxicity. Roundup has been shown to cause oxidative damage and neurotoxicity in rats (36)


GLYPHOSATE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Damage in soil and crops. Long-term studies have shown that glyphosate has many unpredicted and unwanted effects on the soil and plants. In Canada, glyphosate was found to be a factor in Fusarium infection (a highly damaging fungus) in wheat and barley (37). Field studies conducted over ten years from 1997-2007 on glyphosate-resistant soybean and maize showed that glyphosate application increased the frequency of root-colonizing Fusarium, interfered with microbial groups and functions, and could even serve as a nutrient for plant-destructive fungi (38). Glyphosate was found to have various negative effects, including toxicity to beneficial bacteria such as nitrogen-fixing rhizbia, and possible contamination of groundwater (5).

Damage to plants and trees. Glyphosate weakens plant defences against diseases, with glyphosate-treated crops showing increased disease severity (39). Glyphosate has been found to be damaging to plant growth (40). It can also cause serious damage to trees (41).

Weed resistance. Application of glyphosate-based herbicides has been shown to give rise to resistant weeds (42).

Earthworms. Laboratory tests have shown that glyphosate and another herbicide, 2,4-D, cause significant harm to earthworms (43).

Bees. The damage done to bee colonies, therefore pollination and honey production, through neonicotinoids and pyrethroids has been long established (44). A link between harm to bees and glyphosate has taken longer. A study on the effects of giving bees equivalent doses of glyphosate to those which they might get in the fields showed that their learning functions were impaired, giving rise to the possibility that traces of glyphosate brought into hives by forager bees could accumulate and have a damaging effect on colony performance (45).

In July 2014, s district judge in Yucatán, Mexico, ruled that "co-existence between honey production and GMO [Roundup-ready] soybeans is not possible". The judge's verdict was given on the basis of scientific evidence presented in Court, and resulted in Monsanto's permit for commercial planting of Roundup ready soybeans in Yucatán to be revoked. In March 2014, the Second District Court decreed: "The government secretariats of SAGARP [the Ministry of Agriculture] and SEMARNAT [the Ministry of the Environment] must guarantee that no genetically engineered (GE) soy will be grown in the state of Campeche starting from the 7th March 2014".

Insects. It has long been accepted that glyphosate-based herbicides could and probably would cause harm to insects and birds through damage to their food sources and habitats. This has been proved beyond doubt in the case of the Monarch butterfly (Danaus piexippus), which has shown a sharp decline in numbers which has been directly linked to the destruction of their milkweed breeding habitats (46, 47). 

 

Aquatic ecotoxicity : this document sets out the technical considerations for estimating the toxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides.

Water contamination. It was admitted in the 1993 EPA re-registration document that glyphosate has the potential to contaminate surface water (26, p 37). It has been shown to be capable of reaching groundwater (48). A Mexican study of 23 groundwater sites in agricultural and natural protected areas showed that glyphosate was detected in all the samples, including the natural protected areas where the researchers had not expected to find it. It was found in greater concentration during the dry season, which was as expected (49). An Austrian study showed significant residues of glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA in surface waters and waste water-treatment plants (50). Great concern has been expressed about the persistence of glyphosate in seawater, especially in relation to the Great Barrier Reef (51).

Fish 

Liver damage. A study has established that glyphosate causes moderate to severe liver damage in neotropical fish, Piaractus mesopotamicus, which "may affect the detoxification and/or tissue repair processes and contribute to fish death". (52).

DNA damage and oxidative stress have been found in freshwater fish Channa punctatus through exposure to sub-lethal doses of a glyphosate-based herbicide. (53).

Fish and aquatic invertebrates

Studies showed that under certain conditions a glyphosate-based herbicide could be toxic to aquatic invertebrates, including midge larvae and mayfly nymphs, and freshwater fish, including rainbow trout and bluegills. (54).

To sum up

The amount of glyphosate used across the world is enormous and apparently ever-increasing. From 1974 to 2014, over 1.6 billion kilograms of glyphosate as an active ingredient were applied in the United States, representing 19% of the estimated global use of glyphosate, which amounted to some 8.6 billion kilograms (55). Glyphosate's effects are all-pervasive, its damage impossible to calculate. 

Scientists are proving how and why glyphosate-based herbicides are damaging to human health and the environment. They should not have to do this. Clearly, the studies from which these herbicides were deemed to be safe were inadequate, to say the least. "Safe poison" is an oxymoron. There is every reason to ban glyphosate-based herbicides, in favour of farming and gardening practices which sustain good health in the soil, air and water on which we depend for our vital nutrition.

References

1) Buffin, D., Jewell, T., 2001.Health and environmental impacts of glyphosate: The implications of increased use of glyphosate in association with genetically modified crops. Pub. Friends of the Earth UK. 117 references

2) Krüger, M., Schledorn, P., Schrödl, W., Hoppe, H-W., Lutz, W., Shehata, A.A., 2014. Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans. Journal of Environmental and Anayltical Toxicology 4: 210. 30 references

3) Watts, M., 2009. Glyphosate.  Resport for the Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. 295 references

4) Jayasumana, C., Gunatilake, S., Senanayake, P., 2014. Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 109 references

5) Cox, C., 1995. Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects. Journal of Pesticide Reform 15 (4) 78 references

6) Julius, H., 2002.The Glyphosate threat 1: environmental issues. Pub. Friends of the Earth, available on The Rivermouth Action Group Inc. website. 98 references

7) Julius, H., 2002.The Glyphosate threat 2: health issues. Pub. Friends of the Earth, available on the Rivermouth Action Group Inc. website. 16 references

8) Antoniou, M., Ezz El-Din Mostafa Habib, M., Howard, C. V., Jennings, R.C., Leifert, C., Nodari, R.O., Robinson, C., Fagan, J.. June 2011. Roundup and birth defects. Is the public being kept in the dark?  Pub. Earth Open Source. 358 references

9) Pesticide Action Network, 1996. Glyphosate fact sheet. Pesticide News 33: 28-29. 11 references

10) Bradberry, S.M., Proudfoot, A.T., Vale, J.A., 2004. Glyphosate poisoning. Toxicological Reviews 23 (3) 159-167. 51 references 

11) Cotton, S., 2014 Soundbite molecules - glyphosate. Royal Society of Chemistry online magazine.

12) Samsel, Anthony, Seneff, Stephanie, 2013. Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Entropy 15: 1416-1463. 286 references

13) Ho, M.W., 2014. Glyphosate and Cancer. Institute of Science in Society Report 26.3.2014. 34 references

14) Eriksson, M., Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., Akerman, M., 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. International Journal of Cancer 123: 1657-1663. 41 references

15) Samsel, Anthony & Seneff, Stephanie 2013. Glyphosate, pathways to Modern Diseases II: Celiac Sprue and Gluten Intolerance. Interdisciplinary Toxicology 6 (4) 159-184. 270 references
 
16) Schinasi, L., Leon, M.E., 2014. Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Occupational Exposure to Agricultural Pesticide Chemical Groups and Active Ingredients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11 (4): 4449-4527. 77 references

17) De Roos, A.J., Blair, A., Rusiecki, J.A., Hoppin, J.A., Svec, M., Dosemeci, M., Sandler, D.P., Alavanja, M.C., 2005. Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health study. Environmental Health Perspectives 113 (1) 49-54. 56 references

18) Thongprakalsang, S., Thiantanawat, A., Rangkadilok N., Suriyo, T., Satayavivad, J., 2013. Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via oestrogen receptors. Food & Chemical Toxicology 59: 129-136

19) Alavanja, M.C.R., Ross, M.K., Bonner, M.R., 2013. Increased Cancer Burden Among Pesticide Applicators and Others Due to Pesticide Exposure. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 63 (2): 120-142. 186 references

20) Garry, V.F., Harkins, M.E., Erickson, L.L., Long-Simpson, L.K., Holland, S.E., Burroughs, B.L., 2002. Birth Defects, Season of Conception, and Sex of Children Born to Pesticide Applicators Living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (Suppl 3) 441-449. 69 references

21) Richard, S., Moslemi, S., Sipahular, H., Benachour, N., Séralini, G-E., 2005. Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placenta and Aromatase. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113 (6) 716-720. 38 references

22) Benachour, N., Sipahular, H., Moslemi, S., Gasnier, C., Travert, C., Séralini, G.E., 2007. Time- and dose-dependent effects of Roundup on Human embryonic and placental cells. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 53 (1): 126-133. 42 references

23) Gasnier, C., Dumont, C., Benachour, N., Clair, E., Chagnon, M.C., Séralini, G.E. 2009. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology 262 (3) : 184-191. 94 references

24) Tate, T.M., Spurlock, J.O., Christian, F.A. 1997. Effect of Glyphosate on the Development of Pseudosuccinea columella Snails. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 33 (3) 286-289

25) Kruger, M, Schrodl, Wieland, Pedersen, Ib, & Shehata, A. A., 2014. Detection of Glyphosate in Malformed Piglets. Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, 4:230 4 references

26) EPA Reregistration Decision: Glyphosate. EPA 738-R-93-014. September 1993, page 2. Bibliography: 281 entries, comprising 7 published papers, 228 unpublished papers submitted by Monsanto, 38 unpublished papers from other sources, 4 letters and 4 official statements / documents.

27) Koller, V.J., Fürhacker, M., Nersesyan, A., Mišik, M., Eisenbauer, M., Knasmueller, S., 2012. Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells. Archives of Toxicology 86 (5): 805-813. 47 references

28) Prasad, S., Srivastava, S., Singh, M., Shukla, Y., 2009. Clastogenic Effects of Glyphosate in Bone Marrow Cells of Swiss Albino Mice. Journal of Toxicology (2009) 308985. 39 references

29) Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Travert, C., Séralini, G.E., 2012. A glyphosate-based herbicide induces apoptosis in mature rat cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicology in vitro 26: 269-279. 61 references

30) de Liz Oliveira Cavalli, V.L., Cattani, D., Heinz Rieg, C.E., Pierozan, P., Zanatta, L., Parisotto, E.B., Filho D.W.., Mena Barreto Silva, F.R., Pessoa-Pureur, R., Zamoner, A., 2013. Roundup disrupts male reproductive functions by triggering calcium-mediated cell death in rat testis and Sertoli cells. Free Radical Biology and Medicine 65: 335-346. 80 references

31) Brewster, D.W., Warren, J.,Hopkins, W.E., 1991. Metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats: Tissue distribution, identification, and quantification of glyphosate-derived materials following a single oral dose. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 43-51 

32) Schrödl, W., Krüger, S., Konstantinova-Müller, T., Shehata, A., Rulff, R., Krüger, M., 2014. Possible Effects of Glyphosate on Mucorales Abundance in the Rumen of Dairy Cows in Germany. Current Microbiology 69 (6) 817-823. 40 references 

33) Barbosa E.R., da Costa, L., Bacheschi, L.A., Scaff, M., Leite, C.C., 2001. Parkinsonism after glycine-derivate exposure. Movement Disorders 16 (3): 565-568

34) de Cock, M., Maas, Y.G., van de Bor, M., 2012. Does perinatal exposure to endocrine disruptors induce autism spectrum and attention deficit hyperactivity disorders? Review. Acta Paediatrica 101 (8): 811-888. 55 references

35) Tizhe, E.V., Onyebuche, I.I., George, B.D.J., Ambali, S.F., Shallangwa, J.M., 2014. Influence of zinc supplementation on histopathological changes in the stomach, liver, kidney, brain, pancreas and spleen during subchronic exposure of Wistar rats to glyphosate. Comparative Clinical Pathology 23 (5): 1535-1543 (published online October 2013) 32 references

36) Cattani, D., de Liz Oliveira Cavalli V.L., Rieg, C.E.H., Dominques, J.T., Dal-Cim, T., Tasca, C.I., Barreto Silva, F.R.M., Zamoner, A., 2014. Mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in immature rat hippocampus: involvement of glutamate excitoxicity. Toxicology 320 (5): 34-45. 

37) Fernandez, M.R., Zentner, R.P., Basnyat, P., Gehl, D., Selles, F., Huber, D., 2009. Glyphosate associations with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian prairies. European Journal of Agronomy 31: 133-143. 63 references 

38) Kremer, R.J., Means, N.E., 2009. Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop interactions with rhizosphere microorganisms. European Journal of Agronomy 31 (3) 153-161. 

39) Johal, G.S., Huber, D.M., 2009. Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants. European Journal of Agronomy 31 (3): 144-152. 

40) Bott, S., Tesfamariam, T., Candan, H., Cakmak, I., Römheld, V., Neumann, G., 2008. Glyphosate-induced impairment of plant growth and micronutrient status in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Plant and Soil 312 (1-2): 185-194

41) Feucht, J.R. 1988. Herbicide injuries to trees - symptoms and solutions. Journal of Arboriculture 14 (9) 215-219 (page 217). 8 references

42) Hawkes, T.R., Lorraine-Colwill, D.F., Williams, P.H., Warner, S.A.J., Sutton, P.B., Powles, S.B., Preston, C., 1999. Resistance to Glyphosate in a Population of Lolium Rigidum. Plant Biotechnology and in vitro Biology in the 21st Century. Current Plant Science and Biotechnology in Agriculture. 36: 491-494 10 references

43) Correia, F.V., Moreira, J.C., 2010. Effects of Glyphosate and 2,4-D on Earthworms (Eisenia foetida) in Laboratory Tests. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 85 (3): 264-268

44) Gill, R.J., Ramos-Rodriguez, O., Raine, N.E., 2012 Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491: 105-108. 40 references, 20 supplementary references

45) Herbert, L.T., Vázquez, D.E., Arenas, A., Farina, W.M., 2014. Effects of field-realistic doses of glyphosate on honeybee appetite behaviour. Journal of Experimental Biology 217: 3457-3464

46) Sirinathsinghji, E., 2011. Glyphosate and Monarch Butterfly Decline. Report for the Institute of Scientists in Society, 19/9/2011.

47) Pleasants, J.M., Oberhauser, K.S., 2012. Milkweed loss  in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6 (2): 135-144. 33 references

48) Sanchis,J., Kantiani, L., Llorca, M., Rubio, F., Ginebreda, A., Fraile, J., Garrido, T., Farré, M., 2012. Determination of glyphosate in groundwater samples using an ultrasensitive immunoassay and confirmation by on-line solid-phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 402 (7) 2336-2345. 25 references

49) Ruiz-Toledo, J., Castro, R., Rivéro-Perez, N., Bello-Mendoza, R., Sánchez, D., 2014. Occurrence of Glyphosate in Water Bodies Derived from Intensive Agriculture in a Tropical Region of Southern Mexico. Bulletin of Envirnomental Contamination and Toxicology 93 (3): 289-293. 47 references

50) Popp, M., Hann, S., Mentler, A., Fuerhacker, M., Stingeder, G., Koellensperger, G., 2008. Determination of glyphosate and AMPA in surface and waste water using high-performance ion chromatography coupled to inductively coupled plasma dynamic reaction celll  mass spectrometry (HPIC-ICP-DRC-MS). Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 391 (2): 695-699. 16 references

51) Mercurio, P., Flores, F., Mueller, J.F., Carter, S., Negri, A.P., 2014. Glyphosate persistence in seawater. Marine Pollution Bulletin 85 (2) 385-390. 53 references

52) Shiogiri, N.S., Paulino, M.G., Carraschi, S.P., Baraldi, F.G., da Cruz, C.,Fernandes, M.N., 2012. Acute exposure of a glyphosate-herbicide affects the gills and liver of the Neotropical fish, Piaractus mesopotamicus. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 34 (2) 388-396

53) Nwani, C.D., Nagpure, N.S., Kumar, R., Kushwaha, B., Lakra, W.S., 2013. DNA damage and oxidative stress modulatory effects of glyphosate-based herbicide in freshwater fish Channa punctatus. environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 36 (2) 539-547. 15 references

54) Folmar, L.C., Sanders, H.O., Julin, A.M. 1979. Toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate and several of its formulations to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 8 (3) 269-278. 9 references

55) Benbrook, C.M. 2016. Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environmental Sciences Europe 28 Article no. 3. 89 references

© Vivian Grisogono 2014, updated 2019. 

Media

You are here: Home poisons be aware Environment Glyphosate - GBH

Eco Environment News feeds

  • Government should point to evidence of FSA licensing of additive, says chair of environment and climate change committee

    The government must urgently reassure consumers that feed additives given to cattle to reduce methane emissions are harmless, and a vital tool in tackling the climate crisis, the chair of an influential parliamentary committee has warned.

    Lady Sheehan, chair of the environment and climate change committee of the House of Lords, called on ministers to step up as a row has blown up over the prospective use of the additive Bovaer in British dairy herds supplying Arla, the dairy company.

    Continue reading...

  • An area nearly a third larger than India turned permanently arid in past three decades, research shows

    An area of land nearly a third larger than India has turned from humid conditions to dryland – arid areas where agriculture is difficult – in the past three decades, research has found.

    Drylands now make up 40% of all land on Earth, excluding Antarctica. Three-quarters of the world’s land suffered drier conditions in the past 30 years, which is likely to be permanent, according to the study by the UN Science Policy Interface, a body of scientists convened by the United Nations.

    Continue reading...

  • Filter performs well in removing plastic pollution from water and Chinese researchers say it appears to be scalable

    A sponge made of cotton and squid bone that has absorbed about 99.9% of microplastics in water samples in China could provide an elusive answer to ubiquitous microplastic pollution in water across the globe, a new report suggests.

    Just as importantly, the filter’s production appears to be scalable, the University of Wuhan study authors said in the paper, which was peer-reviewed and published in the journal Science Advances. That would address a problem that has stymied the use of previous microplastic filtration systems that were successful in controlled settings, but could not be scaled up.

    Continue reading...

  • Tooting, London: The ferruginous duck at my local-ish pond is likely an escapee, meaning hardcore birders might not bother with it. But not I

    A day of incipient winter, sun bright in sharp blue sky. Hat and gloves weather. Tooting Common pond is home to ducks and geese and swans (oh my!) – what a birding friend dismissively calls “the usual rubbish”. But for a few weeks now there has been a glamorous addition, a rarity, flown in from wherever to bestow a hint of the exotic on these everyday urban surroundings.

    A ferruginous duck – “fudge duck” for short, the nickname felicitously combining abbreviation and a succinct description of the bird’s colour. Reports say that it’s a first-winter female “of unknown origin”. This is code for “probably escaped from a wildfowl collection but without a leg ring we can’t be certain”. Hardcore birders, valuing the truly wild above all else, might sniff at an escapee, but a bird is a bird. Besides, I have never seen a ferruginous duck, and while I wouldn’t usually make a special journey for a sighting, this is merely a short extension of my daily walk. It would be rude not to.

    Continue reading...

  • Energy company’s deal with Japan’s Jera will allow it to focus on exploiting oil and gas assets

    BP has agreed a deal worth up to £4.5bn to build offshore windfarms with Japan’s biggest power producer, in a shift that will allow it to gain some access to zero-carbon wind energy while focusing on fossil fuels.

    The FTSE 100 company will create a 50-50 joint-venture with the Japanese power generator Jera to combine their offshore wind assets, the companies announced on Monday.

    Continue reading...

  • Conservation groups join those who helped plant woodland in opposing expansion of bottling plant

    Harrogate Spring Water, which is owned by the multinational Danone, is planning to cut down a wood planted by schoolchildren in order to expand its bottling factory in the North Yorkshire town.

    Two primary schools, along with other local volunteers, helped to plant 450 trees in a project aimed at fighting climate breakdown organised by the Rotary Club of Harrogate almost 20 years ago.

    Continue reading...

  • An alliance of political groups is harnessing real fears about the local impact of wind and solar farms – and using them to spruik nuclear power

    The entrance is marked by an AI-generated image of a dead whale, floating among wind turbines. On the first floor of the East Maitland bowling club, dire warnings are being shared about how offshore wind may impact the Hunter region – alongside a feeling of not being consulted, of being steamrolled.

    “Environment and energy forums” like this one in late November have been held up and down the east of Australia, aiming to build a resistance to the country’s renewable energy transition.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

    Continue reading...

  • Researchers mapped brick kilns across India and used climate models to forecast the levels of heat stress workers face between now and 2050

    • Photographs by Ishan Tankha

    “I work with fire. But this has been the hottest ever, even for me,” says Harilal Rajput, squinting in the blazing midday sun. Rajput, 41, is a chief fire worker at a brick kiln near the town of Danapur on the outskirts of Patna, capital of the eastern state of Bihar. He is a migrant worker; his wife, a farmer, lives in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh with their three children.

    It is almost 1pm on a June afternoon and neither Rajput nor the nine fire workers he supervises have had any food since the previous night. They will eat only when their eight-hour shift ends at about 4pm. His team, he says, is “running on water”.

    Continue reading...

  • Investigation uncovers how chemicals like diquat, banned in the UK but legal to export, are causing health problems in the global south

    Valdemar Postanovicz was at home after a day tending to his tobacco crop when his limbs seized up. “All of the right side of my body was paralysed. I couldn’t feel my foot and my hand. My mouth twisted to the right,” he says.

    He feared it was a stroke. In fact, he was suffering ­symptoms of acute ­pesticide poisoning. Postanovicz, 45, had absorbed Reglone, a powerful herbicide based on the chemical diquat. “It was only one time in my life, but I felt so sick,” he says.

    Continue reading...

  • Carbon-positive farming is a simple concept: remove carbon from the atmosphere and put it into the soil. How can it work for back yard gardens?

    My vegetable garden is a jungle. The grass is waist-high, the weeds have consumed my gardening tools and representatives from all classes of the animal kingdom – possibly also a jabberwocky – are enjoying a comfortable existence in there, eating my salad greens and each other.

    Letting things go feral seemed like a good idea. I had recently learned about carbon-positive agriculture, sometimes called carbon farming, and wanted to apply those principles on a smaller suburban scale in my Blue Mountains vegetable and fruit-growing endeavours. The goal: ever more luscious tomatoes, enormous zucchini, sweet raspberries and bushels of tart, juicy apples.

    Sign up for the fun stuff with our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning

    Continue reading...

Eco Health News feeds

Eco Nature News feeds

  • An unheralded breakthrough at the recent UN biodiversity conference highlights the often-overlooked connection between our health and the planet’s, a Conservation International expert says.

  • A recent study on climate solutions downplays nature’s potential, two Conservation International experts say.

  • A new study found that seaweed forests may play a bigger role in fighting climate change than previously thought — absorbing as much climate-warming carbon as the Amazon rainforest. But not all seaweed forests are created equal.

  • For the conscientious consumer, finding the perfect present can be a challenge. Not to worry, Conservation International's 2024 gift guide has you covered.

  • A Conservation International scientist shares what can be done to prevent an ‘outright alarming’ future for whale sharks.

  • A new Conservation International study measures the cooling effects of forests against extreme heat — with eye-opening results.

  • EDITOR’S NOTE:Few places on Earth are as evocative — or as imperiled — as the vast grasslands of sub-Saharan Africa. In a new Conservation News series, “Saving the Savanna,” we look at how communities are working to protect these places — and the wildlife within.

    MARA NORTH CONSERVANCY, Kenya — Under a fading sun, Kenya’s Maasai Mara came alive.

    A land cruiser passed through a wide-open savanna, where a pride of lions stirred from a day-long slumber. Steps away, elephants treaded single-file through tall grass, while giraffes peered from a thicket of acacia trees. But just over a ridge was a sight most safari-goers might not expect — dozens of herders guiding cattle into an enclosure for the night. The herders were swathed in vibrant red blankets carrying long wooden staffs, their beaded jewelry jingling softly.

    Maasai Mara is the northern reach of a massive, connected ecosystem beginning in neighboring Tanzania’s world-famous Serengeti. Unlike most parks, typically managed by local or national governments, these lands are protected under a wildlife conservancy — a unique type of protected area managed directly by the Indigenous People who own the land.

    Conservancies allow the people that live near national parks or reserves to combine their properties into large, protected areas for wildlife. These landowners can then earn income by leasing that land for safaris, lodges and other tourism activities. Communities in Maasai Mara have created 24 conservancies, protecting a total of 180,000 hectares (450,000 acres) — effectively doubling the total area of habitat for wildlife in the region, beyond the boundaries of nearby Maasai Mara National Reserve.

    “It's significant income for families that have few other economic opportunities — around US$ 350 a month on average for a family. In Kenya, that's the equivalent of a graduate salary coming out of university,” said Elijah Toirai, Conservation International’s community engagement lead in Africa.

    © Jon McCormack

    Lions tussle in the tall grass of Mara North Conservancy.

    But elsewhere in Africa, the conservancy model has remained far out of reach.

    “Conservancies have the potential to lift pastoral communities out of poverty in many African landscapes. But starting a conservancy requires significant funding — money they simply don't have,” said Bjorn Stauch, senior vice president of Conservation International’s nature finance division.

    Upfront costs can include mapping out land boundaries, removing fences that prevent the movement of wildlife, eradicating invasive species that crowd out native grasses, creating firebreaks to prevent runaway wildfires, as well building infrastructure like roads and drainage ditches that are essential for successful safaris. Once established, conservancies need to develop management plans that guide their specified land use for the future.

    Conservation International wanted to find a way for local communities to start conservancies and strengthen existing ones. Over the next three years, the organization aims to invest millions of dollars in new and emerging conservancies across Southern and East Africa. The funds will be provided as loans, which the conservancies will repay through tourism leases. This financing will jumpstart new conservancies and reinforce those already in place. The approach builds on an initial model that has proven highly effective and popular with local communities.

    “We’re always looking for creative new ways to pay for conservation efforts that last,” Stauch said. “This is really a durable financing mechanism that puts money directly in the pockets of those who live closest to nature — giving them a leg up. And it’s been proven to work in the direst circumstances imaginable.”

    © Will McCarry

    Elijah Toirai explains current conservancy boundaries and potential areas for expansion.

    Creativity from crisis

    In 2020, the entire conservancy model almost collapsed overnight.

    “No one thought that the world could stop in 24 hours,” said Kelvin Alie, senior vice president and acting Africa lead for Conservation International. “But then came the pandemic, and suddenly Kenya is shutting its doors on March 23, 2020. And in the Mara, this steady and very well-rounded model based on safari tourism came to a screeching halt.”

    Tourism operators, who generate the income to pay landowners' leases, found themselves without revenue. Communities faced a difficult choice: replace the lost income by fencing off their lands for grazing, converting it to agriculture, or selling to developers — each of which would have had drastic consequences for the Maasai Mara’s people and wildlife.

    © Will Turner

    A black-backed jackal hunts for prey.

    “But then the nature finance team at Conservation International — these crazy guys — came up with a wild idea,” Alie said. “In just six months they put this entirely new funding model together: loaning money at an affordable rate to the conservancies so that they can continue to pay staff and wildlife rangers.”

    Conservation International and the Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association launched the African Conservancies Fund — a rescue package to offset lost revenues for approximately 3,000 people in the area who rely on tourism income. Between December 2020 and December 2022, the fund provided more than US$ 2 million in affordable loans to four conservancies managing 70,000 hectares (170,000 acres).

    The loans enabled families in the Maasai Mara to continue receiving income from their lands to pay for health care, home repairs, school fees and more. And because tourism revenues — not government funding — support wildlife protection in conservancies, this replacement funding ensured wildlife patrols continued normally, with rangers working full time.

    Born out of this emergency, we discovered a new way to do conservation.

    Elijah Toirai

    “The catastrophe of COVID-19 was total for us,” said Benard Leperes, a landowner with Mara North Conservancy and a conservation expert at Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association. “Without Conservation International and the fund, this landscape would have not been secured; the conservancies would have disintegrated as people were forced to sell their land to convert it to agriculture.”

    But it was communities themselves that proved the model might be replicable after the pandemic ended.

    “The conservancies had until 2023 before the first payment was due,” Toirai said. “But as soon as tourism resumed in mid-2021, the communities started paying back the loans. Today, the loans are being repaid way ahead of schedule.”

    “Born out of this emergency, we discovered a new way to do conservation.”

    A new era for conservation

    The high plateaus overlooking the Maasai Mara are home to the very last giant pangolins in Kenya.

    These mammals, armored with distinctive interlocking scales, are highly endangered because of illegal wildlife trade. In Kenya, threats from poaching, deforestation and electric fences meant to deter elephants from crops have caused the species to nearly disappear. Today, scientists believe there could be as few as 30 giant pangolins left in Kenya.

    Conservancies could be crucial to bringing them back. Conservation International has identified opportunities to provide transformative funding for conservancies in this area — a sprawling grassland northwest of Maasai Mara that is the very last pangolin stronghold in the country. The fund will help communities better protect an existing 10,000-hectare (25,000-acre) conservancy and bring an additional 5,000 hectares under protection. It provides a safety net, ensuring a steady income for the communities as the work of expanding the conservancy begins. With a stable income, communities can start work to restore the savanna and remove electric fences that have killed pangolins. And as wildlife move back into the ecosystem, the grasslands will begin to recover.

    In addition to expanding conservancies around Maasai Mara, Conservation International has identified other critical ecosystems where community conservancies can help lift people out poverty, while providing new habitats for wildlife. Conservation International has ambitious plans to restore a critical and highly degraded savanna between Amboseli and Tsavo National Parks in southern Kenya, as well as a swath of savanna outside Kruger National Park in South Africa.

    © Emily Nyrop

    A lone acacia tree in a sea of grass.

    Elephants, fire, Maasai and cattle

    Many of the new and emerging community conservancies have been carefully chosen as key wildlife corridors that would be threatened by overgrazing livestock.

    When the first Maasai Mara conservancies were established in 2009, cattle grazing was prohibited within their boundaries. When poorly managed, cattle can wear grasses down to their roots, triggering topsoil erosion and the loss of nutrients, microbes and biodiversity vital for soil health. It was also believed that tourists would be put off by the sight of livestock mingling with wildlife.

    © Emily Nyrop

    Cattle are closely monitored in the Maasai Mara to prevent overgrazing.

    However, over the years, landowners objected, lamenting the loss of cultural ties to cattle and herding. “That was when we changed tactics,” said Raphael Kereto, the grazing manager for Mara North Conservancy.

    Beginning in 2018, Mara North and other conservancies in the region started adopting livestock grazing practices to restore the savanna. Landowners agreed to periodically move livestock between different pastures, allowing grazed lands to recover and regrow,  mimicking the traditional methods pastoralists have used on these lands for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

    “Initially, there was a worry that maybe herbivores and other wildlife will run away from cattle,” said Kereto. “But we have seen the exact opposite — the wildlife all follow where cattle are grazing. This is because we have a lot of grass, and all the animals follow where there is a lot of grass. We even saw a cheetah with a cub that spent all her time rotating with wildlife.”

    “It's amazing — when we move cattle, the cheetah comes with it.”

    The loans issued by the fund — now called the African Conservancies Facility — will enhance rotational grazing systems, which are practiced differently in each conservancy, by incorporating best practices and lessons from the organization’s Herding for Health program in southern Africa.

    © Will Turner

    An elephant herd stares down a pack of hyenas.

    For landowners like Dickson Kaelo, who was among the pioneers to propose the conservancy model in Kenya, the return of cattle to the ecosystem has restored a natural order.

    “I always wanted to understand how it was that there was so much more wildlife in the conservancies than in Maasai Mara National Reserve,” said Kaelo, who heads the Kenya Wildlife Conservancy Association, based in Nairobi.

    “I went to the communities and asked them this question. They told me savannas were created by elephants, fire and Maasai and cattle, and excluding any one of those is not good for the health of the system. So, I believe in the conservancies — I know that every single month, people go to the bank and they have some money, they haven't lost their culture because they still are cattle keepers, and the land is much healthier, with more grass, more wildlife, and the trees have not been cut.

    “For me, it’s something really beautiful.”


    Further reading:

    Will McCarry is the content director at Conservation International. Want to read more stories like this? Sign up for email updates. Also, please consider supporting our critical work.

  • Conservation International is helping recover a savanna habitat nearly twice the size of Manhattan.

  • “Nature is resilient — when given the chance.” A Conservation International study shows where trees can grow back on their own — and fight climate change.

  • "Before, we were working blind": A new Conservation International study gives scientists an unprecedented view into a remote tropical forest.