Welcome to iGrow News, Your Source for the World of Indoor Vertical Farming
New EPA Finding: Glyphosate Harms 93 Percent of Endangered Species
Over 93 percent of endangered species and 96 percent of their habitats are likely to be harmed by glyphosate, the ubiquitous and controversial herbicide, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported in a draft evaluation released last week
by Sam Bloch
12.02.2020
Another task for Biden’s first 100 days—whether to rein in the controversial herbicide.
Over 93 percent of endangered species and 96 percent of their habitats are likely to be harmed by glyphosate, the ubiquitous and controversial herbicide, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported in a draft evaluation released last week.
The evaluation was conducted as part of a registration review—the agency’s routine process for renewing herbicides, pesticides, and other chemicals for use in the United States every 15 years. An interim decision, released in January, paved the way for the chemical’s renewal, which EPA said was safe to humans if used correctly. But the agency must now assess the herbicide’s impact on nearly 1,800 protected plants and animals, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This law prohibits federal agencies from engaging in actions likely to “jeopardize the continued existence” of threatened or endangered species.
The initial findings are now open for 60 days of public review, after which the EPA will decide how to limit the use of the pesticide, in order to protect those plants and animals. Because of that timing, a decision to rein in the most popular farm chemical in the history of the world could be among President-elect Biden’s first environmental actions. After years in which the Trump administration rolled back regulations on pesticides, and shrank the number of animals protected under the ESA, it could signal that a chastened EPA—reportedly in revolt—is coming back to life.
“This is indeed interesting and out of character. Perhaps this is a rare moment that science was followed.”
“This is indeed interesting and out of character,” said Judith Enck, a former EPA regional administrator appointed by President Obama, in an email to The Counter. “Perhaps this is a rare moment [that] science was followed.”
The impacts on endangered species are the latest finding in the long, controversial life of glyphosate. The chemical is used widely on farm fields—about 280 million pounds applied every year to soybeans, corn, cotton, and other crops, according to EPA. It’s also used heavily to control weeds in watersheds, pastures, forests, and roadsides.
For the last two years, glyphosate has been at the center of thousands of lawsuits brought against Bayer, the pharmaceutical giant that took over Monsanto. Bayer produces Roundup, the weedkiller’s most popular brand name. Juries have awarded billions of dollars in damages to plaintiffs in court cases who claimed that glyphosate caused their cancers. In June, Bayer agreed to pay $10.5 billion to settle the remaining cases.
Farmers continue to use the weedkiller at soaring levels, despite mounting evidence that overuse is causing it to become ineffective.
The question of how dangerous it is to human health remains unsettled. As part of its interim review, the EPA found that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, but the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, has concluded it probably is. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also called for more research on the chemical’s effect on humans. Nevertheless, farmers continue to use the weedkiller at soaring levels, despite mounting evidence that overuse is causing it to become ineffective.
“We are reviewing the EPA’s draft biological evaluation for glyphosate. The safety of our products is our top priority, and we will continue to participate in this public process,” a Bayer spokesperson said to The Counter in a statement. “In the meantime, the EPA’s current determination—that glyphosate products pose no unreasonable risks when used according to label requirements—still stands, and growers and others can continue to use glyphosate products according to current label instructions.”
In its report, EPA found that glyphosate, which affects non-farm environments predominantly through field runoff and spray drift, is “moderately to highly toxic to fish, highly to very highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, moderately toxic to mammals, and slightly toxic to birds on an acute exposure basis.” Chronic exposure causes “a variety of growth and reproductive effects” to land and aquatic animals as well as plants.
“The goal and the purpose here is not a glyphosate ban. It’s to change the labels of glyphosate so that it’s not used in a way that jeopardizes the continued existence of endangered species.”
Overall, it’s “likely to adversely impact” 75 endangered species of mammals, 88 endangered bird species, 36 endangered amphibian species, 33 endangered reptile species, 179 endagngered fish species, 185 endangered aquatic invertebrates, 140 endangered terrestrial invertebrates, and 940 endangered plant species.
After EPA analyzes the comments, it may consult with two federal agencies—the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, known as NOAA Fisheries—to prepare reports that would inform steps to minimize impacts. Those steps would likely take the form of restrictions, visible on labels, to limit where and when glyphosate is used. Glyphosate could, theoretically, be banned during high winds, restricted from hundred-foot buffers near water, or in some counties with sensitive habitats.
Depending on the severity of the restrictions, they could be challenged by industry, just as restrictions on dicamba and chlorpyrifos have, said Lori Ann Burd, senior attorney and environmental health program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that sued EPA to force the ESA review.
“The goal and the purpose here is not a glyphosate ban. It’s to change the labels of glyphosate so that it’s not used in a way that jeopardizes the continued existence of endangered species,” said Burd. “It probably will lead to real reductions in use, and it will lead to more thoughtful use, because right now glyphosate is just sprayed in wild amounts.”
Correction: An earlier version of this story suggested glyphosate might be used for lawn maintenance. This reference has been removed, as the herbicide would kill virtually any common grass.
Lead image: Frank Hoermann/SVEN SIMON/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images
Tags: glyphosate Environment Animal welfare Impact
Sam Bloch is a staff writer for The Counter, where he covers business, environment and culture. He has also written for The New York Times, L.A. Weekly, Places Journal, Art in America and other publications.
EPA Moves To Block California’s Roundup Cancer Warning
This announcement follows a move by California regulators in 2017 to add glyphosate to a state-maintained list of cancer-causing chemicals
The Agency Will Not Approve Labels That Indicate
A Link Between Glyphosate And Cancer.
August 12th, 2019
by H. Claire Brown
The Environmental Protection Agency announced last week that it will not approve product labels linking the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, with cancer.
This announcement follows a move by California regulators in 2017 to add glyphosate to a state-maintained list of cancer-causing chemicals. Under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65, businesses have to provide warnings when their products contain chemicals that appear on this list. The glyphosate cancer warnings were scheduled to start appearing in summer of 2018, but a judge delayed the rule while Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) challenged the decision in court. Now, the federal government has stepped in to ensure the warnings will not appear.
“This is just a small piece of a big fight about whether or not Roundup is carcinogenic.”
“The State of California’s much criticized Proposition 65 has led to misleading labeling requirements for products, like glyphosate, because it misinforms the public about the risks they are facing,” EPA announced in a statement.
This isn’t the first time California has adopted stricter carcinogen disclosure rules than the federal government. Memorably, in 2018, the state moved to require cancer warnings on coffee. With glyphosate, the difference of opinion between the state and federal government can be traced back to the assessments regulators relied on in making their determinations. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment made its decision based on a 2015 finding from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization. That agency’s most recent evaluation concluded that glyphosate is “probably” carcinogenic to humans.
By contrast, the United States Environmental Protection Agency found in its most recent assessment that glyphosate does not pose a public health risk when used as directed. The agency, predictably, cited its own review when it announced it will not approve California’s cancer warnings.
So why the difference of opinion? Both assessments have seen their fair share of controversy. The chair of the IARC was accused of ignoring data that found no link between Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The EPA, on the other hand, did not initially reach internal agreement over glyphosate’s potential to cause cancer, the New York Times reported last year. The agency’s Office of Research and Development, using epidemiological research, determined that “either glyphosate was likely to cause cancer or that there was at least some evidence suggesting a problem,” according to the Times investigation. By contrast, the agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs determined that glyphosate is not a carcinogen, and that was the view that ultimately won the day.
Ironically, glyphosate’s future may lie in the hands of juries, not scientific assessments.
Environmental advocates have expressed dismay over EPA’s decision last week. “This EPA in particular has gone out of its way to satisfy pesticide industry demands,” says Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity. At the same time, Hartl isn’t convinced this new decision will have lasting impact when it comes to the public’s ever-evolving perception of glyphosate. “This is just a small piece of a big fight about whether or not Roundup is carcinogenic.”
Ironically, glyphosate’s future may lie in the hands of juries, not scientific assessments. Three times, California juries have ruled in favor of plaintiffs suing Monsanto after developing cancer, decisions that initially totaled billions of dollars. (They have since been reduced to millions.) Under pressure from parent groups, Costco agreed not to sell Roundup this year. And a judge recently postponed a jury trial that was scheduled to take place in St. Louis, on Monsanto’s home turf, prompting speculation that a settlement may be on the horizon.
Simply put, it may become too expensive for Bayer to keep Roundup on the shelves for much longer. And if that’s the case, neither the EPA nor the IARC assessments will matter.
We reached out to EPA and California’s Office of the Attorney General for comment. We will update this story if and when we receive response.
Jesse Hirsch contributed reporting to this story.
The EPA Continues To Defy The Science and Deny Glyphosate's Carcinogenic Threat
Now is the time to make your voice heard. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is asking for public comment on its preliminary decision to renew the approval of the herbicide glyphosate, best known as the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup.
Glyphosate is bad news for people and nature. The World Health Organization’s cancer authorities have found that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. Their determination is supported by the medical science community, but EPA continues to defy the science and deny glyphosate’s carcinogenic threat.
Tell EPA: Don’t approve glyphosate! Listen to scientists, not Monsanto!
Juries have already found Roundup use implicated in the cancers of four plaintiffs who sued the company. We must stop further suffering from this hazardous herbicide!
And glyphosate also threatens the natural world. 300 million pounds of the herbicide are sprayed every year in the U.S. alone. Glyphosate has played a key role in the disastrous decline of monarch butterflies by virtually eliminating the monarch’s milkweed host plant in corn and soybean fields sprayed with it. And Roundup formulations are also extremely toxic to frogs, and may be contributing to the worldwide decline in amphibian populations.
To make matters worse, EPA is proposing to renew glyphosate before having completed critical elements of its assessment, including its impacts on threatened and endangered species and pollinators! This will effectively deny the public input on these critical issues.
Thank you for standing with us,
Center for Food Safety team
Connect With Us
CFS welcomes your questions and comments.
Please contact us at office@centerforfoodsafety.org, or at one of our offices.
Washington, D.C. Office
660 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, #402
Washington, DC 20003
phone (202) 547-9359 | fax (202) 547-9429
www.centerforfoodsafety.org
CONTRIBUTE
BREAKING: I’m At The EPA Right Now - Join Us In Demanding A Ban on Monsanto’s Roundup Weedkiller!
First, please submit your comments to the EPA before midnight on Friday, July 5. Demand that the EPA heed the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer determination that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.”
Dear Supporter,
I’m here at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with our allies to deliver the petition signatures we’ve collected so far demanding that the EPA end the use of glyphosate-based herbicides. (Live video here.)
Even if you’re not here with us, you can help!
First, please submit your comments to the EPA before midnight on Friday, July 5. Demand that the EPA heed the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer determination that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.”
Next, sign this petition asking Congress to ban Monsanto-Bayer’s cancer-causing Roundup weedkiller.
TAKE ACTION
There are members of Congress who are ready to join us in pressuring the EPA to conduct an unbiased, scientific review of the evidence that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
We’ve even heard from some of them that they would consider introducing a bill to ban glyphosate--if they heard from enough of their constituents!
When we learned that members of Congress were considering introducing a bill to ban glyphosate, we decided to postpone our Storm the EPA action until the legislation is introduced. This way, we can coordinate our Storm the EPA action with a lobby day in support of the new bill—and give ourselves time to raise the money needed to make these events a success.
Our plan is to gather Roundup-exposed cancer victims, top-level scientists with the latest research on the pesticide’s harm, successful farmers and ranchers who are living proof that we don’t need Roundup weedkiller to grow food and local leaders who have banned Roundup from their cities.
Our first events will be in Washington, D.C. But then we’ll take the campaign to ban Roundup to St. Louis in October for teach-ins and rallies timed with the next Monsanto trials and World Food Day, the tenth anniversary of the first Global Day of Action against Monsanto.
We can’t do this without you!
1. Tell the EPA: Ban glyphosate! If you haven’t already, please submit your comment to the EPA in addition to signing our petition. Tell the EPA why glyphosate should be banned. Be sure to include your personal story, especially if you or someone you know has cancer or another illness due to exposure to Monsanto-Bayer’s glyphosate-based herbicides. You can attach photos to your submission.
2. Tell Congress: Tell Congress to ban Monsanto/Bayer’s cancer-causing Roundup weedkiller! Your Member of Congress might consider introducing a bill to ban Roundup. All they need is a little encouragement from you!
3. Donate to help us cover the costs of organizing impactful, educational and visually interesting events that bring together Roundup-exposed cancer victims, top-level scientists, successful organic farmers, and local leaders who have banned Roundup, in Washington and St. Louis.
TAKE ACTION
Thank you!
Alexis, for the OCA team.
P.S. To help support this, and other campaigns, please consider making a donation to OCA. Nearly 80 percent of our support comes in the form of small donations from individual donors. Thank you!
Glyphosate Found in 19 of 20 Beers and Wines Tested
March 2, 2019
Glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller that some studies have linked to cancer—is also a secret ingredient in nearly 20 popular beers and wines.
That's the finding of a new study from the education group U.S. PIRG, which found glyphosate in 19 of 20 wine and beer brands tested, including organic labels and brews.
The release of the study coincides with the beginning of the first federal trial against Monsanto and its new parent company Bayer over whether Roundup use caused a plaintiff's cancer, USA Today reported Monday.
"With a federal court looking at the connection between Roundup and cancer today, we believe this is the perfect time to shine a spotlight on glyphosate," study author and U.S. PIRG Toxic's Director Kara Cook-Schultz told USA Today. "This chemical could prove a true risk to so many Americans' health, and they should know that it is everywhere – including in many of their favorite drinks."
The drink with the highest glyphosate concentration was Sutter Home Merlot, at 51.4 parts per billion (ppb). Popular beer brands like Coors Light, Miller Lite and Budweiser all had concentrations above 25 ppb. The full results of the study, from highest to lowest glyphosate concentration in ppb, are listed below.
Wines
Sutter Home Merlot: 51.4 ppb
Beringer Founders Estates Moscato: 42.6 ppb
Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon: 36.3 ppb
Inkarri Malbec, Certified Organic: 5.3 ppb
Frey Organic Natural White: 4.8 ppb
Beers
Tsingtao Beer: 49.7 ppb
Coors Light: 31.1 ppb
Miller Lite: 29.8 ppb
Budweiser: 27.0 ppb
Corona Extra: 25.1 ppb
Heineken: 20.9 ppb
Guinness Draught: 20.3 ppb
Stella Artois: 18.7 ppb
Ace Perry Hard Cider: 14.5 ppb
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale: 11.8 ppb
New Belgium Fat Tire Amber Ale: 11.2 ppb
Sam Adams New England IPA: 11.0 ppb
Stella Artois Cidre: 9.1 ppb
Samuel Smith's Organic Lager: 5.7 ppb.
The only beverage tested that contained no glyphosate was Peak Beer Organic IPA
The amounts found were far below the safety limits for glyphosate set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as Bayer toxicologist William Reeves told CBS News via a spokesperson.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets daily exposure limits at least 100 times below levels shown to have no negative effect in safety studies," Reeves said. "Assuming the greatest value reported, 51.4 ppb, is correct, a 125-pound adult would have to consume 308 gallons of wine per day, every day for life to reach the US Environmental Protection Agency's glyphosate exposure limit for humans. To put 308 gallons into context, that would be more than a bottle of wine every minute, for life, without sleeping."
However, the study noted that chemicals aren't necessarily safe just because regulatory bodies say they are.
"While these levels of glyphosate are below EPA risk tolerances for beverages, it is possible that even low levels of glyphosate can be problematic. For example, in one study, scientists found that 1 part per trillion of glyphosate has the potential to stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells and disrupt the endocrine system," the study said.
The EPA has found that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans, but the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer ruled it was a probable human carcinogen in 2015. More recently, a study released February found that those exposed to glyphosate were 41 percent more likely to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
In the first case to go to trial against Monsanto over Roundup last year, a jury ruled that exposure to glyphosate had caused the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of California groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson. Plaintiff Edwin Hardeman is making a similar claim in the first federal glyphosate trial that started Monday.
"Due to glyphosate's many health risks and its ubiquitous nature in our food, water and alcohol, the use of glyphosate in the U.S. should be banned unless and until it can be proven safe," the U.S. PIRG study advised.
Source: ecowatch.com beer wine Glyphosate monsanto roundup
Tortilla Trouble
Tests show that samples of both white and yellow Maseca brand flours contain traces of Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller. Tests also show that most of the flours are made with GMO corn.
Maseca, the leading global brand of Mexican corn flours, plainly states on its website:
“MASECA is made of 100% natural corn and is vital for the good diet, its high nutritional value and is synonym of health and energy.”
And yet, our tests show that samples of both white and yellow Maseca brand flours contain traces of Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller. Tests also show that most of the flours are made with GMO corn.
That’s bad news for U.S. consumers. It’s even worse news for consumers in Mexico, who might rightly assume that the Mexican brand of corn flour they use to make tortillas wouldn’t be made from GMO corn—because open-field growing of GMO corn is prohibited in Mexico.