Tradicionalni recepti

Regulatori razmatraju testiranje hrane na herbicid Roundup, 'vjerojatno kancerogen za ljude'

Regulatori razmatraju testiranje hrane na herbicid Roundup, 'vjerojatno kancerogen za ljude'

Agencija za zaštitu okoliša razmatra prilagodbu svoje klasifikacije herbicida za koji se ranije smatralo da je siguran.

Federalni regulatori Agencije za zaštitu okoliša razmatraju testiranje prehrambenih proizvoda na ostatke glifosata, aktivnog sastojka u herbicidu Roundup. Glifosat je postao najrašireniji svjetski herbicid i koristi se na brojnim usjevima genetski modificiranim da izdrži njegovu obradu, uključujući pšenicu, kukuruz, soju i druge usjeve.

Zasad se upotreba herbicida smatra sigurnom prema smjernicama EPA -e, pa kao takva vlada trenutno ne testira na ostatke glifosata.

Međutim, herbicid je u posljednje vrijeme postao znatno kontroverznija tvar.

Prošlog mjeseca, Svjetska zdravstvena organizacija objavila je istraživanje koje je identificiralo glifosat kao "vjerovatno kancerogen za ljude". WHO je također primijetio da je herbicid otkriven "u zraku tokom prskanja, u vodi i u hrani".

U snimcima koji su široko objavljeni, naučnik se pojavio na francuskoj televiziji prije nekoliko sedmica kako bi insistirao na tome da je glifosat toliko siguran da "možete popiti cijelu litru i neće vam naškoditi", a zatim je odbio priliku da to učini, rekavši voditelj: "Nisam glup."

U e -poruci za Reuters, EPA je potvrdila: "S obzirom na povećano zanimanje javnosti za glifosat, EPA može preporučiti uzorkovanje glifosata u budućnosti."


Regulatori razmatraju testiranje hrane za Roundup herbicid, ‘vjerojatno kancerogen za ljude’ - recepti

Široko usvajanje proizvoda na bazi glifosata nije posljedica samo njihove učinkovitosti i velikih ekonomskih i ekoloških prednosti, već i snažnog sigurnosnog profila ovih proizvoda.

Što se tiče procjena sigurnosti, glifosat je jedan od najopsežnije testiranih pesticida na tržištu. Evaluacije koje traju više od 40 godina i veliki zaključci stručnjaka i regulatora širom svijeta podržavaju sigurnost glifosata i da glifosat ne uzrokuje rak.

Regulatorni organi rutinski pregledavaju sve odobrene proizvode od pesticida. Nedavno, u siječnju 2020., EPA SAD -a objavila je Odluku o privremenoj reviziji registracije glifosata i navela “EPA je detaljno procijenila potencijalni rizik po zdravlje ljudi povezan s izlaganjem glifosatu i utvrdila je da ne postoje rizici po zdravlje ljudi zbog trenutne registrirane upotrebe glifosata i da glifosat vjerojatno neće biti kancerogen za ljude.”

Najnovija odluka EPA -e o glifosatu dodaje veliki konsenzus među vodećim stručnim zdravstvenim regulatorima u svijetu već više od 40 godina da se ti proizvodi mogu sigurno koristiti i da glifosat ne uzrokuje rak. Osim EPA -e SAD -a, Europska agencija za sigurnost hrane (EFSA), Europska agencija za kemikalije (ECHA) i vodeće zdravstvene vlasti u Njemačkoj, Australiji, Koreji, Kanadi, Novom Zelandu, Japanu i drugdje u svijetu nastavljaju zaključiti da su proizvodi na bazi glifosata sigurni ako se koriste prema uputama i da glifosat ne predstavlja karcinogeni rizik.

Šta kažu stručnjaci:

Nadalje, najopsežnija epidemiološka studija-neovisna studija o zdravlju poljoprivrede koju podržava Nacionalni institut za rak iz 2018., a koja je pratila više od 50.000 licenciranih aplikatora pesticida više od 20 godina, a objavljena je nakon monografije IARC-a-nije pronašla povezanost između herbicida na bazi glifosata i raka. 6

Klasifikacija glifosata prema IARC -u

Jedna neregulativna organizacija predstavila je klasifikaciju glifosata koja nije u skladu sa stručnjacima i regulatornim tijelima širom svijeta-ova organizacija je bila Međunarodna agencija za istraživanje raka (IARC), pod-agencija Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije (WHO). U ožujku 2015. godine, IARC je glifosatu dao klasifikaciju “Kategorija 2A: vjerovatno kancerogen” uprkos dokazima koji govore suprotno. IARC je jedan od četiri programa u okviru WHO -a koji je pregledao glifosat i jedini koji je došao do takvog nalaza.

IARC nije regulatorno tijelo i nije provodio nezavisne studije. IARC je ista organizacija koja je utvrdila da pivo, meso, mobiteli i topli napici izazivaju rak ili će vjerojatno uzrokovati rak.

Mišljenje IARC -a nije u skladu s ogromnim konsenzusom regulatornih tijela i drugih stručnjaka širom svijeta, koji su procijenili sve studije koje je IARC pregledao - i mnoge druge - i otkrili da glifosat ne predstavlja kancerogeni rizik. Budući da je IARC klasificirao glifosat u ožujku 2015., regulatorna tijela u Sjedinjenim Državama, Europi, Kanadi, Koreji, Japanu, Novom Zelandu i Australiji javno su potvrdila da se herbicidi na bazi glifosata mogu koristiti sigurno i da glifosat ne predstavlja kancerogeni rizik.

U siječnju 2020. američka Agencija za zaštitu okoliša objavila je da je „EPA smatrala znatno opsežnijim i relevantnijim skupom podataka od Međunarodne agencije za istraživanje raka (IARC). EPA -ina baza podataka uključuje studije podnesene u prilog registraciji glifosata i EPA studije identificirane u otvorenoj literaturi. Na primjer, IARC je razmatrao samo osam studija karcinogenosti životinja, dok je EPA koristilo 15 prihvatljivih studija karcinogenosti. EPA se ne slaže sa zaključkom IARC -a da je glifosat 'vjerovatno kancerogen za ljude.' EPA -ina klasifikacija karcinoma u skladu je s drugim međunarodnim stručnim panelima i regulatornim tijelima, uključujući Kanadsku regulatornu agenciju za borbu protiv štetočina, Australijsku upravu za pesticide i veterinarske lijekove, Europsku agenciju za sigurnost hrane , Europska agencija za kemikalije, Njemački savezni institut za sigurnost i zdravlje na radu, Uprava za zaštitu okoliša Novog Zelanda i Japanska komisija za sigurnost hrane i Zajednička organizacija za hranu i poljoprivredu/Svjetska zdravstvena organizacija (FAO/WHO) na sastanku o ostacima pesticida (JMPR) . ”

Sigurnosna istraživanja o ostacima herbicida

Prije nego što se sredstva za zaštitu usjeva, poput glifosata, odobre za upotrebu, provode se znanstvene procjene kako bi se utvrdio potencijalni rizik od ostataka. Ako je rizik prevelik, proizvod nikada neće stići na tržište.

Za proizvode koji prođu znanstvenu evaluaciju, sljedeći korak je predavanje studija državnim regulatorima koji ih pregledavaju i utvrđuju vlastite sigurne razine ostataka, a zatim stalno prate berbu kako bi se osiguralo da se te razine ne prekorače.

Razumijevanje ostataka

Svi usjevi sadržavat će tragove elemenata koji se koriste ili su prisutni u okruženju u kojem se uzgajaju. Zahvaljujući nevjerojatnom napretku tehnologije, stručnjaci su sada u mogućnosti otkriti određene tvari u jedinicama koje imaju samo jedan dio na milijardu. Za kontekst, dio po milijardi bi bio ekvivalent jedne kapi vode u bazenu olimpijske veličine. Ova dostignuća daju naučnicima veliko povjerenje u njihovu sposobnost da osiguraju da je hrana sigurna.


Američki regulatori mogu početi testirati hranu na ostatke glifosata

Američki regulatori mogli bi početi testirati prehrambene proizvode na ostatke herbicida koji se najčešće koriste u svijetu, rekla je EPA Reutersu ’ Carey Gillam u petak, jer raste zabrinutost javnosti zbog moguće povezanosti s bolestima.

Glifosat, aktivni sastojak u Roundup herbicidu, podložan je intenzivnoj kontroli otkad je istraživačka jedinica Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije prošlog mjeseca izvijestila da klasificira glifosat kao vjerovatno kancerogen za ljude. ”

EPA, kao i mnoge strane regulatorne agencije, uključujući i Evropsku uniju, smatra da je herbicid siguran.

Ipak, brojne kompanije, grupe potrošača i organizacije za zastupanje uzorkovale su hranu, kao i ljudski urin i majčino mlijeko, kako bi pokušale utvrditi prisutnost ostataka glifosata.

Glifosat se koristi za kukuruz, soju, šećernu repu i druge usjeve genetski promijenjene da izdrže. Koriste ga i poljoprivrednici koji uzgajaju pšenicu i druge usjeve. Njegova je upotreba narasla s napretkom genetski modificiranih usjeva.


Izjava o znanstvenom konsenzusu otkriva da je herbicid Monsantoa#8217s krupna prijetnja zdravlju

Moćan novi pregled toksičnosti glifosata signalizira sve veći konsenzus među naučnicima koji nisu pod pokroviteljstvom industrije da se relativno nenadzirana i neregulisana izloženost ovom sveprisutnom otrovu ne može više promovirati kao opravdan rizik. Recenzija je otvorenog pristupa i može se preuzeti kao PDF i/ili u cijelosti pročitati ovdje.

Nedavno objavljena izjava o konsenzusu objavljena u časopisu Zdravlje okoliša i pod nazivom, “Zabrinutost zbog upotrebe herbicida na bazi glifosata i rizici povezani sa izloženošću: izjava o konsenzusu, ” identificirala je herbicid glifosat širokog spektra (uobičajeno trgovačko ime “Roundup ”) kao glavnu prijetnju zdravlju ljudi i okoliša .

Utvrđeno je da se upotreba povećala 100 puta od kasnih 1970-ih i#8217-ih, studija predviđa da će se upotreba glifosata povećati na još veće količine zbog,##8221 široko rasprostranjene pojave korova otpornih na glifosat i novih obrazaca upotrebe prije žetve. ” Zob, na primjer, obično se prska glifosatom kao sredstvo za sušenje prije berbe, iako je legalno označiti ga kao##8220non-GMO,##8221, kako smo nedavno izvijestili u vezi s proizvodom Cheerios.

Studija je također identifikovala ključni regulatorni problem povezan sa povećanom izloženošću glifosatu: “Da bi se prilagodile promjenama u upotrebi GBH [herbicida na bazi glifosata] povezanih sa genetski modifikovanim usjevima, tolerantnim na herbicide, regulatori su dramatično povećali toleranciju na kukuruz, sjeme uljarica (soja) i uljane repice), usjeva lucerke i srodne hrane za stoku. ” U prethodnom izvještaju pod nazivom, “EPA za ljude u Americi: ‘Pusti ih da jedu Monsanto ’s Roundup Ready Cake,##8221 razgovarali smo o ulozi EPA -e i#8217 u prikrivanju sve strašnijeg nakupljanja glifosata u našoj opskrbi hranom proizvoljnim povećanjem njegovih dopuštenih razina bez obzira na očite zdravstvene rizike. Ovo je još više uznemirujuće s obzirom na to da su nedavna istraživanja pokazala da ima potencijal djelovanja kao kancerogeni/estrogeni endokrini poremećaj u rasponu dijelova po bilijunu.

Zahvaljujući činjenici da studije na životinjama i epidemiologija jasno ukazuju na to da izloženost glifosatu ima ozbiljne zdravstvene rizike (pogledajte GreenMedInfo.com bazu podataka o toksičnosti za glifosat kako biste pročitali literaturu iz prve ruke o ovoj temi), kao i činjenicu da je Svjetska zdravstvena organizacija i Međunarodna agencija za istraživanje raka#8217s nedavno je zaključila da je glifosat vjerovatno kancerogen za ljude, a#8221 naučnici koji su napisali novi rad sastavili su Izjavu zabrinutosti sažetu u sljedećih sedam pitanja:

(1) GBH su najrašireniji herbicid u svijetu i upotreba nastavlja rasti

(2) Širom svijeta GBH često zagađuju izvore pitke vode, padavine i zrak, posebno u poljoprivrednim regijama

(3) Poluživot glifosata u vodi i tlu je duži nego što je ranije priznato

(4) Glifosat i njegovi metaboliti široko su prisutni u globalnoj ponudi soje

(5) Izloženost ljudi GBH -ima raste

(6) Glifosat se sada vjerodostojno klasificira kao vjerojatni kancerogen za ljude

(7) Regulatorne procjene podnošljivog dnevnog unosa glifosata u Sjedinjenim Državama i Evropskoj uniji temelje se na zastarjeloj nauci.

Iako u ovom izvještaju postoje desetine upadljivih problema, željeli bismo istaknuti sljedećih pet zabrinjavajućih točaka:

Kontaminacija hrane nije adekvatno proučena: “Odgovarajuća istraživanja o kontaminaciji GBH u prehrambenim proizvodima još uvijek nisu provedena u velikom opsegu, čak ni u SAD-u. Prvo i jedino detaljno USDA testiranje ostataka glifosata i AMPA u hrani usmjerenoj na soju, dogodilo se jednom u 2011. [ 13]. Od tristo testiranih uzoraka, 90,3 % je sadržalo glifosat u prosječnoj razini od 1,9 ppm, dok je 95,7 % sadržalo AMPA pri 2,3 ppm. Nasuprot tome, sljedeći najveći ostatak koji je USDA prijavila u soji bio je malation, sa 0,026 ppm u samo 3,7% uzoraka. Prema tome, prosječne razine glifosata i AMPA u soji bile su 73 puta, odnosno 83 puta više od malationa. ”

Istraživanje toksičnosti nije valjano: “ Većina toksikoloških studija koje koriste napredne, moderne alate i eksperimentalne dizajne u okviru molekularne genetike, reproduktivne, razvojne, endokrinološke, imunološke i druge discipline provedene su u laboratorijima akademskih i istraživačkih instituta, a rezultati su objavljeni u recenziranim časopisima. Regulatori nisu formalno ili indirektno ugradili takva istraživanja u svoje procjene rizika. Umjesto toga, oslanjaju se na neobjavljene podatke koji nisu recenzirani od strane podnositelja registracije. Uglavnom su zanemarili objavljena istraživanja jer često koriste standarde i postupke za procjenu kvaliteta koji se razlikuju od onih kodificiranih u zahtjevima podataka regulatornih agencija, koji se u velikoj mjeri fokusiraju na izbjegavanje prijevara [79]. Osim toga, protokoli studija endokrinih poremećaja nisu kodificirani od strane regulatora 8. ”

Industriji je dozvoljeno skrivati ​​sastojke: “Puna lista kemikalija u većini komercijalnih GBH zaštićena je kao ” povjerljive poslovne informacije, ” unatoč općeprihvaćenoj važnosti takvih informacija za naučnike koji se nadaju da će provesti točnu procjenu rizika ovih formulacija herbicida. ”

Biomonitoring izloženosti ljudi odsutan na globalnoj razini: “Velike i sofisticirane biomonitoring studije nivoa glifosata, njegovih metabolita i drugih komponenti GBH smjesa kod ljudi nisu provedene nigdje u svijetu. Biomonitoring studije trebale bi uključivati ​​mjerenje ostataka glifosata, metabolita i pomoćnih tvari u krvi i urinu kako bi se dobio značajan uvid u nivoe unutrašnje kontaminacije i farmakokinetiku GBH -a kod kralježnjaka 7 ”

Istraživači sugeriraju da bi, kako bi se popunio jaz nastao nedostatkom državnih sredstava za podršku bitnim istraživanjima formulacija na bazi glifosata, trebao biti upotrijebljen sistem putem kojeg proizvođači financiraju proces:

[W] Preporučujemo da se uspostavi sistem putem kojeg proizvođači GBH -a osiguravaju sredstva odgovarajućem regulatornom tijelu kao dio rutinskih radnji registracije i naknada. Ta bi sredstva tada trebalo prenijeti odgovarajućim državnim istraživačkim institutima ili agenciji s iskustvom u dodjeli konkurentnih grantova. U oba slučaja, neovisnim naučnicima bi se stavila na raspolaganje sredstva za provođenje odgovarajućih dugoročnih (najmanje 2 godine) studija sigurnosti u priznatim sistemima životinjskih modela. Detaljna i moderna procjena toksičnosti GBH obuhvatit će potencijalne endokrine poremećaje, utjecaje na crijevni mikrobiom, kancerogenost i multigeneracijske učinke gledajući reproduktivnu sposobnost i učestalost urođenih mana.

Kako svijet postaje sve svjesniji opasnosti formulacija na bazi glifosata, a znanstvena zajednica počinje skupljati hrabrost da progovori, raste osjećaj nade da će se poljoprivredne tehnike na bazi glifosata i glifosata postupno ukinuti u korist netoksične, daleko održivije metode proizvodnje hrane. Možda je najbolji način za donošenje ove promjene glasanje viljuškom i dolarom, pazeći da kupujete samo istinski organski proizvedenu hranu i srodne proizvode kad god je to moguće.

Preporučeni članci Sayer Jija:

O autoru:

Sayer Ji je u Upravnom odboru Nacionalne zdravstvene federacije i roditelj bez straha, član Upravnog odbora Globalne koalicije za GMO (GGFC), recenzent u Međunarodnom časopisu za ljudsku prehranu i funkcionalnu medicinu i osnivač GreenMedInfo.com - resurs otvorenog pristupa, zasnovan na dokazima, koji podržava prirodne i integrativne modalitete.

Sayer je 1995. godine diplomirao filozofiju na Univerzitetu Rutgers, gdje je studirao kod američkog filozofa dr. Brucea W. Wilshirea, sa fokusom na filozofiju nauke. 1996. godine, nakon boravka u manastiru Zen Mountain u sjevernom dijelu New Yorka, krenuo je na petogodišnje putovanje kao savjetnik-učitelj i specijalist za terapiju divljine za različite organizacije koje opslužuju ugroženo i/ili osuđeno stanovništvo. Od 2003. Sayer je bio zagovornik pacijenata i edukator i konzultant za područje prirodnog zdravlja i wellnessa.


Šta je rizik?

Koliko bi roditelji trebali brinuti o tome čime hrane svoju djecu?

Stručnjaci su podijeljeni po tom pitanju. Uvažena Međunarodna agencija za istraživanje raka objavila je 2015. godine da je glifosat “vjerojatno kancerogen za ljude”. U Europi se ulažu napori da se zabrani ta kemikalija. Više od milion ljudi potpisalo je peticiju u kojoj poziva Evropsku uniju da zabrani njenu upotrebu, a Njemačka je najavila planove da tu upotrebu prekine do 2021.

Ipak, EPA je 2017. rekla da ta kemikalija "nije vjerojatno" da će izazvati rak kod ljudi.

„Ovdje postaje teško. To nije jednostavno ”, kaže dr Michael Davoren, koji studira molekularnu toksikologiju na UCLA -i. Nije bio uključen u ispitivanja radne grupe za zaštitu okoliša.

Dr Olga Naidenko, viši naučni savjetnik Radne grupe za okoliš za zdravlje djece u okolišu, kaže da glifosat ne bi trebao biti u hrani, posebno u hrani kojom hranimo malu djecu.

"Vjerujemo da otrovni pesticidi, posebno oni koji mogu biti povezani s rakom, zaista ne pripadaju prehrani", kaže ona.

Ali čak i Naidenko i njen koautor, toksikolog, dr Alexis Temkin, kažu da su šanse za dobijanje raka konzumiranjem zobi zagađenog glifosatom zaista niske.

Na temelju vlastitih proračuna, kažu da bi jedna porcija većine testiranih namirnica, koja se jede svaki dan tijekom života, uzrokovala samo jedan dodatni slučaj raka na milion ljudi.

"To je tako mali povećan rizik za spekuliranje", kaže Davoren. "Kad se bavite tako nečim, povećanjem rizika od raka od milijun u milijun, rekao bih da to nije značajan nivo zbog kojeg biste trebali biti posebno zabrinuti."

Kaže da rizik definitivno ne bi nadmašio zdravstvene koristi jedenja zobi, koja ima puno vlakana i malo masti.

U saopćenju, Monsanto, kompanija koja proizvodi Roundup i druge proizvode na bazi glifosata, kaže da je „tvrdnja EWG-a o raku lažna. Glifosat ne uzrokuje rak. Glifosat ima više od 40 godina istorije sigurne upotrebe. Tokom te četiri decenije, istraživači su proveli više od 800 naučnih studija i pregleda koji dokazuju da je glifosat siguran za upotrebu. ”

Znači li to da je glifosat siguran? Moglo bi se reći da je porota još uvijek nesposobna za to, ali ustvari, jedan porota se vratio, a oni nisu tako mislili.

Prošle sedmice, porotnici u Kaliforniji utvrdili su da je Monsanto odgovoran za izazivanje raka 46-godišnjeg zemljoposjednika Dewaynea Johnsona. Johnsonu je dosuđena kaznena odšteta od 250 miliona dolara nakon što je porota rekla da kompanija nije upozorila javnost na zdravstvene rizike svojih proizvoda. Johnsonov slučaj je tek prvi koji će doći na suđenje. Kompanija se suočava sa hiljadama sličnih izazova širom SAD -a


Američki regulatori mogu preporučiti ispitivanje hrane na ostatke glifosata

Monsantov logo prikazan je na hemijskom buretu u ustanovi Crop Protection Services u Manliusu, Illinois, 20. marta 2015. Plan kompanije da smanji 1.000 novih radnih mjesta donijet će ukupno planirano smanjenje broja radnika na 3.600. Fotografija: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg preko Getty Images

(Reuters) - Američki regulatori mogli bi početi testirati prehrambene proizvode na ostatke herbicida koji se najviše koristi u svijetu, rekla je u petak Reutersu Agencija za zaštitu okoliša, jer raste zabrinutost javnosti zbog moguće povezanosti s bolestima.

Glifosat, aktivni sastojak herbicida Roundup, podložan je intenzivnoj kontroli otkad je istraživačka jedinica Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije prošlog mjeseca izvijestila da klasificira glifosat kao "vjerovatno kancerogen za ljude".

EPA, kao i mnoge strane regulatorne agencije, uključujući i Evropsku uniju, smatra da je herbicid siguran.

Ipak, brojne kompanije, grupe potrošača i organizacije za zastupanje uzorkovale su hranu, kao i ljudski urin i majčino mlijeko, kako bi pokušale utvrditi prisutnost ostataka glifosata.

Glifosat se koristi za kukuruz, soju, šećernu repu i druge usjeve genetski promijenjene da izdrže. Koriste ga i poljoprivrednici koji uzgajaju pšenicu i druge usjeve. Njegova je upotreba narasla s napretkom genetski modificiranih usjeva.

Američka vlada, koja godišnje testira hiljade namirnica na ostatke pesticida, ne vrši testiranje na glifosat, dijelom i zato što se smatralo sigurnim.

To bi se moglo promijeniti, navodi se u saopćenju EPA -e u petak.

"S obzirom na povećano zanimanje javnosti za glifosat, EPA bi mogla preporučiti uzorkovanje glifosata u budućnosti", navodi se u odgovoru agencije putem e -pošte na upit Reutersa.

Monsanto Co, proizvođač Roundupa, 1. aprila je objavio blog u kojem nastoji uvjeriti potrošače u vezi s ostacima glifosata, rekavši da su količine u tragovima sigurne. Nije odmah odgovorilo na zahtjev za komentar.

EPA je saopćila da konačnu odluku donosi Ministarstvo poljoprivrede SAD -a i njegov program podataka o pesticidima. EPA je u prošlosti savjetovala USDA -u da "ostaci glifosata ne predstavljaju opasnost po zdravlje ljudi", rekla je EPA.

Međutim, Peter Wood, glasnogovornik američke Uprave za hranu i lijekove, rekao je da "EPA odlučuje koja roba i pesticidi se testiraju". Rekao je da se uzorkovanje temelji na "potrebama podataka" EPA -e i da EPA do sada nije zatražila ispitivanje glifosata na bilo kojoj robi.

Obje agencije su rekle da bi testiranje na ostatke glifosata bilo skuplje nego na drugim pesticidima.

Od 1991. godine, USDA -in program testiranja testirao je hiljade uzoraka hrane svake godine na ostatke. On obavještava USDA da li ostaci prelaze granice tolerancije za pesticide koje je odredila EPA.

U 2013. USDA je testirala oko 400 različitih pesticida na raznim namirnicama, kao i u podzemnim i pitkim vodama.

Samo u jednoj godini, 2011., agencija je provela testiranje na glifosat. Ti testovi, na 300 uzoraka soje, pokazali su da 271 uzorak ima ostatke. Svi oni su pali ispod tolerancije postavljene EPA-om od 20 dijelova na milion, sa ostacima u rasponu od 0,26 do 18,5 ppm.


Američki regulatori mogu preporučiti ispitivanje hrane na ostatke glifosata

(Fotografija Canada Beef Inc.)

Reuters — Američki regulatori mogli bi početi testirati prehrambene proizvode na ostatke herbicida u svijetu koji se najčešće koriste, rekla je u petak Reutersu Agencija za zaštitu okoliša, jer raste zabrinutost javnosti zbog moguće povezanosti s bolestima.

Glifosat, aktivni sastojak u Roundup herbicidu, podložan je intenzivnoj kontroli otkad je istraživačka jedinica Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije prošlog mjeseca izvijestila da klasificira glifosat kao vjerovatno kancerogen za ljude. ”

EPA i mnoge strane regulatorne agencije, uključujući i Evropsku uniju, smatraju da je herbicid siguran.

Ipak, brojne kompanije, grupe potrošača i organizacije za zastupanje uzorkovale su hranu, kao i ljudski urin i majčino mlijeko, kako bi pokušale utvrditi prisutnost ostataka glifosata.

Glifosat se koristi za kukuruz, soju, šećernu repu i druge usjeve genetski promijenjene da izdrže. Koriste ga i poljoprivrednici koji uzgajaju pšenicu i druge usjeve. Njegova je upotreba narasla s napretkom genetski modificiranih usjeva.

Američka vlada, koja godišnje testira hiljade namirnica na ostatke pesticida, ne testira glifosat, dijelom jer se smatralo sigurnim.

To bi se moglo promijeniti, navodi se u saopćenju EPA -e u petak.

“S obzirom na povećano zanimanje javnosti za glifosat, EPA bi mogla preporučiti uzorkovanje glifosata u budućnosti,##8221 agencija je navela u odgovoru e -poštom na upit Reutersa.

Monsanto, proizvođač Roundupa, 1. aprila je objavio blog u kojem nastoji uvjeriti potrošače o ostacima glifosata, rekavši da su količine u tragovima sigurne. Nije odmah odgovorilo na zahtjev za komentar.

EPA je saopćila da konačnu odluku donosi Ministarstvo poljoprivrede SAD -a i njegov program podataka o pesticidima. U prošlosti je EPA savjetovala USDA da ostaci glifosata ne predstavljaju opasnost po ljudsko zdravlje,#8221 iz EPA -e.

Međutim, glasnogovornik USDA -e Peter Wood rekao je da "#8220EPA odlučuje o tome koja se roba i pesticidi testiraju." .

Obje agencije su rekle da bi testiranje na ostatke glifosata bilo skuplje nego na drugim pesticidima.

Od 1991. godine, program testiranja USDA -e#8217 testirao je hiljade uzoraka hrane svake godine na ostatke. On obavještava USDA da li ostaci prelaze granice tolerancije za pesticide koje je odredila EPA.

U 2013. USDA je testirala oko 400 različitih pesticida na raznim namirnicama, kao i u podzemnim i pitkim vodama.

Samo u jednoj godini, 2011., agencija je provela testiranje na glifosat. Ti testovi, na 300 uzoraka soje, pokazali su da 271 uzorak ima ostatke. Svi oni su pali ispod tolerancije postavljene EPA-om od 20 dijelova na milion, sa ostacima u rasponu od 0,26 do 18,5 ppm.

U Kanadi, Federalna zdravstvena služba i Regulatorna agencija za suzbijanje štetočina nedavno je objavila prijedlog odluke o ponovnoj procjeni glifosata, u kojoj utvrđuje da prehrambeni rizici za ljude zbog izloženosti hrani i vodi ne izazivaju zabrinutost. ”

Carey Gillam je dopisnik Reutersa koji pokriva agrobiznis iz Kansas Cityja.

ISPRAVKA, 20. aprila 2015: U ranijoj verziji ovog članka Peter Wood je pogrešno identificiran kao glasnogovornik FDA -e.


Svjetska zdravstvena organizacija: Glifosat "vjerovatno kancerogen"

Nakon opsežnog pregleda objavljenih istraživanja o glifosatu, Međunarodna agencija za istraživanje raka zaključila je u ožujku 2015. da je herbicid "vjerojatno kancerogen". Agencija je dio Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije Ujedinjenih naroda.

U njegovoj izjavi zabilježeni su samo "ograničeni dokazi" da glifosat može uzrokovati rak kod ljudi. Agencija je rekla da je svoju odluku zasnovala na "dovoljnim dokazima" da je ta kemikalija uzrokovala rak u testovima na životinjama.

Agencija je također pogledala druga istraživanja koja su pronašla jake dokaze da pesticidi na bazi glifosata mogu oštetiti gene. To se naziva genotoksičnost i može dovesti do raka.

U izvještaju za 2015. naglašena je količina izloženosti i način na koji kemikalija ulazi u tijelo igraju važnu ulogu u tome hoće li osoba razviti rak.


Regulatori razmatraju testiranje hrane za Roundup herbicid, ‘vjerojatno kancerogen za ljude’ - recepti

Kako je Monsanto uhvatio EPA (i uvrnutu nauku) da zadrži glifosat na tržištu

Od 1973. Monsanto se poziva na sumnjivu nauku, poput testova na matericama mužjaka miševa, a EPA je dopustila da veliki dio toga klizne.

Valerie Brown i Elizabeth Grossman
Ilustracije Jean-Luc Bonifay

1. novembar 2017. | Specijalna istraga | Izdanje za novembar 2017

U travnju 2014. mala grupa pod nazivom Moms Across America objavila je da je testirala 10 uzoraka majčinog mlijeka na glifosat, te je u tri od njih pronašla kemikaliju. Glifosat je svjetski najrašireniji herbicid i primarni sastojak Roundupa. Iako su razine glifosata koje su pronašle mame u cijeloj Americi bile ispod sigurnosnih granica koje je američka Agencija za zaštitu okoliša (EPA) odredila za pitku vodu, a američko ministarstvo poljoprivrede (USDA) za hranu, rezultati su izazvali pometnju na društvenim mrežama .

Testiranje Moms Across America nije bilo dio bilo koje formalne znanstvene studije, ali Monsanto & mdash, vlasnik robne marke Roundup i vodeći proizvođač glifosata & mdashjum, skočio je braniti svoj najisplativiji pesticid na temelju nove studije koja nije pronašla glifosat u majčinom mlijeku. Ali ovo istraživanje, za koje se pretpostavlja da je ldquonezavisno, & rdquo je zapravo podržala sama korporacija.

& ldquoNiko ko sazna za ovo neće vjerovati kemijskoj kompaniji nad mamom, čak i ako je [ta mama] stranac, & rdquo kaže osnivač Moms Across America Zen Honeycutt. & ldquoMajka & rsquos od posebnog interesa je dobrobit njene porodice i njene zajednice. & rdquo Honeycutt kaže da je oštro kritizirana zbog projekta majčinog mlijeka jer to nije bila formalna naučna studija. Ali ona kaže da joj je namjera bila & ldquoto saznati da li glifosat ulazi u naše majčino mlijeko, i ako jeste, da se provedu daljnja naučna istraživanja i da se stoga izazove pokret kako bi se promijenila politika. & Rdquo

Svi su izloženi glifosatu: Ostaci herbicida nalaze se u svježoj i prerađenoj hrani, te u vodi za piće širom zemlje. Sve više istraživanja sugerira da izloženost glifosatu može dovesti do brojnih zdravstvenih problema, od ne-Hodgkinovog limfoma i oštećenja bubrega do poremećaja crijevnih bakterija i nepravilnog funkcioniranja hormona.

Epizoda Moms Across America odgovara obrascu koji se pojavio od 1974. godine, kada je EPA prvi put registrirala glifosat za upotrebu: Kada su postavljena pitanja o kemijskoj i sigurnosnoj sigurnosti, Monsanto je osigurao da odgovori služe njenim financijskim interesima, a ne naučnoj tačnosti i transparentnosti . Naša dvogodišnja istraga pronašla je nepobitne dokaze da je Monsanto imao veliki utjecaj na odluke EPA-e od kada je glifosat prvi put došao na tržište & mdashvia Roundup & mdashmore prije više od 40 godina.

Pomno smo pregledali javno dostupnu arhivu dokumenata EPA -e od najranijih dana razmatranja glifosata od strane agencije. Značajni dijelovi relevantnih dokumenata su ili djelomično redigovani ili potpuno izostavljeni. No, ovaj arhivirani materijal otkriva da su znanstvenici EPA -e, koji su smatrali da je većina podataka koje je Monsanto dostavio neprihvatljivim, dali veliku težinu studiji na mišu iz 1983. koja je pokazala da je glifosat kancerogen.

Od novembarskog izdanja novog U ovim vremenima.

U travnju 2015., nakon vijesti da će Odjel za zdravstvo i ljudske usluge ispitati glifosat, Dan Jenkins, izvršni direktor Monsanta, izvijestio je svoje kolege da je Jess Rowland, zamjenica direktora Ureda za zaštitu pesticida EPA -e, imala rekao mu: "Ako mogu ovo ubiti, trebao bih dobiti medalju."

Ipak, njihovo rukovodstvo i savjetodavni odbori EPA -e kasnije su promijenili njihovo tumačenje, očito pod pritiskom Monsanta. U godinama koje dolaze, ta ključna studija na miševima iz 1983. bila bi zakopana u slojeve zavaravajuće analize kako bi se zamaglilo njeno značenje. Danas EPA i Monsanto nastavljaju citirati tu studiju kao dokaz da glifosat ne predstavlja opasnost po javno zdravlje, iako studija i dokazi ukazuju na suprotno.

Meanwhile, the EPA has overlooked a growing body of research suggesting glyphosate is dangerous. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is &ldquoprobably carcinogenic to humans&rdquo based on multiple peer-reviewed studies published since 2001. But the EPA has not changed its classification. Instead, the agency issued a rebuttal in September 2016 that said its scientists &ldquodid not agree with IARC&rdquo&mdashand cited that 1983 mouse study as evidence of non-carcinogenicity.

Controversy continues to swirl around EPA management&rsquos cozy relationship with Monsanto. The agency&rsquos Office of Inspector General, an independent oversight body, is currently investigating whether a former deputy director in the EPA&rsquos Office of Pesticide Programs, Jess Rowland, colluded with Monsanto to &ldquokill&rdquo a Department of Health and Human Services investigation into glyphosate prompted by the release of the IARC report. On April 28, 2015, Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto regulatory affairs manager, emailed his colleagues that Rowland had told him, &ldquoIf I can kill this, I should get a medal.&rdquo

In the meantime, people across the country are suing Monsanto, alleging that their health problems and the deaths of their loved ones are connected to glyphosate. At least 1,100 such cases are wending their way through state courts, and an additional 240 through federal courts.

To understand how we got to this point, we must examine how this four-decade-old dam of selective interpretation and industry interference&mdashthat is now leaking badly&mdashwas methodically assembled.

In 1974, 1.4 million pounds of glyphosate were sprayed across U.S. farm and ranchland. By 2014, 276 million pounds were applied. Glyphosate use began to mushroom in the 1990s when the USDA approved Monsanto&rsquos request to market corn, soy and cotton seeds that had been genetically engineered to resist Roundup.

In the United States, the EPA has registered glyphosate for use on more than 100 crops, including wheat, rice, oats, barley and alfalfa. In California alone in 2015, more than 11 million pounds of glyphosate were used on crops, including almonds, avocados, cantaloupes, oranges, grapes and pistachios. In the wake of the IARC classification, this past March, California labeled glyphosate a carcinogen under the state&rsquos Proposition 65 program, which requires businesses to notify consumers of carcinogenic chemicals in their products. Monsanto has fought this in court but so far has not prevailed.

Glyphosate is used worldwide, in more than 160 countries. In 2015, Monsanto&rsquos sales of pesticides reportedly brought in $4.76 billion&mdashmuch of it fueled by the sales of glyphosate used on fields planted with the company&rsquos glyphosate-resistant GMO seeds like Roundup Ready Soybeans.

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regularly measures Americans&rsquo blood and urine for more than 200 industrial chemicals (including pesticides), glyphosate is not among those tracked. The USDA has declined to test for glyphosate in food products, but the FDA recently restarted its program monitoring glyphosate in food, although its data is not yet available.

In the absence of good government data, various nongovernmental organizations have commissioned testing of food for the herbicide&rsquos residues. The most recent such testing, by Food Democracy Now, found glyphosate in Honey Nut Cheerios, Ritz crackers, Oreos, Doritos and Lay&rsquos potato chips. Previous European tests have found residues in bread and beer.

Monsanto writes the regulations

In the 1970s, the pesticide landscape was far different from today&rsquos. Many more very toxic compounds were on the market, including toxaphene (banned in 1990), endrin (banned in 1986) and chlordane (banned in 1988). In contrast, glyphosate appeared to be nontoxic. Regulators assumed that because glyphosate worked on a metabolic pathway found only in plants, it would be harmless to humans.

The EPA was only four years old when glyphosate entered the market in 1974, and the agency was faced with a large collection of chemicals to review. At the time, protocols for toxicology testing were relatively fluid, and it took the EPA until 1986 to finalize its guidelines. Yet the EPA&rsquos analysis of glyphosate still relies heavily on the initial data.

The earliest example we have found of Monsanto attempting to reduce the perception of glyphosate toxicity is from May 1973, the year before glyphosate was registered. That was when biologist Robert D. Coberly at the EPA&rsquos Toxicology Branch (TB) Registration Division recommended that, due to the herbicide&rsquos tendency to cause eye irritation, the word &ldquoDanger&rdquo should appear on the label of a Roundup formulation Monsanto was seeking to register.

In November 1973, Monsanto senior staffer L.H. Hannah wrote a letter to the EPA that&mdashas TB staff described in a memo to the Registration Division&mdash&ldquoprotested our recommendation&rdquo that &ldquoDanger&rdquo appear on the product label. The TB staff wrote that Monsanto suggested the eye irritation observed in the testing was caused by &ldquoa secondary infection in previously irritated eyes,&rdquo rather than the herbicide. EPA staff were reluctant to back down, but Monsanto persisted. The entire correspondence is not available, but in January 1976 Monsanto asked to have the &ldquosignal&rdquo word on the label changed from &ldquoDanger&rdquo to &ldquoCaution.&rdquo In June 1976, the EPA agreed to Monsanto&rsquos request.

Throughout the 1970s, EPA staff repeatedly raised red flags about the inadequacy of testing data that Monsanto was submitting in support of glyphosate&rsquos original registration. For example, in an August 1978 memo, TB scientist Krystyna Locke raised concerns about a Monsanto study in which the scientists from the contract lab had failed to record what happened in the experiment. Locke quoted Monsanto scientist Robert Roudabush, who defended the study this way: &ldquoThe scientific integrity of a study should not be doubted because of the inability to observe all primary recording of data.&rdquo In other words, the EPA should not be concerned by the absence of data. It should simply trust the study&rsquos conclusions.

The EPA&rsquos Locke also pointed out that it is &ldquodifficult not to doubt the scientific integrity of a study when the [lab] stated that it took specimens from the uteri (of male rabbits).&rdquo (A male rabbit does not have a uterus.)

This is only the most egregious example of the unreliable data made available to the EPA during its original regulatory review in the 1970s. Many other EPA memos we examined detail incomplete or otherwise unacceptable toxicology screening tests.

Conversely, one apparently valid study has been the target of major attempts to discredit it by both EPA management and Big Ag. In 1983, the EPA was continuing to examine glyphosate toxicity data supplied by Monsanto in anticipation of the registration review that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires for each pesticide at least every 15 years. As part of that process, Monsanto submitted to the EPA a two-year mouse feeding study&mdasha study that has since become a thorn in Monsanto&rsquos side and a drag on the EPA&rsquos push to find glyphosate benign. Its history merits close scrutiny.

The mouse study was conducted for Monsanto by a commercial lab called Bio/Dynamics, but the results of the research were neither peer-reviewed nor made publicly available. Bio/Dynamics studied 200 mice: 50 unexposed control mice and three groups of 50 mice exposed to three different doses of glyphosate. Four of the exposed mice&mdashone at the middle dose and three at the highest dose&mdashdeveloped kidney tumors called adenomas, which tend to be initially benign but can transform into cancers.

Staff toxicologists, pathologists and statisticians in the TB provided the first interpretation of these results. On March 4, 1985, an ad hoc committee of these scientists reported that based on this mouse study, glyphosate was carcinogenic, or a &ldquoClass C&rdquo substance. They did not question the 1983 study&rsquos structure or reported data. EPA staff toxicologist William Dykstra, in an April 3, 1985, memo, stated unequivocally, &ldquoGlyphosate was oncogenic in male mice causing renal tubule adenomas, a rare tumor, in a dose-related manner.&rdquo

The TB scientists recommended further expert analysis, so in the fall of 1985 Monsanto recruited four outside pathologists to review the original tissue slides from the 1983 study and&mdasheventually&mdashfresh slides taken from the same animals used in that original study. In a March 11, 1986, memo, Dykstra reported on the results of this review: One of the outside pathologists, Marvin Kuschner, saw a tumor in the control group of mice like those found in the exposed groups. Based on this finding, the EPA decided to discount the entire study on the grounds that if an unexposed control mouse had a tumor, the tumors in the exposed mice were &ldquonot compound-related.&rdquo Subsequent evaluation of the same evidence by other pathologists found no evidence of a tumor in the control mouse, but the seeds of doubt had already been sown. As late as 2016 the EPA still mentioned the tumor in the control mouse, although it was not there.

Dissatisfied with the first outside experts&rsquo verdict, the EPA asked another five outside pathologists to look at the mouse tissue slides from that study. According to a March 1, 1986, memo from EPA Hazard Evaluation Division toxicologist D. Stephen Saunders, these experts decided that &ldquothe incidences of renal tubular-cell neoplasms in this study are not compound-related&rdquo&mdashin other words, that the kidney tumors were not related to glyphosate exposure.

Throughout this process, the EPA was riddled with internal dissent. In February 1985, TB statistician Herbert Lacayo wrote an impassioned memo regarding the 1983 mouse study. He concluded that without glyphosate exposure, the odds of seeing the kidney tumors noted in the study were about 156 to 1.

&ldquoUnder such circumstances a prudent person would reject the Monsanto assumption that glyphosate dosing has no effect on kidney tumor production,&rdquo wrote Lacayo. &ldquoOur viewpoint is one of protecting the public health when we see suspicious data. It is not our job to protect registrants from false positives.&rdquo

Monsanto&rsquos interests were protected by a toxicological tenet that held sway at the time: the linear dose-response. This assumes that the greater the dose of a toxic substance, the greater the effects, and vice versa, often phrased as &ldquothe dose makes the poison.&rdquo Under this assumption, a carcinogenicity test would be expected to show tumor size or tumor numbers increasing in linear relation to increased exposure to the carcinogen. In the mouse study, tumor numbers followed this pattern, which the TB noted was an indication that the tumors were glyphosate-related. But the largest tumor was found in one of the middle-dose mice. Pathologist Robert A. Squire, a member of the first outside group consulted, wrote in a September 1985 letter to Monsanto, &ldquoThis would be highly unlikely if the tumors were compound-related.&rdquo Thus, even though the tumor numbers followed a linear dose-response, the tumor size of the middle-dose mouse presented an opportunity to discount glyphosate&rsquos effects as non-linear and therefore nonexistent.

In some circumstances, the linear dose-response reasoning makes sense, but the science of chemical health effects has advanced considerably since the 1980s. It is now generally accepted among academic researchers that non-linear dose-responses&mdashresponses in which low levels of exposure may produce more significant effects than high levels and responses in which effects at high doses sometimes plateau or tail off&mdashoften occur.

None of the regulatory studies of glyphosate considers the possibility of non-linear dose-responses. The registration documents submitted by Monsanto show that when glyphosate testing data did not conform to the linear dose-response model, the company&rsquos hired scientists and the EPA&rsquos consultants concluded that adverse effects found in exposed animals were not caused by glyphosate. But this outdated approach underlines why glyphosate&rsquos toxicity should be revisited using modern concepts and methods.

After a decade of EPA staff scientists repeatedly flagging inconsistencies, mistakes and questionable scientific interpretations in Monsanto&rsquos data, one might expect the EPA to require rigorous new studies. Instead, the agency continued to invite outside experts to review the data, as though it was determined to ask the same question until it got the answer it was looking for.

Don&rsquot like the answer? Pitaj ponovo.

In early 1986, the EPA called in yet more outside experts&mdashnamely, the agency&rsquos FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. The seven-member panel included the head of biochemical toxicology and pathobiology at the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT). This institute was founded by chemical manufacturers and funded by organizations and companies that included the American Chemistry Council (an industry group that boasts Monsanto as a member), and pesticide manufacturers BASF, Bayer and Dow Chemical. The panel also included a consultant who had worked for the ChemAgro Corporation (later part of Bayer&rsquos agricultural division) before founding her own consultancy.

The FIFRA panel felt that calling glyphosate carcinogenic was going too far and suggested downgrading its classification to D, &ldquonot classified.&rdquo

Biostatistician Christopher Portier, formerly a director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (part of the Department of Health and Human Services) says the agency should have stuck with the TB ad hoc committee&rsquos original interpretation. Of the FIFRA panel, he says, &ldquoI have no clue how they got there.&rdquo

At the same time, according to a February 1985 summary memo by Stephen L. Saunders, based on the panel&rsquos advice, &ldquoThe Agency has determined that the existing mouse study does not provide sufficient evidence for a resolution of this issue. Therefore, a repeat mouse study is required.&rdquo

Despite the EPA&rsquos requests for a clarifying experiment, Monsanto apparently refused. Monsanto&rsquos registration director George B. Fuller protested vigorously in an Oct. 5, 1988, letter to the director of the EPA&rsquos Office of Pesticide Programs, Edwin F. Tinsworth. &ldquo[There is] no relevant scientific or regulatory justification for repeating the glyphosate mouse oncogenicity study,&rdquo Fuller wrote. &ldquoWe feel that to do so would not be an appropriate use of either the Agency&rsquos or Monsanto&rsquos resources.&rdquo In a 1988 meeting, the company again pressed the EPA to give up on the repeat mouse study requirement. The EPA backed down.

To our knowledge, the original 1983 mouse-feeding carcinogenicity study was never repeated.

What is clear from available EPA internal records is that when test results suggest toxicity, EPA management&mdashas opposed to EPA staff scientists&mdashconsistently gives Monsanto and its testing laboratories the benefit of the doubt. They defer to Monsanto&rsquos preferred conclusions instead of requiring the development of additional evidence that would clarify the questions regarding glyphosate&rsquos carcinogenicity. The documents we have examined indicate that the EPA may have asked for&mdashor intended to enforce a requirement for&mdashbetter data, but we have seen nothing to show that the agency ever did so. The EPA did not respond to our request for comment.

Despite these omissions and questions, in June 1991, the EPA announced that it was downgrading glyphosate from a &ldquoClass D&rdquo&mdash&ldquonot classifiable&rdquo substance&mdashto a &ldquoClass E&rdquo substance&mdash&ldquoone that shows evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans&mdashbased on the lack of convincing evidence in adequate studies.&rdquo (Note that this implies adequate studies might still provide convincing evidence.)

After the EPA reregistered glyphosate in 1993, the agency&rsquos investigation of glyphosate&rsquos potential health effects became more or less dormant until controversy erupted when the World Health Organization&rsquos IARC concluded in 2015 that glyphosate was &ldquoprobably carcinogenic to humans.&rdquo That in turn prompted the EPA to develop its Fall 2016 &ldquoGlyphosate Issue Paper.&rdquo This document references the 1983 mouse study as a linchpin in its conclusion that glyphosate is not a human carcinogen. Referring to the 1983 study, the EPA wrote, &ldquoThe additional pathological and statistical evaluations concluded that the renal tumors in male mice were not compound-related.&rdquo

For its part, Monsanto called the IARC review &ldquoflawed&rdquo and accused the IARC committee of cherry-picking and overlooking data. Monsanto demanded the report&rsquos retraction.

In an 1985 memo, an EPA Toxicology Branch statistician wrote, “Our viewpoint is one of protecting the public health when we see suspicious data. It is not our job to protect registrants from false positives.”

In a September 27 email to In These Times, Monsanto spokesperson Charla Lord stressed that IARC is not a regulatory agency and that &ldquono regulatory agency in the world has concluded glyphosate is a carcinogen.&rdquo As noted above, however, the California Environmental Protection Agency&rsquos Office of Health Hazard Assessment has done so.

The IARC controversy and the EPA&rsquos second re-registration process for glyphosate, which began in 2009, have triggered a salvo of scientific journal articles and comments from the agricultural industry. This includes an entire toxicology journal issue devoted to articles (all financed by Monsanto) asserting glyphosate safety and casting doubt on contrary results. The apparent goal of these comments and articles is to discredit the IARC decision and to influence the EPA&rsquos re-registration process.

Judging by the stance of the EPA&rsquos &ldquoGlyphosate Issue Paper,&rdquo the campaign has succeeded. The EPA has not commissioned or conducted any of its own studies to examine glyphosate&rsquos potential health effects rather, the EPA document relies on non-public industry research and industry-financed reviews. It ignores the significant body of peer-reviewed literature not only on the chemical&rsquos carcinogenic effects, but also on glyphosate&rsquos harmful effects on fetal development, hormonal balance, gut bacteria and ecological balance.

Indeed, the industry reviews are not simply convenient collations of relevant literature for the EPA&mdashthe agency appears to rely on the interpretations and conclusions of the industry-financed scientists as well, in some cases without seeing the original studies. In comments submitted to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel on Nov. 3, 2016, Natural Resources Defense Council senior scientist Jennifer Sass stated:

NRDC strongly disagrees with EPA&rsquos dismissal or reduced weighting of many of the positive studies, and its higher weighting of guideline studies which are most often the industry-sponsored studies generated to support regulatory approval. NRDC is especially concerned that EPA relied on a review article&mdashparticularly one sponsored by the industries whose products are the target of this risk assessment&mdashinstead of the original studies.

John DeSesso, a principal with the chemical consultancy Exponent, insists the studies and reviews the EPA relied on are solid. &ldquoCertainly they relied on those studies, but they happen to be the better studies that are out there,&rdquo DeSesso says. &ldquoI understand people saying of course it came out a certain way because Monsanto paid for it.&rdquo He adds, &ldquoIf it went to the EPA, they don&rsquot have the people to do it or the time to do it themselves. So they&rsquore looking for people staying in the middle of the road and let the data tell the story.&rdquo

Yet two facts remain: First, the EPA failed to consider the large body of peer-reviewed science on glyphosate currently available. Second, neither the public nor the scientific community has access to the original study data from Monsanto upon which the EPA bases its claims of glyphosate&rsquos safety.

In July 2015, five months after IARC concluded that glyphosate was carcinogenic, Monsanto reacted publicly to Moms Across America&rsquos 2014 breast milk survey. The company&rsquos response to this small nonprofit organization parallels its lobbying of a federal agency over the last 40 years, demonstrating that it will seek to discredit all opposition no matter how small. It aggressively and publicly sowed doubt as it manipulated the science behind the scenes.

The first public salvo against Moms Across America came in a July 2015 press release from Washington State University (WSU). WSU biology professor Michelle McGuire was quoted as saying, &ldquoThe Moms Across America study flat out got it wrong.&rdquo The release, which is no longer available at the WSU web site, explained that yet-to-be-published research by McGuire and her colleagues showed that glyphosate &ldquodoes not accumulate in mother&rsquos milk.&rdquo The WSU release described McGuire&rsquos results as &ldquoindependently verified by an accredited outside organization.&rdquo These assertions turned out to be false.

When asked about the study at the time, McGuire, WSU and Monsanto all said the study was conducted independently. Yet the press release noted that the study&rsquos milk samples were tested at Monsanto&rsquos laboratories in St. Louis, as well as by Covance, Inc. (The company was formerly named Hazleton, which was doing toxicology testing for Monsanto as early as 1979.) When we queried about this in July 2015, McGuire and Monsanto explained that Monsanto had developed the test method used to measure glyphosate in human milk.

Asked why the company had developed the test method, Monsanto explained via email that McGuire&rsquos study had, in fact, been conducted in response to Moms Across America&rsquos test results. The Monsanto spokesman wrote: &ldquoAfter the Moms Across America results were posted, Monsanto consulted with the researchers about the data. We all determined that the most appropriate way to address the issues was to conduct another analysis using an analytical methodology that was validated to be precise and specific for the detection of glyphosate in human milk.&rdquo

In a September 25 Biology Fortified, Inc. YouTube video, McGuire said the study had &ldquoa conflict of interest that needed to be managed really, really carefully.&rdquo As the most specific example of such careful management, she said that in order to &ldquomake sure we had an independent or third-party lab analyze the samples,&rdquo the samples were shipped &ldquodirectly to Covance so it was not like we were going through Monsanto.&rdquo

Given the close ties between Covance and Monsanto, and Monsanto&rsquos role in devising the study and developing the analytical method, McGuire&rsquos description of the analysis as &ldquoindependent&rdquo is something of a stretch.

In March 2016, the WSU study was published by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The study&rsquos acknowledgements detail extensive support from Monsanto:

Three of the study&rsquos nine authors are listed as Monsanto employees.

Research &ldquogifts&rdquo of $10,000 are disclosed from Monsanto to McGuire and her co-author (and husband) Mark McGuire, in addition to the study costs for which Monsanto reimbursed the McGuires.

The study&rsquos biological sample testing (milk and urine) was paid for by Monsanto, and the company was involved in other aspects of the study design and assay development.

Curiously, even though the authors included Michelle and Mark McGuire, the study footnotes also say that &ldquothe authors reported no funding received for this study&rdquo and that authors not employed by Monsanto reported no conflicts of interest related to the study.

Further undermining claims of the study&rsquos independence is the fact that the journal that published McGuire&rsquos study is copyrighted to the American Society of Nutrition, of which Monsanto&mdashalong with numerous other agricultural and food manufacturing corporations&mdashis a &ldquosustaining partner.&rdquo Michelle McGuire is listed in her university bio as an American Society of Nutrition spokesperson.

Phil Weller, a WSU spokesperson, says university scientists like McGuire &ldquoare encouraged to collaborate with researchers working in industry&rdquo and &ldquoto design their studies in such a way that any sort of bias that might be involved does not influence their results.&rdquo

When glyphosate was first registered, it no doubt appeared benign compared to very toxic compounds that had been used as pesticides for decades. But glyphosate usage has ballooned beyond all expectations and, more than four decades later, we have no clear understanding of the consequences of this increased exposure on humans and the environment.

The EPA&rsquos regulatory record on glyphosate is compromised by missing, incomplete, hidden, redacted, lost and otherwise faulty information. The EPA relies on data, most of which is unpublished, that is supplied by the manufacturer, interpreted by the industry and not publicly available. Consequently, a decisive and transparent assessment of glyphosate&rsquos toxicity is impossible. The EPA has never wavered from its decision to dismiss and minimize the 1983 mouse study, which appears to be valid. The agency has never attempted to replicate the study in order to clarify its results&mdashperhaps because it feared that such evidence would demonstrate that glyphosate was indeed a carcinogen. Furthermore, it&rsquos a pattern the agency continues to follow, discounting later studies using similar arguments and research supplied by industry that have not undergone independent analysis.

Neither the public nor the scientific community has access to the original study data from Monsanto upon which the EPA bases its claims of glyphosate’s safety.

&ldquoI gave [the EPA] the benefit of the doubt in 1986,&rdquo says Portier. &ldquoI don&rsquot give them the benefit of the doubt in 2017.&rdquo

Glyphosate is a clear case of &ldquoregulatory capture&rdquo by a corporation acting in its own financial interest while serious questions about public health remain in limbo.

The record suggests that in 44 years&mdashthrough eight presidential administrations&mdashEPA management has never attempted to correct the problem. Indeed, the pesticide industry touts its forward-looking, modern technologies as it strives to keep its own research in the closet, and relies on questionable assumptions and outdated methods in regulatory toxicology.

The only way to establish a scientific basis for evaluating glyphosate&rsquos safety, as a group of 14 scientists suggested in 2016, would be to make proprietary industrial studies public, put them up against the peer-reviewed literature and conduct new studies by researchers independent of corporate interests&mdashin other words, force some daylight between regulators and the regulated.

As an independent, nonprofit publication, IN THESE TIMES depends on support from readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

Valerie Brown is a journalist specializing in environmental health, climate change and microbiology. In 2009 she was honored by the Society of Environmental Journalists for her writing on epigenetics.

Elizabeth Grossman was an award-winning journalist specializing in science and environmental issues. She was the author of Chasing Molecules, High Tech Trash and other books. To the great sorrow of her colleagues and friends, Grossman died in July of ovarian cancer.

Want to stay up to date with the latest news and investigative reports? Subscribe to the free In These Times weekly newsletter:


US May Start Testing Food for ‘Probably Carcinogenic’ Glyphosate

Following the World Health Organization’s report declaring that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, likely causes cancer, the Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday that regulators may begin testing food for residue of the pesticide chemical.

"Given increased public interest in glyphosate, EPA may recommend sampling for glyphosate in the future," the EPA said in an email to Reuters.

While Monsanto maintains that the herbicide is safe in &ldquotrace amounts,&rdquo the public has grown increasingly weary of the chemical especially after the World Health Organization reclassified glyphosate from &ldquopossibly carcinogenic&rdquo to &ldquoprobably carcinogenic to humans&rdquo last month.

After the reclassification, Monsanto fired off an extremely contentious press release stating that they have asked to meet with the World Health Organization to challenge their findings, as half of the agro giant&rsquos revenue reportedly comes from Roundup and Roundup Ready Seeds.

&ldquoWe have issued an urgent request for appropriate personnel of the WHO to sit down with the global glyphosate taskforces and other regulatory agencies to account for the scientific studies used in their analysis and, equally as important, to account for those scientific studies that were disregarded,&rdquo the controversial company wrote.

The US government does not currently test for glyphosate in food as it had previously been considered safe. The ultimate decision on whether or not testing will begin is in the hands of the US Department of Agriculture and their pesticide data program.

The only year that the USDA opted to test for glyphosate was 2011, and out of 300 soybeans tested, 271 of the samples tested positive for the herbicide.

Aside from the likelihood of glyphosate being carcinogenic, many studies have also shown alarming instances of fetal deaths and birth defects in animals, including missing kidneys and lungs, enlarged hearts, and abnormally formed bones and skulls, linked to the chemical.

The pressure to begin the testing is not likely to relent, as people become more concerned about where their food is coming from, and many preferring their dinners to not have been grown with poisons.

Povezano:

All comments

In reply to (Show commentHide comment)
Preporučeno
Multimedia

Trending

Hello, !

Hello, !

Hello, !

The fact of registration and authorization of users on Sputnik websites via users’ account or accounts on social networks indicates acceptance of these rules.

Users are obliged abide by national and international laws. Users are obliged to speak respectfully to the other participants in the discussion, readers and individuals referenced in the posts.

The websites’ administration has the right to delete comments made in languages ​​other than the language of the majority of the websites’ content.

In all language versions of the sputniknews.com websites any comments posted can be edited.

A user comment will be deleted if it:

  • does not correspond with the subject of the post
  • promotes hatred and discrimination on racial, ethnic, sexual, religious or social basis or violates the rights of minorities
  • violates the rights of minors, causing them harm in any form, including moral damage
  • contains ideas of extremist nature or calls for other illegal activities
  • contains insults, threats to other users, individuals or specific organizations, denigrates dignity or undermines business reputations
  • contains insults or messages expressing disrespect to Sputnik
  • violates privacy, distributes personal data of third parties without their consent or violates privacy of correspondence
  • describes or references scenes of violence, cruelty to animals
  • contains information about methods of suicide, incites to commit suicide
  • pursues commercial objectives, contains improper advertising, unlawful political advertisement or links to other online resources containing such information
  • promotes products or services of third parties without proper authorization
  • contains offensive language or profanity and its derivatives, as well as hints of the use of lexical items falling within this definition
  • contains spam, advertises spamming, mass mailing services and promotes get-rich-quick schemes
  • promotes the use of narcotic / psychotropic substances, provides information on their production and use
  • contains links to viruses and malicious software
  • is part of an organized action involving large volumes of comments with identical or similar content ("flash mob")
  • “floods” the discussion thread with a large number of incoherent or irrelevant messages
  • violates etiquette, exhibiting any form of aggressive, humiliating or abusive behavior ("trolling")
  • doesn’t follow standard rules of the English language, for example, is typed fully or mostly in capital letters or isn’t broken down into sentences.

The administration has the right to block a user’s access to the page or delete a user’s account without notice if the user is in violation of these rules or if behavior indicating said violation is detected.

Users can initiate the recovery of their account / unlock access by contacting the moderators at [email protected]

  • Subject - the restoration of account / unlock access
  • User ID
  • An explanation of the actions which were in violation of the rules above and resulted in the lock.

If the moderators deem it possible to restore the account / unlock access, it will be done.

In the case of repeated violations of the rules above resulting in a second block of a user’s account, access cannot be restored.


Pogledajte video: Zemljisni herbicidi Mont i Terbis, Agromarket U nasem ataru 528 (Decembar 2021).