WHAT ABOUT GLYPHOSATE?

                                                        Piney Woods Journal Submission 2019

You don't have to be in the agricultural sector or interested in public health and safety to have heard recent news reports about glyphosate threats.  A second and recent court decision on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup for weed control, found it to have been a substantial factor in causing human cancer.  The court awarded $80 million in this second case.  Scientists, however, are still providing mixed results in studies of whether glyphosate should be considered a human carcinogen.

Governmental agencies such as the EPA and the European Food Safety Authority have not found enough evidence to take action so far based on existing scientific studies of the linkage between glyphosate application and human cancer.  Yet many cities, states or regions, and countries around the world are already restricting or banning the use of glyphosate products (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/where-is-glyphosate-banned/). 

Glyphosate concerns extend beyond the question of direct human carcinogen effect to scientific reporting on broader impacts of glyphosate on animal and pollinator populations.   For example, in the particular case of honey bees, recent studies have suggested that low doses of glyphosate can affect their larval development (2018, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205074), disrupt their gut bacteria (2018, https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/Glyphosate-disrupts-honey-bee-gut/96/web/2018/09), and impair their cognitive abilities to navigate from forage to the hive (https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.117291).

Publicity about glyphosate impact in the natural environment is somewhat similar to earlier warnings and certain bans on the use of neonicotinoids.  Neonicotinoids are manufactured by large companies, such as Bayer, for pest control on state crops like soybeans, corn and cotton.  Many environmentalists have cited neonicotinoids, as well as glyphosate, as contributors to the decades-long decline of pollinators. Neonicotinoids placed in seed coatings and glyphosate spraying can make pollinators more susceptible over time to pests, diseases, and loss of habitat (https://foe.org/neonicotinoids-glyphosate/).  Use of glyphosate on crops and along highways obviously leads to loss of important forage options for pollinators, such as milkweed for butterflies.

The issue of glyphosate, and lawsuits surrounding this, has certainly drawn the attention of many row-crop farmers as well as beekeepers and honey producers.  Reports have shown that the majority of honey samples tested had measurable levels of glyphosate https://www.producer.com/2017/07/bee-controversy-helpful-says-u-s-honey-official/).  Also, rejections of honey barrels by certain packers due to their higher levels of glyphosate have created at least a little apprehension in recent years among some honey producers.   

Debates about glyphosate and neonicotinoids can remind us of the early days of the modern environmental movement over a half century ago, after Rachel Carsons wrote the influential book Silent Spring.   Instead of glyphosate and neonicotinoids, the culprit then was DDT.  It was found to damage wildlife, agricultural animals, domestic pets, and even humans.  Just how safe are glyphosate or neonicotinoids?  We await more scientific evidence that leads to better informed public policies and private practices.

I’m hardly a research scientist.  My background is in the field of management and public policy.  As a society, we make decisions, laws and regulations that seek to protect humans and our natural environment.   The role of science is critical, not only for public policy decisions, but also for the pursuit of new, more effective, and less damaging products.  Researchers can also help identify agricultural “best practices” for determining when, where and how to apply existing pesticides and herbicides.

A question often posed is whether we need more or less safety regulations in the USA.  The better question seems how to create more effective social and marketplace controls, as well as necessary regulations, to address fairly the interests of all impacted stakeholders. 

Large corporations manufacturing agricultural chemicals are certainly a key stakeholder in these public policy decisions.  Top managers of these corporations through lobbying and political contributions have great power in our society to influence or shape public policy. These corporations can also fund, conduct and interpret their own scientific research.  Special interest organizations representing farmers, the consuming public, those committed to environmental protection, and others also have a stake and some power.  Our future is determined by the continuing interactions and public dialogues of these key stakeholders who often have their own particular interests and concerns. 

We depend so much on our scientists, and media sources interpreting scientific research, to make these often complex issues more transparent and understandable.   The integrity and ethical standards of scientists, media reporters and editors, and government agency officials are more vital than ever before in an era when public faith in the trustworthiness of most institutions seems low and declining.