Monsanto's efforts to introduce biotechnology into Europe have been met with activist-fired hostility. Recently a few media outlets in the UK decided to "kick 'em while they're down." Seizing the opportunity to exploit public sentiment about the company, activists went after Monsanto's leading product -- the herbicide glyphosate, also called Roundup. It's a classic example of media exploiting junk science.
Glyphosate is widely recognized as having very low toxicity and favorable environmental characteristics. It breaks down in soil into naturally occurring substances, such as carbon dioxide. Because it binds tightly to soil particles, it is very unlikely to move to groundwater or to run off fields. The ability to use glyphosate on crops genetically altered to tolerate the herbicide provides an environmental benefit over many other weed control options, including plowing.
The Independent, a UK newspaper, and Channel 4 in the UK reported that concerns about a possible link to non-Hodgkins lymphoma and an alleged threat to beneficial insects could result in European Union advisors not approving glyphosate for use under the new EU regulatory system. Roundup, already approved by individual countries, is widely used throughout Europe. Used on many crops throughout the continent, it is responsible for the growth of soil-saving conservation tillage. Roundup has even been used to cleanse the weed-infested ruins at Pompeii.
The new concerns are based on flimsy evidence exploited by activists. The claim that Roundup is harmful to beneficial insects is based on a single laboratory study in which insects were sandwiched between two pieces of glass that had been covered with the herbicide. After several days of constant exposure, it is not surprising that some died. Sticky Kool-Aid might have had the same effect.
In the real world, insects can move away from a sprayed area or hide under a leaf. Many field studies during the nearly 30 years of Roundup use have shown no harm to beneficial insects. Studies mandated by U.S. EPA and the World Health Organization show that Roundup is not harmful to honeybees. Another study, conducted by the International Organization for Biological Control, exposed 18 species of insects for several days to glass or sand surfaces covered with various pesticides. Some exposed to Roundup died. But because so few died in relation to other tested products, the IOBC concluded there was no need to test Roundup further. There have also been favorable studies with earthworms, beetles, and other species. These of course were ignored by the corporate-bashing media and the activists.
The hubbub over non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL), a form of cancer, is based on one sentence in a study in which NHL patients were asked to recall what pesticides they might have used or been exposed to in the past several years. A statistically insignificant number mentioned Roundup. The investigators acknowledged the association was weak, but mentioned it as a possible concern because glyphosate is a widely used product. This one weak association, which may have been based on nothing more than poor recall, was enough to put activists such as Pesticide Action Network and Greenpeace into motion.
In contrast, reviews by the U.S. EPA, World Health Organization and the European Union (in a recently concluded review) concluded the weight of evidence collected over 30 years showed Roundup is not carcinogenic. As for the NHL study, a number of prominent experts around the world have raised important concerns about its limitations. They include: Dr. Mark Cullen, Occupational and Environmental Medicide Program, Yale School of Medicine; Dr. Tom Sorahan, Reader in Epidemiology, Institute of Occupational Health, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom; Dr. Joop J. Van Hemmen, Nutrition and Food Research Institute, Utrechtseweg, The Netherlands. The leading experts were not kind in their remarks: "This is a study that has limited power, was inadequately designed, poorly analyzed, and confusingly reported," wrote Dr. Dimitrios Trichopolous, of Harvard University, and Dr. Hans Olav, Adami Karolinska Institute of Stockholm. These and other experts were made available to the media, as was the information about other studies, but of course they were ignored.
Hopefully, the reputation of such people has more credence with decision makers than the headlines of a European scare rag.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.