Glyphosate is one of the most merciless of pesticides. Commonly referred to as Roundup, it is found in every tissue and organ insidiously causing some degree of illness within each of us, our children and our pets every day.
It is found throughout our environment in animals, plants, food, soil, air and water, causing diverse types of damage that are unpredictable and long-lasting.
After years of skillful propaganda and avoiding litigation, the manufacturer is finally being held responsible in some cases. Monsanto/Bayer has recently lost three non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma court cases in California (2018-19) with costly settlements awarded. Three more similar trials are beginning, and more than 75,000 cases await litigation. This is astonishing, but how and why has this happened?
Like a horological nightmare, glyphosate’s convoluted chemistry within our bodies simulate the profuse intricacies of a Grande Complication wristwatch, but with dumbfounding and morbid repercussions that can be transgenerational and defy remediation; and all is steeped in a legal regulatory framework that is unprofessional at best.
Thus, public and environmental health suffer because glyphosate negatively affects all life forms. This is a multi-faceted, venal-driven crisis that aptly can be called “the glyphosate complication.”
Returning to “how and why,” consider the larger pesticide picture and associated toxicological issues that keep confronting us and require much scientific attention and effort to lessen the threat of so many pesticides — like a real-world version of whack-a-mole.
Among the world’s four leading agricultural producers and exporters, the U.S. lags behind the European Union, Brazil and China in restricting or banning harmful pesticides. Of 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides used in U.S. agriculture in 2016, approximately 322 million pounds were pesticides banned in the EU. Seventy-two pesticides that have been banned or are being phased out in the EU are still approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Among those products deemed by the EU too dangerous to use at any level:
■ 2,4-DB, oxytetracycline, and paraquat. The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) allows one 2,4-DB, one oxytetracycline and four paraquat products8.
■Atrazine herbicide, an endocrine disruptor and possible carcinogen. MDAR allows nine products.
■Outdoor use of three types of neonicotinoid pesticides, which are high risk to pollinators, including imidacloprid. MDAR allows fourteen imidacloprid products.
■Organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos, which causes neurological harm in children. MDAR allows six products.
■Glyphosate herbicide (probable human carcinogen and endocrine disruptor) is restricted or banned in several countries and in 13 Massachusetts towns, but is still allowed by the EPA. MDAR allows 22 products.
The Massachusetts Pesticide Board is responsible for advising the MDAR commissioner on administration and implementation of pesticide general laws. The Pesticide Board Subcommittee is responsible for registering all pesticides. Since the latter frequently defaults to “EPA standards,” the scientific robustness of their scrutiny of each pesticide as evidenced above is questionable.
It is illogical for MDAR to currently register glyphosate since the EPA has been proven to be scientifically and ethically unreliable, including collusion with Monsanto to hide health and safety data.
Unknowingly, we are eating, drinking and breathing an obscure “pesticide stew.” MDAR’s latest annual report (for 2016) shows 8,442 pesticide products registered; a June 2019 Subcommittee report indicated 8,929 products were currently registered. It is reasonable to suggest that many of the approved pesticides — glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, neonicotinoids and atrazine — should never have been registered if Pesticide Board members were better-informed and prioritizing public and environmental health. Such protection has not been prioritized, nor has the precautionary principle.
As with EPA risk assessments, MDAR’s process for pesticide review, approval and registration is out of step with current, independent scientific knowledge. Understanding pesticide impacts constantly evolves, especially regarding effects on non-target species, bodies of water and other environmental resources.
Considering the well-documented range of morbidity and mortality resulting from glyphosate exposure, it is difficult to understand why such products are approved. Harmful effects will repeatedly haunt us because there are apparent problems within MDAR that result in glyphosate data reviews not being kept up-to-date or acknowledged.
Harm will continue as long as it remains available to anyone (homeowners or certified applicators) and is not banned outright. Almost anything but a ban is like putting Band-Aids on bullet wounds. However, in the short term, any regulatory restrictions would be helpful, including towns transitioning to glyphosate-free land care.
For the long-term, in order to decipher MDAR’s decision-making process with regard to glyphosate and quell concerns of gross negligence, collusion with industry, or other impropriety (as witnessed at the federal level), it is highly recommended that the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General conduct an investigation to look into any potential misconduct by MDAR’s pesticide operations and personnel, including, but not limited to, the Pesticide Board and Pesticide Board Subcommittee.
It should be clearly understood that the glyphosate crisis is not only with products, but more fundamentally with the process that makes products available. Involvement of the inspector general is proposed because an investigation could result in a scrupulous ecocentric overhaul of the pesticide review and approval process that could maximize protection of public and environmental health, protect food and water resources and enhance climate crisis protections.
Ultimately, as implied herein, other egregious pesticides must also be addressed of which glyphosate represents the “poster child.”
Dr. Stephen Frantz of South Hadley is a research pathobiologist at Global Environmental Options.