Recently,California has added Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) to its list of known carcinogens that control which products need to carry a certain warning.
Given this fact pattern, should cities and other local governmental agencies cease the use of this herbicide to stave off potential future liability? I am getting the feeling that Roundup may come to be seen like asbestos is, but I haven’t read thoroughly the background of these claims.
One: is glyphosate (Roundup) dangerous? The scientific evidence strongly supports the conclusion that it has a good safety profile and is not carcinogenic (the one outlier report which likely influenced the California jury came from IARC, which disregarded contrary evidence and seems to have been swayed by one scientist who obtained a gig testifying in glyphosate lawsuits).
Two: are cities placing themselves in legal jeopardy by using glyphosate? That may well be the case, owing to lawyers seeing a fast buck and juries unimpressed by good science. Questions to ask: How important is it to use weedkillers on a widespread basis in parks and such? How toxic are other herbicides (answer - a lot more toxic than Roundup)?
In my view, glyphosate has gotten a bad rap (and in some instances, aroused near-hysterical reactions*) due to its association with glyphosate-resistant genetically modified crops and manufacture by Monsanto, the Great Evil of the all-things-natural and anti-GMO crowd. I avoid using herbicides in my garden and think their overuse in agriculture can be problematic, but if we treat glyphosate as a bogeyman, it’s inevitable that much more risky chemicals will be substituted for it. Not good.
*OMG! There are 3 parts per billion of glyphosate (or whatever number) in apple juice! Won’t someone think of the children???!?!?
Yeah, I agree. This is what I’ve read as well. While I wouldn’t suggest putting glyphosate on your sugar bombs cereal, I think it’s a lot safer than most if not all of the alternatives. And I think a lot of the frenzy about this has it’s roots in the (anti-science IMHO) anti-GMO movement and fears of frankenfood and the like.
The one big difference between Roundup and asbestos is that Roundup breaks down quickly and asbestos is forever. The biggest theoretic liability, therefore, is for people applying Roundup, who are repeatedly exposed. A smaller liability might be someone who is near an area that gets repeated applications, at the time that the applications occur. There is no liability for anyone who goes near an area where Roundup was used in the past. And if an area where Roundup was used in the past is demolished, there’s nothing that needs to be removed by people in moon suits, nor does anything need to be transported and disposed of as hazardous waste.
I’ll put it this way: IF someone is going to use a herbicide around people, I’m more comfortable with them using glyphosate than just about anything else.
I’m somewhat surprised - I had expected there to be more objection to then use of Roundup. I’ll have to read more about the effects.
On the liability question, that may supersede any actual science though.
While I agree the hysteria is overblown - I haven’t any more than a Sunday supplement understanding of the science - there are factors contributing to the legal exposure that I don’t think are accounted for, here.
There is, essentially, no level of trust in the American public for the good works of large corporations and, by and large, this lack of trust is justified. Sure, possibly Roundup is safe as kittens. But would a rational person NOT assume that if it wasn’t, they still wouldn’t be marketing it and attempting to hide the danger to the public? Even if Monsanto’s C-suite people were composed entirely of angels and Mister Rogers clones, there’s simply too large a history of corporations selling snake oil and endangering the public for juries to not be assuming misdeeds. From ExxonMobil hiding climate change data to the tobacco industry outright lying about the safety of smoking (with doctors, no less) there’s simply no way the public - even in the face of evidence - doesn’t approach lawsuits against large corporations with a large bias against them.
Without building up a level of trust over time, I don’t see this issue going away.
This attitude accounts for the current system for filing legal claims for alleged vaccine injuries and basically having to go through a federal “vaccine court” before taking claims to the next level. In part due to public mistrust of Big Pharma, juries were assuming the worst and granting huge settlements which threatened to force drug companies out of the vaccine business.*
*the argument that you can’t trust vaccines because of Big Pharma remains commonplace. I ask these people if they’d also turn down antibiotics if they got septic, say no to insulin if diabetic or refuse clot-busting drugs during the early stages of an ischemic stroke because, ya know, Big Pharma Bad. Never had a coherent answer yet.
That’s one end of the spectrum sure. But regardless there have been instances where large corporate interests suppressed information for their benefit and at the detriment of the public. Given how widespread the use of Roundup is, I’d think we would want to be very sure of its safety. Of course, that cuts both ways, given its widespread use we’d figure stronger evidence of negative effects would present.
And if you are a city and have employees who use the chemical, would you risk a costly lawsuit, or seek alternatives that have less of a negative reputation that juries may seize on? As linked in the OP, some cities have already taken the step to prohibit its use. I’m on the fence if I think that’s wise.
Certainly we might want to be wary of relying only on studies paid for by corporate interests.
However, in the case of glyphosate* there have been multiple independent reviews by public health agencies backing its safety. For instance, there’s the comprehensive evaluation by the European Food Safety Administration, and the NIH’s Agricultural Health Study (which found no link between glyphosate and cancer).
*this also goes for GMO safety (we don’t have to go to Monsanto for answers, we can look at non-industry reviews like UCal-Davis’ trillion-meal animal health study and the major analysis by the National Academy of Sciences) and vaccine safety (no need to listen to Merck when many independent scientific studies validate the safety and efficacy of vaccines).
For those of you (and I know you’re out there) who dismiss science as hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy no matter who’s doing it, and would rather trust anecdotes instead, I give you The Wonderful World of Stu, who drinks glyphosate and lives to tell about it (at least in the short term).
*skip to the 6:30 mark for purposes of (semi) brevity.
I think the larger issue with Roundup/Monsanto are related to:
First, farming practices of farms using Monsanto GMO seeds that blow into the fields of farmers of crops in neighboring Organic fields. These non-Monsanto farmers then get sued by Monsanto big lawyers for using “unauthorized/unlicensed” Monsanto GMO seeds. See the documentary “Food Inc” for more on this.
Second, Glyphosate is shown to be quite harmful to our Bee populations. A simple Google search will reveal countless studies done to verify this. And no Bees means no crops for everyone.
Third, using GMOs to “modify” crops to make them stronger is one thing, but simply so they can tolerate the Roundup is another thing entirely. These GMO crops only job is to withstand Roundup-like products so farmers can spray chemicals on the plants instead of perhaps trying other proven but slightly more costly farming practices like crop rotation, field resting, planting 2 crops together, soil enrichments that don’t involve nitrates, etc.
Fourth, the Monsanto/Roundup is responsible for the ever-growing issue of diminishing food diversity. If the majority of our food supply is controlled by Monsanto, that is a big problem, as you can imagine, if the world used to have 400 types of corn or tomatoes and now there are 3 varieties in 90% of the population’s food supply.
I’m sure there are more evils, but all this seems worse than the simple question “does Roundup cause cancer”.
Pretty much everything in LofG’s post is wrong, as well as (for the most part) unrelated to Roundup.
This is a myth; I know of no lawsuits filed by Monsanto (or other GM seed producers) against farmers due to accidental “contamination”. There have been a few highly publicized lawsuits against farmers who deliberately saved and planted genetically modified seeds without paying Monsanto for the rights (in one case the farmer collected grain from storage facilities knowing that much of it was GMO and planted it without getting the rights to do so), but that’s a far different circumstance.
The evidence that glyphosate harms bees is very weak. You may be confusing glyphosate with neonicotinoid pestides.
Farmers have been using herbicides for weed control for a very long time before genetic modification technology became available, and problems with overuse and resistance also predate RoundupReady crop technology. Get rid of glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant plants, and much more toxic herbicides will be used.
Advocating wise agricultural practices that reduce dependence on herbicides is something we can all agree with.
Again, loss of commercial crop diversity long predated GMOs and major Roundup use. Farmers tend to plant the most productive and pest-resistant varieties regardless of how they’re developed.
It’s untrue that Monsanto (or the new Evil Overlord that took it over, Bayer) “controls the world food supply”.
By the way, much commercially used glyphosate is not made by Monsanto (their last patent expired in 2000 according to Wikipedia). Much easier to attack Monsatan than to decry the use of generic glyphosate.
*as for the issue of “contamination” of organic crops: what about the converse - pollen from organic vegetables/grains “contaminating” nearby fields growing GMO varieties? You might expect the “contaminated” crop to have less disease/herbicide resistance or to be less productive, so should that farmer have the right to sue his organic counterpart? Seems kind of silly, especially since such “contamination” tends to be limited to immediately adjacent plantings.
No, it doesn’t. Think about where most of your food comes from and let us know if you need to be walked through it.
Not that glyphosate is a major problem for bees. It might have some harmful effects on their gut biota.
See, this is the problem. People with minimal science training (high school should suffice, but as we can see, it doesn’t) feel the need to expound on topics that they haven’t conducted even the barest minimum of background reading on. Then they vote. And we get the laws you would expect.
So given that the general public are stupid, and our laws and courts may reflect that, should municipalities make decisions that aren’t grounded in science? Maybe. From a pure litigation risk point of view.
I have to say, the evidence I’ve read this far isn’t that persuasive in favor of glyphosate. It’s been ruled a carcinogen Hy both CA and the UN version (I forget the acronym). The reason cite’ linked upthread mentions 800 studies but doesn’t link to them.
The court documents show a history of Monsanto pseudo bribing testing agencies rendering their favorable results questionable.
Folks have been posting as if it is clear, but from what I’ve read this far it’s far from it. I’m open to persuasion. Is there stronger actual evidence that would refute the results reviewed and presented in the court case?
I agree. I think this is a very fair assessment. I’m not persuaded, either, and certainly deeply skeptical about the ethics and motivations of Monsanto. Moreover, Dewayne Johnson’s attorney claimed that there is a synergistic reaction between glyphosate and other proprietary ingredients in Roundup which make the product more carcinogenic than glyphosate alone. IIRC, the Johnson case presented some internal Monsanto memos suggesting the same thing – that the safety studies on glyphosate should not be applied to Roundup, but I stress that I’m just contributing these recollections from memory and don’t claim to have a scientific understanding of the issues. Problem is, I’m not confident that anyone else does, either, including Monsanto scientists – or that Monsanto scientists would be any more at liberty to speak of what they did know than tobacco industry scientists ever were. This man’s cancer – and that of many others – is all too real. Not only was he exposed to vast amounts of Roundup, but information at trial suggested that the packaging bore insufficient warnings and safe-use labeling.
P.S.- the UN agency you’re thinking of is the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization.
