Are you looking for an answer to the topic “razor burn grass killer“? We answer all your questions at the website Chewathai27.com/ppa in category: Top 867 tips update new. You will find the answer right below.
Table of Contents
What is Razor Pro herbicide used for?
Razor Pro is a glyphosate herbicide with a surfactant. It provides powerful post-emergent weed control for most annual and perennial weeds as well as woody plants and brush. Ideal for use in forestry, industrial sites, turf, ornamental areas, and in vegetation management.
Where does glyphosate come from?
Genetically modified crops
In 1996, genetically modified soybeans were made commercially available. Current glyphosate-resistant crops include soy, maize (corn), canola, alfalfa, sugar beets, and cotton, with wheat still under development.
Is Ranger pro the same as Roundup?
Ranger Pro with 41% Glyphosate (same active ingredient as Roundup) is a complete broad spectrum non-selective post-emergent professional herbicide. Ranger Pro is the generic of Roundup Pro, and is equivalent and just as effective as the name brand, only much less expensive.
Glyphosate
Ranger Pro with 41% glyphosate (same active ingredient as Roundup) is a complete, non-selective, broad spectrum post-emergence professional herbicide. Ranger Pro is the generic version of Roundup Pro and is equivalent and just as effective as the brand names, just a lot cheaper. This generic summary will kill most weeds and grasses. It is formulated as a water soluble liquid with surfactant therefore no additional surfactant is needed. Ranger Pro moves through the plant from foliar contact to and into the root system. It will then be absorbed into the soil and break down naturally and therefore will not spread into the soil and kill neighboring plants.
Target pests: Annual and perennial weeds and scrub
For use in: residential areas, parks and recreation areas.
active ingredient
Glyphosate 41%
Is glyphosate toxic to humans?
People who breathed in spray mist from products containing glyphosate felt irritation in their nose and throat. Swallowing products with glyphosate can cause increased saliva, burns in the mouth and throat, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Fatalities have been reported in cases of intentional ingestion.
Glyphosate
What is glyphosate?
Glyphosate is a herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both deciduous plants and grasses. The sodium salt form of glyphosate is used to regulate plant growth and ripen certain plants.
Glyphosate was first approved for use in the United States in 1974. Glyphosate is one of the most commonly used herbicides in the United States. People use it in agriculture and forestry, on lawns and gardens, and against weeds in industrial areas. Some products containing glyphosate control aquatic plants.
Which products contain glyphosate?
Glyphosate comes in many forms, including an acid and several salts. These can be either solids or an amber liquid. Over 750 products containing glyphosate are sold in the United States.
Always follow label directions and take steps to avoid exposure. If exposure does occur, be sure to follow the first aid instructions on the product label. For additional treatment advice, contact the Poison Control Center at 800-222-1222. If you would like to discuss a pesticide issue, please call 800-858-7378.
How does glyphosate work?
Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, meaning it kills most plants. It prevents the plants from making certain proteins that are needed for plant growth. Glyphosate stops a specific enzyme pathway, the shikimic acid pathway. The shikimic acid pathway is necessary for plants and some microorganisms.
How could I be exposed to glyphosate?
You can be exposed to glyphosate if you get it on your skin or in your eyes, or inhale it when you use it. You could swallow some glyphosate if you eat or smoke after applying it without washing your hands first. You can also be exposed if you touch plants that are still wet with spray. Glyphosate is unlikely to vaporize after being sprayed.
What are some signs and symptoms of brief exposure to glyphosate?
Pure glyphosate has low toxicity, but products usually contain other ingredients that help the glyphosate get into the plants. The other ingredients in the product can make the product more toxic. Products containing glyphosate may cause eye or skin irritation. People who inhaled sprays from products containing glyphosate experienced irritation in their nose and throat. Swallowing products containing glyphosate can cause excess salivation, burns in the mouth and throat, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Fatalities have been reported when ingested intentionally.
Pets may be at risk if they touch or eat plants that are still wet with spray from products containing glyphosate. Animals exposed to products containing glyphosate may drool, vomit, have diarrhea, lose their appetite, or appear sleepy.
What happens to glyphosate once it enters the body?
In humans, glyphosate does not easily penetrate the skin. Glyphosate that is absorbed or ingested passes through the body relatively quickly. The vast majority of glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being converted into another chemical.
Is glyphosate a likely contributor to cancer?
Animal and human studies have been evaluated by regulatory agencies in the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia and the European Union, as well as the United Nations Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues and the World Health Organization (WHO). These agencies examined human cancer rates and studies in which test animals were fed high doses of glyphosate. Based on these studies, they determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic. However, a committee of scientists from WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer reviewed fewer studies and reported that glyphosate was likely to cause cancer.
Has anyone studied the non-cancer effects of long-term exposure to glyphosate?
Long-term animal feeding studies have been evaluated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulatory agencies. Based on these reviews, they determined that there is no evidence that glyphosate is toxic to the nervous or immune systems. They also found that it is not a developmental or reproductive toxin.
Are children more sensitive to glyphosate than adults?
As required by the Food Quality Protection Act, the EPA has determined that children are no more sensitive to glyphosate than the general population.
What happens to glyphosate in the environment?
Glyphosate binds tightly to the soil. Depending on climate and soil type, it can remain in the ground for up to 6 months. Glyphosate is broken down by bacteria in the soil.
Glyphosate is unlikely to seep into groundwater because it binds tightly to the soil. In one study, half of the glyphosate in dead leaves was broken down in 8 or 9 days. Another study found that some glyphosate was absorbed by carrots and lettuce after treating the soil with it.
Can glyphosate affect birds, fish or other wildlife?
Pure glyphosate has low toxicity to fish and wildlife, but some products that contain glyphosate can be toxic due to the other ingredients in them. Glyphosate can affect fish and wildlife indirectly, as killing the plants alters the animals’ habitat.
Is glyphosate the same as Roundup?
Glyphosate is used in products such as Roundup® to control weeds in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings.
Glyphosate
In January 2020, after receiving and considering public comments on glyphosate’s proposed interim decision, the EPA released the Interim Registration Review Decision. As part of this action, the EPA continues to determine that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used according to its current labeling. The EPA also determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen. The EPA calls for management measures to help farmers target pesticide sprays to intended pests, protect pollinators, and reduce the problem of weeds becoming resistant to glyphosate.
Learn more about glyphosate:
Basic usage information
Glyphosate targets a broad spectrum of weeds and is important for the production of fruits, vegetables, nuts and glyphosate-resistant crops such as corn and soybeans. It is effective in controlling invasive and noxious weeds. In addition, glyphosate degrades in the environment, can be used for no-till and low-till farming, which can reduce soil erosion, and is useful for integrated pest management.
Products containing glyphosate are sold in a variety of formulations, including liquid concentrate, solid, and ready-to-use liquid. Glyphosate is used in products like Roundup® to control weeds both on and off farm. Glyphosate can be applied in agricultural, residential, and commercial settings using a variety of application methods, including aerial sprays, ground sprayers of various types, screened and covered sprayers, wiper applicators, sponge sticks, injection systems, and controlled droplet applicators.
Agricultural uses include corn, cotton, canola, soybean, sugar beet, alfalfa, berry crops, brassicas, bulbous vegetables, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables, legumes, squash, root bulbs, cereal grains, millet, citrus, fallow, herbs and spices, orchards, tropical and subtropical Fruits, stone fruit, pome fruit, nuts, vine crops, oilseeds and sugar cane.
Non-agricultural uses include conservation areas, pastures, rangelands, water areas, forests, peat grass, residential areas, non-food tree crops (e.g. ornamentals, parks and wildlife management areas.
Human health
EPA scientists conducted an independent review of the available data for glyphosate and found:
No worrisome human health risks from current use of glyphosate. Glyphosate products used according to label directions do not pose any risk to children or adults.
Glyphosate products used according to label directions do not pose any risk to children or adults. No evidence that children are more sensitive to glyphosate. After reviewing numerous studies from a variety of sources, the Agency found no evidence that children are more sensitive to glyphosate due to in utero or postnatal exposure. As part of the human health risk assessment, the agency assessed all population groups, including infants, children and women of childbearing potential, and found no worrisome risks from ingestion of foods containing glyphosate residues. The EPA also found no worrisome risks to children entering or playing in residential areas treated with glyphosate.
After reviewing numerous studies from a variety of sources, the Agency found no evidence that children are more sensitive to glyphosate due to in utero or postnatal exposure. As part of the human health risk assessment, the agency assessed all population groups, including infants, children and women of childbearing potential, and found no worrisome risks from ingestion of foods containing glyphosate residues. The EPA also found no worrisome risks to children entering or playing in residential areas treated with glyphosate. No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans. The agency concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans. The EPA looked at a much larger and more relevant data set than the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The EPA’s database includes studies submitted in support of the registration of glyphosate and studies that the EPA has identified in the open literature.
The EPA looked at a much larger and more relevant data set than the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The EPA’s database includes studies submitted in support of the registration of glyphosate and studies that the EPA has identified in the open literature. For example, IARC only considered eight animal carcinogenicity studies, while EPA used 15 acceptable carcinogenicity studies. EPA disagrees with IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
The EPA’s cancer classification is consistent with other international expert bodies and regulatory agencies, including the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency, the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority and the Food Safety Commission of Japan and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR).
For more information, see the revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Assessing Carcinogenic Potential.
No evidence that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Glyphosate has undergone Tier I screening under the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Based on all available information, using a weight-of-evidence approach, the EPA concluded that the available data do not indicate that glyphosate has the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid signaling pathways. The screening program did not indicate the need for additional testing for glyphosate.
food safety
Glyphosate residues on food or feed are safe for consumers as long as they comply with the specified tolerances. Before allowing the use of a pesticide on food crops, the EPA sets a tolerance, or limit, on how much pesticide residue can legally remain on food, feed, or commodities. See 40 CFR § 180.364 for the full listing of tolerances for glyphosate. If residues are found above the specified tolerance level, the goods will be confiscated by the government. The presence of a detectable pesticide residue does not mean that the residue is at an unsafe level.
Due to its widespread use, trace amounts of glyphosate residues can be found in various fresh fruits, vegetables, grains and other foods and beverages. However, these trace amounts are harmless to the consumer.
The EPA conducted a highly conservative nutritional risk assessment for glyphosate that evaluated all populations, including infants, children and women of childbearing potential. The EPA assumed that 100 percent of all registered crops were treated with glyphosate, that residues for each crop were at tolerable levels, and that residues in drinking water came from the direct application of glyphosate to water. These assumptions would lead to much higher estimated exposure levels than would be expected from actual use. The resulting conservative estimates of dietary exposure were reasonable.
ecological health
The ecological risks identified in the EPA’s ecological risk assessment included a potential risk to terrestrial and aquatic plants and birds, and low toxicity to honeybees. To address these risks, the EPA required a spray drift management label to reduce off-target spray drift and protect non-target plants and wildlife. Learn more about these restrictions in the Glyphosate Interim Notice.
The EPA is committed to protecting pollinators, including the monarch butterfly, from exposure to pesticides. As with all other herbicides, the EPA requires registrants to update the labeling language for these pesticides to raise awareness of their potential impact on pollinator habitat and direct users to instructions for minimizing spray drift. EPA’s strategy to protect the monarch butterfly also includes working with federal, state and other stakeholders on conservation efforts and promoting best management and integrated pest control practices to reduce spray drift and conserve pollinator habitat. Read more about what the EPA is doing to protect the monarch butterfly.
EPA Actions and Regulatory History
Glyphosate was first approved in 1974.
The EPA initiated a glyphosate registry review in 2009. In 2010, the Agency required pesticide registrants to conduct additional studies to support updated human health and environmental risk assessments. The EPA worked with Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency to share information for risk assessment.
The EPA required that a significant amount of data be collected and submitted for pesticide registration and registration review, including studies addressing product chemistry, product performance, human and domestic animal hazard, non-target plant and wildlife hazard, exposure after the Application, applicator exposure, pesticide spray drift, environmental fate and residue chemistry. The studies submitted by the pesticide manufacturers had to follow strict guidelines. The EPA also reviewed numerous glyphosate studies published in the open literature.
In 2015, the EPA re-examined glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential. The Agency conducted an in-depth review of the glyphosate cancer database, including data from epidemiological, carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies in animals. In December 2016, EPA consulted the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) as part of the registry review.
In December 2017, the EPA released the glyphosate risk assessments for human health and the environment for public comment.
In April 2019, the EPA released the proposed interim ruling on glyphosate. After reviewing public comments on the proposed interim ruling, EPA released the glyphosate interim ruling in January 2020. The interlocutory decision required management actions related to glyphosate release altitude, wind speed and droplet size to combat drift from pesticide sprays. It also required action to prevent or reduce weed resistance, including better information for farmers on how it works, the need for scouting and reporting of potential weed resistance issues to preserve glyphosate as a tool for growers.
The EPA released a draft biological assessment for glyphosate for public comment in November 2020. The final biological assessment was published in November 2021.
additional information
How is glyphosate manufactured?
Glyphosate is derived from an amino acid called glycine and plant cells treat glyphosate as though it were amino acid. Plants use amino acids to build things like enzymes and proteins that it needs in order to grow, through a process called amino acid synthesis.
Glyphosate
Glyphosate is a chemical compound that acts as an effective herbicide, or weed killer. It is the most commonly used herbicide chemical in the world, according to a 2016 study in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe. Glyphosate can be sprayed anywhere there are unwanted plants – from commercial farms to private backyards.
Who Invented Glyphosate?
Henri Martin, a Swiss chemist, was the first to synthesize glyphosate while trying to develop new pharmaceuticals in 1950, according to a review in the journal Pest Management Science. But the chemical didn’t have much use in the pharmaceutical world.
Twenty years later, John E. Franz, a chemist for the agrochemical company Monsanto, independently synthesized glyphosate after his colleagues determined that glyphosate-like chemicals were mildly harmful to plants. Franz found out that glyphosate is a highly effective plant killer. Monsanto promptly patented the chemical and began selling its glyphosate herbicide under the trade name Roundup in 1974.
Roundup gained popularity when Monsanto began selling “Roundup-ready” crops in 1996. These crops, which included soybeans and corn, are genetically engineered to survive spraying with Roundup. Between 1995 and 2014, global use of glyphosate increased 12-fold, according to the 2016 study published in Environmental Sciences Europe.
Monsanto’s patent on glyphosate expired in 2000, leaving the product open to other companies for sale. There are hundreds of glyphosate herbicides on the market today.
Roundup is the trade name for glyphosate and is available at most garden supply stores. (Image credit: Shutterstock)
What is glyphosate used for? And how does it work?
According to the study by Environmental Sciences Europe, glyphosate is most commonly used in agriculture. Farmers use the handy herbicide to kill weeds that compete with crops for sunlight, water and soil nutrients. Glyphosate has been used more than any other agricultural chemical, with an estimated 8.6 billion kilograms (19 billion pounds) of it sprayed since 1974 to help grow everything from peppers to oranges.
When the chemical is sprayed on a plant, it usually seeps into the plant via the foliage, said Ramdas Kanissery, a weed scientist at the University of Florida in Immokalee, Florida. From there, glyphosate can travel from cell to cell and spread to the stem and roots, infecting the entire plant.
Glyphosate is derived from an amino acid called glycine, and plant cells treat glyphosate as if it were an amino acid. Plants use amino acids to build things like enzymes and proteins they need to grow, through a process called amino acid synthesis. “But once glyphosate ends up in the amino acid synthesis cycle [of the plant], it’s going to mess everything up,” Kanissery said. That’s because glyphosate interferes with a crucial enzyme production pathway that prevents the plant from producing necessary proteins, and within two to three weeks of exposure to glyphosate, the plant will die.
People also use glyphosate at home to tame weeds, and some cities spray the chemical in their parks and other green spaces to control invasive plants that can take over and crowd out native plants. However, many local governments, such as the City of Seattle, Washington, have phased out the practice as people have become increasingly concerned about the safety of the chemical.
Related: This towering plant invades the US causing severe sunburns
Why are people concerned about glyphosate?
Although glyphosate has lowered farmers’ costs and helped landscapers remove invasive plants, people have become increasingly skeptical as to whether the benefits outweigh the risks to human and environmental health. Recent research has shown that in addition to wildlife and humans, the chemical may also be harming the wrong plants.
Even when glyphosate is targeted to a specific crop, it can end up in unexpected places. “Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide,” explained Kanissery. That means it can harm any plant it reaches, even native plants it protects.
For example, someone spraying it on weeds could accidentally point something at their grass. And when farmers spray it onto their field on a hot and muggy day, aerosolized droplets of the liquid herbicide can fly through the air like a cloud and eventually fall onto neighboring fields, in a process the US Environmental Protection Agency says is called drift ( EPO).
And no matter how carefully someone sprays it, a large portion of the liquid solution ends up in the soil below, Kanissery said, where it can get into the roots of untargeted plants and kill them. Glyphosate can remain in the soil for months before microorganisms in the soil eat it and recycle it into carbon dioxide.
Glyphosate is sold for its unmatched ability to damage crops, but researchers have found the powerful herbicide also harms animals.
For example, a 2018 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the chemical could alter the microbial communities in the gut of some bees, making the bees more susceptible to infection. And a 2018 study published in the journal PLOS ONE showed that honey bees exposed to glyphosate had smaller and more developmentally delayed larvae. Other studies have shown that glyphosate exposure can disrupt bee sleep (opens in new tab) and navigation.
Still, Bayer (the company that bought Monsanto in 2018) claims glyphosate is safe for bees. Their claim is supported by limited research, including a 2015 US Department of Agriculture study that simulated bees being sprayed with glyphosate in a field and concluded that the chemical did not harm the bees.
Glyphosate has also made headlines for its suspected link to a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). The compound has been debated in courtrooms and continues to be tested by scientists. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) labeled the chemical “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on animal studies, which provided the best evidence at the time. However, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that glyphosate is “unlikely a human carcinogen” based on several studies, including a large study on farm workers published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2017 that found no link between glyphosate and cancer.
A 2019 review published by independent researchers in the journal Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research examined data from several studies on the potential carcinogenic effects of glyphosate, including a large sample of farm workers in the United States. The review found that workers exposed to the highest levels of glyphosate herbicides had a 41% greater risk of developing NHL.
“I’m convinced [that number] is still an underestimate,” said the study’s lead author Luoping Zhang, a toxicologist at the University of California, Berkeley. The data the researchers analyzed was collected up to 2010, Zhang said, but glyphosate use has increased since then. Also, many years could elapse between a person’s exposure to the chemical and the resulting cancer, she said.
Additional studies into the health effects of glyphosate exposure have confirmed what Zhang and her colleagues found in their 2019 report. For example, a separate 2019 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology summarized data on glyphosate exposure and health among farm workers in the US, France and Norway and similarly found that exposure to the chemical been associated with some types of NHL.
However, research on this topic remains sparse. Scientists would need to do many more human studies and get similar results before glyphosate could definitely be linked to NHL or other cancers.
And central questions remain unanswered. For example, scientists still don’t have a handle on how exactly the chemical might trigger the development of cancer. And they don’t know how much exposure to the chemical it takes to pose a risk.
According to the WHO, the amount of glyphosate that ends up in food is unlikely to be sufficient to cause cancer. Farm workers who are most at risk are those who inhale the chemical and can absorb relatively large amounts of it through their skin and eyes if they spray it, Zhang said. Some researchers suggest that other diseases may also be linked to glyphosate exposure, such as: B. celiac disease, Zhang added, but there is very little evidence to support this.
Activists take part in a protest against Monsanto’s production and sale of glyphosate products in Brussels, Belgium, July 19, 2017. (Image credit: Shutterstock)
What are people doing about it?
After the WHO labeled glyphosate “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2016, people with NHL began filing lawsuits against Monsanto and later Bayer, attributing their cancer to Roundup. According to the company, tens of thousands of people have since filed lawsuits against Bayer over Roundup.
The first Roundup cancer case to go to court was brought up in 2018 by a California school district groundsman named Dewayne Johnson. Johnson was awarded $289 million in damages and the award was reduced to $20.4 million through appeals, according to law from Baum Hedlund Law Office, which represented Johnson.
Two other similar cases were filed against Bayer in 2019. Edwin Hardeman developed NHL after decades of spray-painting Roundup on his property. He was awarded $80 million, which was later reduced to $25.2 million. The third case before a jury was brought by a couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who began using Roundup in the 1970s. They were awarded more than $2 billion, which was reduced to $87 million. The plaintiffs were also represented in both cases by Baum Hedlund Law.
In June 2020, Bayer agreed to pay more than $10 billion to resolve nearly all of the 125,000 cases currently being filed or expected to be filed against Bayer. The settlement does not include those of Johnson, Hardeman or the Pilliods, all of whom are on appeal. With the settlement, the company hopes to prevent years of costly litigation and “bring the conversation back about the safety and usefulness of glyphosate-based herbicides back into the scientific and regulatory arena, and into the science at large,” Bayer CEO Werner Baumann said in a press release .
Additional Resources:
Find answers to commonly asked questions about glyphosate from the US FDA.
Here are some general facts about glyphosate from the National Pesticide Information Center.
Read about the glyphosate safety debate from Frontiers in Public Health.
Editor’s note: This article was updated September 21, 2020 to correctly reflect the final amount awarded to Dewayne Johnson in his lawsuit against Monsanto/Bayer.
What foods are high in glyphosate?
| Crop | Annual average (Lbs. Glyphosate) | |
|---|---|---|
| Almonds | 2,100,000 | 95 |
| Apples | 400,000 | 70 |
| Apricots | 10,000 | 80 |
| Asparagus | 30,000 | 70 |
Glyphosate
Glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide
Glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide sold under the common trade name Roundup®. It was first sold to farmers in 1974 by Monsanto, the company recently acquired by Bayer. Since the late 1970s, the use of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) has increased approximately 100-fold (by volume), although some estimates put the increase at 300-fold. Why has glyphosate use increased so much?
The reason for this dramatic increase in glyphosate use is likely twofold.
Why are farmers using Roundup® and glyphosate-based herbicides?
After the introduction of Roundup® in 1974, farmers began using more and more weed killers to make life on the farm a little easier by killing invasive weed species that could threaten crop yields. Then, in the 1990s, Monsanto launched its Roundup Ready® genetically engineered soybeans and ran a very active and aggressive campaign to get more farmers to use these seeds. The purpose of these seeds is to be able to spray anything else around them with pesticides without killing the crop. Roundup® could then be used liberally in the fields without the GMO crops dying. Over time, the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has become widespread and this has led to farmers using higher levels of Roundup® to try to maintain crop yields.
The introduction of Roundup®-resistant crops led to a sharp increase in glyphosate use. In fact, consumption increased to 36 million kg in 2000 and by 2014 annual consumption was estimated at 113.4 million kg. Between 1974 and 2004, an estimated 1.6 billion kilograms of glyphosate were applied to fields in the United States (Benbrook, 2016).
Farmers have also started using glyphosate “off-label” as a pre-harvest desiccant for non-GM food crops. While most growers spray crops after they reach maturity, which kills weeds and makes harvesting easier, some growers use glyphosate to force their crops into early maturity. This is increasingly common in crops such as wheat, barley, oats and beans, and allows farmers to achieve better harvests even in areas with a short growing season.
The glyphosate cancer link
Ok so glyphosate makes life easier for farmers, sounds like a good thing, what’s so bad about spraying crops?
Unfortunately many.
Glyphosate has been classified as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. In fact, this chemical is now the subject of several lawsuits from people who have developed cancer after using Roundup® for years. One such lawsuit was settled in August of this year when a jury awarded plaintiff, Dewayne Johnson, a school yard warden, $289 million in damages from Bayer’s Monsanto. The jury concluded that it was Johnson’s repeated exposure to Roundup® that led him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (a type of cancer).
Another hearing is scheduled for October 9 in Alameda County to determine if Roundup® is responsible for two more cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, this time in an elderly couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who have used Roundup® for years . And according to Bloomberg, “Bayer is currently facing litigation from more than 9,500 plaintiffs in the United States, mostly farmers, blaming exposure to glyphosate for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
How is glyphosate related to cancer? Well, there is some evidence that the chemical is an endocrine disruptor in humans, meaning that it adversely affects hormonal balance.1 At very high concentrations (not representative of normal dietary exposure), glyphosate has been found to Cells induce breast cancer in vitro via estrogenic activity.2 In turn, glyphosate and its metabolites at very high concentrations also cause hemolysis and hemoglobin oxidation in human blood cells in the laboratory.3 Even at low concentrations, glyphosate can increase the risk of oxidative damage to DNA and the likelihood of cell mutations.
Glyphosate works by inactivating the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase. This enzyme is used in the shikimate pathway of plants to form aromatic amino acids. By inhibiting the enzyme, glyphosate causes the plant to die.
The shikimate signaling pathway is absent in animals, which is why glyphosate has long been considered non-toxic.4 The EPA places glyphosate in the “least toxic” category, Category IV. In recent years, questions have arisen about the direct and indirect effects of glyphosate on human health.
Changing patterns of glyphosate use and advances in understanding potential risks have prompted many researchers to reevaluate early claims about the herbicide’s safety. In a statement of concern published in the journal Environmental Toxicology in 2016, the authors noted that:
Products containing glyphosate often contaminate drinking water sources, rainfall and air, particularly in agricultural regions. The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously thought. Glyphosate and its metabolites are widespread in the global soybean supply. Human exposure to GBHs is increasing. Glyphosate is now definitively classified as a probable human carcinogen. Regulatory estimates of the tolerable daily intake for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated scientific evidence.
The half-life of glyphosate is estimated to be up to 151 days. However, this varies greatly depending on the type of soil.
Evaluation of the safety of glyphosate
Scientists are increasingly highlighting the major gaps in glyphosate safety assessments. These include the glaring oversight that glyphosate has never been tested alone at what is considered acceptable daily intake or at doses relevant to human exposure.5 More recently, studies were conducted in rats to assess the effects of chronic ingestion of an ultra-low, environmentally benign substance relevant dose of Roundup®, and these studies showed damage to the kidneys and liver structure and function of the rats.67 The rats appeared to develop non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which is a major cause of liver dysfunction in humans.
There may also be indirect health effects from glyphosate use. For example, the shikimate pathway is present in many beneficial bacteria in the human gut and in the guts of other animals and insects. Consuming foods containing glyphosate can therefore kill beneficial bacterial populations, which can have significant negative health effects.
Evidence of this has been seen in bees, where glyphosate is now considered by many to be a major contributor to colony collapse. Changes in the bee’s microbiome appear to increase their susceptibility to infection, leading to the death of large numbers of bees.8 Not only does glyphosate affect bees, it has also been shown to have adverse effects on earthworms and biodiversity at large. 9
If you’re not already upset about the idea of unwanted chemicals in your food, this might throw you off the rails: The ongoing Roundup® litigation has shed light on the dark workings of its creator Monsanto, as well as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to hide the evidence of the potentially devastating effects of this chemical on human and environmental health. In fact, authors of articles published in reputable journals have recently had to admit that they received “assistance” from Monsanto in writing the articles, although they stress that the data is unbiased.
Governments and Glyphosate Disclosures
Concerns about Roundup® and glyphosate in general prompted the California legislature to introduce a regulation requiring glyphosate to carry a warning label stating it causes cancer. Several countries are also considering a total ban on the chemical or are actively phasing out glyphosate use. The European Union came close to banning the use of glyphosate last fall, while French President Emmanuel Macron has publicly committed to phasing it out in the next three years (despite being attacked by the rest of the government). Market pressures could prompt other countries to phase out glyphosate. Canada’s agribusiness online magazine, The Western Producer, notes that “Italy refuses to buy Canadian durum wheat, in part over concerns that glyphosate is used on the durum wheat before harvest.”
Glyphosate use affects crop quality
As if all the things I mentioned weren’t bad enough, there is evidence that glyphosate treatment can affect plant growth and quality.
Seedlings planted after glyphosate treatment were found to have lower germination rates and reduced root growth. And one study found that wheat treated with glyphosate before harvest had increased levels of shikimic acid, making the dough made from that wheat weaker and less suitable for breadmaking.10
Another problem with off-label use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant is that plants are harvested shortly after spraying and well before the chemical can be broken down. This means that glyphosate is present in high concentrations in many common food crops and these crops are often labeled as “natural” and non-GMO, which understandably can cause confusion among consumers.
There are other potential problems with this practice as well. For example, some researchers have expressed concern that the nutritional quality of food crops could be reduced through the use of glyphosate. For example, organic soybeans have a higher nutritional value than GM soybeans. There is also speculation that the cholesterol-lowering beta-glucans in oats, which are produced just before the plant is naturally mature, may be lower in crops that are forced to mature earlier.
Some companies concerned about nutrient levels, like Grain Millers Inc. (one of the largest oat buyers in western Canada), have even gone so far as to say they will no longer buy oats that have been treated with glyphosate before harvest ( Cross, 2016). In an interview, Terry Tyson, a sourcing manager at the company, said: “To meet these (heart-healthy) claims, the beta-glucan content in raw oats must be above four percent. Other factors can also negatively affect beta-glucan levels, but our research shows that premature use of glyphosate can have this effect.”
Others in the industry have said they don’t think this is as big a problem as Tyson and company make it out to be. However, the problem is that there is no published data on the potential problem. With commercial oats, such research would be difficult because treated plants often contaminate untreated plants because they are co-processed or mixed together. In addition, crops grown near fields sprayed with glyphosate can also be contaminated as the chemical can drift off or enter water supplies. Maintaining a 100 percent glyphosate-free food chain is nearly impossible, a problem highlighted in a recent Environmental Working Group (EWG) report.
Glyphosate Contaminated Food vs. Safer Food – How To Decide
The EWG released a report on August 15, 2018 that sent health food consumers into something of a whirl. And rightly so! This report found that 43 out of 45 samples of products made from conventionally grown oats contained glyphosate. In fact, almost 75 percent of the samples had glyphosate levels greater than 160 parts per billion, the daily exposure level that EWG scientists believe is protective for children’s health.
Shockingly, about a third of the 16 organic oat product samples also contained glyphosate, although these levels were well below the EWG’s health guideline.
So which products performed best in the EWG report? The five samples tested by Eurofin Analytical Laboratories with no detectable levels of glyphosate were as follows:
Nature’s Path Organic Honey Almond Muesli
Simple Truth Organic Instant Oatmeal, Original
Kashi Heart to Heart Organic Honey Toasted Granola
Cascadian Farm Organic Harvest Berry Granola Bar
365 Organic Old Fashioned Oatmeal
Of four samples of Bob’s Red Mill Organic Old Fashioned Oatmeal, one had no detectable levels, one had 10 ppb and two others had 20 ppb. The presence of glyphosate in Bob’s Red Mill products caused an uproar among longtime fans of the company, many of whom felt cheated by the marketing used by BRM. For their part, BRM stated in 2015 that they would start asking the farmers who produce their ingredients to avoid using glyphosate. In response to the recent EWG report, company officials made statements such as:
“Our organic oat farmers are 100% committed to growing their crops under the rules of the National Organic Program. The use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant is not allowed when growing organic oats. Unfortunately, despite the rules, it’s still possible for glyphosate to be blown over from other non-organic farms. Still, choosing organic is the best way to avoid pesticides and other chemicals in food.”
Some consumers aren’t happy with that answer, however, and in response to the EWG report, a federal class-action lawsuit was filed against Bob’s Red Mill in San Francisco in August. The complaint states, “Consumers have a reasonable expectation that essential product information, such as the presence of a probable carcinogen such as glyphosate, will be provided by a product manufacturer, particularly where the manufacturer positively identifies the health-related properties of its products.” The complainants say BRM’s labels and marketing are misleading as they advertise their products as “healthy” and “healthy”.
It should be noted that many companies use the same type of marketing and do not face lawsuits. Additionally, companies that make Lucky Charms and Cheerios (which are very high in glyphosate and generally considered unhealthy) have made simple statements that levels of the chemical remain below EPA limits. (While I understand the complainants’ anger in the BRM case, I’m inclined to continue supporting a company that produces largely healthy food and is at least trying to address the problem of food contamination.)
The 2018 EWG report follows a 2016 report, courtesy of Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project, a research and certification platform that uses an FDA-registered food testing laboratory to test for toxic chemicals. These organizations have commissioned tests that have found high levels of glyphosate in many foods sold in America, including some certified organic and non-GMO products.
In a 2017 report, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said it found traces of herbicides in nearly 29.7 percent of the 3,188 foods tested. Across all food products, 1.3 percent contained residue levels above Health Canada’s Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) — the level at which they are safe for human health. 3.9 percent of the cereal products tested had residue levels above the MRL. However, none of the products posed a risk to human health and safety, so Health Canada did not publish the brand or product names of the foods tested.
So what can you do to avoid glyphosate?
Well, first, you can look for products that carry the Detox Project’s Glyphosate Residue Free label. This label provides additional assurance that a product does not contain glyphosate.
The first product to be verified as “glyphosate residue free” was Leaf & Love Organic Lemonade. A full list of certified products can be found here. Unfortunately, adoption of this label is slow, although the Detox Project is working with food manufacturers and grocery chains to get this label on more products.
In the meantime, your next best option is to go organic wherever possible. Organic crops must not be treated with glyphosate, so the presence of the chemical is adventitious and likely much lower than on intentionally treated crops. Purchasing non-GMO products does not guarantee that the crops have not been treated with glyphosate prior to harvest.
By buying organic products, you reduce the likelihood of glyphosate contamination and support an overall reduction in the use of these agricultural chemicals. This helps reduce the overall risk of contamination of the food supply. Think of it like vaccines and herd immunity, if you will.
Which foods are worst for glyphosate?
If you’re on a budget for organic produce, you’ll want to know which food crops are the worst offenders when it comes to glyphosate. Unfortunately, in recent years the EPA has largely abandoned the “protection” portion of its mandate and appears to no longer test crops. This despite evidence that unofficial tests have found high levels of glyphosate in many household foods.
Fortunately, the FDA has started testing foods for glyphosate, albeit 40 years after the chemical was introduced. A report has just been released showing 2016 levels of pesticides in food crops.
More than half of all samples from soybean (67.4%), wheat (47.8%), rice (80%) and corn (58.6%) contained pesticide residues. However, these were not the worst of the offenders. A staggering 95.9% cherry fruit/juice and 90.8% apple fruit/juice tested positive for pesticides. For grapefruit/juice and raisins, 92.8% of the samples were found to be contaminated, while 92.5% of the strawberries were also contaminated. As a group, nearly four out of five samples (79%) of fruit or fruit products tested positive for pesticides.
Vegetables fared slightly better, with just over half (52.3%) testing positive for pesticides. The worst offenders here were celery (77.3% contaminated), sweet peppers (79.6%), spinach (88.6%) and tomatoes (80%).
This report also lists imported foods, many of which have also tested positive for pesticides.
However, the FDA report does not separate out pesticides, although it shows that 63.1% and 67% of corn and soybean samples tested positive for glyphosate. So for now, one of the best sources on likely food contamination with glyphosate is a 2015 list contained in a memorandum from the EPA on the “updated screening usage analysis.”
There are seventy plants in this list, some of which may surprise you. The list gives the percentage of each type of food crop treated with glyphosate and the annual average consumption for the decade 2004-2013. With glyphosate use increasing every year since its introduction, there is a possibility that the situation for many of these crops in the US is now getting worse.
List of foods with the most glyphosate
The following could be viewed as a list of the worst culprits of glyphosate, where your best bets are to buy organic or choose different foods altogether. These are plants where the treatment levels are over 50%, i.e. H. at least half of the non-organic foods on this list have been treated with glyphosate. I also included several crops where the maximum found for a treatment was higher than 50 percent. Please note that the figures for pomegranates, pluots, chicory and Brussels sprouts are based on California (CA DPR) data only (at least 80% of acres grown in the US are in California).
Crop Annual Average (LBS. Glyphosate) Percent Crop Treated Average Maximum Almonds 2.100,000 85 95 Apple 400,000 55 Apricots 10,000 55 80 CANOLA 500,000 65 85 Corn 63.500.000 65 Cotton 18.400.000 85 DATIA ?] Fallow 8.800.000 55 70 FIGS 10,000 100 grapefruit 400,000 85 100 grapes 1,500,000 70 Hazeluts 30,000 65 kiwif fruit 5000 75 Lemons 200,000 75 olive olives 3.200,000 95 peaches 100,000 pears 100.000 65 pistachi 500. Pflaums/Prunes 200,000 70 85 Pluots 1,000 65 Pomegranate 40,000 70 90 Soybeans 101,200,000 Sugar beet 1,300,000 60 100,000 60 75 Tangelos 9,000 55 80,000 40,000 75 75 Avocados 80,000 45 NUTS 20,000 75 75 70 avocados 80,000 45 65 nuts 20,000 75 75 70 avocados 80,000 45 65 nuts 20,000 75 75 70 avocados 80,000 45 65 nuts 20,000 75 75 70 avocados 80,000 45 65 nuts 80,000 45 65 nuts 20,000 75 70 AVOCADOS 80,000 45 NUTS 20,000 75 75 70 Avocados 80,000 45 65 75 75 75 UNICHUM 3,000,000 60 sugar cane 300,000 45 60,000 25 70
If the price that comes with organic is an obstacle, your next best option might be to seek out local growers with whom you can have a real conversation about their growing practices. Many farmers who use organic farming practices cannot afford to get organic certification (which means their prices can be lower). Farmers are also likely to know if neighboring fields are being treated with glyphosate or other chemicals and how their crops are being processed. Some wholesale companies, such as Healthy Traditions, hire third-party labs to test the products they intend to sell and offer a guarantee that everything they sell is glyphosate-free.
The central theses
By demanding accountability and transparency from our food producers, we can all do our part to improve food safety, security and quality. And while you’re taking steps to minimize exposure to glyphosate, you might also want to consider offsetting some of the chemical’s potentially negative effects. That could mean getting a good antioxidant intake, taking probiotics and/or eating probiotic foods regularly, and using herbs and lifestyle changes to support liver health so your body’s natural detoxification processes can help get rid of glyphosate to remove from your system.
Is glyphosate used in organic farming?
A spokesperson for the U.S. Agriculture Department said “glyphosate is never permitted on organic production” since it is a “synthetic pesticide” that the agency’s organic regulations prohibit.
Glyphosate
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which filed the complaint, USDA organic certification program guidelines prohibit spraying glyphosate on organic crops.
In an emailed letter dated June 24, a USDA official, Keyana Francis, said the agency had confirmed EWG’s claims that Harris Teeter Organics brand chickpeas/garbanzo beans had tested positive for glyphosate.
The USDA’s “NOP (National Organic Program) investigated the supply chain for this product and verified that organic chickpeas shipped to Harris Teeter retail stores were handled by a facility currently certified by Organic Certifiers Inc.” Francis wrote to Alexis Temkin, a toxicologist with EWG. “The facility has changed its practices to prevent cross-contamination of organic produce.”
According to the Organic Certifiers website, the certification organization was among the first to be accredited to the USDA NOP standard in 2002. The CA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Subject to certain exceptions, organic operations under NOP and USDA organic certification are prohibited from using synthetic substances during the production and handling of organic crops.
In an email, a USDA spokesman said, “Glyphosate is never allowed in organic production” because it’s a “synthetic pesticide” that the agency’s organic regulations prohibit.
“Synthetic pesticides are allowed in other forms of agriculture as long as they stay within tolerances set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),” the agency spokesman added. “In general, the EPA has determined that glyphosate residues on food or feed are safe for consumers when they fall below tolerance levels.”
In the summer of 2020, Harris Teeter, a grocery chain and wholly owned subsidiary of The Kroger Co., was made aware of the issues raised by the EWG.
In October 2020, Harris Teeter removed organic dry chickpeas in a bag and organic chick beans in a can from its product mix.
“Product integrity is of the utmost importance to Harris Teeter,” Danna Robinson, a company spokeswoman, said in an email. “These items [targeted by EWG] were removed from our inventory more than eight months ago, in October 2020.”
According to EWG, glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide in the world. For years, the EWG and other critics of the herbicide have claimed it can cause cancer and other health problems — as highlighted by a mountain of lawsuits against Bayer’s Monsanto, whose weed killer Roundup contains glyphosate.
Bayer continues to claim Roundup is safe. As part of a recent five-point lawsuit resolution plan, the company announced that it plans to create and promote a website featuring scientific studies relevant to Roundup’s security. The company cited a recent brief filed with a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which the EPA claimed that glyphosate “poses no risks to human health of concern.”
EWG’s complaint to the USDA came after the advocacy group commissioned independent laboratory testing of Harris Teeter Organic brand chickpeas. According to an EWG press release, the tests showed average glyphosate residue levels that far exceeded the EPA’s legal limit for glyphosate on conventional chickpeas.
“The research further underscores why it is critical that the USDA maintain organic farming at a higher level of transparency — to best protect consumers from dietary exposure to glyphosate and protect the integrity of its own organic certification,” Temkin said in the news publication.
She added, “Those who choose to purchase organic chickpeas, hummus and other foods do so primarily to avoid toxic pesticides, which is why both the organic industry and the USDA should take every possible precaution.” , to ensure these products are free from agricultural chemicals and other serious health problems.”
How do you avoid glyphosate in food?
- Look for labels. The Detox Project, which uses an FDA-registered food testing lab to test for toxic chemicals, recently launched a “Glyphosate Residue Free” label that companies can apply for to certify their products. …
- Grow your own. …
- Avoid using weed killer.
Glyphosate
Call (800) 995-1212 or get a free glyphosate case summary today.
Get a Free Glyphosate Roundup® Case Review
Instead, the self-proclaimed leader of genetic engineering was still in denial.
“Glyphosate has a 40-year history of safe and effective use. The overwhelming conclusion from experts worldwide…was that glyphosate is safe to use,” Monsanto said, apparently unaware that evidence against the chemical is accumulating.
In reality, glyphosate cannot be defined as “safe” by any stretch of the imagination. Aside from killing most plants, glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans,” according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) findings in 2015. Since testing on an independent test — the latest from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) – has found dangerous levels of glyphosate in everyday American foods.
And what’s worse? Many of them are made by brands that we consider “healthy”.
Learn more: The dangers and risks associated with glyphosate in Roundup and your legal options if it has harmed you.
What is glyphosate and why is it so dangerous?
Glyphosate has been used as a herbicide to regulate plant growth. First approved for use in the US in 1974, it is now the most widely used in farms and gardens across the country and is sold in more than 750 products.
Glyphosate is used in food crops and can be found virtually anywhere in the food chain. And concern is growing about the link between glyphosate toxicity and cancer.
The connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma is particularly strong. One study claims that exposure to glyphosate triples the risk of a subtype of the disease called small lymphocytic lymphoma. In another study, participants who used 5 or more of 9 pesticides tested were twice as likely to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Glyphosate has also been linked to a variety of other health issues, including liver damage, kidney disease, reproductive problems and birth defects.
And its damage to plants is more important than we think. Glyphosate not only interferes with plants’ ability to absorb nutrients from the soil, but also acts as an antibiotic, killing certain good bacteria – crucial to the health of the soil and our digestive systems.
Unfortunately, the usual alternative to glyphosate is paraquat, a similarly dangerous and potentially toxic herbicide and weed killer.
It’s time to pay more attention to what we eat.
Glyphosate products to avoid
In addition to EWG, a handful of NGOs such as Moms Across America, Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project tested a variety of products for glyphosate. Based on their reports, here are just a few types of food and examples of brands that have tested positive:
Granola from Quaker, KIND, Back to Nature, Nature Valley
from Quaker, KIND, Back to Nature, Nature Valley instant oatmeal from Giant, Quaker, Umpqua, Market Pantry
by Giant, Quaker, Umpqua, Market Pantry Whole Oats by Quaker, Bob’s Red Mill, Nature’s Path, Whole Foods
Quaker, Bob’s Red Mill, Nature’s Path, Whole Foods Cereal by Kashi, Kellogg’s, including Lucky Charms and Cheerios
by Kashi, Kellogg’s, including Lucky Charms and Cheerios snack bars by Quaker, KIND, Nature Valley, Kellogg’s
from Quaker, KIND, Nature Valley, Kellogg’s Orange Juice from Tropicana, Minute Maid, Signature Farms, Kirkland
from Tropicana, Minute Maid, Signature Farms, Kirkland Crackers including Cheez-Its, Ritz, Triscuits, Goldfish
, including Cheez-Its, Ritz, Triscuits, Goldfish Cookies by Annie’s, Kashi and Nabisco (Oreos)
from Annie’s, Kashi and Nabisco (Oreos) chips from Stacy’s, Lay’s, Doritos, Fritos
Glyphosate has also been found in various products like Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, non-organic cotton products like tampons and clothing, and even drinking water. It was found in 75% of air and rain samples. It is regularly found in human urine, according to a 2017 study.
Perhaps most disheartening is new evidence about glyphosate in organic foods. Although decades of evidence supports the idea that organic foods contain lower (or trace) concentrations of pesticides than conventional foods, the latest tests show the concentrations are virtually the same.
How do you avoid (or treat) glyphosate exposure?
Glyphosate contamination is common because the chemical can be widely dispersed in the air. But it doesn’t go through the skin easily. The real concern is exposure through the eyes, nose, or mouth. There’s not much we can do about what’s in the air, but we can control the recording.
To avoid glyphosate poisoning, you can do the following:
Look for labels. The Detox Project, which uses an FDA-approved food testing lab to test for toxic chemicals, recently introduced a “glyphosate residue-free” label that companies can apply to certify their products. Until it’s more widely adopted, you’re more likely (but not guaranteed) to avoid exposure by opting for foods labeled “certified organic.” Breed your own. Growing your own plants, herbs, vegetables and fruits has many health and environmental benefits. If you’re short on time, source local produce from your trusted farmers’ market. Avoid using weed killers. If in doubt, avoid using herbicides containing glyphosate as the active ingredient. However, if you come across the substance, always wash your hands and/or body afterwards. If you get glyphosate on your skin or in your eyes, nose, or throat, follow the product’s first aid instructions or call the poison control center.
If you experience persistent symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or irritation in your mouth or throat, you must seek medical attention immediately. From there, you have the right to hold the pesticide manufacturer accountable for the damage.
No matter what Monsanto wants us to believe, the evidence of long-term health problems from glyphosate exposure is too strong to risk.
For a more comprehensive list of products and brands that use glyphosate, or for general information on glyphosate, see the National Pesticide Information Center data sheet.
The Best Weed Killer – Before and After
See some more details on the topic razor burn grass killer here:
U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label, RAZOR BURN, 02/17/2006
sprayed vegetation may result in temporary gastrointestinal irritation … When tank mi; Source: www3.epa.gov Date Published: 7/14/2022 View: 5086 If you want fast-acting, broad-spectrum weed control, use Razor Burn post- emergent herbice. Razor Burn combines the fast contact activity of diquat. Source: www.specialtyturfag.com Date Published: 6/21/2022 View: 5529 View the product label for Razor Burn from Nufarm Specialty Products. … LaurelChervilAniseOak, ScrubThistle, ArtichokeBeach Grass, EuropeanIvy, … Source: www.greenbook.net Date Published: 5/12/2022 View: 7317 Weeds don’t stand a chance against Razor® Pro herbice. The power of glyphosate against weeds and brush combined with the convenience of a. Source: www.rrsi.com Date Published: 12/17/2022 View: 1323 Razor Burn is a post-emergent, systemic herbicide that is generally non-selective and provides broad spectrum control of many annual weeds, perennial weeds, woody plants and trees. Razor Burn is a great product for situations where mechanical effort is not appropriate or other herbicides don’t provide the quick visual results. Quickly and easily controls weeds in ornamental plants, bed care, crack and crevice treatments, bush and vine cleaning and perimeter treatments. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS Do not apply directly to water, areas of surface water or tidal areas below the mean high tide mark. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washing or rinsing water PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL HAZARDS Spray solutions of this product should only be mixed, stored, and applied in stainless steel, aluminum, fiberglass, plastic, or plastic-lined steel containers. Do not mix, store, or spray this product or spray solutions of this product in galvanized steel or unlined steel (except stainless steel) containers or spray containers. This product, or aerosol solutions of this product, will react with such containers and tanks to generate hydrogen gas, which can form an extremely flammable gas mixture. This gas mixture can catch fire or explode and cause serious injury if ignited by an open flame, sparks, welding torch, lighted cigarette or other ignition source. INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE It is against federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Read the entire label before using this product. Do not apply this product in such a way that workers or other people come into contact directly or through drift. Only protected carers are allowed in the area during the application. Contact the agency responsible for pesticide regulations for any requirements specific to your state or tribe. Systemic broad spectrum herbicide and crop desiccant This article is all about the chemical. For herbicides based on it, see Glyphosate-based herbicides. For the proprietary formulation developed by Monsanto, see Roundup (herbicide) Not to be confused with Glufosinate Chemical compound Glyphosate (IUPAC name: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) is a systemic broad spectrum herbicide and crop desiccant. It is an organophosphorus compound, specifically a phosphonate, that acts by inhibiting the plant enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase. It is used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with crops. Its herbicidal effectiveness was discovered in 1970 by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz. Monsanto launched it in 1974 under the trade name Roundup for agricultural use. Monsanto’s last commercially relevant US patent expired in 2000. Farmers were quick to adopt glyphosate for agricultural weed control, particularly after Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready crops that allowed farmers to kill weeds without destroying their crops. In 2007, glyphosate was the most widely used herbicide in the agricultural sector in the United States and the second most widely used (after 2,4-D) in home and garden, government and industrial, and commercial applications.[6] From the late 1970s to 2016, the frequency and volume of use of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) increased 100-fold globally, with further increases expected in the future. This was in part in response to the global emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds,[7]: 1 which require increased application to maintain efficacy. The development of glyphosate resistance in weed species is proving to be a costly problem. Glyphosate is taken up by the foliage and minimally by the roots and transported to the growing points. It inhibits a plant enzyme involved in the synthesis of three aromatic amino acids: tyrosine, tryptophan and phenylalanine. It is therefore only effective on actively growing plants and is not effective as a pre-emergence herbicide. An increasing number of crops have been genetically engineered to be glyphosate tolerant (e.g. Roundup Ready soybean, the first Roundup Ready crop, also developed by Monsanto), allowing farmers to use glyphosate as a post-emergence herbicide can be used against weeds. While glyphosate and formulations such as Roundup have been approved by regulators around the world, concerns remain about their impact on people and the environment.[7][8] A number of regulatory and scientific reviews have evaluated the relative toxicity of glyphosate as a herbicide. The WHO-FAO Joint Committee on Pesticide Residues issued a report in 2016 stating that the use of glyphosate formulations does not necessarily pose a health risk and giving an acceptable daily intake limit of 1 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day for chronic toxicity becomes. 9]
The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have not produced evidence of human carcinogenicity.[10] The 2013 Federal Institute for Risk Assessment toxicological review found that regarding positive correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and the risk of various types of cancer, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, “the available data are conflicting and far from convincing [11] A meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of NHL in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[12] In March 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (category 2A) based on epidemiological, animal, and in vitro studies.[8][13][] 14 ][15] In contrast, the European Food Safety Authority concluded in November 2015 that “the substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. DNA damaging) or pose a human carcinogenic threat”, and later noted clear that although carcinogenic glyphosate-containing formulations exist, studies “Looking at the active ingredient glyphosate alone does not show this effect.”[16][17] In 2017, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as serious eye damage and toxic to aquatic organisms, found no evidence to suggest that it is a carcinogen, a mutagen, toxic to reproduction, or toxic to specific organs.[18]
discovery Glyphosate was first synthesized in 1950 by Swiss chemist Henry Martin working for the Swiss company Cilag. The work was never published.[19]: 1 Stauffer Chemical patented the active ingredient in 1964 as a chemical chelating agent[20] because it binds and removes minerals such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, and zinc.[21]
Somewhat later, glyphosate was independently discovered at Monsanto in the United States in 1970. Monsanto chemists had synthesized about 100 derivatives of aminomethylphosphonic acid as potential water softeners. Two were found to have weak herbicidal activity, and John E. Franz, a chemist at Monsanto, was asked to try to make analogues with stronger herbicidal activity. Glyphosate was the third analogue he made.[19]: 1–2[22][23][24] For his discoveries, Franz received the United States National Medal of Technology in 1987 and the Perkin Medal for Applied Chemistry in 1990. [25][26][27]
Monsanto developed and patented the use of glyphosate for weed killing in the early 1970s and first commercialized it in 1974 under the Roundup brand name.[28][29] While its original patent[30] expired in 1991, Monsanto retained exclusive rights in the United States until its patent[31] on the isopropylamine salt expired in September 2000.[32]
In 2008, Stephen O. Duke, a scientist at the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Stephen B. Powles, an Australian weed expert, described glyphosate as a “virtually ideal” herbicide.[28] In 2010, Powles stated, “Glyphosate is a 100-year discovery that is as important to reliable global food production as penicillin is to disease control.”[33]
In April 2017, the Canadian government stated that glyphosate was “the most widely used herbicide in Canada,”[34] at which time product labels were revised to ensure a limit of 20% POEA by weight.[34] [Verification Failed ] Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency determined no risk to humans or the environment at this 20% limit and that all products registered in Canada at the time met or fell below this limit. Chemistry Ion states of glyphosate Glyphosate is an aminophosphonic acid analogue of the natural amino acid glycine and, like all amino acids, exists in different ionic states depending on the pH value. Both the phosphonic acid and carboxylic acid moieties can be ionized and the amine group can be protonated and the substance exists as a series of zwitterions. Glyphosate is soluble in water at room temperature at 12 g/L. The original synthetic approach to glyphosate involved the reaction of phosphorus trichloride with formaldehyde, followed by hydrolysis to give a phosphonate. Glycine is then reacted with this phosphonate to form glyphosate, whose name comes from the compounds used in this synthetic step, namely glycine and a phosphonate.[35]
PCl 3 + H 2 CO → Cl 2 P(=O)-CH 2 Cl Cl 2 P(=O)-CH 2 Cl + 2 H 2 O → (HO) 2 P(=O)-CH 2 Cl + 2 HCl (HO) 2 P(=O)-CH 2 Cl + H 2 N-CH 2 -COOH → (HO) 2 P(=O)-CH 2 -NH-CH 2 -COOH + HCl The main route of glyphosate deactivation is hydrolysis to aminomethylphosphonic acid.[36]
synthesis Two main approaches are used for the industrial synthesis of glyphosate, both of which proceed via the Kabachnik Fields reaction. The first is to react iminodiacetic acid and formaldehyde with phosphorous acid (sometimes formed in situ from phosphorus trichloride using the water generated by the Mannich reaction of the first two reagents). Decarboxylation of the hydrophosphonylation product gives the desired glyphosate product. Iminodiacetic acid is usually prepared on-site by a variety of methods depending on the availability of the reagents.[19]
The second uses glycine instead of iminodiacetic acid. This avoids the need for decarboxylation but requires more careful control of stoichiometry, as the primary amine can react with excess formaldehyde to give bishydroxymethylglycine, which must be hydrolyzed to the desired product during workup.[19]
This synthetic approach accounts for a significant portion of glyphosate production in China, with considerable work going into recycling the solvents triethylamine and methanol.[19] Progress has also been made in trying to completely eliminate the need for triethylamine.[37]
impurities Technical glyphosate is a white powder that FAO specifications say should contain at least 95% glyphosate. Formaldehyde, which is classified as a known human carcinogen, [38] [39] and N-nitrosoglyphosate were identified as toxicologically relevant impurities.[40] The FAO specification limits the formaldehyde concentration to a maximum of 1.3 g/kg glyphosate. N-Nitrosoglyphosate, “which belongs to a group of impurities of very high concern as they can be activated into genotoxic carcinogens,”[41] should not exceed 1 ppm.[40]
formulations Glyphosate is marketed in the United States and worldwide by many agrochemical companies at various strengths and with various adjuvants under dozens of trade names.[42][43][44][45] As of 2010, more than 750 glyphosate products were on the market.[46] Agricultural crops accounted for about half of total global glyphosate consumption in 2012,[47] with forestry being another important market.[48] Asia and the Pacific was the largest and fastest growing regional market.[47] As of 2014, Chinese producers are collectively the world’s largest producers of glyphosate and its precursors[49], accounting for about 30% of global exports.[47] Major manufacturers include Anhui Huaxing Chemical Industry Company, BASF, Bayer CropScience (which also acquired glyphosate maker Monsanto), Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Jiangsu Good Harvest-Weien Agrochemical Company, Nantong Jiangshan Agrochemical & Chemicals Co., Nufarm, SinoHarvest , Syngenta and Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Company.[47]
Glyphosate is an acid molecule, so it is formulated as a salt for packaging and handling. Various salt formulations include isopropylamine, diammonium, monoammonium, or potassium as the counterion. The active ingredient in Monsanto herbicides is the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate. Another key ingredient in some formulations is the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). Some brands contain more than one salt. Some companies list their product as the acid equivalent (ae) of glyphosate acid, others list it as the active ingredient (ai) of glyphosate plus salt, and others list both. Comparing the performance of different formulations requires knowledge of how the products were formulated. Because different salts have different weights, the acid equivalent is a more accurate way of expressing and comparing concentrations. Adjuvant loading refers to the amount of adjuvant[50][51] already added to the glyphosate product. Fully loaded products contain all the necessary excipients, including surfactant; some do not contain an adjuvant system, while other products contain only a limited amount of adjuvant (minimal or partial loading) and require additional surfactants to be added to the spray tank before use.[52]
The products are most commonly supplied in formulations containing 120, 240, 360, 480 and 680 g/l of active ingredient. The most common formulation in agriculture is 360 g/L, either alone or with added cationic surfactants.[43]
For 360 g/l formulations, European regulations allow applications of up to 12 l/ha to control perennial weeds such as couch grass. Rates of 3 l/ha are commonly practiced to control annual weeds between crops.[53]
mode of action Glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway that produces the aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan in plants and microorganisms[54]—but is not found in the genomes of animals, including humans.[55][20] It blocks this pathway by inhibiting the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which converts shikimate-3-phosphate (S3P) and phosphoenolpyruvate into 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) catalyzed. [56] Glyphosate is absorbed through the foliage and minimally through the roots, meaning it is only effective on actively growing plants and cannot prevent seed germination.[57][58] After application, glyphosate is readily transported around the plant to growing roots and leaves, and this systemic activity is important for its effectiveness.[28][19] Inhibiting the enzyme causes shikimate to build up in plant tissues, draining energy and resources from other processes, eventually killing the plant. While growth stops within hours of application, it takes several days for leaves to begin turning yellow.[59] Glyphosate can chelate Co2+, which contributes to its mode of action.[60][61][62]
Under normal circumstances, EPSP is dephosphorylated to chorismate, an essential precursor for the amino acids mentioned above.[63] These amino acids are used in protein synthesis and to make secondary metabolites such as folates, ubiquinones, and naphthoquinone. X-ray crystallographic studies of glyphosate and EPSPS indicate that glyphosate functions by occupying the phosphoenolpyruvate binding site and mimicking an intermediate state of the ternary enzyme–substrate complex.[64][65] Glyphosate inhibits the EPSPS enzymes in different plant species and microbes at different rates.[66][67]
Used Estimated glyphosate use in the United States in 2013 and estimated total consumption from 1992 to 2013 Glyphosate is effective at killing a wide variety of plants, including grasses and broadleaf and woody plants. It is one of the most commonly used herbicides by volume.[57] In 2007, glyphosate was the most commonly used herbicide in the agricultural sector in the United States at 180–185 million pounds (82,000–84,000 tons), followed by the second most commonly used herbicide in homes and gardens at 5–8 million pounds (2,300–3,600 tons). ) and 13 to 15 million pounds (5,900 to 6,800 tons) in nonagricultural settings.[6] It is widely used for agricultural, horticultural, viticultural and silvicultural purposes, and garden maintenance (including home use). It has relatively little effect on some clovers and morning glory.[68]
Use of glyphosate as an alternative to mowing in an apple orchard in Ciardes, Italy Glyphosate and related herbicides are widely used to eradicate invasive species and restore habitats, particularly to encourage the establishment of native plants in prairie ecosystems. Controlled application is usually combined with a selective herbicide and traditional weed control methods such as mulching for optimal effect.[69]
In many cities, glyphosate is sprayed along sidewalks and streets, and in crevices between sidewalks where weeds often grow. However, up to 24% of glyphosate applied to hard surfaces can bead up through water.[70] Glyphosate contamination of surface water has been attributed to urban and agricultural uses.[71] Glyphosate is used to clean railroad tracks and get rid of unwanted aquatic vegetation.[58] Since 1994, glyphosate has been aerially sprayed in Colombia as part of coca eradication programs; Colombia announced in May 2015 that it would phase out the use of glyphosate in these programs by October due to concerns about the chemical’s human toxicity.[72]
Glyphosate is also used to dehydrate (desiccate) crops to increase crop yield and uniformity.[58] Glyphosate itself is not a chemical drying agent; rather, the application of glyphosate just before harvest kills the crops, so that the food crop dries faster and more evenly from environmental influences (“dry-down”).[73][75] Because glyphosate is systemic, excess residues can remain in plants due to improper application, which can render crops unsuitable for sale.[76] When used properly, it can promote beneficial effects. For example, in sugar cane, the application of glyphosate increases the pre-harvest sucrose concentration.[77] For grain crops (wheat, barley, oats), evenly dried crops do not need to be raked (raked and dried) before harvesting, but can simply be cut straight and harvested. This saves the farmer time and money, which is important in northern regions where the growing season is short, and improves grain storage when the grain has a lower and more consistent moisture content.[58][78][79]
Genetically modified plants Some microorganisms have a version of 5-enolpyruvoyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthetase (EPSPS) that is resistant to glyphosate inhibition. A version of the enzyme that was both resistant to glyphosate and efficient enough to promote adequate plant growth was identified by Monsanto scientists, after much trial and error, in a strain of Agrobacterium called CP4 that was found in a waste-loaded column at survived a glyphosate production plant.[67][80][81]: 56 This CP4 EPSPS gene was cloned and transfected into soybeans. In 1996, genetically engineered soybeans were made commercially available.[82] Current glyphosate-resistant crops include soybean, corn, canola, alfalfa, sugar beet and cotton, with wheat still in development. In 2015, 89% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 89% of cotton produced in the United States came from strains genetically engineered to be herbicide tolerant—including but not limited to glyphosate.[83 ]
environmental fate Oklahoma landscaping contractor applies a weed killer that contains glyphosate Glyphosate has four ionizable sites with pKa values of 2.0, 2.6, 5.6 and 10.6. Therefore, it is a zwitterion in aqueous solutions and is expected to exist in the environment almost entirely in zwitterionic forms. Zwitterions generally adsorb more strongly to soils containing organic carbon and clay than their neutral counterparts.[84] Glyphosate is highly sorbed to soil minerals and its soluble residues, except for colloid-mediated transport, appear to have poor mobility in the free pore water of soils. The spatial extent of the pollution of ground and surface water is therefore considered to be relatively limited.[85] Glyphosate is readily broken down by soil microbes to aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) which, like glyphosate, adsorbs strongly to soil solids and is therefore unlikely to leach into groundwater. Although both glyphosate and AMPA are commonly detected in the aquatic environment, some of the AMPA detected may actually be the result of degradation of detergents and not glyphosate.[86] Glyphosate has the potential to contaminate surface waters due to its aquatic use patterns and through erosion as it adsorbs to colloidal soil particles suspended in runoff. Evidence in surface waters (particularly downstream from agricultural uses) has been reported by researchers at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as both widespread and common, although other similar surveys have found equal frequencies of evidence in small streams dominated by cities. 88] Rain events can trigger the loss of dissolved glyphosate in transport-prone soils.[89] The mechanism of glyphosate sorption in soil is similar to that of phosphate fertilizers, the presence of which can reduce glyphosate sorption.[90] Phosphate fertilizers are released from sediments into aquatic environments under anaerobic conditions, and a similar release may also occur from glyphosate, although no significant effects of glyphosate release from sediments have been identified.[91] Limited leaching may occur after application after heavy rains. When glyphosate enters surface water, it is not readily degraded by water or sunlight.[92][85]
The half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges from 2 to 197 days; a typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested. Soil and climate conditions affect the persistence of glyphosate in soil. The mean half-life of glyphosate in water varies from a few to 91 days.[57] At one Texas site, the half-life was only three days. A site in Iowa had a half-life of 141.9 days.[93] The glyphosate metabolite AMPA has been found in Swedish forest soils up to two years after glyphosate application. In this case, the persistence of AMPA was attributed to the ground being frozen for most of the year.[94] Adsorption of glyphosate to soil and subsequent release from soil varies with soil type.[95][96] Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with persistence of 12 to 60 days observed in Canadian ponds, although persistence of over a year was observed in American pond sediments.[92] The half-life of glyphosate in water ranges from 12 days to 10 weeks.[97]
residues in food According to the National Pesticide Information Center data sheet, glyphosate is not included in compounds tested by the Food and Drug Administration’s Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program or the US Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program.[57] The US has set the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate at 1.75 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/bw/day), while the European Union has set it at 0.5.[98]
Pesticide residue controls carried out by EU member states in 2016 analyzed 6,761 samples of food products for glyphosate residues. 3.6% of the samples contained quantifiable glyphosate residue levels, with 19 samples (0.28%) exceeding the European Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs), including six samples from honey and other apiary products (MRL = 0.05 mg/kg) and eleven samples of buckwheat and other pseudocereals (MRL = 0.1 mg/kg). Glyphosate residues below the European MRLs were most commonly found in dried lentils, flaxseed, soybeans, dried peas, tea, buckwheat, barley, wheat and rye.[99] In Canada, a review of 7,955 food samples found that 42.3% contained detectable levels of glyphosate and only 0.6% was above the Canadian MRL of 0.1 mg/kg for most foods and 4 mg/kg for beans and contained chickpeas. A third of the products that exceeded the MRL were organic products. Based on the analysis, Health Canada concluded “that there was no long-term health risk to Canadian consumers from exposure to levels of glyphosate.”[100]
toxicity Glyphosate is the active ingredient in herbicide formulations that contain it. However, commercial formulations of glyphosate contain, in addition to the glyphosate salts, additives (known as adjuvants) such as surfactants, which vary in nature and concentration. Surfactants such as polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) are added to glyphosate to allow it to wet the foliage and penetrate the plants’ cuticles. glyphosate alone people The acute oral toxicity to mammals is low,[101] but fatalities have been reported following intentional overdoses of concentrated formulations.[102] The surfactants in glyphosate formulations can increase the relative acute toxicity of the formulation.[103][104] In a 2017 risk assessment, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) wrote: “There is very limited information on skin irritation in humans. If skin irritation has been reported, it is unclear whether it is related to glyphosate or ingredients in glyphosate. Contains herbicide formulations.” ECHA concluded that the available human data were insufficient to support a classification for skin corrosion or skin irritation.[105] Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, cause an unpleasant taste in the mouth or tingling and irritation in the throat. Eye contact can lead to mild conjunctivitis. Superficial corneal injury is possible with delayed or insufficient irrigation.[103]
Cancer The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have not produced evidence of human carcinogenicity.[10] The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR),[106] the European Commission, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority[107] and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment[108] have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified glyphosate as “not likely to be a human carcinogen” in 2015.[15][13]
As of 2020, the evidence that long-term exposure to glyphosate increases the risk of cancer in humans remains inconclusive.[111] There is weak evidence that human cancer risk may increase as a result of occupational exposure to large amounts of glyphosate, e.g. when working in agriculture, but no good evidence of such a risk when used at home, e.g. in the home garden.[112][113] A meta-analysis published in 2019 investigated whether there is an association between an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans and high cumulative exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides. The research found a “convincing association” between exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.[114] A 2021 meta-analysis on glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma warned that such results can be biased by “assumptions about both exposure levels and latency periods”.[115]
Other Mammals Glyphosate is said to have “low to very low toxicity” in mammals. The LD 50 of glyphosate is 5,000 mg/kg in rats, 10,000 mg/kg in mice and 3,530 mg/kg in goats. The acute dermal LD 50 in rabbits is over 2,000 mg/kg. Signs of glyphosate toxicity in animals typically appear within 30 to 120 minutes after ingestion of a sufficiently large dose and include initial excitability and tachycardia, ataxia, depression and bradycardia, although severe toxicity can progress to collapse and convulsions.[57]
A review of unpublished short-term feeding studies in rabbits reported severe toxicity effects at 150 mg/kg/day and doses with no observed adverse effect ranging from 50 to 200 mg/kg/day.[116] Glyphosate can have carcinogenic effects in non-human mammals. These include the induction of positive trends in the incidence of renal tubular carcinoma and hemangiosarcoma in male mice, and an increase in pancreatic islet cell adenomas in male rats.[13] In reproductive toxicity studies performed in rats and rabbits, no adverse effects on the dam or offspring were observed at doses below 175-293 mg/kg/day.[57]
Glyphosate-based herbicides can cause life-threatening arrhythmias in mammals. Evidence also shows that such herbicides cause direct electrophysiological changes in the cardiovascular system of rats and rabbits.[117]
aquatic fauna Bei vielen wirbellosen Süßwassertieren hat Glyphosat einen 48-Stunden-LC 50 -Wert im Bereich von 55 bis 780 ppm. Die 96-Stunden-LC 50 beträgt 281 ppm für Grasgarnelen (Palaemonetas vulgaris) und 934 ppm für Winkerkrabben (Uca pagilator). Diese Werte machen Glyphosat „leicht giftig bis praktisch ungiftig“.[57]
Antimikrobielle Aktivität Die antimikrobielle Aktivität von Glyphosat wurde in der mikrobiologischen Literatur seit seiner Entdeckung im Jahr 1970 und der Beschreibung des Wirkungsmechanismus von Glyphosat im Jahr 1972 beschrieben. Die Wirksamkeit wurde für zahlreiche Bakterien und Pilze beschrieben.[118] Glyphosat kann das Wachstum von apikomplexen Parasiten wie Toxoplasma gondii, Plasmodium falciparum (Malaria) und Cryptosporidium parvum kontrollieren und gilt als antimikrobielles Mittel bei Säugetieren.[119] Bei einigen Rhizobium-Arten, die für die Stickstofffixierung von Sojabohnen wichtig sind, kann eine Hemmung auftreten, insbesondere unter Feuchtigkeitsstress.[120]
BodenbiotaNothing burns down green faster than Razor Burn
Razor Burn | Nufarm Specialty Products | Agworld DBX
Get to the Root of Weed Control with Razor® Pro
Razor Burn®
Razor Pro Herbicide
Glyphosate
Wenn Glyphosat mit dem Boden in Kontakt kommt, kann es an Bodenpartikel gebunden werden, wodurch sein Abbau verlangsamt wird.[92][121] Glyphosat und sein Abbauprodukt Aminomethylphosphonsäure gelten als toxikologisch und ökologisch viel unbedenklicher als die meisten durch Glyphosat ersetzten Herbizide.[122] Eine Metaanalyse aus dem Jahr 2016 kam zu dem Schluss, dass Glyphosat bei typischen Anwendungsraten keine Auswirkungen auf die mikrobielle Biomasse oder die Atmung im Boden hatte.[123] Eine Überprüfung aus dem Jahr 2016 stellte fest, dass in verschiedenen Experimenten gegensätzliche Wirkungen von Glyphosat auf Regenwürmer festgestellt wurden, wobei einige Arten nicht betroffen waren, andere jedoch an Gewicht verloren oder behandelten Boden vermieden. Weitere Forschung ist erforderlich, um die Auswirkungen von Glyphosat auf Regenwürmer in komplexen Ökosystemen zu bestimmen.[124]
Endokrine Störung
Im Jahr 2007 wählte die EPA Glyphosat für ein weiteres Screening durch ihr Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) aus. Die Auswahl für dieses Programm basiert auf der Verwendungshäufigkeit einer Verbindung und impliziert keinen besonderen Verdacht auf endokrine Aktivität.[125] Am 29. Juni 2015 veröffentlichte die EPA die „Beweiskraft der Daten“-Schlussfolgerungen des EDSP-Tier-1-Screenings auf Glyphosat und empfahl, Glyphosat nicht für Tier-2-Tests in Betracht zu ziehen. In der Schlussfolgerung der Beweiskraft der Daten heißt es: „…es gab keine überzeugenden Beweise für eine mögliche Wechselwirkung mit den Östrogen-, Androgen- oder Schilddrüsenwegen.“[126] Eine Überprüfung der Beweise durch die Europäische Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit, die im September 2017 veröffentlicht wurde, ergab ähnliche Schlussfolgerungen wie denen des EPA-Berichts.[127]
Wirkung auf die Pflanzengesundheit
Einige Studien haben kausale Zusammenhänge zwischen Glyphosat und erhöhter oder verringerter Krankheitsresistenz gefunden.[128] Es wurde gezeigt, dass die Exposition gegenüber Glyphosat die Artenzusammensetzung von endophytischen Bakterien in Pflanzenwirten verändert, die sehr variabel ist.[129]
Formulierungen auf Glyphosatbasis
Auf Glyphosat basierende Formulierungen können eine Reihe von Adjuvantien enthalten, deren Identität geschützt sein kann.[130] Tenside werden in Herbizidformulierungen als Benetzungsmittel verwendet, um die Bedeckung zu maximieren und das Eindringen des Herbizids/der Herbizide durch Pflanzenblätter zu unterstützen. Als landwirtschaftliche Spritzhilfsmittel können Tenside in kommerzielle Formulierungen vorgemischt oder separat gekauft und vor Ort gemischt werden.[131]
Polyethoxyliertes Talgamin (POEA) ist ein Tensid, das in der ursprünglichen Roundup-Formulierung verwendet wurde und 2015 häufig verwendet wurde.[132] Verschiedene Versionen von Roundup enthalten unterschiedliche Prozentsätze von POEA. Ein Bericht der US-Regierung aus dem Jahr 1997 besagt, dass Roundup zu 15 % aus POEA besteht, während Roundup Pro zu 14,5 % ausmacht.[133] Da POEA für Fische und Amphibien toxischer ist als Glyphosat allein, ist POEA in aquatischen Formulierungen nicht erlaubt.[134][133][135] Eine Überprüfung der ökotoxikologischen Daten zu Roundup aus dem Jahr 2000 zeigt, dass mindestens 58 Studien zu den Wirkungen von Roundup auf eine Reihe von Organismen existieren.[93] This review concluded that “…for terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted for potentially exposed non-target organisms”.[136]
Human
Acute toxicity and chronic toxicity are dose-related. Skin exposure to ready-to-use concentrated glyphosate formulations can cause irritation, and photocontact dermatitis has been occasionally reported. These effects are probably due to the preservative benzisothiazolin-3-one. Severe skin burns are very rare.[103] Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, or tingling and irritation in the throat. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis. Superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate.[103] Death has been reported after deliberate overdose.[103][102] Ingestion of Roundup ranging from 85 to 200 ml (of 41% solution) has resulted in death within hours of ingestion, although it has also been ingested in quantities as large as 500 ml with only mild or moderate symptoms.[137] Adult consumption of more than 85 ml of concentrated product can lead to corrosive esophageal burns and kidney or liver damage. More severe cases cause “respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary edema, infiltration on chest X-ray, shock, arrhythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis, and hyperkalaemia” and death is often preceded by bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias.[103] While the surfactants in formulations generally do not increase the toxicity of glyphosate itself, it is likely that they contribute to its acute toxicity.[103]
A 2000 review concluded that “under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans”.[138] A 2012 meta-analysis of epidemiological studies (seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies) of exposure to glyphosate formulations found no correlation with any kind of cancer.[139] The 2013 systematic review by the German Institute for Risk Assessment of epidemiological studies of workers who use pesticides, and were exposed to glyphosate formulations found no significant risk, stating that “the available data are contradictory and far from being convincing”.[11]: vol. 1, 64–66 However, a 2014 meta-analysis of the same studies found a correlation between occupational exposure to glyphosate formulations and increased risk of B cell lymphoma, the most common kind of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Workers exposed to glyphosate were about twice as likely to get B cell lymphoma.[12]
A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found no causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and risk of any type of lymphohematopoietic cancer including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma.[140] The same review noted that the positive associations found may be due to bias and confounding.[140] The Natural Resources Defense Council has criticized that review, noting that it was funded by Monsanto.[141]
A 2015 systematic review of 10 observational studies found that except for an excess of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among children born to glyphosate appliers, there was no evidence that glyphosate exposure among pregnant mothers caused adverse developmental outcomes in their children. Noting the limited size and scope of the review articles available, the authors noted that “these negative findings cannot be taken as definitive evidence that GLY, at current levels of occupational and environmental exposures, brings no risk for human development and reproduction.”[142]
Aquatic fauna
Glyphosate products for aquatic use generally do not use surfactants, and aquatic formulations do not use POEA due to aquatic organism toxicity.[134] Due to the presence of POEA, such glyphosate formulations only allowed for terrestrial use are more toxic for amphibians and fish than glyphosate alone.[134][133][135] The half-life of POEA (21–42 days) is longer than that for glyphosate (7–14 days) in aquatic environments.[143] Aquatic organism exposure risk to terrestrial formulations with POEA is limited to drift or temporary water pockets where concentrations would be much lower than label rates.[134]
Some researchers have suggested the toxicity effects of pesticides on amphibians may be different from those of other aquatic fauna because of their lifestyle; amphibians may be more susceptible to the toxic effects of pesticides because they often prefer to breed in shallow, lentic, or ephemeral pools. These habitats do not necessarily constitute formal water-bodies and can contain higher concentrations of pesticide compared to larger water-bodies.[135][144] Studies in a variety of amphibians have shown the toxicity of GBFs containing POEA to amphibian larvae. These effects include interference with gill morphology and mortality from either the loss of osmotic stability or asphyxiation. At sub-lethal concentrations, exposure to POEA or glyphosate/POEA formulations have been associated with delayed development, accelerated development, reduced size at metamorphosis, developmental malformations of the tail, mouth, eye and head, histological indications of intersex and symptoms of oxidative stress.[135] Glyphosate-based formulations can cause oxidative stress in bullfrog tadpoles.[15]
A 2003 study of various formulations of glyphosate found, “[the] risk assessments based on estimated and measured concentrations of glyphosate that would result from its use for the control of undesirable plants in wetlands and over-water situations showed that the risk to aquatic organisms is negligible or small at application rates less than 4 kg/ha and only slightly greater at application rates of 8 kg/ha.”[145]
A 2013 meta-analysis reviewed the available data related to potential impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides on amphibians. According to the authors, the use of glyphosate-based pesticides cannot be considered the major cause of amphibian decline, the bulk of which occurred prior to the widespread use of glyphosate or in pristine tropical areas with minimal glyphosate exposure. The authors recommended further study of per-species and per-development-stage chronic toxicity, of environmental glyphosate levels, and ongoing analysis of data relevant to determining what if any role glyphosate might be playing in worldwide amphibian decline, and suggest including amphibians in standardized test batteries.[146]
Genetic damage
Several studies have not found mutagenic effects,[147] so glyphosate has not been listed in the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the International Agency for Research on Cancer databases.[citation needed] Various other studies suggest glyphosate may be mutagenic.[citation needed] The IARC monograph noted that glyphosate-based formulations can cause DNA strand breaks in various taxa of animals in vitro.[15]
Government and organization positions
European Food Safety Authority
A 2013 systematic review by the German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) examined more than 1000[148] epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies. It found that “no classification and labelling for carcinogenicity is warranted” and did not recommend a carcinogen classification of either 1A or 1B.[11]: 34–37, 139 It provided the review to EFSA in January 2014 which published it in December 2014.[11][149][150] In November 2015, EFSA published its conclusion in the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR), stating it was “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans”.[151] The EU was largely informed by this report when it made its decision on the use of glyphosate in November 2017.[152]
EFSA’s decision and the BfR report were criticized in an open letter published by 96 scientists in November 2015 saying that the BfR report failed to adhere to accepted scientific principles of open and transparent procedures.[153][154] The BfR report included unpublished data, lacked authorship, omitted references, and did not disclose conflict-of-interest information.[154]
In April 2016, Dr. Vytenis Andriukaitis, European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, wrote an open letter to the Chair of the Board of the Glyphosate Task Force at Monsanto Europe asking them to publish the full studies provided to the EFSA.[155]
US Environmental Protection Agency
In a 1993 review, the EPA, considered glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in dermal and oral acute toxicity.[92] The EPA considered a “worst case” dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.[92] In 2015, the EPA initiated a review of glyphosate’s toxicity and in 2016 reported that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic.[8][156] In August 2019, the EPA announced that it no longer allowed labels claiming glyphosate is a carcinogen, as those claims would “not meet the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act” and misinform the public.[157]
In 2017, evidence collected in a lawsuit brought against Monsanto by cancer patients revealed company emails which appeared to show a friendly relationship with a senior EPA official.[158]
International Agency for Research on Cancer
In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an intergovernmental agency forming part of the World Health Organization of the United Nations, published a summary of their forthcoming monograph on glyphosate, and classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic in humans” (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies. It noted that there was “limited evidence” of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[8][13][14][15][159] The IARC classifies substances for their carcinogenic potential, and “a few positive findings can be enough to declare a hazard, even if there are negative studies, as well.” Unlike the BfR, it does not conduct a risk assessment, weighing benefits against risk.[160]
The BfR responded that IARC reviewed only a selection of what they[who?] had reviewed earlier, and argued that other studies, including a cohort study called Agricultural Health Study, do not support the classification.[161] The IARC report did not include unpublished studies, including one completed by the IARC panel leader.[162] The agency’s international protocol dictates that only published studies be used in classifications of carcinogenicity,[163] since national regulatory agencies including the EPA have allowed agrochemical corporations to conduct their own unpublished research, which may be biased in support of their profit motives.[164]
Monsanto response and campaign
Monsanto called the IARC report biased and said it wanted the report to be retracted.[165] In 2017, internal documents from Monsanto were made public by lawyers pursuing litigation against the company,[166] who used the term “Monsanto papers” to describe the documents.[167] This term was later used also by Leemon McHenry[168] and others.[169] The documents indicated Monsanto had planned a public relations effort to discredit the IARC report, and had engaged Henry Miller to write a 2015 opinion piece in Forbes Magazine challenging the report. Miller did not reveal the connection to Forbes, and according to the New York Times, when Monsanto asked him if he was interested in writing such an article, he replied “I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft” provided by the company.[170] Once this became public, Forbes removed his blog from their site.
Two journalists from Le Monde won the 2018 European Press Prize for a series of articles on the documents, also titled Monsanto Papers. Their reporting described, among other things, Monsanto’s lawyers’ letters demanding that IARC scientists turn over documents relating to Monograph 112, which contained the IARC finding that glyphosate was a “probable carcinogen”; several of the scientists condemned these letters as intimidating.[171]
Reviews of the EFSA and IARC reports
A 2017 review done by personnel from EFSA and BfR argued that the differences between the IARC’s and EFSA’s conclusions regarding glyphosate and cancer were due to differences in their evaluation of the available evidence. The review concluded that “Two complementary exposure assessments … suggests that actual exposure levels are below” the reference values identified by the EFSA “and do not represent a public concern.”[172]
In contrast, a 2016 analysis concluded that in the EFSA’s Renewal Assessment Report, “almost no weight is given to studies from the published literature and there is an over-reliance on non-publicly available industry-provided studies using a limited set of assays that define the minimum data necessary for the marketing of a pesticide”, arguing that the IARC’s evaluation of probably carcinogenic to humans “accurately reflects the results of published scientific literature on glyphosate”.[173]
In October 2017, an article in The Times revealed that Christopher Portier, a scientist advising the IARC in the assessment of glyphosate and advocate for its classification as possibly carcinogenic, had received consulting contracts with two law firm associations representing alleged glyphosate cancer victims that included a payment of US$160,000 to Portier.[174][175] The IARC final report was also found to have changed compared to an interim report, through the removal of text saying certain studies had found glyphosate was not carcinogenic in that study’s context, and through strengthening a conclusion of “limited evidence of animal carcinogenicity,” to “sufficient evidence of animal carcinogenicity”.[176]
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
In March 2015, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced plans to have glyphosate listed as a known carcinogen based on the IARC assessment. In 2016, Monsanto started a case against OEHHA and its acting director, Lauren Zeise,[177] but lost the suit in March 2017.[178]
Glyphosate was listed as “known to the State of California to cause cancer” in 2017, requiring warning labels under Proposition 65.[179] In February 2018, as part of an ongoing case, an injunction was issued prohibiting California from enforcing carcinogenicity labeling requirements for glyphosate until the case was resolved. The injunction stated that arguments by a US District Court Judge for the Eastern District of California “[do] not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of agencies that that have examined glyphosate have determined it is not a cancer risk.”[180] In August 2019, the EPA also said it no longer allowed labels claiming glyphosate is a carcinogen, as those claims would “not meet the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act” and misinform the public.[157]
European Chemicals Agency
On March 15, 2017 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced recommendations proceeding from a risk assessment of glyphosate performed by ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC). Their recommendations maintained the current classification of glyphosate as a substance causing serious eye damage and as a substance toxic to aquatic life. However, the RAC did not find evidence implicating glyphosate to be a carcinogen, a mutagen, toxic to reproduction, nor toxic to specific organs.[181]
Effects of use
Emergence of resistant weeds
In the 1990s, no glyphosate-resistant weeds were known to exist.[182] By 2014, glyphosate-resistant weeds dominated herbicide-resistance research. At that time, 23 glyphosate-resistant species were found in 18 countries.[183] “Resistance evolves after a weed population has been subjected to intense selection pressure in the form of repeated use of a single herbicide.”[182][184]
According to Ian Heap, a weed specialist, who completed his PhD on resistance to multiple herbicides in annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in 1988[185] – the first case of an herbicide-resistant weed in Australia[186] – by 2014 Lolium rigidum was the “world’s worst herbicide-resistant weed” with instances in “12 countries, 11 sites of action, 9 cropping regimens” and affecting “over 2 million hectares.”[183] Annual ryegrass has been known to be resistant to herbicides since 1982. The first documented case of glyphosate-resistant L. rigidum was reported in Australia in 1996 near Orange, New South Wales.[187][188][189] In 2006, farmers associations were reporting 107 biotypes of weeds within 63 weed species with herbicide resistance.[190] In 2009, Canada identified its first resistant weed, giant ragweed, and at that time 15 weed species had been confirmed as resistant to glyphosate.[184][191] As of 2010, in the United States 7 to 10 million acres (2.8 to 4.0 million hectares) of soil were afflicted by herbicide-resistant weeds, or about 5% of the 170 million acres planted with corn, soybeans, and cotton, the crops most affected, in 22 states.[192] In 2012, Charles Benbrook reported that the Weed Science Society of America listed 22 herbicide-resistant species in the U.S., with over 5.7×10 ^ 6 ha (14×10 ^ 6 acres) infested by GR weeds and that Dow AgroSciences had carried out a survey and reported a figure of around 40×10 ^ 6 ha (100×10 ^ 6 acres).[193] The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds database lists species that are resistant to glyphosate.[191]
In response to resistant weeds, farmers are hand-weeding, using tractors to turn over soil between crops, and using other herbicides in addition to glyphosate.
Monsanto scientists have found that some resistant weeds have as many as 160 extra copies of a gene called EPSPS, the enzyme glyphosate disrupts.[194]
Palmer amaranth
In 2004, a glyphosate-resistant variation of Palmer amaranth was found in the U.S. state of Georgia and confirmed by a 2005 study.[195] In 2005, resistance was also found in North Carolina.[196] The species can quickly become resistant to multiple herbicides and has developed multiple mechanisms for glyphosate resistance due to selection pressure.[197][196] The glyphosate-resistant weed variant is now widespread in the southeastern United States.[195][198] Cases have also been reported in Texas[198] and Virginia.[199]
Conyza species
Conyza bonariensis (also known as hairy fleabane and buva) and Conyza canadensis (known as horseweed or marestail) are other weed species that have lately developed glyphosate resistance.[200][201][202] A 2008 study on the current situation of glyphosate resistance in South America concluded “resistance evolution followed intense glyphosate use” and the use of glyphosate-resistant soybean crops is a factor encouraging increases in glyphosate use.[203] In the 2015 growing season, glyphosate-resistant marestail proved to be especially problematic to control in Nebraska production fields.[204]
Ryegrass
Glyphosate-resistant ryegrass (Lolium) has occurred in most of the Australian agricultural areas and other areas of the world. All cases of evolution of resistance to glyphosate in Australia were characterized by intensive use of the herbicide while no other effective weed control practices were used. Studies indicate resistant ryegrass does not compete well against nonresistant plants and their numbers decrease when not grown under conditions of glyphosate application.[205]
Johnson grass
Glyphosate-resistant Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) has been found in Argentina as well as Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.[206]
Monarch butterfly populations
Use of 2-4 D and other herbicides like glyphosate to clear milkweed along roads and fields may have contributed to a decline in monarch butterfly populations in the Midwestern United States.[207] Along with deforestation and adverse weather conditions,[208] the decrease in milkweed contributed to an 81% decline in monarchs.[209][210] The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a suit against the EPA in 2015, in which it argued that the agency ignored warnings about the potentially dangerous impacts of glyphosate usage on monarchs.[211]
legal status
Glyphosate was first approved for use in the 1970s, and as of 2010 was labelled for use in 130 countries.[19]: 2
In 2017 Vandenberg et al. cited a 100-fold increase in the use of glyphosate-based herbicides from 1974 to 2014, the possibility that herbicide mixtures likely have effects that are not predicted by studying glyphosate alone, and reliance of current safety assessments on studies done over 30 years ago. They recommended that current safety standards be updated, writing that the current standards “may fail to protect public health or the environment.”[212]
European Union
In April 2014, the legislature of the Netherlands passed legislation prohibiting sale of glyphosate to individuals for use at home; commercial sales were not affected.[213]
In June 2015, the French Ecology Minister asked nurseries and garden centers to halt over-the-counter sales of glyphosate in the form of Monsanto’s Roundup. This was a nonbinding request and all sales of glyphosate remain legal in France until 2022, when it was planned to ban the substance for home gardening.[214] However, more recently the French parliament decided to not to impose a definitive date for such a ban.[215] In January 2019, “the sale, distribution, and use of Roundup 360 [wa]s banned” in France. Exemptions for many farmers were later implemented, and a curb of its use by 80% for 2021 is projected.[216][217]
A vote on the relicensing of glyphosate in the EU stalled in March 2016. Member states France, Sweden, and the Netherlands objected to the renewal.[218] A vote to reauthorize on a temporary basis failed in June 2016[219] but at the last minute the license was extended for 18 months until the end of 2017.[220]
On 27 November 2017, in the EU Council a majority of eighteen member states voted in favor of permitting the use of glyphosate for five more years. A qualified majority of sixteen states representing 65% of EU citizens was required to pass the law.[221] The German Minister of Agriculture, Christian Schmidt, unexpectedly voted in favor while the German coalition government was internally divided on the issue which usually results in Germany abstaining.[222]
In December 2018, attempts were made to reopen the decision to license the weed-killer. These were condemned by Conservative MEPs, who said the proposal was politically motivated and flew in the face of scientific evidence.[223]
In March 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ordered the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to release all carcinogenicity and toxicity pesticide industry studies on glyphosate to the general public.[224]
In March 2019, the Austrian state of Carinthia outlawed the private use of glyphosate in residential areas while the commercial application of the herbicide is still permitted for farmers. The use of glyphosate by public authorities and road maintenance crews was already halted a number of years prior to the current ban by local authorities.[225]
In June 2019, Deutsche Bahn and Swiss Federal Railways announced that glyphosate and other commonly used herbicides for weed eradication along railway tracks will be phased out by 2025, while more environmentally sound methods for vegetation control are implemented.[226][227]
In July 2019, the Austrian parliament voted to ban glyphosate in Austria.[228]
In September 2019, the German Environment Ministry announced that the use of glyphosate will be banned from the end of 2023. The use of glyphosate-based herbicides will be reduced starting from 2020.[229]
The assessment process for an approval of glyphosate in the European Union will begin in December 2019. France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden will jointly assess the application dossiers of the producers. The draft report of the assessment group will then be peer-reviewed by the EFSA before the current approval expires in December 2022.[230]
The date has since been pushed back, partially due to very high interest and input in the participation process, with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) even calling it an “unprecedented number”.[231] Because the EFSA has to review all these 2400 comments and almost 400 responses, the process is expected to take longer. The created document is under extra review by the specially formed Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG) and the Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG), the panel consisting of the four mentioned member states. With their responses now being scheduled for September 2022, the consultations with member states are supposed to be held by the very end of 2022.[232][233] This would allow to finish the final assessment by mid-2023 and pass it on to further legislature to decide.
Other countries
In September 2013, the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador approved legislation to ban 53 agrochemicals, including glyphosate; the ban on glyphosate was set to begin in 2015.[234][235][236]
In the United States, the state of Minnesota preempts local laws that attempt to ban glyphosate. In 2015 there was an attempt to pass legislation at the state level that would repeal that preemption.[237]
In May 2015, the President of Sri Lanka banned the use and import of glyphosate, effective immediately.[238][239] However, in May 2018 the Sri Lankan government decided to re-authorize its use in the plantation sector.[240]
In May 2015, Bermuda blocked importation on all new orders of glyphosate-based herbicides for a temporary suspension awaiting outcomes of research.[241]
In May 2015, Colombia announced that it would stop using glyphosate by October 2015 in the destruction of illegal plantations of coca, the raw ingredient for cocaine. Farmers have complained that the aerial fumigation has destroyed entire fields of coffee and other legal produce.[72]
In April 2019, Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development banned the use of glyphosate throughout the country.[242]
In August 2020, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced that glyphosate will be gradually phased out of use in Mexico by late 2024.[243]
Thailand’s National Hazardous Substances Committee decided to ban the use of glyphosate in October 2019[244] but reversed the decision in November 2019.[245]
After a court-ruling in 2018, glyphosate was temporarily banned in Brazil. This decision was later overturned, causing major criticism by the federal agency of health (Anvisa). This comes, as the latest evaluations declared glyphosate as noncarcinogenic. Since all carcinogenic agrichemicals are automatically banned in the country, this allowed the continuous use.[246]
Legal cases
Lawsuits claiming liability for cancer
In June 2018, in the court case Johnson v. Monsanto Co., Dewayne Johnson, a 46-year-old former California school groundskeeper who is dying of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, took Monsanto (which had been acquired by Bayer earlier that month) to trial in San Francisco County superior court, alleging that it has spent decades hiding the cancer-causing dangers of its Roundup herbicides. The judge ordered that jurors be allowed to consider both scientific evidence related to the cause of Johnson’s cancer and allegations that Monsanto suppressed evidence of the risks, with possible punitive damages.[247][248] In August 2018, the jury awarded Johnson US$289 million in damages. Monsanto said they would appeal,[249] saying they were confident that glyphosate does not cause cancer when used appropriately.[250] On appeal, the award was reduced to $78.5 million in November 2018,[251] and subsequently further reduced to $21.5 million in July 2020.[252]
In August 2018, the potential for additional cases was estimated at up to 4,000.[253] Bayer announced in April 2019 that over 13,000 lawsuits related to Roundup had been launched in the US.
In March 2019, a man was awarded $80 million in a lawsuit claiming Roundup was a substantial factor in his cancer,[254][255] resulting in Costco stores discontinuing sales.[256] In July 2019, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria reduced the judgment to $26 million.[257] Chhabria stated that a punitive award was appropriate because the evidence “easily supported a conclusion that Monsanto was more concerned with tamping down safety inquiries and manipulating public opinion than it was with ensuring its product is safe.” Chhabria stated that there is evidence on both sides concerning whether glyphosate causes cancer and that the behavior of Monsanto showed “a lack of concern about the risk that its product might be carcinogenic.”[257]
On 13 May 2019 a jury in California ordered Bayer to pay a couple $2 billion in damages after finding that the company had failed to adequately inform consumers of the possible carcinogenicity of Roundup.[258] On July 26, 2019, an Alameda County judge cut the judgment to $86.7 million, stating that the judgement by the jury exceeded legal precedent.[259]
Using litigation discovery emails it was later revealed that in 2015 when Monsanto was discussing papers they wanted to see published to counter the expected IARC glyphosate results they wrote in an email, “An option would be to add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000.”[260]
In June 2020 Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, agreed to a $10 billion settlement as a result of a number of class-action lawsuits alleging that Roundup had caused cancer.[261]
Advertising controversies
The New York Times reported that in 1996:
Dennis C. Vacco, the Attorney General of New York, ordered the company Monsanto to pull ads that said Roundup was “safer than table salt” and “practically nontoxic” to mammals, birds and fish. The company withdrew the spots, but also said that the phrase in question was permissible under E.P.A. guidelines.[262]
In 2001, French environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought a case against Monsanto for misleading the public about the environmental impact of its herbicide Roundup, on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup’s main component, is classed as “dangerous for the environment” and “toxic for aquatic organisms” by the European Union. Monsanto’s advertising for Roundup had presented it as biodegradable and as leaving the soil clean after use. In 2007, Monsanto was convicted of false advertising and was fined 15,000 euros. Monsanto’s French distributor Scotts France was also fined 15,000 euros. Both defendants were ordered to pay damages of 5,000 euros to the Brittany Water and Rivers Association and 3,000 euros to the Consommation Logement Cadre de vie, one of the two main general consumer associations in France.[263] Monsanto appealed and the court upheld the verdict; Monsanto appealed again to the French Supreme Court, and in 2009 it also upheld the verdict.[264]
In 2016, a lawsuit was filed against Quaker Oats in the Federal district courts of both New York and California after trace amounts of glyphosate were found in oatmeal. The lawsuit alleged that the claim of “100% natural” was false advertising.[265] That same year General Mills dropped the label “Made with 100% Natural Whole Grain Oats” from their Nature Valley granola bars after a lawsuit was filed that claimed the oats contained trace amounts of glyphosate.[266]
Trade dumping allegations
United States companies have cited trade issues with glyphosate being dumped into the western world market areas by Chinese companies and a formal dispute was filed in 2010.[267][268]
See also
references
Continue reading
Grossbard, E.; Atkinson, D. (1985). The Herbicide Glyphosate. Butterworths. p. 490. ISBN 0408111534 .
Related searches to razor burn grass killer
Information related to the topic razor burn grass killer
Here are the search results of the thread razor burn grass killer from Bing. You can read more if you want.
You have just come across an article on the topic razor burn grass killer. If you found this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.
