Razor Burn Weed Killer? The 230 Detailed Answer

Are you looking for an answer to the topic “razor burn weed 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.

Razor Burn is a post-emergent, systemic herbicide that is generally non-selective and gives broad spectrum control of many annual weeds, perennial weeds, woody brush and trees.2 tablespoons = 1 fluid ounce For use in knapsack sprayers, it is suggested that the specified amount of this product be mixed with water in a larger container. Fill sprayer with the mixed solution. Nonionic surfactants which are labeled for use with herbicides may be used.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.

How do you mix Razor Pro herbicide?

2 tablespoons = 1 fluid ounce For use in knapsack sprayers, it is suggested that the specified amount of this product be mixed with water in a larger container. Fill sprayer with the mixed solution. Nonionic surfactants which are labeled for use with herbicides may be used.

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.

How much is a razor pro per gallon?

Razor Burn 64 oz.

How many gallons of water does it take to spray an acre?

Sprayers typically range from 0.5 – 2 Gallons of water per 1000 square feet. At that range you would need 22 – 88 gallons of water per acre.

Razor Burn 64 oz.

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.

Razor Burn 64 oz.

How do you get glyphosate out of your body?

Health practitioners recommend the use of sauna or steam therapies to sweat out unwanted toxins, as well as an increase in the use of probiotic foods and supplements to replenish the microbiota which glyphosate may be destroying.

Razor Burn 64 oz.

What is Razor Pro herbicide?

Razor Pro Herbicide provides broad spectrum post-emergent weed control for industrial sites, forestry, turf, vegetation management and ornamental areas. Razor Pro, a surfactant loaded liquid 4-pound glyphosate that eliminates the need for additional surfactant, is rainfast within two hours of application.

Razor Burn 64 oz.

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.

Razor Burn 64 oz.

The Best Weed Killer – Before and After

See some more details on the topic razor burn weed killer here:

U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label, RAZOR BURN, 02/17/2006

Razor Burn'” contains 4.0 Ibs per gallon of the isopropylamine salt of … When tank mi;

+ Read More

Source: www3.epa.gov

Date Published: 7/5/2022

View: 9627

Nothing burns down green faster than Razor Burn

If you want fast-acting, broad-spectrum weed control, use Razor Burn post- emergent herbice. Razor Burn combines the fast contact activity of diquat.

+ View More Here

Source: www.specialtyturfag.com

Date Published: 12/22/2021

View: 7867

Get to the Root of Weed Control with Razor® Pro

Weeds don’t stand a chance against Razor® Pro herbice. The power of glyphosate against weeds and brush combined with the convenience of a.

+ Read More

Source: www.rrsi.com

Date Published: 5/17/2021

View: 5012

Razor Burn 64oz Systemic Herbicide – Product | BFG Supply

Razor Burn 64oz Systemic Herbice. Item Number, NTS10296864. Case Qty, 0. Min Qty, 1. UPC. Manufacturer, Nufarm Americas Inc. MSRP, $0.00 …

+ Read More

Source: www.bfgsupply.com

Date Published: 3/17/2022

View: 8575

Razor Burn – Shop | FBN

Razor Burn®. Product label. This product used for comparison purposes only and not … Roundup QuikPRO™ (Monsanto). Labeled Weeds, Insects & Diseases …

+ Read More

Source: www.fbn.com

Date Published: 8/10/2022

View: 2844

Razor Burn – Gold Star FS

​Post-emergence, systemic herbice with no soil resual activity. A non-selective product that gives broad spectrum control of many annual weeds, …

+ Read More Here

Source: www.goldstarfs.com

Date Published: 12/21/2022

View: 5922

Razor Burn®

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.

Glyphosate

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

In many freshwater invertebrates, glyphosate has a 48-hour LC 50 in the range of 55 to 780 ppm. The 96-hour LC 50 is 281 ppm for grass shrimp (Palaemonetas vulgaris) and 934 ppm for fiddler crab (Uca pagilator). These levels make glyphosate “slightly toxic to practically non-toxic.”[57]

antimicrobial activity

Glyphosate’s antimicrobial activity has been described in the microbiological literature since its discovery in 1970 and the description of glyphosate’s mechanism of action in 1972. Efficacy has been reported for numerous bacteria and fungi.[118] Glyphosate can control the growth of apicomplex parasites such as Toxoplasma gondii, Plasmodium falciparum (malaria), and Cryptosporidium parvum and is recognized as an antimicrobial agent in mammals.[119] Inhibition can occur in some Rhizobium species important for nitrogen fixation of soybeans, particularly under moisture stress.[120]

soil biota

When glyphosate comes into contact with soil, it can bind to soil particles, slowing its degradation.[92][121] Glyphosate and its breakdown product, aminomethylphosphonic acid, are considered to be much safer toxicologically and ecologically than most herbicides replaced by glyphosate.[122] A 2016 meta-analysis concluded that glyphosate had no effects on soil microbial biomass or respiration at typical application rates.[123] A 2016 review found that different experiments found opposing effects of glyphosate on earthworms, with some species unaffected but others losing weight or avoiding treated soil. Further research is needed to determine the effects of glyphosate on earthworms in complex ecosystems.[124]

Endocrine Disorder

In 2007, the EPA selected glyphosate for further screening through its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Selection for this program is based on frequency of use of a compound and does not imply any particular suspicion of endocrine activity.[125] On June 29, 2015, the EPA released the “weight of evidence” conclusions of the EDSP Tier 1 screening for glyphosate and recommended that glyphosate not be considered for Tier 2 testing. The conclusion on the weight of evidence states: “…there was no convincing evidence of a possible interaction with the estrogen, androgen or thyroid pathways.”[126] A review of the evidence by the European Food Safety Authority, published in September 2017 was published, reached conclusions similar to those of the EPA report.[127]

effect on plant health

Some studies have found causal associations between glyphosate and increased or decreased disease resistance.[128] Exposure to glyphosate has been shown to alter the species composition of endophytic bacteria in plant hosts, which is highly variable.[129]

Glyphosate-based formulations

Glyphosate-based formulations may contain a number of adjuvants, the identity of which may be protected.[130] Surfactants are used in herbicide formulations as wetting agents to maximize coverage and aid in penetration of the herbicide(s) through plant foliage. As agricultural spray aids, surfactants can be premixed into commercial formulations or purchased separately and mixed on site.[131]

Polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) is a surfactant that was used in the original Roundup formulation and was widely used in 2015.[132] Different versions of Roundup contain different percentages of POEA. A 1997 US government report states that Roundup is 15% POEA, while Roundup Pro is 14.5%.[133] Because POEA is more toxic to fish and amphibians than glyphosate alone, POEA is not allowed in aquatic formulations.[134][133][135] A review of Roundup ecotoxicology data from 2000 shows that at least 58 studies exist on the effects of Roundup on a range of organisms.[93] This review concluded that “… minimal acute and chronic risk to potentially exposed non-target organisms was predicted for terrestrial applications of Roundup”.[136]

Human

Acute toxicity and chronic toxicity are dose dependent. Skin contact with ready-to-use concentrated glyphosate formulations can cause irritation and photocontact dermatitis has occasionally been 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 can cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, or tingling and irritation in the throat. Eye contact may cause mild conjunctivitis. Superficial corneal injury is possible with delayed or insufficient irrigation.[103] Deaths have been reported following intentional overdose.[103][102] Ingestion of Roundup in the range of 85 to 200 mL (a 41% solution) resulted in death within hours of ingestion, although it has also been ingested in amounts up to 500 mL with only mild or moderate symptoms.[137] Consumption of more than 85 ml of the concentrated product by an adult may cause esophageal burns and damage to the kidneys or liver. More severe cases cause “respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary edema, infiltration on chest radiographs, shock, arrhythmias, renal failure requiring hemodialysis, metabolic acidosis, and hyperkalemia,” 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, they are likely to contribute to its acute toxicity.[103]

A 2000 review concluded that “under the current and anticipated conditions of new use, the herbicide Roundup could not pose a health risk to humans”.[138] A 2012 meta-analysis of epidemiological studies (seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies) on exposure to glyphosate formulations found no correlation with any type of cancer.[139] The 2013 German Institute for Risk Assessment systematic review of epidemiological studies of workers using pesticides and exposed to glyphosate formulations found no significant risk, noting that “the available data are conflicting and far from 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 an increased risk of B-cell lymphoma, the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Workers exposed to glyphosate were about twice as likely to develop B-cell lymphoma.[12]

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found no causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and the risk of any type of lymphohematopoietic cancer, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.[140] The same review noted that the positive associations found could be due to bias and confusion.[140] The Natural Resources Defense Council has criticized this review, noting that it was funded by Monsanto.[141]

A 2015 systematic review of 10 observational studies found that other than excess attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children born to glyphosate users, there was no evidence that glyphosate exposure in pregnant mothers had adverse developmental outcomes in their children caused. Noting the limited scope and scope of the available review articles, the authors stated that “these negative results cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that GLY does not pose a risk to human development and reproduction at current occupational and environmental exposure levels represents.”[142 ]

aquatic fauna

Glyphosate products for aquatic use generally do not use surfactants, and aquatic formulations do not use POEA due to toxicity to aquatic organisms.[134] Due to the presence of POEA, such glyphosate formulations approved for terrestrial use only are more toxic to amphibians and fish than glyphosate alone.[134][133][135] The half-life of POEA (21–42 days) in the aquatic environment is longer than that of glyphosate (7–14 days).[143] The risk of exposure of aquatic organisms to terrestrial formulations containing POEA is limited to drift or transient water pockets where concentrations would be much lower than label values.[134]

Some researchers have suggested that the toxicity effects of pesticides on amphibians may differ from those of other aquatic fauna due to their lifestyle. Amphibians may be more vulnerable to the toxic effects of pesticides as they often prefer to breed in shallow, lentic, or ephemeral tanks. These habitats do not necessarily represent formal bodies of water and may contain higher concentrations of pesticides compared to larger bodies of water.[135][144] Studies in a variety of amphibians have demonstrated the toxicity of GBFs containing POEA to amphibian larvae. These effects include disturbances in gill morphology and mortality from either loss of osmotic stability or suffocation. At sublethal concentrations, exposure to POEA or glyphosate/POEA formulations has been associated with delayed development, accelerated development, reduced size at metamorphosis, developmental malformations of the tail, mouth, eye, and head, histological signs 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 to control unwanted plants in wetland and overwater situations showed that the risk to Aquatic organisms are negligible or low at application rates below 4 kg/ha and only slightly higher at application rates of 8 kg/ha.”[145]

A 2013 meta-analysis reviewed available data on potential effects of glyphosate-based herbicides on amphibians. According to the authors, the use of glyphosate-based pesticides cannot be considered a major cause of amphibian declines, most of which occurred before widespread glyphosate use or in pristine tropical areas with minimal glyphosate exposure. The authors recommended further investigations into chronic toxicity per species and per developmental stage, glyphosate levels in the environment, and ongoing analysis of data relevant to determining what role glyphosate may play in global amphibian decline, and suggest including amphibians in the standardization of test batteries.[146]

genetic damage

Several studies have found no mutagenic effects,[147] therefore glyphosate has not been listed in the databases of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the International Agency for Research on Cancer. [citation needed] Various other studies suggest that glyphosate may be mutagenic ] The IARC monograph noted that glyphosate-based formulations can cause DNA strand breaks in various animal taxa in vitro.[15]

Government and organizational positions

European Food Safety Authority

A systematic review by the German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) from 2013 examined more than 1000[148] epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro studies. It stated that “no classification and labeling for carcinogenicity is warranted” and recommended neither a 1A nor a 1B carcinogen classification.[11]: 34-37, 139 It presented the EFSA review in January 2014, which it published in the December 2014 .[11][149][150] In November 2015, EFSA published its conclusion in the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) stating that it “is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans”. .[151] The EU was largely informed by this report when making its decision on the use of glyphosate in November 2017.[152]

EFSA’s decision and the BfR report were criticized in an open letter from 96 scientists in November 2015, in which they stated that the BfR report did not comply with accepted scientific principles of open and transparent procedures.[153][154] The BfR report contained unpublished data, lack of authorship, omitted references and no conflict of interest information.[154]

In April 2016, Dr. Vytenis Andriukaitis, European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, sent an open letter to the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Glyphosate Task Force at Monsanto Europe, urging them to publish the full studies submitted to EFSA.[155]

US Environmental Protection Agency

In a 1993 review, the EPA considered glyphosate non-carcinogenic and of relatively low dermal and oral acute toxicity.[92] The EPA considered a “worst-case” dietary risk model of a person consuming a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields, with residues reaching their peak 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 toxicity and reported in 2016 that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic.[8][156] In August 2019, the EPA announced that it would no longer allow labels claiming that glyphosate is a carcinogen because such claims “do not meet the labeling requirements of the federal Insecticides, Fungicides, and Rodenticides Act” and would misinform the public.[157]

In 2017, evidence gathered in a lawsuit brought against Monsanto by cancer patients revealed corporate emails that suggested 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 organization that is part of the United Nations World Health Organization, published a summary of its forthcoming monograph on glyphosate and classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. (Category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro studies. It noted that there was “limited evidence” of human carcinogenicity for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.[8][13][14][15][159] The IARC ranks substances according to their carcinogenic potential, and “a few positive findings can be enough to indicate a danger, even if there are negative studies.” Unlike the BfR, it does not carry out a risk assessment that weighs up the benefit against the risk.[160]

BfR replied that IARC only reviewed a selection of what they [who?] had previously reviewed and argued that other studies, including a cohort study called the Agricultural Health Study, do not support the classification.[161] The IARC report contained no unpublished studies, including one completed by the head of the IARC panel.[162] The agency’s international protocol dictates that only published studies be used for carcinogenicity classification[163] as national regulators, including the EPA, have allowed agrochemical companies to conduct their own unpublished research that may be biased in favor of their profit motives.[ 164]

Monsanto’s response and campaign

Monsanto called the IARC report biased and said it wanted the report retracted.[165] In 2017, internal Monsanto documents were released by attorneys fighting the company,[166] who used the term “Monsanto Papers” to describe the documents.[167] This term was later also used by Leemon McHenry[168] and others.[169] The documents revealed that Monsanto had planned a public relations effort to discredit the IARC report and hired Henry Miller to write an opinion piece in Forbes Magazine in 2015 challenging the report. Miller didn’t reveal the connection to Forbes, and according to the New York Times, when Monsanto asked him if he would be interested in writing such an article, he replied, “I would be if I could assume a quality draft.” , which was provided by the company.[170] When this became public, Forbes removed his blog from their website.

Two Le Monde journalists won the 2018 European Press Prize for a series of articles on the documents, also titled Monsanto Papers. Their reporting described, among other things, letters from Monsanto’s lawyers requesting IARC scientists to release documents related to monograph 112, which included IARC’s finding that glyphosate was a “probable carcinogen”; several of the scientists condemned these letters as intimidating.[171]

Reviews of EFSA and IARC reports

A 2017 review by EFSA and BfR staff argued that the differences between IARC and EFSA’s conclusions on glyphosate and cancer were due to differences in their assessment of the available evidence. The review concluded that “two complementary exposure assessments…suggest that actual exposure levels are below” the reference levels established by EFSA and “are not of public concern”.[172]

In contrast, a 2016 analysis concluded that EFSA’s Renewal Assessment Report “gives almost no weight to studies from the published literature and over-reliance on non-publicly available industry-provided studies using a limited set of assays that do define the minimum data required for the marketing of a pesticide,” arguing that IARC’s assessment as probably carcinogenic to humans “accurately reflects the findings of the published scientific literature on glyphosate.” [173]

In October 2017, an article in The Times revealed that Christopher Portier, a scientist advising IARC on the assessment of glyphosate and campaigning for its classification as a possible carcinogen, had obtained consultancy contracts with two law firm associations representing suspected glyphosate cancer victims, including a payment of $160,000 to Porter.[174][175] It also noted that the IARC final report changed compared to an interim report by removing the text stating that certain studies had concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic in the context of that study and by the conclusion “limiting Evidence of carcinogenicity in animals” was reinforced “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals”.[176]

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

In March 2015, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced plans to list glyphosate as a known carcinogen based on the IARC assessment. In 2016, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against OEHHA and its acting director Lauren Zeise,[177] but lost the lawsuit in March 2017.[178]

Glyphosate was listed as “known to the State of California to cause cancer” in 2017, requiring a Proposition 65 warning label.[179] In February 2018, an injunction was issued as part of an ongoing case, barring California from enforcing glyphosate carcinogenicity labeling requirements until the case is resolved. The injunction states that the arguments of a US District Court judge for the Eastern District of California “do not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of agencies that have examined glyphosate have determined that it poses no cancer risk.” [180] In August 2019, the EPA also said it would no longer allow labels claiming that glyphosate is a carcinogen because such claims “do not meet the labeling requirements of the federal Insecticides, Fungicides, and Rodenticides Act” and would misinform the public .[157]

European Chemicals Agency

On March 15, 2017, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) issued recommendations based on a risk assessment of glyphosate carried out by ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC). Their recommendations maintained the current classification of glyphosate as a substance that causes serious eye damage and as a substance that is toxic to aquatic life. However, the RAC found no evidence that glyphosate is a carcinogen, a mutagen, toxic to reproduction, or toxic to specific organs.[181]

Effects of Use

emergence of resistant weeds

In the 1990s, no glyphosate-resistant weeds were known.[182] By 2014, glyphosate-resistant weeds dominated herbicide resistance research. At that time, 23 glyphosate-resistant species were found in 18 countries.[183] “Resistance develops after a weed population has been subjected to intense selection pressure in the form of repeated application of a single herbicide.”[182][184]

According to Ian Heap, a weed specialist who received his PhD in 1988 on resistance to multiple herbicides in annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum)[185] – the first case of a herbicide-resistant weed in Australia[186] – by 2014 Lolium rigidum was the “worst in the world herbicide-resistant weeds” with occurrences in “12 countries, 11 sites of action, 9 cultivation plans” and affecting “over 2 million hectares”.[183] ​​Annual ryegrass has been known to be herbicide-resistant 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, farmer organizations reported 107 weed biotypes within 63 weed species with herbicide resistance.[190] In 2009, Canada identified its first resistant weed, ragweed, and by that time 15 weed species had been confirmed to be resistant to glyphosate.[184][191] In 2010 in the United States, 7 to 10 million acres (2.8 to 4.0 million hectares) of soil were infested with herbicide-resistant weeds, or about 5% of the 170 million acres planted with corn, soybeans and cotton, the crops planted were hardest hit, in 22 states.[192] In 2012, Charles Benbrook reported that the Weed Science Society of America listed 22 herbicide-resistant species in the US with over 5.7 × 10^6 ha (14 × 10^6 acres) infested with GR weeds and the Dow AgroSciences had conducted a survey and reported a figure of approximately 40 × 10^6 ha (100 × 10^6 acres).[193] The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds database lists species resistant to glyphosate.[191]

In response to resistant weeds, farmers are hand weeding, using tractors to turn the soil between harvests, and using other herbicides in addition to glyphosate.

Monsanto scientists have found that some resistant weeds have up to 160 extra copies of a gene called EPSPS, the enzyme that destroys glyphosate.[194]

Palmer amaranth

In 2004, a glyphosate-resistant variant of palmer amaranth was found in the US state of Georgia and confirmed by a 2005 study.[195] Resistance was also noted in North Carolina in 2005.[196] The species can rapidly become resistant to multiple herbicides and has evolved multiple mechanisms for glyphosate resistance due to selective pressure. 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 horseweed and buva) and Conyza canadensis (known as fieldweed or horseweed) are other weed species that have recently developed resistance to glyphosate.[200][201][202] A 2008 study of the current situation of glyphosate resistance in South America concluded that “the development of resistance followed intensive glyphosate use” and that the use of glyphosate-resistant soybean plants is a factor contributing to the promotes growth in glyphosate use.[203] During the 2015 growing season, controlling glyphosate-resistant mare’s tail in Nebraska’s production fields proved particularly problematic.[204]

ryegrass

Glyphosate-resistant ryegrass (Lolium) has emerged in most Australian farming areas and other areas of the world. All cases of resistance development to glyphosate in Australia were characterized by intensive use of the herbicide while no other effective weed control methods were used. Studies show that resistant ryegrass does not compete well with non-resistant plants and their numbers decrease when not grown under conditions of glyphosate application.[205]

Johnson grass

Glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) has been found in Argentina, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.[206]

Monarch butterfly populations

The use of 2-4 D and other herbicides such as glyphosate to remove 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], milkweed decline contributed to an 81% decline in monarch numbers.[209][210] The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the EPA in 2015, arguing that the agency ignored warnings about the potentially harmful effects of glyphosate use on monarchs.[211]

legal status

Glyphosate was first approved for use in the 1970s and was labeled for use in 130 countries as of 2010.[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 blends are likely to have effects not predicted by testing glyphosate alone, and the reliance of current safety assessments on studies conducted more than 30 years ago were carried out. They recommended updating the current safety standards, writing that the current standards “may not be able to protect public health or the environment.”[212]

European Union

In April 2014, the Dutch legislature passed legislation banning the sale of glyphosate to private individuals for home use; commercial sales were not affected.[213]

In June 2015, France’s Environment Minister called on nurseries and garden centers to end the over-the-counter sale of glyphosate in the form of Monsanto’s Roundup. This was a non-binding request and all sales of glyphosate will remain legal in France until 2022, when there were plans to ban the substance for home use.[214] However, recently the French Parliament decided not to set a definitive date for such a ban.[215] In January 2019, France “banned the sale, distribution and use of Roundup 360”. Later, exemptions were introduced for many farmers and an 80% reduction in use is forecast for 2021.[216][217]

A vote on the new approval of glyphosate in the EU faltered in March 2016. Member States France, Sweden and the Netherlands opposed the renewal.[218] A vote to temporarily reinstate the license fell through in June 2016[219], but at the last minute the license was extended by 18 months until the end of 2017.[220]

On November 27, 2017, a majority of 18 member states in the EU Council voted to allow the use of glyphosate for another five years. Zur Verabschiedung des Gesetzes war eine qualifizierte Mehrheit von sechzehn Staaten erforderlich, die 65 % der EU-Bürger repräsentierten.[221] Der deutsche Landwirtschaftsminister Christian Schmidt stimmte unerwartet dafür, während die deutsche Koalitionsregierung in dieser Frage intern gespalten war, was normalerweise zu einer Stimmenthaltung Deutschlands führt.[222]

Im Dezember 2018 wurde versucht, die Entscheidung über die Zulassung des Unkrautvernichters wieder aufzurollen. Diese wurden von konservativen Abgeordneten verurteilt, die sagten, der Vorschlag sei politisch motiviert und widerspräche wissenschaftlichen Beweisen.[223]

Im März 2019 ordnete der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) die Europäische Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit (EFSA) an, alle Studien der Pestizidindustrie zur Karzinogenität und Toxizität von Glyphosat der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich zu machen.[224]

Im März 2019 hat das österreichische Bundesland Kärnten die private Anwendung von Glyphosat in Wohngebieten verboten, während die kommerzielle Anwendung des Herbizids für Landwirte weiterhin erlaubt ist. Die Verwendung von Glyphosat durch Behörden und Straßenmeistereien wurde bereits einige Jahre vor dem aktuellen Verbot durch die lokalen Behörden eingestellt.[225]

Im Juni 2019 gaben die Deutsche Bahn und die Schweizerischen Bundesbahnen bekannt, dass Glyphosat und andere häufig verwendete Herbizide zur Unkrautvernichtung entlang von Bahngleisen bis 2025 auslaufen werden, während umweltverträglichere Methoden zur Vegetationskontrolle eingeführt werden.[226][227]

Im Juli 2019 stimmte das österreichische Parlament für ein Verbot von Glyphosat in Österreich.[228]

Im September 2019 gab das Bundesumweltministerium bekannt, dass der Einsatz von Glyphosat ab Ende 2023 verboten wird. Der Einsatz von Herbiziden auf Glyphosatbasis wird ab 2020 reduziert.[229]

Das Bewertungsverfahren für eine Zulassung von Glyphosat in der Europäischen Union beginnt im Dezember 2019. Frankreich, Ungarn, die Niederlande und Schweden werden die Antragsunterlagen der Hersteller gemeinsam bewerten. Der Berichtsentwurf der Bewertungsgruppe wird dann von der EFSA einem Peer-Review unterzogen, bevor die derzeitige Zulassung im Dezember 2022 ausläuft.[230]

Das Datum wurde seitdem verschoben, teilweise aufgrund des sehr hohen Interesses und Inputs in den Beteiligungsprozess, wobei die Europäische Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit (EFSA) es sogar als „beispiellose Zahl“ bezeichnete.[231] Da die EFSA all diese 2400 Kommentare und fast 400 Antworten prüfen muss, wird der Prozess voraussichtlich länger dauern. Das erstellte Dokument wird von der eigens gebildeten Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG) und der Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG), dem aus den vier genannten Mitgliedsstaaten bestehenden Gremium, einer zusätzlichen Prüfung unterzogen. Da ihre Antworten nun für September 2022 geplant sind, sollen die Konsultationen mit den Mitgliedstaaten bis Ende 2022 stattfinden.[232][233] Dies würde es ermöglichen, die endgültige Bewertung bis Mitte 2023 abzuschließen und sie weiteren Gesetzgebern zur Entscheidung vorzulegen.

Other countries

Im September 2013 verabschiedete die gesetzgebende Versammlung von El Salvador ein Gesetz zum Verbot von 53 Agrochemikalien, darunter Glyphosat; das Verbot von Glyphosat sollte 2015 beginnen.[234][235][236]

In den Vereinigten Staaten kommt der Bundesstaat Minnesota lokalen Gesetzen zuvor, die versuchen, Glyphosat zu verbieten. Im Jahr 2015 gab es einen Versuch, Gesetze auf Landesebene zu verabschieden, die diese Vorkaufsregelung aufheben würden.[237]

Im Mai 2015 verbot der Präsident von Sri Lanka die Verwendung und Einfuhr von Glyphosat mit sofortiger Wirkung.[238][239] Im Mai 2018 beschloss die srilankische Regierung jedoch, seine Verwendung im Plantagensektor erneut zu genehmigen.[240]

Im Mai 2015 blockierte Bermuda die Einfuhr aller neuen Bestellungen von Herbiziden auf Glyphosatbasis für eine vorübergehende Aussetzung in Erwartung von Forschungsergebnissen.[241]

Im Mai 2015 kündigte Kolumbien an, bis Oktober 2015 die Verwendung von Glyphosat bei der Zerstörung illegaler Kokaplantagen, dem Rohstoff für Kokain, einzustellen. Bauern haben sich darüber beschwert, dass die Begasung aus der Luft ganze Felder mit Kaffee und anderen legalen Produkten zerstört hat.[72]

Im April 2019 verbot das vietnamesische Ministerium für Landwirtschaft und ländliche Entwicklung die Verwendung von Glyphosat im ganzen Land.[242]

Im August 2020 kündigte der mexikanische Präsident Andrés Manuel López Obrador an, dass die Verwendung von Glyphosat in Mexiko bis Ende 2024 schrittweise eingestellt wird.[243]

Thailands National Hazardous Substances Committee beschloss im Oktober 2019, die Verwendung von Glyphosat zu verbieten[244], hob die Entscheidung jedoch im November 2019 auf.[245]

Nach einem Gerichtsurteil im Jahr 2018 wurde Glyphosat in Brasilien vorübergehend verboten. Diese Entscheidung wurde später aufgehoben, was zu heftiger Kritik des Bundesamtes für Gesundheit (Anvisa) führte. Dies kommt daher, da die neuesten Bewertungen Glyphosat als nicht krebserregend deklarierten. Da alle krebserregenden Agrochemikalien im Land automatisch verboten sind, erlaubte dies die kontinuierliche Verwendung.[246]

Legale Fälle

Klagen wegen Haftung wegen Krebs

Im Juni 2018 nahm Dewayne Johnson, ein 46-jähriger ehemaliger kalifornischer Schulhofmeister, der an einem Non-Hodgkin-Lymphom stirbt, im Gerichtsverfahren Johnson gegen Monsanto Co. Monsanto (das Anfang des Monats von Bayer übernommen worden war) vor dem Obersten Gericht von San Francisco County angeklagt und behauptet, dass es Jahrzehnte damit verbracht habe, die krebserregenden Gefahren seiner Roundup-Herbizide zu verbergen. Der Richter ordnete an, dass die Geschworenen sowohl wissenschaftliche Beweise in Bezug auf die Ursache von Johnsons Krebs als auch Behauptungen berücksichtigen dürfen, dass Monsanto Beweise für die Risiken unterdrückt hat, mit möglichen Strafschadenersatz.[247][248] Im August 2018 sprach die Jury Johnson Schadensersatz in Höhe von 289 Millionen US-Dollar zu. Monsanto kündigte an, Berufung einzulegen[249] und sagte, sie seien zuversichtlich, dass Glyphosat bei sachgemäßer Anwendung keinen Krebs verursacht.[250] Im Berufungsverfahren wurde die Auszeichnung im November 2018 auf 78,5 Millionen Dollar reduziert[251] und anschließend im Juli 2020 weiter auf 21,5 Millionen Dollar reduziert.[252]

Im August 2018 wurde das Potenzial für weitere Fälle auf bis zu 4.000 geschätzt.[253] Bayer gab im April 2019 bekannt, dass in den USA über 13.000 Klagen im Zusammenhang mit Roundup eingereicht wurden.

Im März 2019 wurden einem Mann 80 Millionen US-Dollar in einer Klage zugesprochen, in der behauptet wurde, Roundup sei ein wesentlicher Faktor für seinen Krebs gewesen,[254][255] was dazu führte, dass Costco-Läden den Verkauf einstellten.[256] Im Juli 2019 reduzierte der US-Bezirksrichter Vince Chhabria das Urteil auf 26 Millionen Dollar.[257] Chhabria erklärte, dass ein Strafzuspruch angemessen sei, da die Beweise „einfach die Schlussfolgerung stützten, dass Monsanto mehr daran interessiert war, Sicherheitsanfragen einzudämmen und die öffentliche Meinung zu manipulieren, als sicherzustellen, dass sein Produkt sicher ist“. Chhabria erklärte, dass es auf beiden Seiten Beweise dafür gibt, ob Glyphosat Krebs verursacht, und dass das Verhalten von Monsanto „einen Mangel an Besorgnis über das Risiko, dass sein Produkt krebserregend sein könnte“, zeige.[257]

Am 13. Mai 2019 verurteilte ein Geschworenengericht in Kalifornien Bayer zur Zahlung von zwei Milliarden Dollar Schadensersatz, nachdem es festgestellt hatte, dass das Unternehmen die Verbraucher nicht angemessen über die mögliche Karzinogenität von Roundup informiert hatte.[258] Am 26. Juli 2019 kürzte ein Richter aus Alameda County das Urteil auf 86,7 Millionen US-Dollar und erklärte, dass das Urteil der Geschworenen einen Präzedenzfall übertroffen habe.[259]

Unter Verwendung von E-Mails zur Aufdeckung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten wurde später bekannt, dass Monsanto 2015, als Monsanto Papiere diskutierte, die veröffentlicht werden sollten, um den erwarteten IARC-Glyphosatergebnissen entgegenzuwirken, in einer E-Mail schrieben: „Eine Option wäre, Greim und Kier oder Kirkland hinzuzufügen, um ihre Namen zu erhalten auf die Veröffentlichung, aber wir würden die Kosten niedrig halten, indem wir das Schreiben machen und sie würden sozusagen nur ihre Namen bearbeiten und unterschreiben. Erinnern Sie sich, so haben wir Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000 gehandhabt.”[260]

Im Juni 2020 stimmte Bayer, das Monsanto im Jahr 2018 übernommen hatte, einem Vergleich in Höhe von 10 Milliarden US-Dollar als Ergebnis einer Reihe von Sammelklagen zu, in denen behauptet wurde, Roundup habe Krebs verursacht.[261]

Streit um Werbung

Die New York Times berichtete 1996:

Dennis C. Vacco, der Generalstaatsanwalt von New York, wies die Firma Monsanto an, Anzeigen zu schalten, in denen stand, dass Roundup „sicherer als Speisesalz“ und „praktisch ungiftig“ für Säugetiere, Vögel und Fische sei. Das Unternehmen zog die Spots zurück, sagte aber auch, dass der fragliche Ausdruck nach E.P.A. zulässig sei. Richtlinien.[262]

Im Jahr 2001 verklagten französische Umwelt- und Verbraucherschützer Monsanto, weil es die Öffentlichkeit über die Umweltauswirkungen seines Herbizids Roundup irregeführt hatte, weil Glyphosat, der Hauptbestandteil von Roundup, als „umweltgefährlich“ und „giftig für die Umwelt“ eingestuft wurde Wasserorganismen“ der Europäischen Union. Monsantos Werbung für Roundup hatte es als biologisch abbaubar und als sauber nach Gebrauch dargestellt. 2007 wurde Monsanto wegen falscher Werbung zu einer Geldstrafe von 15.000 Euro verurteilt. Auch der französische Monsanto-Händler Scotts France wurde mit einer Geldstrafe von 15.000 Euro belegt. Beide Angeklagten wurden zur Zahlung von Schadensersatz in Höhe von 5.000 Euro an die Bretagne Water and Rivers Association und 3.000 Euro an die Consommation Logement Cadre de vie, eine der beiden wichtigsten allgemeinen Verbraucherverbände in Frankreich, verurteilt.[263] Monsanto legte Berufung ein und das Gericht bestätigte das Urteil; Monsanto legte erneut Berufung beim französischen Obersten Gerichtshof ein und bestätigte 2009 auch das Urteil.[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 .

Razor Burn 64 oz.

Non-selective herbicide contains glyphosate and diquat. Provides broad spectrum control of many annual weeds, perennial weeds, shrubs and trees. Quickly and easily controls weeds in ornamental plants, bed care, crack and crevice treatments, bush and vine cleaning and perimeter treatments.

Related searches to razor burn weed killer

Information related to the topic razor burn weed killer

Here are the search results of the thread razor burn weed killer from Bing. You can read more if you want.

You have just come across an article on the topic razor burn weed killer. If you found this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.