If you’re anything like me, then you might not know a whole lot about herbicides. I’ve actually never used one myself, but I have seen it lying around my home’s garage before. Basically, it’s this toxic chemical you spray on weeds to kill them and inhibit further growth. There’s a lot of advantages and disadvantages to them. For example, glyphosate-based herbicides are excellent at doing their job, which is a good thing. If too much unwanted vegetation is left untreated, then the competition for space and nutrients in the soil would be too high for the good vegetation to flourish and grow. Herbicides help eliminate this competition, quickly and effectively (in comparison to hand-pulling). So it benefits a lot of folks whose lives depend on agriculture. However, herbicides are not good in the ways that it is toxic to a wide range of organism, such as “birds, fish, beneficial insects, and non-target plants” for it increases their risk for diseases.
One of the leading brands in glyphosate-based herbicides is Roundup. It is found in most stores, and it is very effective in its job as a weed-killer. As a phosphate-based herbicide, it is toxic to animals and the environment. Studies have shown that glyphosate-containing products can decrease the chance of a fish survival when it is drained into bodies of water, causing “dramatic decreases in the populations of birds”, and “reduce the growth… of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in soil.” As you can see, herbicides such as glyphosate are very bad for the environment. If this doesn’t concern you, then let me tell about recent studies that may impact you.
A Study on Herbicides
Earlier this year, in February, Scientific Reports published an article about the impact of glyphosate on the gut microbiota in humans. The study used a rodent model to examine the “potential effects of GBHs on urinary metabolites and their interactions with gut microbiome.” The study ultimately found a strong correlation between the abundance of Prevotella (a bacteria associated with gut inflammation) in the gut microbiota of the rodents. Furthermore, the study examined an increase in homocysteine, an amino acid that is known as a great risk factor for heart diseases.
What the FDA Says
I want to say that I was a bit shocked when I read what EPA and FDA had to say about glyphosate. After going through several scientific studies that linked glyphosate to terrible effects on the environment alone, I expected to see scrutiny on the subject. However, that is not what I saw. The EPA website claims that it “continues to find that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label.”
They also claim that glyphosate is “unlikely to be a human carcinogen.”
Oh, I get it.
Glyphosate is not a carcinogen in itself, but when it is combined with the inert ingredients of popular glyphosate-based products, like Roundup, then it is. Scientific American actually wrote an article about the inert ingredients of Roundup. They discovered that one of the inert ingredients was “more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself.”
Why the Disparities?
How does the EPA and science academia come to such differing conclusions? Chales M. Bebrook actually published a journal on this, titled “How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?” For context, IARC stands for Internation Agency for Research on Cancer. His study concluded that the reason the 2 agencies disagreed is because of the nature of the data each study focused on, claiming that the “EPA largely ignored epidemiological studies.” In other words, the EPA used data in which glyphosate-based herbicide would be exposed to humans or animals in the quantities that the product label recommends. It ignored incidence / studies where large amount of glyphosate-based herbicides is exposed to a cell and causes great damage.
Still, why the disparities?
I think people behind the scenes are just trying to make a buck, like Andrew Wakefield from last week’s blog. But maybe that’s just the nihilist in me. Since I know there are people lobbying every day to keep glyphosate FDA approved. Many people are making lots of money from it- farmers, and CEO’s of Roundup and the countless products that are glyphosate-based and contain “inert ingredients.” On the other hand, I’m sure many crooked lawyers want to say glyphosate is harmful so they and their clients can make some money. But really, maybe that’s just the nihilist in me.
Where to go from Here
Honestly, Roundup won’t be getting any business from me. Plowing doesn’t even sound that bad, but I guess I wouldn’t know since my life doesn’t depend on 36-acre farming land. Heck, I don’t even think I’ll ever garden.
What you do from here, depends on you. I recommend doing your own research instead of just listening to me because my personal bias could have easily seeped into this blog post.
Until next time, I’ll see you later!
Lyn 4 Science 