Evidence continues to mount up against the use of glyphosate and controversial glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), with groundbreaking new findings from the Ramazzini Institute finding links between supposed ‘safe’ exposure levels to the chemical and cancer incidences.
In a webinar hosted by the Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK), Professional Michael Antoniou, molecular geneticist and toxicologist at King’s College London, presented the findings from the new Global Glyphosate Study. In this blog we highlight some of the key findings and observations, and explore why regulatory bodies need to take strong and immediate action against exposure to the toxic chemical.
Revisiting what we ‘know’ about glyphosate
Professor Antoniou began by revisiting some of the perceptions that shape guidance around glyphosate exposure today. Essentially, glyphosate works by inhibiting the ‘shikimate pathway’ in plants, causing them to die - hence its use as a weed killer across agriculture and grounds maintenance worldwide.
It was initially believed that, because this shikimate pathway is not present in humans or animals, glyphosate would not affect them in the same way. Yet, studies show that this pathway is present in bacteria and fungi, including those in the human gut microbiome, suggesting it could be more damaging than initially thought.
What’s more, this focus on the shikimate pathway neglects the other effects of toxicity in the human body, particularly how glyphosate exposure can cause oxidative stress and DNA damage. The prevalence of glyphosate in human urine shows just how much of the chemical is entering our bodies on a daily basis, and as world usage of glyphosate continues to rise, we can’t afford to ignore these worrying signs.
Increased incidences of cancer
Concerns surrounding the use of glyphosate have been circulating for a number of years, but new results from the Global Glyphosate Study highlight very severe consequences of exposure on human health.
In the study, glyphosate exposure was tested on rats at three different levels. The lowest dosage was 0.5mg per kg of body weight per day - equivalent to the EU’s Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). In the middle was 5mg per kg per day; and at the higher end of the scale was 50mg per kg per day - the current accepted No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). The exposure began at the pre-natal stage and continued to 104 weeks to more closely reflect the real world reality - long-term, consistent glyphosate exposure.
Considering that each of the levels tested are accepted as ‘safe’, the findings suggest devastating real world implications. At every level, from the ADI to the NOAEL, there were increased incidences of cancer, including leukemia, skin and liver tumours, and cancers in the thyroid, bone, mammary gland and nervous system. The rats that developed leukemia often died within a year, suggesting aggressive cancers.
The study also tested two of the most popular commercial GBHs, Roundup Bioflow and RangerPro, and found them to be even more toxic than the glyphosate alone, with their co-formulants considered the likely culprit.
A call for change
The International Agency for Research on Cancer currently classifies glyphosate as a ‘probable human carcinogen’. This means that, despite strong evidence it can cause cancer in humans, at present this evidence is not considered conclusive.
Yet, by current EU carcinogen laws, glyphosate and GBHs like Roundup Bioflow and RangerPro should be banned entirely. At a minimum, Professor Antoniou recommends the ADI of glyphosate should be drastically reduced by at least 100 times, but ideally, closer to 1000 times.
Despite the gravity of the new findings from the Ramazzini Institute, some regulators immediately rejected the results, without reason. Glyphosate is deceptively toxic, and while it often doesn’t appear to produce an adverse reaction in the short term, over longer periods - as evidenced by the new study - the carcinogenic effects become more apparent.
Concerningly, this is often overlooked by regulatory bodies, and many believe their refusal to accept new evidence stems from pressure and influence from large industry players that profit from glyphosate's use. With global glyphosate use on the rise, we can no longer afford to appease industry giants at the detriment of our health and we must continue to shine a light on the scientific evidence and mount pressure for regulatory change.
To learn more about the study, watch PAN UK’s webinar. Or, if you’re ready to make the switch to glyphosate-free weed control, learn more about Foamstream here.
