It’s only Roundup: Glyphosate’s safety myth

As a small-scale, diversified food producer in the Midwest and native of Iowa, I’ve lived with the story that glyphosate (introduced as Roundup – 1974) was safe and effective. Several years ago, I had one interaction that illustrates perfectly how ingrained this myth has become.

It was a beautiful morning. The sky was blue and the temperatures were comfortable. A light breeze encouraged the branches of the trees to move lazily, but I was not tempted to sit still. It was a perfect day to get out the wheel hoe and cultivate the long rows of vegetables emerging from the soil.

I managed to walk several rows, feeling positive about the good work I was doing. I went inside to fill my water bottle and came back out to see a spraying rig driving quickly in a neighboring field from end to end. So, I flagged them down and pointed out that the breeze was coming my way.

The driver’s response? “It’s okay, it’s only Roundup.”

Promoting glyphosate’s myth

In only a few words, the person applying an herbicide that was drifting toward my farm told me that I was being unreasonable for voicing concern. Never mind that this pesticide could have harmed my crops. And never mind that I could smell the chemicals in the air around me. I was forced to either make the decision to keep working and deal with it or halt my work, go inside, shut the windows and hide for a while.

Anyone who has been a farm worker or operated a small to medium sized farm knows there wasn’t really a choice. There was work to do and the weather was good. So, I continued the cultivation process, though the day felt less glorious than it had.

Makers of glyphosate herbicides have worked very hard for decades to build the narrative that these products are harmless, except, of course, when it comes to unwanted plants. Then, Monsanto sold the story that their products are ruthlessly efficient and indiscriminate. It didn’t matter which weed it is, Roundup and similar glyphosate products would kill it.

By the 1980s, Roundup was a household name and people frequently ignored protective measures if they chose to use it.

The myth being promoted to us said glyphosate was so effective and safe that growers even used these products to “dry-down” food crops such as oats and potatoes prior to harvest.  They promoted the idea that the residues and increased use of these herbicides would not harm us.

Many people wanted to believe the story that glyphosate products were completely safe and that they would not drift away from the application area. I sometimes wonder, did we collectively close our eyes? Or did we simply follow the mantra that if everyone was using it, it must be okay?

Perhaps we did, but we did that with the encouragement and deception of the companies that were happily turning big profits.

The motivation for Monsanto/Bayer to sell and protect this glyphosate’s safety myth was (and is) high. With genetically modified seed developed in 1996, row crops could be resistant to glyphosate.  With this new product, Monsanto had an opportunity to lock in a farmer’s reliance on their products.  The pesticide maker just had to be sure news of any potential risk was suppressed or hidden.

Failing to regulate for pesticide risks

The regulatory system in the United States is the implementation of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) implemented by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and it relies primarily on the pesticide companies to perform their own research on the safety of the products they produce and sell for a profit. There is rarely funding for independent study and the EPA does not conduct its own research, it only evaluates the existing publications. As a result, the makers of a pesticide product have significant control over the data the regulators use to make judgements with respect to potential harms.

Inadequate regulatory processes go deeper than the research issue.  The EPA makes judgements of risk on the active ingredients and does not thoroughly investigate all ingredients in the formulations of a product.  Sometimes, the inert ingredients in a specific formulation or the combination of ingredients can present a significant risk.  But the current system fails to address that issue.

Things become even more complex when individual applicators mix products (a tank mix).  Even less has been done to assess the risks presented by the myriad possible combinations of pesticide products in existence.  Simply put, our regulatory system does not anticipate the realistic and actual pesticide use in our fields, parks and lawns.

When independent research comes out and seems to deny claims of harm by a given pesticide, the EPA and other regulatory agencies tend to take notice. Such was the case with the Williams, et al paper published in 2000. That paper supported the narrative that glyphosate was not a carcinogen (would not cause cancer). As a result, it has been cited by multiple agencies around the world for over two decades to support the continued use of glyphosate as a low-risk herbicide.

In fact, the EPA’s most recent assessment boldly claimed that glyphosate would not cause cancer and prominently cited this paper as it built the case for “safety.”

But a (not so) funny thing happened along the way. Lee Johnson and others suffered illnesses that could be traced to their uses of Roundup and they were able to put together legal cases against Monsanto. Then an amazing thing happened. They actually won those lawsuits.

During the process of discovery in litigation, it was found that this particular paper (which was being cited by Monsanto in their defense cases) had been “ghost written” by Monsanto employees. Suddenly, the independent study that made the claim that glyphosate was not a carcinogen was in question. It had been written by people who had a strong interest to hide evidence to the contrary, people who were being paid by the company that had a lot to lose if the myth of safety was broken.

The Williams, et al. paper was recently retracted by the scientific journal that published it in 2000.

The cracks in the myth of safety for glyphosate are growing. Not only has this key paper been retracted by the journal that published it, but also a growing number of newer studies are identifying risks that were there all along.

Monsanto/Bayer just didn’t want to find them.

Back on the farm and wondering about pesticide exposure

We made the decision not to use synthetic pesticides in 2004 when we started our small-scale, diversified farm. Not long after, we went even further and decided we wouldn’t use any pesticides, even if they were allowed for organic certification. Even so, I still frequently wonder about the effects that my frequent exposures to pesticides have had, and will have, on my health. I don’t use these products, but my neighbors are stuck on the Pesticide Treadmill and I don’t have much hope that they will find their way off soon.

I wonder if the loss of a kidney to cancer was caused, at least in part, by glyphosate and other pesticides. Will I develop Parkinson’s because my job for 20 years has required that I work outside while neighboring fields were sprayed with paraquat? How much have I been exposed to and how often? I don’t know the answers to any of these questions nor does anyone else.

First of all, an individual cancer case comes with a host of potential risk factors and it is difficult to isolate one cause for a specific illness for one person. And there hasn’t been any significant effort to track the movement of pesticides after application. In fact, we aren’t particularly good at tracking the use of pesticide products in the first place.

And second, we have yet to consider the danger that may come from consistent and persistent low-dose exposures to products such as Roundup. Like low and consistent exposure to radioactive substances, the effects are often slow to reveal themselves, accumulating over time. They typically reveal themselves years later when addressing the source of the problem won’t make the illness go away.

I suspect I am like many people who live in rural areas dominated by pesticide-reliant agriculture. I try not to think about this too often because that might be more than I can bear. But I have committed myself to think about it enough so I can work to make change. If I do a good job, maybe others won’t have the same worries in the future.

Takeaways for pesticide policy

So, what can we do? Here are three points to consider:

• EPA must re-evaluate glyphosate’s potential to be a carcinogen

It is clear that the EPA’s assessment of glyphosate is based on faulty information that was fed to them by Monsanto. This should be enough for the EPA to reopen to the process to evaluate the potential carcinogenicity of the active ingredient, glyphosate. If you agree with me, please consider taking this action and telling the EPA. Accurate risk assessments are critical for proper labeling and correct safety procedures.

• Liability shield language for pesticide companies should not be allowed to pass in Federal or state legislation

The Williams paper was exposed because individuals exercised their right to hold pesticide companies accountable through state courts by bringing cases using failure to warn arguments. Without this right and without those cases, the deception of this paper would not have been uncovered. And yet, our lawmakers are still considering removing our ability to successfully bring lawsuits with bill language, Supreme Court cases, and efforts to change EPA procedures. We’ve managed to stop these laws in several states for the past two years, but we must remain diligent and keep pushing.

• We must treat pesticides as dangerous tools that should be used with great caution, not casual indifference

It is a wake-up call for all of us that we must fight the narratives that have been built around pesticides. A long time ago, we crossed the bridge from seeing pesticides as a dangerous tool that you use sparingly to an easy, go-to product any and every time you see a six-legged creature or a plant in the wrong place.

Pesticides are dangerous tools. We have a responsibility to accurately and completely assess their risks and we need to be committed to continuous assessment, accurate tracking and judicious use. The story around pesticides, like glyphosate, needs to be rewritten.

The story we’re telling now is not okay. Even if it is only Roundup.