iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds

Roundup Ready

First Posted: 06/07/11 08:48 PM ET Updated: 08/07/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.

The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.

But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.

Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.

Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.

In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."

Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.

"Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," wrote the report authors in their conclusion. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.

"They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so," the authors added. "This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tues...
WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tues...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,769
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (54 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS

photo
peegan 10:13 AM on 06/08/2011
Where are all my farmer friends who laugh at my attempts to feed my family an organic diet??? Who snicker when I say Monsanto is the biggest danger to the food chain? THIS is what we need our government for, because no individual can possible run tests in order to judge the safety of modified crops and chemical treatments. Yet while our government is running around screaming about the sanctity of human  Read More...
05:03 PM on 07/11/2011
where they use it as a knockdown - instant ripener - and feed it to cattle thats where its ADI goes through the roof, with miscarriages following, we then eat the cattle
12:23 PM on 07/14/2011
Utter nonsense.

If the label use rate isn't exceeded the ADI cannot be exceeded either through direct eating of the crop or through crop fed to livestock which is later consumed. ADI = acceptabe daily intake.

On the other hand if Roundup is being used above the approved label rate the sprayer should be prosecuted. Legal use is the only way we can know we won't be harmed by it.

Alain
07:42 AM on 07/15/2011
Are you aware its variants build up in the soil?
Are you aware it has been found in human placenta?
Are you aware it causes birth defects?
Have you looked at greenpeaces recent literature review/report collating studies?
You seem to put a lot of faith and weight into "approved label rates" when they are legislating to bypass scheduled reviews of use.
11:12 AM on 06/28/2011
Have any of you actually read this report? The birth defects were seen only in animals treated with upto 1500 times the maximum level that a human would ever be exposed to in their diet ie. 0.3 mg/kg body weight/day (ADI or Acceptable Daily Intake). No actual human birth defects are presented anywhere in the report. The authors themselves argue that 0.2 should be the correct level allowed for it to be safe to humans. Both values are way way below the amount of glyphosate that has been shown to have any effect what so ever in experiments done by independent non-industry researchers.

Another flaw is that although the regulatory process isn't perfect it is equally applied to all herbicides and glyphosate still comes out as one of the safest out there. The authors bizarrely claim that approval of pesticides should be done on a hazard basis with no leeway applied following an assessment of risk. In that case I assume that the authors would support the banning of coffee tomorrow as it is packed with multiple known carcinogens.

Still, for pointing these things out I obviously will get abused and accused of being in the pay of Monsanto by people who will still refuse to read and critically assess the very report that has incensed them.

Alain
09:45 AM on 08/05/2011
I disagree. The evidence against the industry bias in the report is so overwhelming that I guess, you prefer to discuss the perceived flaws in the methodology of the authors. What else is left ? The report is just too well documented and referenced.

There are many problems that are interconnected.

1) One is that there is too little independent non-industry research. Don't do it if you want a regular professional career. A friend of mine lost his job because of this; there is a definite limit as to which extent you can challenge the "scientific consensus", largely framed by the industry, even if your work is scientifically sound and correctly peer-reviewed. (See "Industry defines what is a “relevant” study", p. 23 of the report.) So this report is a positive development but don't forget that this is just the tip of the iceberg before laying out dismissive remarks.

As a result of this, there is a growing dissent and reluctance to rely on the "official" protection agencies who work hand in hand with the industry. In my view this is largely justified.
09:46 AM on 08/05/2011
(Part II- cont'd from my previous post)

2) Your own reading of the report is partially flawed. After all, everyone can read the report.
Possibly you refer to the remark made p.19:

"For these reasons and more, some scientists and policy-makers advocate reforming therisk assessment of pesticides – for example, by increasing the use of hazard analysis. Hazard analysis stipulates that if a pesticide has certain hazardous qualities, it should automatically
be rejected (“hazard cut-off”). This differs from the current risk assessment approach, which assumes that even when a hazard exists, the risk can be managed. The new pesticide regulation 1107/2009 contains some “hazardcut-off” criteria. For example, a pesticide cannot
be approved in it is carcinogenic, mutagenic, a reproductive toxin, persistent in theenvironment, bioaccumulative, or an endocrinedisruptor (apart from specific uses, such as inclosed systems)."

Simply put, the authors of the report recommend a different methodology for the approval of pesticides, namely that the assessment of a risk be truly well what it is... that is, an assessment... *before* being counterbalanced by the benefits for the industry. That is, independent study by definition focuses on the assessment of the risk. The rest is just delusion.

(to be continued)
04:09 PM on 06/26/2011
All you crazys out there who don't care if this product kills are quite frankly evil. Monsanto has been selling this poison for years and now that we are able to do something about it, us must
with all out power see that this company is stopped. Killing babies is not a very nice thing to do, now is it. To all of you who don't have a conscience I feel sorry for you. People are dying from this poison and we must stop it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Viper1st
multi quasi faceted
07:26 PM on 06/26/2011
Who is spraying Roundup on babies?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sbrannon
thinker, photojournalist, humanitarian
07:38 AM on 06/25/2011
Please take action requesting for the labeling of GMO food products! This is important for our nations health and future. Stop the corporations from having free reign with our bodies. Studies show that the use of GMO food products has many side effects on animals...why would it NOT on us? Please sign get the ball rolling! On Change.org http://www.change.org/petitions/label-genetically-modified-gmo-food-products
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sbrannon
thinker, photojournalist, humanitarian
04:38 AM on 06/25/2011
They do not talk much about the GSM seeds that contain RoundUp in the seed in this article, that directly effects the American and global food system. Here are a few good articles: http://www.afterthewar.blogspot.com/2011/story-about-GM-seeds.html
and some research studies:http://afterthewar.blogspot.com/2011/06/our-food-system-and-GM-seed-studies.html
12:27 AM on 06/25/2011
http://www.change.org/petitions/ban-the-sale-and-spraying-of-herbicides-and-pesticides-in-davis-california

please sign and pass on our petition to ban these harsh chemicals from our city
04:02 PM on 06/13/2011
Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol -- 1,120 mg aspartame
in 2 L diet soda, almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg
methanol (wood alcohol). If 30% of the methanol is turned
into formaldehyde, the amount of formaldehyde, 37 mg,
is 18.5 times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in
drinking water, 2.0 mg in 2 L average daily drinking water,

185 times the New Jersey limit,
615 times the California and Maine limits,
1850 times the Maryland limit.

medicalnewstoday.com
03:37 PM on 06/13/2011
conglomerate manufactured aspartame. For 16 years the FDA refused to approve it, not only because its not safe but because they wanted the company indicted for fraud. Both U.S. Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. They were Sam Skinner and William Conlon. Skinner went on to become Secretary of Transportation squelching the cries of the pilots who were now having seizures on this seizure triggering drug, aspartame, and then Chief of Staff under President Bush's father. Some of these people reach high places. Even Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas is a former Monsanto attorney. (Monsanto bought Searle in 1985, and sold it a few years ago). When Ashcroft became Attorney General, Thompson from King and Spalding Attorneys (another former Monsanto attorney) became deputy under Ashcroft. (Attorneys for NutraSweet and Coke).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sbrannon
thinker, photojournalist, humanitarian
04:40 AM on 06/25/2011
Gosh. They still control our country. We are only puppets.
03:35 PM on 06/13/2011
Aspartame - Rumsfeld's
Bioweapon Legacy
Dr. Betty Martini, Founder
Mission Possible Intl
8-20-5

Before reading this article everyone should hear James Turner, Atty, explain how Don Rumsfeld called in his markers to get aspartame, a deadly chemical poison approved when the FDA said no: http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages.Rumsfeld2.html The entire film can be gotten at http://www.docworkers.com

Among the many ironies of our modern world is that Gerald Ford awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom-America,s highest civilian honor-to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on January 19, 1977. Just a few weeks later on March 8, Rumsfeld became the CEO of G.D. Searle to take point on a mission to force the Food and Drug Administration to approve for human consumption a known carcinogen and neurotoxic poison.

Mission accomplished: Today some 9,000 commonly consumed products are laced with this weapon of mass misery and millions of people live with chronic illnesses linked to the artificial sweetener aspartame. It is our belief at The Idaho Observer that if some guy named Parkinson can have a disease named after him, then Donald Rumsfeld ought to have his own disease, too. Hence the term Rumsfeld disease A.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sbrannon
thinker, photojournalist, humanitarian
04:42 AM on 06/25/2011
It seems that they want to slowly kill us to reduce our population while making $$ at the same time. I wonder if Rumsfield uses aspartame?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:17 PM on 06/13/2011
There's no other way to straighten out this Roundup/GMO situation than to start by realizing Monsanto owns our government.

Wikileaks exposed the cables between Monsanto/U.S. government/U.S. State Dept., and that makes it all even harder for Monsanto and the gov. to deny.

The residue from Roundup is probably working steadily within many millions of human bodies already, and only time will tell which disease each person gets.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sbrannon
thinker, photojournalist, humanitarian
04:47 AM on 06/25/2011
Not only in the USA but Africa and India. The roundup is in our cotton, that causes rashes to our bodies....anyone noticed a change in their underwear. Not only that, but studies showed that in some animals they could not have babies anymore. (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes)

In America, the Obama administration decided in January 2011 to radically approve unrestricted production of biotech Monsanto “Roundup Ready” alfalfa and sugar beets creating our food system dependent in a handful of corporations, with only profit to guide them. In spite of the World Health Organization’s concerns over the spread of GM crops and the indirect effect on food safety and security, the GM seed use continues to expand. (http://afterthewar.blogspot.com/2011/06/story-about-gm-seeds.html)

Do you have the link or information to the Wikileaks info?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:57 PM on 06/25/2011
Here's a link comparing related cables.

http://my.firedoglake.com/tucsonrobert1/2011/06/22/monsanto-wikileaks-and-lobbying-expenditures/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ThinkinPerson
05:03 PM on 06/12/2011
How sad. How many farm workers will lose children between now and 2030?

Monsanto gets a pass for another 3 years why?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sbrannon
thinker, photojournalist, humanitarian
04:47 AM on 06/25/2011
money and population control?
03:41 PM on 06/12/2011
What we need is more regulations!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
RockyMissouri
'You must be carefully taught to hate'...
01:19 PM on 06/12/2011
This is a shameful moment.... Who protects the American people and the world from Monsanto......???? I remember when we were told DDT was so safe to use...
07:21 PM on 06/11/2011
You can't blame Monsanto for this. They are just typical corporate shills willing to screw you for a buck; who needs to be held responsible are those in government and civil service positions - those whose apparent job was supposed to protect the public - who dropped the ball. Hold them responsible because it was they who allowed this catastrophe to occur.
11:59 AM on 06/12/2011
There's a difference between Monsanto and the government? That's news to me
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
RockyMissouri
'You must be carefully taught to hate'...
01:21 PM on 06/12/2011
The regulators should exist to protect the PEOPLE, NOT the corporations!
02:02 PM on 06/11/2011
The use of agricultural chemicals and genetically modified crops may not be an ideal strategy but it's a fair bet that most people (especially impoverished, hungry people) would prefer agriscience's devil's bargain to the alternative of slowly starving to death as global warming and population explosion permanently change everything. A fanatical insistence on "organic purity" could end up killing millions of people and may end up being another example of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions. See the following link.

http://www.jpost.com/Sci-Tech/Article.aspx?id=224508
mothergrace
If they knock you down, bite 'em on the ankle.
06:46 PM on 06/11/2011
Not at all. Sustainable farming practices are the only way to keep people from starving.

Soil exhausted from mono-crops and super weeds because of Roundup ready crops and the unknown contribution to problems with bees and CCD because of pesticides and/or GMO directly will starve a lot more people.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
RockyMissouri
'You must be carefully taught to hate'...
01:25 PM on 06/12/2011
Thank you, for caring.
12:02 PM on 06/12/2011
Typical biotech propaganda. Perhaps you should do some research on the deleterious effects of these chemicals before running to their aid.
01:12 PM on 06/12/2011
How do you know that I haven't done research? Do you think I haven't done research because my point of view is different from yours? So much for the spirit of free inquiry! I am a graduate of one of the best colleges of agriculture in the world. I also happen to live in farm country so if I want to do research all I have to do is to talk to my neighbors. Most of them are farmers and most of them use Round Up and GMO seed. In fact, the GMO seeds have made it possible for them to dramatically reduce their use of agricultural chemicals. Just a couple of weeks ago one of my old-timer neighbors was marveling at how such characteristics of GMO seed as insect resistance have made it possible for them to reduce their reliance on the wide range of insecticides and herbicides that they needed to grow their crops. All they use now is RoundUp which is a relatively non-toxic herbicide. If they didn't use RoundUp they could cultivate mechanically and spew lots of diesel fumes into the air while doing this in addition to exposing the soil to increased rain and wind erosion. Or they could exploit armies of Mexicans by paying them $5 an hour to hoe endless rows of corn and then you could go to the store and buy your corn tortillas for $1 a piece...
01:13 PM on 06/12/2011
...Or the government could keep the price of your tortillas down by increasing price supports to farmers and by raising your taxes (or going further into debt) in order to do so. Which would you prefer? And you're lucky to have a choice. I worked in a lab at that university with an Egyptian PhD student. We were talking about organic agriculture because at that time I was also working on an organic vegetable farm. He told me that people in Egypt don't care about organic vs chemical agriculture. They just want to eat. You have a choice. Do you realize that the system you probably despise has made this luxury possible for you? If you choose to respond, I'd be interested to know what qualifies you to have an informed opinion on this question. What research have you done to learn about the beneficial effects of agricultural chemicals? Is it possible that you haven't done any research because your mind was already made up? We all may be better off if an awareness of our ignorance made us a bit more humble and less certain about the correctness of our convictions.