How the EPA Whitewashed the Safety Label of the Most Widely Used Herbicide in the World

A woman uses a Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller spray without glyphosate in a garden in Ercuis near Paris, France, on May 6, 2018. Benoit Tessier/Reuters

Health Viewpoints

Amidst the widespread use of chemical herbicides in agriculture and landscaping for weed control, concerns have emerged about the accuracy of safety labels. Glyphosate, favored for its efficacy in killing weeds, has faced scrutiny over potential health and environmental risks.

Central to this debate is the evaluation conducted by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA).

Has the EPA established a proper guideline? Are there any misleading guidelines regarding this herbicide sprayed onto American soil at a rate of 287 million pounds per year?

Crop Resistance and Increased Herbicide Use

Glyphosate’s popularity grew after its introduction in the 1970s due to its effectiveness against a broad spectrum of weeds. The chemical’s mechanism of action involves inhibiting the production of aromatic amino acids, which are essential proteins for various organisms, including plants, bacteria, animals, and humans. Glyphosate can stop the production of these proteins in plants only through a unique mechanism not found in humans, which is why most scientists have considered it safe.

One unintended consequence of glyphosate’s effectiveness on farms was its harmful impact on crops. Scientists developed genetically modified (GMO) crops resistant to glyphosate to address this issue. While GMO technology has the potential to boost crop yields, reduce food loss, and provide resistance to bacteria, the widespread adoption of these crops has resulted in a significant increase in pesticide and herbicide use.

Initially, it was believed that humans lacked the biological pathway affected by glyphosate, minimizing concerns. However, subsequent studies have raised numerous health concerns. After reviewing years of published research and peer-reviewed studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research agency, classified glyphosate as  “probably carcinogenic to humans” (pdf) in 2015. In 2017, California added glyphosate to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer.

The EPA’s Misleading Guidelines

Tasked with screening herbicides such as glyphosate to ensure the safety of humans and the environment, the EPA maintains that glyphosate is not hazardous to humans at the current standard. The stark difference in the EPA and IARC’s classification raises questions about the methods employed by these organizations.

Differences in Evaluation Methods

The disparity between the EPA and the IARC’s conclusions lies in their evaluation methods. The EPA primarily assessed glyphosate in its pure chemical form, while the IARC considered its conventional application, typically in the form of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH). Commonly used products like Roundup, Rodeo Aquatic Herbicide, and Eraser fall under this category. The difference between the lab compound and the chemical cocktail used in fields can vary significantly, affecting toxicity.

Moreover, the EPA heavily relied on unpublished regulatory studies commissioned by glyphosate registrants, while the IARC primarily used peer-reviewed studies. Notably, 99 percent of the studies used by the EPA were conducted behind closed doors and concluded that glyphosate possessed no genotoxic properties. In contrast, the IARC considered 118 studies, of which 70 percent (83 studies) supported the genotoxicity of glyphosate. These differing approaches contribute to the distinct conclusions reached by the two agencies.

Analyzing the evaluation processes shows how the EPA and the IARC arrived at drastically different conclusions. While both agencies may view themselves as correct, it is crucial to determine which approach prioritizes the interests of the people versus those of the industry.

How to Minimize Glyphosate Exposure

While this article does not delve into the health repercussions of glyphosate, it is important to refrain from directing emotions toward specific companies or agencies for the damage caused. Instead, individuals can voice their concerns by engaging with local community officials.

Additionally, minimizing glyphosate exposure can be achieved by following these steps:

1. Choose organic products that prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides, including glyphosate.
2. Opt for non-GMO foods, as they are less likely to contain glyphosate.
3. Thoroughly wash fruits and vegetables with water, and consider peeling certain produce to remove residues.
4. Diversify your diet to reduce exposure to specific substances.
5. Support local farmers who follow sustainable farming practices, as this reduces the likelihood of glyphosate use. Don’t hesitate to ask farmers about their crop-growing methods.

While it may be challenging to eliminate glyphosate exposure, consumers still have the power to make informed choices about the products they purchase.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.