Glyphosate Herbicide: An Ongoing Debate on Safety and Ways To Limit Your Toxic Exposure

Many of us are familiar with glyphosate in its most common application as the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate was first brought to market by Monsanto in 1974 and it is the world-wide most heavily used herbicide in history. The use of glyphosate mushroomed with the advent of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Contrary to what one might suppose, GMOs were engineered not so much to provide healthier plants but rather to survive heavy applications of glyphosate. 

For most of that time glyphosate has enjoyed a reputation of being safe, with minimal risk to human health.

Glyphosate Safety – A Changing View

However, that perception began to shift in 2015 when the WHO reclassified glyphosate as a possible carcinogen.¹ 

That narrative [about glyphosate safety] began to unravel in 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” What followed was not a simple scientific debate. It became a cascade of litigation, regulatory pressure and public reckoning...²

More recently, a symposium this year of scientists  from different countries reviewed glyphosate research over the past ten years . The scientists strongly concluded that glyphosate is harmful to human health. The participants included scientists from U.S. universities, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute and experts from Europe and Canada.

The scientists, who gathered at a “glyphosate symposium” in Seattle March 25 – 26 to examine a range of research conducted over the last decade, determined that evidence showing glyphosate herbicides can harm human health “is now so strong that no additional delays in regulation of glyphosate can be justified.³

That assessment is not shared by regulatory agencies in both the U.S. and Europe. The  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and  the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in the EU continue to maintain that glyphosate poses no risk to human health when used properly.

The EPA though, has committed to a review of glyphosate safety:

The agency further said: “This year, EPA will undertake a comprehensive, transparent, and rigorous scientific review of glyphosate to evaluate its use and ensure decisions are fully aligned with the best available science as well as human health and environmental protections. That review will include expanded public access to underlying data and science, analysis of independent peer-reviewed research on potential cancer and developmental risks…⁴

Our previous blog article on microplastics last month highlights the difficulty of gaining some sort of consensus about whether a substance is a toxicant and its level of harm to human health and to the environment. Studies can be inconclusive or contradictory, their designs are different with different goals and they are sourced with different motivations. 

Critics point to lobbyists and other interests that affect regulatory policy. And while the observer cannot be separated from the observed, a recognized problem in medicine, it appears the perception of glyphosate’s safety may be at a tipping point.

Some of the research to date indicates that possible long term health risks of glyphosate include cancer, liver damage, kidney damage, infertility, and interference with gut bacteria of the microbiome. Webmd points out that most studies have been conducted on animals.⁵  While this statement is true for randomized controlled toxicological studies, it does not include observational studies.

A Regrettable Substitution – Alert (also known as the cure can be worse than the illness)

When the IRAC of the World Health Organization labeled glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, Bayer, the current manufacturer of Roundup,  inundated with lawsuits, bad press, and public scrutiny, decided to replace it in products sold to consumers. As has happened in the past, the replacement ingredients may sometimes be as toxic or more so than the ingredient they replace. Bayer disputes any such claims about their reformulations.

You can view the toxicity profiles of the replacement herbicides:   

• Diquat dibromide – is an algaecide and herbicide. Its primary applications are for controlling aquatic weeds, crop dessication, and landscape weed control.  Friends of the Earth, a global grassroots environmental organization says this herbicide is rated as two hundred times more toxic than glyphosate over a period of  time (chronic exposure) and twenty-seven times more toxic in acute exposure (such as accidentally ingesting it). This toxicant has been banned in the EU.⁷

• Fluazifop-P-butyl – is an herbicide used to control weeds in broadleaf crops and landscapes. It is considered a mild toxicant.

• Triclopyr – is an herbicide that can cause severe eye and skin irritation in concentrated dosages and is lethal to aquatic life. It can also kill non targeted plants through drift or runoff.

• Imazapic – like Tricopyr, it is an herbicide that can cause severe eye and skin irritation in concentrated dosages, is lethal to aquatic life and kills non targeted plants through drift or runoff.

 Environmental Persistence and Ecological Harm

Not surprisingly, glypohsate residues are pervasive in the environment – crop lands, food, water, and even in rain. Its environmental impact includes:

1. harm to the soil microbiome: it is harmful to beneficial organisms within the soil such as earthworms, nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and beneficial mycorrhizal fungi.
2. binding important minerals such a iron, manganese, and zinc, which reduces soil fertility and decreases plant immunity.
3. toxic to aquatic invertebrates and lowers  the plant diversity needed for pollinators

Glyphosate in the Human Body

While there is little regulatory  acknowledgement at the moment, if you even briefly research glyphosate effects on human health you will find concerning studies that crop up like weeds everywhere. My first keyword search brought up a UC Berkley Public Health study of 480 mother-child duos linking glyphosate exposure in childhood to liver inflammation and  metabolic disorder in young adulthood. ¹⁰

A second, dated from 2014 from the Cornucopia Institute (a national  farm policy watchdog group) website made a bold statement, contrary to the perception of its harmlessness at the time, that glyphosate could be responsible for multiple chronic conditions in western society.¹¹

There are many more.

Glyphosate enters the body through skin contact, inhalation, and ingestion. The vast majority of it is excreted, unaltered,  in urine and feces.

How to Limit Exposure  

1. In Your Diet
   1. Buy organic foods, especially for higher risk foods
   2. Avoid or limit GMO foods
   3. Grow some of your own food – from herbal gardens to small pots of common vegetables. I recently viewed a YouTube video short on how to grow plants from the food bought in the grocery store. I am intrigued enough to give some of it a try.  This would work best using organic produce: for example, non organic potatoes are sprayed with chemical sprout inhibitors and will not develop the eyes  that produce roots.
   4. Avoid crops with the highest risk – consult Environmental Group’s Clean fifteen⁸ and dirty dozen.⁹ Updated annually.
2. In Your Lawn or Garden
   1. Wear protective gloves
   2. Be mindful of wind and drift when you apply – protect your eyes and non targeted plants
   3. Make a break  from chemical pesticides – pick weeds or find natural alternatives
   4. Keep pets and children away from sprayed areas

Detoxing with The IonCleanse Detox Foot Bath

Detoxification is an essential part of a healthy lifestyle Over the twenty-two plus years AMD has offered the IonCleanse by AMD detox foot bath, we have conducted small studies to give some scientific underpinnings to the process. One such study involved monitoring glyphosate excretion after a foot bath. You can read about this study here.