Switzerland is holding a referendum that – if successful – would result in a total ban on all synthetic chemical pesticides. This would of course include in relation to prohibiting the use of all toxic pesticides in Switzerland’s farming and food production systems.

Although pesticide use in Switzerland has dropped 40% in the last decade (and which is not far off the wholly inadequate 50% reduction target over 10 years that NGOs here in the UK often call for) an independent group of citizens, including scientists, doctors and growers, have campaigned for a complete ban for the protection of human health and the environment under the campaign title “For a Switzerland without artificial pesticides.” 

Inadequate measures

It is clear from the evidence of catastrophic health and environmental harms from pesticides that merely reducing their use will not result in the necessary protection for people or the environment, as just one single exposure incident can lead to damage to human health or to other species exposed. Further, there are other countries where pesticides reduction targets – advocated by NGOs and others – have spectacularly failed

For example, the 50% reduction target that was previously set in France, along with a pesticides tax, did not work – and wasted the last 10 years – as agricultural pesticide use in France has overall increased! Those pushing for the mere reduction of pesticides also sends the wrong message as it implies that it is okay to use these poisons but just less when it was never okay to use such toxic chemicals in our food production systems and certainly not for spraying in locality of unprotected rural residents and communities.

Nor will the problems with pesticides be solved by Integrated Pest Management (IPM) – which has been advocated by many, including by DEFRA here in the UK, as a way forward – as IPM still uses pesticides to some degree whichever definition one goes by. Many conventional farmers here insist they already adopt IPM practices, even though they are still spraying mixtures of pesticides on a regular basis, year after year, on crops across the UK. So in reality and in practice, IPM appears to be a red herring and is very unlikely to fundamentally change anything.

This problem with pesticides is also not going to be solved by simply substituting one pesticide for another – for example, those deemed as the most hazardous – considering that it is a matter of fact that all synthetic chemical pesticides are hazardous and have inherent health and environmental risks. Further, historically once one pesticide has been withdrawn another toxic chemical will just be introduced in its place. How does that solve anything? The answer is simple, it doesn’t!

Those calling merely for more controls on spraying applications also miss the fundamental point of what the actual problem is, as once agricultural pesticides have been dispersed they simply cannot be controlled and are airborne droplets, particles and vapours and are present in the air irrespective as to whether there is any wind or not. Indeed volatilization (ie. vapour lift off) can occur days, weeks, even months after any application further exposing humans, wildlife, other species, and wider environment.

Scientific studies have in fact found pesticides transported in the air at high levels, including considerable distances (ie. many miles) from where pesticides were originally applied and calculated health risks for residents and communities living within those distances and which includes some of the most vulnerable sub-groups such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly and those already ill and/or disabled – none of whom should ever have been exposed to these harmful chemicals in the first place!

Air pollution from chemical pesticides is therefore one of the components of atmospheric pollution. There are still no specific restrictions here in the UK – and indeed in most countries worldwide – on the contamination and pollution of the air from the widespread spraying of mixtures of pesticides in rural areas. Yet this is despite the fact that improving air quality is a major public health issue, as well as an environmental one.

While operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides – such as use of personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators, and will be in filtered tractor cabs when spraying pesticides – rural residents and communities have absolutely no protection at all from the innumerable cocktails of toxic chemicals sprayed on crop fields.

Adverse impacts of pesticides

The dangers of pesticides can clearly be seen on the manufacturers product data sheets that carry various warnings such as “Very toxic by inhalation,” “Do not breathe spray; fumes; vapour,” “Risk of serious damage to eyes,” “Harmful, possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation,” “May cause cancer by inhalation,” and even “May be fatal if inhaled.”

Cornell University’s teaching module ‘Toxicity of Pesticides’ clearly states that, “Pesticides can: cause deformities in unborn offspring (teratogenic effects), cause cancer (carcinogenic effects), cause mutations (mutagenic effects), poison the nervous system (neurotoxicity), or block the natural defenses of the immune system (immunotoxicity).” It goes on to warn that “Irreversible effects are permanent and cannot be changed once they have occurred. Injury to the nervous system is usually irreversible since its cells cannot divide and be replaced. Irreversible effects include birth defects, mutations, and cancer.”

High quality, peer-reviewed scientific studies and reviews have concluded that long-term exposure to pesticides can damage the function of different systems in the body, including nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, renal, cardiovascular, respiratory.

Such studies have concluded that exposure to pesticides is associated with a wide range of chronic diseases including various cancers, birth defects, reproductive disorders, neuro degenerative diseases (including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), cardio-vascular diseases, respiratory diseases, diabetes, chronic renal diseases, autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus).

A number of recent major international reports have also detailed the damage to human health from existing industrial and chemical-intensive conventional farming systems:

• The United Nations report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food in March 2017 that found that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides has been associated with several diseases and conditions including cancer, developmental disorders, and sterility, and that those living near crop fields are particularly vulnerable to exposure from these chemicals;

• The 2017 IPES-FOOD report that outlines the unacceptable harm caused by the current chemical farming systems; exposes just some of the astronomical health costs externalized by the current system; and finds an urgent and “overwhelming case for action.” The report found that many of the severest health conditions afflicting populations around the world – from respiratory diseases to a range of cancers – are linked to industrial food and farming practices, including chemical-intensive agriculture;

• The 2017 Lancet Commission on pollution and health report on the global deaths and chronic diseases from outdoor air pollution, and which included from the use of pesticides. In fact the lead author was reported as saying that his biggest concern is the impact of the hundreds of industrial chemicals and pesticides already widely dispersed around the world.

There are now over 13,500 mainly affected rural residents who have signed the ongoing UK petition to the Prime Minister and DEFRA Secretary, George Eustice, to urgently secure the protection of rural residents and communities by prohibiting all crop spraying and use of any pesticides near residents’ homes, schools, and children’s playgrounds

The petition has been supported by a number of prominent figures including Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, the Prime Minister’s own father Stanley Johnson, Jonathon Porritt, Gordon Roddick, DEFRA non-executive board member Ben Goldsmith, Caroline Lucas MP, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, among many others.

The existing pesticides standards here in the UK – and indeed in the majority of countries worldwide – fail on every level to protect human health and the environment.

Even DEFRA’s very own former Chief Scientist Advisor, Professor Ian Boyd. In an article in ‘Science’ in 2017 (when still in post in the top science job at DEFRA) issued a damning assessment of the regulatory approach globally for pesticides sprayed on crops including that the impacts of “dosing whole landscapes” has been ignored; and that the assumption by regulators that it is “safe” to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes “is false” and must change. Professor Boyd has since repeatedly advocated that pesticides need to be designed out of farming systems altogether. 

Here in the UK the new Environment Bill now provides a real opportunity to clean up agriculture once and for all in order to no longer use toxic chemicals in UK farming.

Prohibiting the use of pesticides

The 2017 UN Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food concluded that moving away from pesticide-reliant industrial agriculture to non-chemical farming methods should now be a political priority in all countries globally.

The same report concluded that the agro-chemical industry has continued to falsely maintain that damage will be caused to agriculture and food production if pesticides are not used. The report stated that “The assertion promoted by the agrochemical industry that pesticides are necessary to achieve food security is not only inaccurate, but dangerously misleading. In principle, there is adequate food to feed the world; inequitable production and distribution systems present major blockages that prevent those in need from accessing it.”

In fact, rather than there not being enough food there is actually a huge amount of food wasted every year. One UK report found that as much as half of all worldwide food produced ends up as waste, which is a whopping 2 billion tonnes every year!

Considering the very significant damage that the use of agricultural pesticides has caused then the strategic aim must be to move away from pesticides to a health and environmentally sustainable crop production utilising non-chemical farming methods (such as crop rotation, physical and mechanical control, natural predator management).

The pollution and contamination of our health and environment must be stopped at the highest level, which means if such harmful farming practices are no longer permitted by Governments’ around the world then farmers would have to adapt and find alternative methods that do not put public health and the environment at the risk of harm.

Therefore a complete paradigm shift away from the use and reliance on such toxic chemicals in food and farming production systems is urgently needed.

Such vital protections from pesticides are absolutely integral to the health and existence of all those living in the countryside, as well as other species that are being wiped out from the use of such toxic chemicals and such protections are simply non-negotiable.

This would obviously also be more in line with the objectives for sustainable food and farming, as the usage of complex chemicals designed to kill plants, insects or other forms of life, cannot be classified as sustainable. The huge external costs of pesticide use would also be eliminated if agricultural policies are fundamentally shifted towards utilizing non-chemical farming methods.

The origins of traditional farming methods did not include dependence on chemical inputs for mass production. Such poisons should never have had any place in the air we breathe, food we eat, and the environment we live in.

The inadequate measures put forward by so many parties as a solution to the ever deepening pesticides crisis has clearly been recognised by the independent group of citizens – whose campaign led to the imminent referendum in Switzerland – who rightly concluded that the only real solution for the protection of both human health and the environment is for the complete prohibition of use of all synthetic chemical pesticides.

Rural residents and communities across the UK will be watching and waiting to see whether – against all the odds – Switzerland will lead the world in banning pesticides in its food and farming production system. We would love the chance to have such a vote here and would urge Swiss voters to grab – with both hands – this possibly once in a lifetime opportunity to protect your health and your environment from toxic pesticides.

• Georgina Downs is a health and agricultural journalist and campaigner. She runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, which specifically represents rural residents affected by agricultural pesticides sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, as well as schools, playgrounds, nurseries, among other areas.

Watching the Upper House do the right thing – as I had said in my previous article they needed to do – by finally voting in the interests of human health rather than in the big business interests of other sectors (eg. farming unions, pesticide companies, among others) was truly heartening after a 20 year battle to get such protection written into law.

This was a significant victory for all those affected by the use of agricultural pesticides sprayed in our localities. As the Lords adopted new Clause 38 entitled “Application of pesticides: limitations on use to protect human health,” is for prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near – (a) any building used for human habitation, (b) any building or open space used for work or recreation, or (c) any public or private building where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to, schools and childcare nurseries, and hospitals.

The Government has fundamentally failed to protect people in the countryside from agricultural pesticides and has also knowingly allowed rural residents and communities to continue to suffer from both acute and chronic adverse health effects without taking any action to prevent the exposures, risks, and adverse health impacts from occurring.

As I have always maintained from the outset of my campaign this is definitely one of biggest public health scandals of all time.

Yet there is the risk that this very welcome – and long fought for – victory may well be short-lived, as the Agriculture Bill returns to the House of Commons this Monday when MPs debate and vote on whether to keep in or kick out the Lords adopted amendments.

Much of the focus – both politically and in the mainstream media – has been on two other amendments adopted by the House of Lords related to trade. This has become a titanic tussle between those – headed up by food campaigner and chef Jamie Oliver – wanting to maintain the UK’s existing food and animal welfare standards and those – headed up reportedly by Dominic Cummings, the unelected and seemingly wholly unaccountable advisor to Boris Johnson – who have their eyes firmly on the future trade deals post-Brexit between the UK and other countries, particular with the United States. 

Existing UK pesticides standards not protective

It has to be said that whilst other food and animal welfare standards in the UK may well be high, when it comes to the use of agricultural pesticides there has been a complete absence of any protection for rural residents and communities under the UK standards, and indeed even under the EU regime. The really rather astonishing gaps in the approvals process and protection system for rural residents and communities have been raised by the campaign I run – the UK Pesticides Campaign – since 2001.

Even DEFRA’s very own former Chief Scientist Advisor, Professor Ian Boyd. In an article in ‘Science’ in 2017 (when still in post in the top science job at DEFRA) issued a damning assessment of the regulatory approach worldwide for pesticides sprayed on crops including that the impacts of “dosing whole landscapes” has been ignored; and that the assumption by regulators that it is “safe” to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes “is false” and must change. He has since repeatedly advocated that pesticides need to be designed out of farming systems. When I highlighted his comments at a meeting in 2018 with DEFRA Minister George Eustice he said he agreed with that position, (not that that was reflected of course in any way, shape or form in the Government’s original draft of the Agriculture Bill nor the revised version that followed).

Therefore I cannot stress enough how the existing pesticides standards in the UK (and the EU) simply do not currently protect rural residents and communities and which has just been backed by the House of Lords by a considerable majority with the adoption of new Clause 38 into the Agriculture Bill for prohibiting pesticide use near homes, schools, childcare nurseries, hospitals, amongst other places where people are present.

Clause 38 of the UK Agriculture Bill

Further, not only are the standards on agricultural pesticides in the UK not protective of human health, but they are clearly not protective of other species such as bees and other pollinators, birds, and overall biodiversity, and nor of the wider environment in general considering the increasing evidence of damage to air, water quality, and soils.

Therefore it is quite wrong for anyone to say that the standards on pesticides in the UK are high and fully protective of human health and the environment, as they simply are not. (And that is even before any trade deals with other countries where there is the risk of many more of these health and environmentally damaging pesticides coming in!)

The bottom line is that the risks and adverse health and environmental impacts of agricultural pesticides exist as a direct result of the actual widespread release in the first place of cocktails of these highly toxic chemicals. As once pesticides have been dispersed they cannot be controlled and have been shown to be transported in the air and travel considerable distances from where originally applied, including at high levels.

Further, this is irrespective as to whether there is any wind or not. Indeed volatilization (vapour lift off) can occur days, weeks, even months after applications further exposing those living in the locality and which obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with wind! 

Full cross party support in the Lords

The new Clause 38 to the Agriculture Bill as amended by the House of Lords on Report (and which is also listed as amendment 11 in the Commons Lords amendments document) had full cross party support – having been tabled by former DEFRA Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty – and was agreed with a considerable majority. 

As Lord Whitty said in the debate on his amendment on 22^nd September that it is “vital” to protect human beings “primarily, residents in rural areas, by requiring spraying to be well away from homes, public buildings and places where the public are congregated. In particular, it moves towards protecting those who live, full-time, adjacent to crops that are subject to blanket applications and those who attend public spaces adjacent to such fields.” And that it “requires Ministers to come forward with regulations establishing a minimum distance between such applications and the buildings.”

As Conservative peer Lord Randall of Uxbridge then stressed in the debate “…this is about protecting human life. If we have not yet learned that people sometimes assure us that everything is all right when it patently is not, we need think only of the tobacco industry…and of asbestos. We would be failing ourselves, the public and our fellow human beings if we did not recognise the harmful nature of pesticides…However, one thing we can do is to get this amendment into the Bill, because it would protect so many people.”

As the Shadow Spokesperson for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch then made clear in the debate “This is an immediate issue of public health protection.” Indeed there are now nearly 12,300 people – the majority of which are affected rural residents – who have signed the ongoing petition to the Prime Minister and DEFRA Secretary that calls for the same protective measures contained in new Clause 38 (amendment 11).

The petition has been supported by a number of prominent figures including Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, the Prime Minister’s own father Stanley Johnson, Jonathon Porritt, Gordon Roddick, DEFRA non-executive board member Ben Goldsmith, amongst others.

Operators are protected but rural residents are not

While operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides – such as use of personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators, and will be in filtered tractor cabs when spraying pesticides – rural residents and communities have absolutely no protection at all.

To see an example of the spraying of agricultural pesticides in the locality of the home and garden of one family see video here.

It is important to stress that this is about the permitted dispersal – under Government policy – of crop pesticides in the locality of homes, schools, nurseries etc., and the exposures, risks, and acute and chronic adverse health impacts for rural residents, and therefore this is obviously not about the misuse, abuse or illegal use of pesticides, but the actual use of agricultural pesticides in the locality of such people and places.

The Lords fully recognised in its debates on this amendment that more than enough evidence already exists of the risks and adverse health impacts of agricultural pesticides on rural residents and communities. Yet any reports of harmful effects are supposed to inform that the approvals system is failing. It is not supposed to be the case that toxic chemicals are approved and then monitoring reports the damage, but that such chemicals that pose a risk to human health are not approved in the first place.

The principal aim of pesticide policy is clearly based on the risk of harm, and not that harm has to have already occurred, and so no one should be put at risk of harm from any pesticide.

Yet reports of acute and chronic harm for rural residents and communities have existed for decades and the only way to prevent such harm occurring and protect human health is to prohibit the use of agricultural pesticides in substantial distances in the locality of where rural communities are present, as no pesticides should ever have been permitted to be sprayed in the locality of such unprotected people.

The new Clause 38 in the Agriculture Bill is therefore crucially important for securing the protection of rural residents and communities from agricultural pesticides, especially the most vulnerable groups such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly and those already ill and/or disabled – none of whom should ever have been exposed to these poisons in the first place!

Tory backbenchers

Indications are that, as per in the Lords, opposition parties will again support this crucial amendment for public health protection.

Therefore, whether new Clause 38 is kept in the Agriculture Bill does now appear to hinge on what Tory backbenchers decide to do and if any have the conscience – and of course the courage – to rebel against the Government whip. One such backbencher, having explained he was already going to be rebelling on another amendment said “I cannot rebel twice as I will be seen as a serial rebeller.”

My first reaction on hearing that is that this is a serious public health protection failure that is exposing millions of rural citizens to harmful chemicals and so any concern for how one is viewed doesn’t even come into it when compared with the catastrophic damage pesticides are causing to human health and life. But secondly, surely when it is a case of the Government getting it wrong then it is absolutely right for anyone with a moral compass to disassociate from that position. We need people to speak up and speak out on this public health policy failing sooner rather than later, as the health and lives of so many innocent people depend on those in a position to do so doing the right thing to secure our protection.

The voting record will be able to show which Tory MPs, if any, did do the right thing.

Further, unlike the trade amendments, new Clause 38 to the Agriculture Bill obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. As it is a necessary and crucial public health protection measure that has been urgently needed to be introduced for decades. Indeed I have campaigned for it both here in the UK and in the EU since 2001 (as the EU regime also does not properly protect rural residents and communities from pesticides).

Therefore it is completely immaterial what side of the Brexit fence one is sat when it comes to this particular amendment, as it is a measure that was needed to be introduced when the UK was in the EU and a measure just as needed now we are out.

In hope..

All that the many thousands of rural residents and communities affected by this glaring protection failure can hope for now is that the House of Commons follows the House of Lords example and votes for the protection of human health to ensure that the vital new Clause 38 (amendment 11) on prohibiting agricultural pesticides in the locality of our homes, schools, nurseries, hospitals and other places, is kept in the Agriculture Bill.

Will the House of Commons now do the right thing and vote to protect rural residents and communities from the cocktails of toxic pesticides sprayed on crops? 

Rural residents across the UK are very much hoping that – this Monday – MPs will stand up for the health and safety of their constituents!

• Georgina Downs is a journalist and campaigner. She runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, which specifically represents rural residents affected by pesticides sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, as well as schools, playgrounds, among other areas.

A prime example of this is the outright condemnation in the UK House of Lords in July of the UK Government’s total failure to protect rural residents and communities from the cocktails of pesticides sprayed on crops in the locality of homes, schools, nurseries etc.

Most striking of all was who led that condemnation. Lord Whitty, a former DEFRA Food and Farming Minister no less who spoke of his own concerns over the UK’s pesticides policy when having been a Minister at DEFRA, including the closeness between the Government regulators for pesticides (the Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD), formerly the Pesticides Safety Directorate) and the pesticide companies they are supposed to regulate.

It should be noted that such closeness has now been highlighted even further considering the recent appointment of the former Director for many years of pesticides safety at the CRD, Dave Bench, and who has just started his new post as Chief Executive of the Crop Protection Association that represents the pesticide companies’ interests. I mean that really is the appointment to top all revolving doors by a long way!

During the debate on pesticides at the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill in July, Lord Whitty did not hold back when he said, “When I more or less did the Minister’s job 20 years ago, I inherited the responsibility for pesticides, and I was concerned then about the degree to which the pesticide industry influenced the regulatory structures… There was a degree of producer capture, and that anxiety has not gone away…” 

‘Whistleblower’

This was recently echoed in a rather extraordinary email I received from a former senior civil servant who worked at various Government agencies – including DEFRA and HSE – and whose role was to advise/brief DEFRA Ministers on pesticides and who had to try and counter the very policy failings I was raising of the lack of human health protection.

The email from this former civil servant to me said, “I simply wanted to say two things: firstly, I’m very glad to see that you’re still fighting and campaigning – I could not agree more with the aims of your campaign. Also, I only wish now…that I had been at the time braver and more able to speak out against the mulishly aggressive intellectual dishonesty and subservience to the pesticides companies that was behind so much of what I was asked to do….I wish you every best for the future.”

Receiving an email like this from someone who has been tasked to specifically counter your campaign arguments is both heartening and infuriating, as the overwhelming feeling is – if only people would speak up and speak out on this public health policy failing sooner rather than later, as the health and lives of so many innocent people depend on those in a position to do so doing the right thing to secure our protection.

One such person who did do the right thing is DEFRA’s very own former Chief Scientist Advisor, Professor Ian Boyd. In an article in ‘Science’ in 2017 (when still in post in the top science job at DEFRA) he issued a damning assessment of the regulatory approach worldwide for pesticides sprayed on crops including that the impacts of “dosing whole landscapes” has been ignored; and that the assumption by regulators that it is “safe” to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes “is false” and must change. He has since repeatedly advocated that pesticides need to be designed out of farming systems. When I highlighted his comments at a meeting in 2018 with DEFRA Minister George Eustice he said he agreed with that position (not that that has been reflected of course in any way, shape or form in the Agriculture Bill in its current form!)

Amendment 78

So back to the House of Lords and in particular the man who really has become the champion for fighting for protection for us rural residents and communities, Lord Whitty.

Following the Committee Stage in July the Agriculture Bill is now back again in the House of Lords for the Report Stage. Lord Whitty has re-tabled his crucial amendment (listed as amendment 78) for the protection of human health from agricultural pesticides entitled “Application of pesticides: limitations on use to protect human health.”

This amendment – which is due to be voted on by the House of Lords tomorrow – has full cross party support from Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb of the Green Party, Lord Randall of Uxbridge from the Conservatives, and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville who is the Lib Dem Spokesman for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Amendment 78 is related to prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near – (a) any building used for human habitation, (b) any building or open space used for work or recreation, or (c) any public or private building where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to, schools and childcare nurseries, and hospitals.

Amendment 78 to the UK Agriculture Bill. Click to Enlarge.

The same amendment for the protection of rural residents and communities also received widespread support across the House of Lords at the earlier Committee Stage.

During the debate on this amendment at that earlier Committee stage in July, Lord Whitty also said,

“Much of the Bill is about the protection of wildlife, the health and welfare of farm animals, biodiversity, plant conservation, and water and air quality, but there is little recognition of the terrible damage to humans of ingesting chemical pesticides directly into their lungs, eyes and bloodstream. Many chemicals used in agriculture, including on UK farms and elsewhere, can, on their own or in combination, cause the breakdown of parts of the human immune system. They can poison the nervous system and cause cancer, mutations ​and birth defects. Rural residents are well aware of the problems. Campaigners on this have dossiers on rural families who have suffered, and I shall give your Lordships a couple of examples of the testimonies.  

One is from a woman in the countryside in the north of England: “I have brought up my family of three next to a frequently sprayed arable field. On many occasions, the spray has gone over the children as they’ve played. It has covered our washing and gone through our windows. We are long-term tenants on this land, yet we are treated as if this has nothing to do with us. We do not know what these chemicals are, only that the farmer, when mixing them and pouring them into his tank, wears full protective clothing and then sits in a protected cab.” 

Another says: “I live in a rural area and have done all my life. The spraying of crops has been carried out almost daily. I suffer from two chronic diseases, one of which is likely to be fatal.” 

Another resident says: “My neighbour sprays so close we can sometimes feel the drops on our faces and there is nothing we can do. My children are at risk.” 

Lord Whitty also pointed out in the debate that, “There is no need for any more proof that such chemicals are dangerous, particularly to those who are frequently exposed.”

And he also stated that, “It is wrong to claim that the EU or UK systems are safe. In particular, they do not protect those who live close by…This amendment would at least have the effect of protecting residents and the public from the hazardous health impacts of spraying near buildings and spaces used by the public. Ultimately, we need to see a longer-term strategy to develop non-chemical methods of crop protection, but this is an improvement that we can impose now, and one which should be part of the Bill.”

Co-signer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb also reinforced the vital importance of such protection and said, “Banning the application of pesticides in areas of human habitation, work and education will directly protect people from their toxic consequences.” 

Co-signer Lord Randall of Uxbridge stated, “We have talked about the need to look after biodiversity and the environment, but what could be more important than the health of fellow human beings?”

Labour front bench support

At the end of the debate on this amendment at Committee stage in July, the Shadow Spokesperson for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Baroness Jones of Whitchurch pledged full support for Lord Whitty’s amendment which she pointed out focuses “on the impact of pesticides on human health, which is, rightly, also a great cause for concern.”  

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch then said, “My noble friend Lord Whitty also raised the concerns of those living in rural areas adjoining fields where crops are being sprayed, sometimes indiscriminately. They come with health warnings that are rarely shared with the local population. Clearly these practices can cause substantial pollution, not only to the individuals concerned but to the air quality in nearby areas. It was notable that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, rightly pointed out the irony that water courses seem to be better protected than human beings. As my noble friend Lady Henig said, it is a sad fact that the health impacts of these chemicals often become clear all too late in the day,” and then stated again that the amendment is a “reasonable prospect, on any measure.” 

Government inaction

The only notable line from the DEFRA Minister in response to the debate was stating that the Government agrees that pesticides should not be used where they may harm human health. Yet it’s a matter of fact that agricultural pesticides are used where they are not only a clear risk to health, but worse still, where they are harming human health.

As detailed in my previous article, rural residents and communities across the UK continue to be adversely impacted by the cocktails of pesticides sprayed on crops in our localities with thousands of reports of various known acute and/or chronic health effects.

Indeed, there are now nearly 12,000 people, the majority of which are affected UK residents, who have signed the petition to the Prime Minister and DEFRA Secretary that calls for the same protective measures that are contained in the vital amendment 78.

The petition has been supported by a number of prominent figures including Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, the Prime Minister’s own father Stanley Johnson, Jonathon Porritt, Gordon Roddick, DEFRA non-executive board member Ben Goldsmith, amongst others.

While operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides – such as use of personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators, and will be in filtered tractor cabs when spraying pesticides – rural residents and communities have absolutely no protection at all. To see an example of the spraying of agricultural pesticides in the locality of the home and garden of one family (see video here).

Further, the exposure and risk for rural residents and communities is from the actual release of cocktails of harmful agricultural pesticides into the air where people live and breathe – as once pesticides have been dispersed they are airborne droplets, particles and vapours and are in the air irrespective as to whether there is any wind or not. Indeed volatilization (ie. vapour lift off) can occur days, weeks, even months after any application further exposing those living in the locality and which obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with wind!

Scientific studies have found agricultural pesticides transported in the air at high levels, including considerable distances from where pesticides were originally applied.

The UK Government’s stated position that pesticides are strictly regulated and scientific assessment shows that there are no risks to people and the environment is simply not correct considering that since 2009 EU (and UK equivalent) laws have legally defined rural residents living in the locality of pesticide sprayed crops as a “vulnerable group” recognised as having “high pesticide exposure over the long term,” and further, the risks of both acute and chronic effects of such exposure is again recognised in Article 7 of the EU Sustainable Use Directive.

Rural residents are thus clearly at high risk of harm and yet EU and UK equivalent laws stipulate that there must be no harm to human health in any capacity.

Adverse health impacts

High quality, peer-reviewed scientific studies and reviews have concluded that long-term exposure to pesticides can damage the function of different systems in the body, including nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, renal, cardiovascular, respiratory systems.

Such studies have concluded that exposure to pesticides is associated with a wide range of chronic diseases including, cancers of the breast, prostate, lung, brain (including childhood brain cancer), kidney, testicles, pancreas, oesophagus, stomach, bladder, bone, as well as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, soft tissue sarcoma, leukaemia, (including childhood leukaemia).

Other chronic health impacts that pesticides have been associated with in studies include, birth defects, reproductive disorders, neuro degenerative diseases (including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)), cardio-vascular diseases, respiratory diseases, diabetes, chronic renal diseases, and autoimmune diseases (such as rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus).

The economic costs of the health conditions that pesticides can cause are massive. Obviously it goes without saying that the personal and human costs to those suffering chronic diseases and damage, and the impacts on all those around them, cannot be calculated in financial terms. Yet if such harmful agricultural pesticides were not sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, schools etc. then such pesticide related health conditions would clearly be preventable.

Even based on the acute effects reported by residents and which the Government itself already monitors and records cases on (including acute effects such as chemical burns to the eyes and skin; rashes and blistering; damaged vocal chords; difficulty swallowing; respiratory irritation; breathing problems; asthma attacks; headaches, dizziness, nausea; vomiting; stomach pains; flu-type illnesses; and aching joints), then immediate action is supposed to be taken, as any reports of any adverse health effects, whether they are acute or chronic, are not supposed to just be accepted by Government when pesticide laws clearly require there to be “no harmful effect” on human health.

Reports of acute and chronic harm for rural residents and communities have existed for decades and the only way to prevent such harm occurring and protect human health is to prohibit the use of agricultural pesticides in the locality of where rural communities are present, as no pesticides should ever have been permitted to be sprayed in the locality of such unprotected people.

Securing protection for rural residents

Amendment 78 therefore provides an opportunity to get support in the House of Lords for securing such health protection, especially for the most vulnerable groups such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly and those already ill and/or disabled – none of whom should ever have been exposed to these poisons in the first place!

Further, as DEFRA Minister Lord Gardiner said during the Committee Stage debate (when referring to a different issue, to do with diet and healthy eating) it is important that people are in the best health possible considering Covid 19 – as anyone with underlying health conditions is susceptible to the virus – and yet agricultural pesticides are already known to cause damage to the immune system, respiratory system, nervous system etc. Thus action to protect rural residents is also vital in the current climate of Covid-19 of needing people to be in the best possible health and not compromised from synthetic pesticides and other agro chemicals harmful to health.

Amendment 78 is the only amendment that can provide actual protection for rural residents and communities and secure the health of this highly vulnerable group.

Whether amendment 78 is voted through does now appear to hinge on what the Labour front bench (led by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, along with Lord Grantchester and Baroness Wilcox of Newport) decides to do. Having fully and firmly supported this same amendment at Committee Stage, there is no doubt these peers will most likely be coming under huge pressure from various parties to not support amendment 78, including the farming unions and other business interests, as well as certain pesticide NGOs (that for many years have waged rather staggering and orchestrated attempts to hijack and confuse the residents issue and weaken the protection requirement needed).

All that the many thousands of rural residents and communities affected by this scandalous protection failure can hope for now is that the House of Lords in general votes in the interests of human health rather than in the interests of other sectors.

Will the House of Lords do the right thing and vote in favour of finally protecting rural residents and communities from the cocktails of toxic pesticides sprayed on crops?

Rural residents across the UK are very much hoping the House of Lords will help put an end to this scandal!

• Georgina Downs is a journalist and campaigner. She runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, which specifically represents rural residents affected by pesticides sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, as well as schools, playgrounds, among other areas.

In a recent Q&A statement the IARC – a World Health Organization agency – answered key questions around this misinformation which make it clear that glyphosate in both its ‘pure’ form and in the formulations sold to consumers and farmers is carcinogenic and genotoxic (causing cellular damage, at a genetic level, which can also lead to cancer). The information is timely since the European Union is currently considering whether to relicense glyphosate even as polls show that  two thirds of Europeans support a total ban on the toxic herbicide.

Here’s what IARC had to say

In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A).

This was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate).

IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.

The IARC Monographs evaluation is based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests. It follows strict scientific criteria, and the classification system is recognized and used as a reference all around the world. This is because IARC evaluations are based on independent scientific review and rigorous criteria and procedures.

To reach these conclusions, IARC reviewed about 1000 studies. Some of the studies looked at people exposed through their jobs, such as farmers. Others were experimental studies on cancer and cancer-related effects in experimental systems.

Could the carcinogenic effects of glyphosate be related to the other chemicals in the formulations?

No. The IARC Monographs evaluation is based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available evidence relevant to the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Most people’s exposure to glyphosate concerns commercial formulations that include glyphosate and other ingredients. The Monograph included these studies of real-world exposures to humans. It also included experimental studies of “pure” glyphosate and of glyphosate-based formulations.

For the experimental studies of “pure” glyphosate, the Monograph concluded that the evidence for causing cancer in experimental animals was “sufficient” and the evidence for causing genotoxicity was “strong”. The real-world exposures experienced by human populations are to a variety of formulations of glyphosate with other chemicals, because this is how glyphosate is mainly sold and used. Similar results were reported in studies of different formulations used in different geographical regions at different times.

Taking all of this evidence together, the IARC Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). Following the criteria in the Preamble to the IARC Monographs, the classification of glyphosate is based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate). This classification is further supported by “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.

Could the co-formulants be the cause of the genotoxic effects reported in the IARC Monograph?

With regard to genotoxicity, the IARC Working Group evaluated studies of “pure” glyphosate as well as studies of glyphosate-based formulations. The Working Group reached the same hazard conclusion for glyphosate and for its formulations: they concluded that the evidence for genotoxicity was “strong” for glyphosate and “strong” for glyphosate formulations.

Several of the epidemiological studies considered by the IARC expert Working Group showed increased cancer rates in occupational settings after exposure to glyphosate herbicides. Can this be attributed to glyphosate as a single ingredient or could it be due to other chemicals in the formulations?

Real-world exposures that people experience are to glyphosate in formulated products. Studies of humans exposed to different formulations in different regions at different times reported similar increases in the same type of cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Data on “pure” glyphosate from animal and other experimental studies, including on human cells, support the conclusion from the studies of exposed people. For the studies of “pure” glyphosate, the Monograph concluded that the evidence for cancer in experimental animals was “sufficient” and the evidence for genotoxicity was “strong”.

One of the key studies evaluated in the Monograph was the United States Agricultural Health Study (AHS). This study did not find an association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and glyphosate. Can this study alone outweigh the positive associations found in other epidemiological studies?

The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) has been described as the “most powerful” study, but this is not correct. The AHS collected data on cancer and pesticide use in more than 50 000 farmers and pesticide applicators in two states in the USA. The weakness of the study is that people were followed up for a short period of time, which means fewer cases of cancer would have had time to appear. This factor can limit the ability of a study to detect an association if one truly exists. Therefore, although the AHS is a large, well-conducted study, its results on glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk do not outweigh those of other studies.

The IARC Working Group also conducted an objective statistical analysis of the results of all of the available studies on glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which included the AHS and all of the case–control studies. The data from all of the studies combined show a statistically significant association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to glyphosate.

In the studies IARC evaluated, were there cancers only seen in animals exposed to the toxic doses of glyphosate?

No. The IARC Working Group identified statistically significant trends of higher numbers of cancers with higher doses of “pure” glyphosate in studies of mice, suggesting increasing response with dose. Cancers were seen in the absence of toxicity.

An important consideration in the IARC Working Group’s evaluation was that glyphosate caused unusual types of tumours, which are very rarely seen in untreated animals. Rare tumours can provide important evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, but may only be seen at high doses. The IARC Working Group’s evaluation of these tumours was in line with accepted principles and gave highly significant results.

Regulatory agencies have reviewed the key studies examined by IARC – and more – and concluded that glyphosate poses no unreasonable risks to humans. What did IARC do differently?

Many regulatory agencies rely primarily on industry data from toxicological studies that are not available in the public domain. In contrast, IARC systematically assembles and evaluates all relevant evidence available in the public domain for independent scientific review.

For the IARC Monograph on glyphosate, the total volume of publications and other information sources considered by the Working Group was about 1000 citations. All citations were then screened for relevance, following the principles in the Preamble to the IARC Monographs.

After this screening process, the Monograph sections on cancer epidemiology and cancer bioassays in laboratory animals cited every included study. The sections on exposure and mechanisms of carcinogenesis consider representative studies and therefore do not necessarily cite every identified study. Once published, the IARC Monograph on glyphosate cited 269 references.

In the interests of transparency, IARC evaluations rely only on data that are in the public domain and available for independent scientific review. The IARC Working Group’s evaluation of glyphosate included any industry studies that met these criteria. However, they did not include data from summary tables in online supplements to published articles, which did not provide enough detail for independent assessment. This was the case with some of the industry studies of cancer in experimental animals.

With the material reviewed by the Working Group, there was enough evidence to conclude that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans.

What does IARC’s classification mean in terms of the probability of developing a cancer?

The IARC Working Group’s classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) is based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate). This classification is further supported by “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.

The IARC Monographs evaluation is a hazard classification. It indicates the strength of evidence that glyphosate can cause cancer. The probability of developing a cancer will depend on factors such as the type and extent of exposure and the strength of the effect of the agent.

• Click here to add your voice to a petition to keep glyphosate out of EU.

Not so with the zika virus. The whirlwind of hype and hysteria, half-baked theories and speculation has been both unhelpful and unnerving. For weeks now ‘news’ stories about zika have been anything but.

The story is certainly moving fast, but let’s try to sort out what we know from what we don’t.

Things we do know

Zika was first discovered in humans in the 1950s. It belongs to a family of viruses that include dengue, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis and West Nile virus. It is carried by daytime active mosquitoes Aedes mosquitoes, particularly A. aegypti.

Signs of infection, if they appear at all, include fever, rash, joint pain and conjunctivitis, and tend to go away on their own in under a week. But for the majority of adults, zika produces the sort of mild symptoms that could be caused by anything.

Many don’t even know they are infected and only a blood test can confirm this. Except that the test for zika is nearly useless because it generates high levels of false negatives (giving the all clear when you are infected) and false positive results (saying you are infected when you are not) – particularly in areas where there is Dengue fever as well.

Urgent calls for an effective vaccine ignore other basics. Zika is an RNA virus (like influenza) and as such can more easily and quickly mutate than a DNA virus (e.g. herpes). The ease with which it mutates makes it very difficult to make an effective vaccine – also like the flu.

Things we don’t know

Although zika has been linked to an abnormality called microcephaly, where babies are born with very small or malformed heads or with damaged brains, this condition can also be caused by lots of other things, both known and unknown.

The WHO statement declaring zika a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ was full of qualifications and stressed that there was no proven link between zika and microcephaly. The real emergency, it seems, was the need to find out more.

Unhelpful speculation

Very quickly rumours arose linking the outbreak in Brazil with genetically modified mosquitoes released there in 2012.  Experience suggests it’s likely that there will eventually be unhappy consequences from the GM mosquito trials, but there is as yet no proof that the GM mosquitoes and zika are linked.

In the meantime biotechnology companies are using the emergency to hawk their wares, insisting that that the outbreak could actually be solved, and babies saved, by releasing more GM mosquitoes. There’s no proof for this either.

My money has been on a chemical cause for the increased rates of microcephaly which just happened to coincide with an outbreak of zika. This isn’t the ‘sexy’ answer. Newspaper and TV programmes don’t like it because it requires us to think rather than react and, of course, forces us to acknowledge consequences and complexity.

But new information this week suggests that the chemical cause is now the most likely.

The chemical connection

A report from Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, an Argentine doctors’ organisation, suggests that widespread State-mandated use of the insecticide pyriproxyfen, to control mosquitoes, is the most likely cause.

Pyriproxyfen is a growth inhibitor of mosquito larvae. It alters the development process from larva to pupa to adult, generating malformations in developing mosquitoes and killing or disabling them.

It is an endocrine disruptor and is teratogenic (causes birth defects).

According to report, the Brazilian Ministry of Health’s insistence that zika is the cause of microcephaly fails to acknowledge that in the area where most sick people live, pyriproxyfen was introduced into the drinking water supply in 2014.

It also notes that zika has never before been associated with birth defects, even in areas where it infects 75% of the population.

Indeed, there are no cases of microcephaly among the 3,200 pregnant women infected with Zika in Colombia.

Who profits?

A separate report by ABRASCO, a Brazilian doctors’ and public health researchers’ organisation, also names pyriproxyfen as a likely cause of the microcephaly.

It condemns the strategy of chemical control of zika-carrying mosquitoes, which it says is contaminating the environment as well as people and is not decreasing the numbers of mosquitoes.

ABRASCO suggests that this strategy is in fact driven by the commercial interests of the chemical industry, which it says is deeply integrated into the Latin American ministries of health, as well as the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization.

Look at the big picture

The report also names the British GM insect company Oxitec as part of the corporate lobby that is distorting the facts about zika to suit its own profit-making agenda. The Argentinian physicians agree noting the GM mosquito experiment has been “a total failure, except for the company supplying mosquitoes”.

In the meantime yet another report, in which the scientists actually took the time to look through hospital records, suggest that large numbers of babies with borderline small head sizes were being born in Brazil as far back as 2012, two years before the zika virus is thought to have entered the country.

They suggest we must start looking beyond zika for answers. Effects from other infections, exposure to teratogens or agents that cause birth defects, such as drugs, and malnutrition, can all have “an intensifying effect.”

Many pesticides can also cause birth defects and Brazil, the world’s largest consumer of pesticides, was awash in these even before the authorities started putting pyriproxyfen in drinking water.

Bear in mind, also, that man-made climate change is expanding the area in which the Aedes mosquitoes and other disease carrying insects can thrive.

Adding to the toxic soup

If there is a link between zika and microcephaly it is highly likely to be the measures we take to fight disease bearing insects.

While the world holds its breath to watch how the real story develops, authorities in Brazil are fumigating neighbourhoods with more insecticides in order to kill more mosquitoes. Pictures of half-dressed residents and their children standing by while being engulfed in a toxic cloud are beyond ironic. It is not clear what substance they are using, though there have been talks of more widespread use of DDT.

At the same time, if you are flying back home from a zika area your plane will be fumigated with insecticides  – and you’ll likely be reassured that this is totally safe.

Zika and microcephaly are part of a toxic soup that corporate interests and politics in the name of profit have created in Brazil, as well as other developing nations. We have a duty to understand that and not simply fall into the easy ‘out’ of ‘germ phobia’ that so often distorts our picture of health and disease.

The authors of the new study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology  were investigating whether exposure to glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup) at levels that bees could realistically be expected to encounter in the field could affect their feeding behaviour.

What they observed was that concentrations of glyphosate (GLY) produced “a reduced sensitivity to sucrose and learning performance for the groups chronically exposed to GLY concentrations within the range of recommended dose”, negatively impacting the honeybee’s sensitivity to nectar reward and impaired their learning abilities – are two behavioural consequences likely to adversely affect their survival abilities.

In addition they noted a significant decrease in elemental learning, non-elemental associative learning, and short-term memory retention, when exposed to higher doses of glyphosate.

Previous tests on bees have only looked for signs of acute toxicity (this is also a problem with many human toxicological tests); sub-lethal or prolonged exposure effects are not generally studied.

While sub-lethal doses were not found to overtly affect their foraging behaviour, the researcher suggest that because of their resilience, “…forager bees could become a source of constant inflow of nectar with GLY traces that could then be distributed among nest mates, stored in the hive and have long-term negative consequences on colony performance.”

A new poison for our bees

Most discussions about colony collapse disorder (CCD) have focused on poor nutrition, Nosema, and mysterious viruses and of course neonicotinoid insecticides. The potential for glyphosate to harm bees is new, but this is not the first time it has been implicated in bee deaths.

Last year, plant pathologist Dr. Don Huber submitted a paper to the Center for Honeybee Research highlighting glyphosate as a possible cause of CCD.

Huber’s research found that glyphosate:

• Chelates minerals, lowering available nutrients in plants Malnutrition is a consistent factor in CCD
• Acts like an antibiotic to beneficial bacteria This means it kills off  Lactobacillus and other bacteria necessary for digestion
• Is a neurotoxin A common symptom of CCD is that honeybees experience neurological changes associated with disorientation.
• Causes endocrine hormone & immune disruption Alterations in key hormones and immune system function can be lethal
• Stimulates fungal overgrowth This could encourage the growth of the fungal pathogen Nosema
• Is a persistent, accumulative poison Residues present in honey, nectar and other plant products, mean honeybees are continually exposed to this toxin

Mexico has taken action

One of the reasons for the widespread use of Roundup is the planting of Roundup Ready GM plants – which have been genetically engineered to withstand repeated sprayings of this herbicide. As weeds become resistant to Roundup, farmers find they spray more and more on their crops.

Most recently beekeepers in Mexico have won a court judgement which could help save their bees from exposure to glyphosate and halt the widespread planting of GMO soya crops there.

In 2012 Mexico’s agriculture ministry, Sagarpa, and environmental protection agency, Semarnat, granted Monsanto a permit to plant thousands of hectares of Roundup Ready soybeans in seven Mexican states.

The permit was granted in spite of widespread protests from thousands of Mayan farmers and beekeepers, Greenpeace, the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Institute of Ecology.

But earlier this year a district judge in the state of Yucatán overturned this permit. The judge said he was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soya crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states.

Mexico is one of the world’s largest producers of honey, and the EU is a big market for hone. However GM containing honey is not allowed for human consumption in the EU (however this ruling is being challenged).

Biotech companies argue that glyphosate is not toxic and further that it poses no threat to neighbouring non-GMO fields, however, the judge further ruled that co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible.

For us humans, the big question is not just whether we can protect our bees, but also whether pesticides like glyphosate are also harming our health in the same way and if so whether, and when we will take steps to protect ourselves.

Food and feed quality are crucial to human and animal health. Quality can be defined as sufficiency of appropriate minerals, vitamins and fats, etc. But it also includes the absence of toxins, whether man-made or from other sources. Surprisingly, almost no data exist in the scientific literature on herbicide residues in herbicide tolerant genetically modified (GM) plants, even after nearly 20 years on the market.

In research recently published by our laboratory we collected soybean samples grown under three typical agricultural conditions: organic, GM, and conventional (but non-GM). The GM soybeans were resistant to the herbicide Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate.

We tested these samples for nutrients and other compounds as well as relevant pesticides, including glyphosate and its principal breakdown product, Aminomethylphosponic acid (AMPA).

More pesticides than vitamins

All of the individual samples of GM-soya contained residues of both glyphosate and AMPA, on average 9.0 mg/kg. This amount is greater than is typical for many vitamins. In contrast, no sample from the conventional or the organic soybeans showed residues of these chemicals (see Fig. 1).

This demonstrates that Roundup Ready GM-soybeans sprayed during the growing season take up and accumulate glyphosate and AMPA.

Further, what has been considered a working hypothesis for herbicide tolerant crops, i.e. that, as resistant weeds have spread “there is a theoretical possibility that also the level of residues of the herbicide and its metabolites may have increased” (Kleter et al. 2011), is now shown to be actually happening.

Monsanto (manufacturer of glyphosate) has claimed that residues of glyphosate in GM soya are lower than in conventional soybeans, where glyphosate residues have been measured up to 16-17 mg/kg (Monsanto 1999).

These residues, found in non-GM plants, likely must have been due to the practice of spraying before harvest (for desiccation). Another claim of Monsanto’s has been that residue levels of up to 5.6 mg/kg in GM-soya represent “…extreme levels, and far higher than those typically found” (Monsanto 1999).

Seven out of the 10 GM-soya samples we tested, however, surpassed this “extreme level” (of glyphosate + AMPA), indicating a trend towards higher residue levels. The increasing use of glyphosate on US Roundup Ready soybeans has been documented (Benbrook 2012).

The explanation for this increase is the appearance of glyphosate-tolerant weeds (Shaner et al. 2012) to which farmers are responding with increased doses and more applications.

Maximum residue levels (MRLs) of glyphosate in food and feed
Globally, glyphosate-tolerant GM soya is the number one GM crop plant and glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide, with a global production of 620 000 tons in 2008 (Pollak 2011). The world soybean production in 2011 was 251.5 million metric tons, with the United States (33%), Brazil (29%), Argentina (19%), China (5%) and India (4%) as the main producing countries (American Soybean Association 2013).

In 2011-2012, soybeans were planted on about 30 million hectares in the USA, with Roundup Ready GM soya contributing 93-94 % of the production (USDA 2013). Globally, Roundup Ready GM soybeans contributed to 75 % of the production in 2011 (James 2012).

The legally acceptable level of glyphosate contamination in food and feed, i.e. the maximum residue level (MRL) has been increased by authorities in countries where Roundup-Ready GM crops are produced, or where such commodities are imported. In Brazil, the MRL in soybean was increased from 0.2 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg in 2004: a 50-fold increase, but only for GM-soya.

The MRL for glyphosate in soybeans has been increased also in the US and Europe. In Europe, it was raised from 0.1 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg (a 200-fold increase) in 1999, and the same MRL of 20 mg/kg was adopted by the US. In all of these cases, MRL values appear to have been adjusted, not based on new scientific evidence, but pragmatically in response to actual observed increases in the content of residues in glyphosate-tolerant GM soybeans.

Has the toxicity of Roundup been greatly underestimated?
When regulatory agencies assess pesticides for safety they invariably test only the claimed active ingredient.

Nevertheless, these do not necessarily represent realistic conditions since in practice it is the full, formulated herbicide (there are many Roundup formulations) that is used in the field. Thus, it is relevant to consider, not only the active ingredient, in this case glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA, but also the other compounds present in the herbicide formulation since these enhance toxicity.

For example, formulations of glyphosate commonly contain adjuvants and surfactants to stabilise and facilitate penetration into the plant tissue. Polyoxyethylene amine (POEA) and polyethoxylated tallowamine (POE-15) are common ingredients in Roundup formulations and have been shown to contribute significantly to toxicity (Moore et al. 2012).

Our own recent study in the model organism Daphnia magna demonstrated that chronic exposure to glyphosate and a commercial formulation of Roundup resulted in negative effects on several life-history traits, in particular reproductive aberrations like reduced fecundity and increased abortion rate, at environmental concentrations of 0.45-1.35 mg/litre (active ingredient), i.e. below accepted environmental tolerance limits set in the US (0.7 mg/litre) (Cuhra et al. 2013). A reduced body size of juveniles was even observed at an exposure to Roundup at 0.05 mg/litre.

This is in sharp contrast to world-wide regulatory assumptions in general, which we have found to be strongly influenced by early industry studies and in the case of aquatic ecotoxicity assessment, to be based on 1978 and 1981 studies presented by Monsanto claiming that glyphosate is virtually non-toxic in D. magna (McAllister & Forbis, 1978; Forbis & Boudreau, 1981).

A worrying trend

Thus a worrisome outlook for health and the environment can be found in the combination of i) the vast increase in use of glyphosate-based herbicides, in particular due to glyphosate-tolerant GM plants, and ii) new findings of higher toxicity of both glyphosate as an active ingredient (Cuhra et al., 2013) and increased toxicity due to contributions from chemical adjuvants in commercial formulations (Annett et al. 2014).

A similar situation can be found for other pesticides. Mesnage et al. (2014) found that 8 out of 9 tested pesticides were more toxic than their declared active principles.

This means that the Accepted Daily Intake (ADI) for humans, i.e. what society finds “admissible” regarding pesticide residues may have been set too high, even before potential combinatorial effects of different chemical exposures are taken into account.

For glyphosate formulations (Roundup), realistic exposure scenarios in the aquatic environment may harm non-target biodiversity from microorganisms, invertebrates, amphibians and fish, (reviewed in Annett et al. 2014) indicating that the environmental consequences of these agrochemicals need to be re-assessed.

Other compositional differences between GM, non-GM, and organic
Our research also demonstrated that different agricultural practices lead to markedly different end products. Data on other measured compositional characteristics could be used to discriminate statistically all individual soya samples (without exception) into their respective agricultural practice background (see Fig. 2).

Organic soybeans showed the healthiest nutritional profile with more glucose, fructose, sucrose and maltose, significantly more total protein, zinc and less fiber, compared with both conventional and GM-soya. Organic soybeans contained less total saturated fat and total omega-6 fatty acids than both conventional and GM-soya.

Conclusion
Roundup Ready GM-soya accumulates residues of glyphosate and AMPA, and also differs markedly in nutritional composition compared to soybeans from other agricultural practices. Organic soybean samples also showed a more healthy nutritional profile (e.g. higher in protein and lower in saturated fatty acids) than both industrial conventional and GM soybeans.

Lack of data on pesticide residues in major crop plants is a serious gap of knowledge with potential consequences for human and animal health. How is the public to trust a risk assessment system that has overlooked the most obvious risk factor for herbicide tolerant GM crops, i.e. high residue levels of herbicides, for nearly 20 years?

If it has been due to lack of understanding, it would be bad. If it is the result of the producer’s power to influence the risk assessment system, it would be worse.

• This article first appeared on the website Independent Science News. We are grateful for their permission to reproduce it here with additional sub-heads for clarity.
• For more on ‘inactive ingredients’ on this site see When ‘inactive ingredients’ aren’t so inactive

About the authors

Thomas Bøhn
GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway
Professor of Gene Ecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway

Marek Cuhra
GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway
PhD student, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway

Additional resources

For the figures and a full list of references see next page.