To ban or not to ban?

The issue of whether to ban the herbicide glyphosate continues to raise hackles around the scientific and non-scientific world.

    

    The controversy is spreading like weeds. UK government minister (Therese Coffey) tweeted in August saying “Getting ready to deploy the amazing Roundup!” alongside a product image. She came under fire for acting more in the interests of the manufacturer Monsanto than those of the British public. At the same time, 1.3million people across Europe signed a petition to ban the herbicide glyphosate. In the autumn, the EU nevertheless renewed its approval for use for the next five years – with the UK among the 18 nations in favour of its use.

    Glyphosate sprayed on weeds travels to the roots and blocks an enzyme. Without that enzyme, the weed fails to make the building blocks it needs to grow and withers to the ground. At this point, Monsanto says: “any remaining glyphoate is broken down in the soil into naturally occurring substances like carbon dioxide and phosphate.” Its website quotes from the United States Environmental Protection Agency study under its Endocrine Screening Program: “Hundreds of scientific studies have been conducted into the endocrine system issue, and a causal relationship between human illnesses and exposure to environmental contaminants has never been found.”

    Interestingly, the controversy surrounding Monsanto continues as it is acquired by Bayer. Monsanto’s website is clear on where it stands on the ban: It focuses primarily on the economic benefits: “A ban on glyphosate would leave farmers facing lower yields and higher production costs, causing a significant rise in food prices.”

    Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK) considers the alternatives to herbicide use and cites the “great costs to human health, the environment and natural resources” from synthetic pesticides in agriculture. Quoting Derpsch, R. 1998. “Historical Review of No-Tillage Cultivation of Crops” it says: “In Europe, their use in farming has increased considerably to replace mechanical ploughing, which has been reported to cause soil degradation and soil nutrient loss, in certain geographic zones with high rainfall and specific types of crops, particularly in intensive agriculture.”

    For PAN UK, the case is clear: “Because of their properties, when these substances are used on open fields they will directly affect other non-target species in the area and the surroundings, and through a cascade of ecological interactions will end up affecting biodiversity. Furthermore, these same properties may allow them to interact with living cells of animal species including humans and result in toxicity.”

    Meanwhile, France has taken its own decision, cancelling the licence for Roundup Pro 360 in January 2019. A court in Lyon ruled that: “Despite the European Union’s approval of the active substance (glyphosate), the court considered that scientific studies and animal experiments showed Roundup Pro 360 … is a potentially carcinogenic product for humans, suspected of being toxic for human reproduction and for aquatic organisms.”

    In the US, lawsuits being brought against Monsanto/Bayer by farmers, landscapers and consumers may finally bring an answer to this storm.