SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
monsanto
'Outrageous': New Roundup Is 45 Times More Toxic
"With the new formulations of Roundup, Bayer had the opportunity to make us safer, but it did the opposite," one expert said.
Oct 22, 2024
Facing tens of thousands of lawsuits after it acquired Monsanto, Bayer promised to remove cancer-linked glyphosate from its commercial Roundup weed killers by 2023. But an analysis published by Friends of the Earth on Tuesday reveals that the replacement is even more dangerous.
The environmental group found that many residential Roundup products still do contain glyphosate, and those that don't have replaced it with a chemical cocktail that is 45 times more toxic to human health following long-term exposure.
"With the new formulations of Roundup, Bayer had the opportunity to make us safer, but it did the opposite," Kendra Klein, deputy director of science for Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. "Bayer's willingness to deceive the public and disregard our health as it continues to cash in on the Roundup brand name is outrageous."
"In short, the new Roundup is not the old Roundup—it's worse."
Roundup weed killer was first commercially released by Monsanto 50 years ago. Since then, tens of thousands of people say they have come down with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after repeated use of the product and its active ingredient glyphosate, which the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer says is "probably carcinogenic to humans." Despite the risk, it is so widely used that it has been found in 80% of a test of U.S. urine samples.
"The human toll of Roundup is enormous—tens of thousands of people have lost their lives and their health because of this toxic weed killer," Klein said.
In response to both legal challenges and popular pressure, Bayer announced in 2021 that it would remove glyphosate from residential Roundup sold in the U.S. within two years.
To track how well Bayer kept that promise, Friends of the Earth assessed the Roundup products for sale at Lowe's and Home Depot—the largest home and garden stores in the U.S.—between June and October of 2024.
It found that seven of the Roundup products for sale still contained glyphosate, while the eight that did not used chemicals "of dramatically greater concern."
Bayer has replaced glyphosate with a combination of four chemicals—fluazifop-P-butyl, triclopyr, diquat dibromide, and imazapic—the latter two of which are banned in the European Union. All four chemicals are even more dangerous to health than glyphosate on average following chronic exposure, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) analysis of safety studies. The new ingredients have been linked to kidney and liver damage; reproductive, birth, and development problems; and allergic reactions or irritation that impact the eyes, skin, and respiratory system.
While all four are toxic, one stands out: Diquat dibromide is 200 times more toxic than glyphosate and is considered a "highly hazardous pesticide."
The new ingredients also pose a greater risk to the environment. They are, on average, more likely to threaten bees, birds, worms, and fish and other aquatic life. They are also less likely to break down in the environment, and therefore more likely to infiltrate groundwater and pollute rivers and drinking water.
"In short, the new Roundup is not the old Roundup—it's worse," Friends of the Earth concluded in the report.
The environmental group also criticized Bayer for not providing a warning to consumers about the altered ingredients, as well as lax federal law that does not require pesticide makers to alert shoppers when they change the ingredients of a known brand. While pesticide makers do have to list the active ingredients of a pesticide on the container, the average consumer may not be aware of the relative toxicity of these chemicals. A frequent Roundup user is also likely to assume that anything sold under that brand is similarly toxic to products they have used before.
"Drug companies are not allowed to replace the aspirin in a brand-name pain reliever with oxycontin or fentanyl, and for good reason," Friends of the Earth senior campaigner Sarah Starman said. "It is unconscionable that the Environmental Protection Agency allows this toxic sleight of hand and unethical that Bayer is exposing consumers to dramatically greater risks with no warning."
Friends of the Earth called on Bayer to develop safer chemicals and retire toxic brands like Roundup. At the very least, it urged the company to sell the new formulations under a different brand and warn buyers of the new products' health and environmental risks.
Home and garden retailers, the group argued, should also step up by removing all Roundup products from their stores and online catalogs, or at least selling them with clear warnings of the new risks; phase out toxic pesticides; and offer safer and more organic options.
Finally, the group called on the EPA to toughen its regulations by requiring ingredient-specific safety warnings on commercial pesticides, mandating that new formulations be sold under a new brand, and banning chemicals that harm human health and the environment from consumer products.
"Bayer, like other chemical companies, cannot be trusted to protect our health," Starman said. "We need serious reform at the EPA to ensure that the agency does its duty to protect people and the environment from dangerous pesticides."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Early US Fumbles in Tortilla War With Mexico Over GMO Corn
The U.S. government ignores the trade numbers and misconstrues Mexican policy when it comes to glyphosate and American corn destined for human consumption across the border.
Jun 27, 2024
An international battle over tortillas is taking place this week. For an ingredient in tacos, the United States gins up a trade dispute with Mexico. Last year, in a Decree Mexico outlawed genetically modified (GMO) corn for human consumption. The U.S. argues that this violates trade obligations. Worried about its GMO corn exports, it formed a trade panel under the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). Hearings started Wednesday.
The controversy is overstuffed and a sloppy mess. So far, American and Mexican legal filings contain 586 pages, 758 exhibits, and nearly 2,000 footnotes. Arguments span over 20 separate USMCA provisions and multiple annexes. Extra submissions come from Canada and non-governmental organizations. It’s hard to follow, whether you’re a trade expert, scientist, or just care about food safety.
The U.S. position has two weaknesses: economic errors and misrepresentations about the Decree. These are basic mistakes, from a Trade 101 class, regarding injuries and policy. The fumbles stand out from the legalese and scientific jargon in the filings. And let's be clear: he U.S. should drop the case.
A good place to start making sense of the fight is the actual Decree. Article 6 outlaws GMO corn for human consumption, precisely defined as corn for tortillas or masa (dough). It stops approvals for GMO corn for these two items. That is it. The Decree is explicit in not touching GMOs in animal feed or industrial use—the kind U.S. corn farmers mostly export.
Decree motivations include protecting human health, biodiversity, and food security. The prohibition responds to risks from glyphosate, an herbicide needed to grow GMO corn. It has been found to be a likely cause of cancer by international health agencies and U.S. courts. Next, Mexico is corn’s center of origin and diversity, a scientific designation indicating extreme genetic vulnerability. In 2021, Mexico’s Supreme Court found that GMOs threaten to permanently damage this biodiversity. More immediate, corn provides half of the daily protein intake for Mexicans.
With Article 6, Mexico reduces these threats by outlawing GMOs in the tortillas and masa, eaten by millions every day. For these scientifically established risks, Mexico tailored the Decree to only impact two food staples.
The U.S. ignores this. Recent economic figures explain. Mexican corn imports from the U.S. have increased since the Decree. Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported a “record-high” for corn exports to Mexico for 2023 and 2024 and forecasts similar trends next year. This confirms earlier reports citing increases by 20 percent.
Put simply, the Decree has no real impact on trade in corn. Why? Because American farmers overwhelmingly export corn for animal feed and not for human consumption. Mexico has explained this since enacting the Decree. Let’s be clear, the U.S. fights as exports increase. It makes no sense.
Furthermore, the U.S. mispresents the Decree. The U.S. says Mexico imposes a “Tortilla Corn Ban.” Wrong. It suspends approvals for human consumption. GMO corn can still be imported but cannot be destined for tortillas. Mexico describes this as an “End Use Limitation,” since it regulates how corn is used. This applies to GMO corn from anywhere including from Mexican farms.
Next, the U.S. exaggerates what the Decree does. It quibbles about non-issues. What it coins “Substitution Instructions” to force replacing GMO corn in animal feed. The complaint is that instructions are unclear.
Problem: the Decree does not mandate substitution. It does describe future actions and the prerequisites needed to replace GMO feed. Article 7 expressly says Mexico’s commission on sanitary risk will continue approving GMO corn in animal feed, so long as it is not for tortillas. It clarifies that federal agencies will conduct any possible substitution. By implication state governments in Mexico have no role.
Article 8 confirms this, explaining what is necessary before any replacement. It designates the parameters to eventually substitute GMO corn for animals. Pre-conditions include determining national food security and any impacts on human health. In two filings, Mexico explains that the prerequisites have not occurred. As such, it has not set any date for substitution, much less any guidance.
Nowhere does the Decree demand alternatives for GMOs. American complaints miss the mark. There is no there there. The Decree does not touch corn for livestock.
The dispute just started warming up the comal (skillet used to heat tortillas). A final panel report comes in November. Until then, expect a mess with more scientific and legal arguments piled on. In the simplest terms, the U.S. ignores commercial reality and misrepresents the Decree. Basic blunders compounding obstacles in the USMCA’s food safety rules.
All this should inspire resolution versus repeating trade defeats. American farmers and Mexican eaters deserve better. Ending the dispute secures a corn buyer in a neighbor. It promotes public health in Mexico. The current course only produces uncertainty.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Expert Panel to Mexico GM Corn Tribunal: Respect the Science
There is a mountain of evidence that both GM corn and its accompanying herbicides, including glyphosate, may cause serious health problems.
Apr 25, 2024
The three-member trade panel hearing the U.S. complaint over Mexico’s restrictions on the use of genetically modified corn in tortillas will no doubt need some scientific advice to evaluate the technical evidence presented by the Mexican government on the risks associated with GM corn and their accompanying herbicide residues. They got some on April 23 from a panel of experts assembled by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in the first of three webinars on the GM corn dispute.
Their message could not have been clearer. The Mexican government is right to doubt U.S. assurances that GM corn is safe to eat given the lax regulatory processes for GM crops in the U.S. There is a mountain of evidence that both GM corn and its accompanying herbicides, including glyphosate, may cause serious health problems. And those risks are magnified for Mexicans, who eat more than ten times the corn we eat in the U.S. and do so in minimally processed form, not processed foods.
"Has the U.S. government provided sufficient evidence to the Mexican government to assure the safety of GM corn, which is routinely sprayed with multiple herbicides known to be associated with reproductive problems, metabolic syndrome, and cancer?” asked pesticide expert Dr. Charles Benbrook in his remarks during the webinar. “No, because the studies have never been done."
Strong evidence for precaution
Benbrook and his fellow panelists all were invited to submit formal comments to the trade panel hearing the dispute, a year-long process expected to be resolved by the end of the year. The eight submissions from U.S. and Mexican non-governmental organizations were published by the tribunal earlier this month. They offer a range of evidence that supports Mexico’s presidential decree, issued in February 2023, phasing out glyphosate use in Mexico and restricting the use of GM corn in tortillas and other minimally processed corn products. (The submitted comments are available in English and Spanish on this IATP resource page.)
Dr. Benbrook co-authored technical comments for Friends of the Earth, which focused on the rising toxicity of GM corn, particularly the insecticidal Bt varieties, and the failure of U.S. regulators to test them for safety.
“Mexico is correct to state that it cannot rely on the U.S. government to ensure the safety of GM crops.”
"The first GM corn varieties in the late 1990s expressed 2 ppm to 6 ppm of one or two Bt toxins in corn kernels, the part of the plant people eat,” said Dr. Benbrook. “Today's leading GM corn varieties express four to seven toxins in corn kernels and at much higher levels, 50 ppm to 100 ppm. Why the big increase? Because target insects become more tolerant to Bt toxins over time, and eventually fully resistant. This forces the seed-biotech industry to add in new GM toxins and engineer the plants to express them at much higher levels. That might help kill more insects for a short time, but it also steadily increases human food safety risks."
Bill Freese, Science Director at the U.S.-based Center for Food Safety, emphasized just how weak U.S. regulations are, allowing companies to introduce new products with no required safety testing. He referred to is as a “deregulatory regime” rather than proper regulation.
“U.S. regulation of GM crops does not even comply with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA) because it is weak and voluntary, not mandatory,” he said, claiming U.S. agencies have facilitated the rising toxicity in fields of GM crops. As Freese explained, “The Environmental Protection Agency has raised the permissible level of glyphosate on corn by 50-fold since the mid-1990s to facilitate introduction of GM corn, which is sprayed directly with glyphosate.”
Monsanto and new parent company Bayer are now paying out billions of dollars in damages to people who have suffered cancer and other ailments from glyphosate exposure.
Lucy Sharratt, coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), highlighted Mexico’s strong rationale for its precautionary measures. CBAN was invited to offer comments to the trade panel but was later disinvited because it is a Canadian, not a U.S. or Mexican, organization. CBAN published its technical comments anyway.
"U.S. and Canadian government safety assessments of GM corn do not necessarily transfer readily to an assessment of safety in the Mexican context,” Sharratt explained to the webinar’s large online audience. “The U.S. and Canada argue that there is a long history of safe use of GM corn, but this is not the case in Mexico. The use of white corn in Mexico is entirely different from the history of the use of GM corn in processed food ingredients across North America. Mexico is largely self-sufficient in white corn, which is a staple of the diet, and has been mostly non-GM. Additionally, there is no post-market monitoring to validate safety of any use."
Mexican lawyer Javier Zuñiga, from the NGO Poder del Consumidor (Consumer Power), closed the expert panel, explaining that Mexico’s decree is both justified and legal under existing trade rules. “The Mexican government is obligated by its own constitution to take precautionary and preventive action to ensure the right to health, food, and a clean environment,” Zuñiga said. “Mexico's presidential decree is legal in the Mexican context and also under the USMCA, which includes exceptions for matters of public health.”
This scientific panel urged the trade tribunal to consider the evidence, listen to experts who do not have industry ties or conflicts of interest, and acknowledge that Mexico has the right to take precautionary measures to protect public health and the environment. It has done so in the least trade-distorting manner possible entirely consistent with USMCA guidelines.
As Freese concluded, “Mexico is correct to state that it cannot rely on the U.S. government to ensure the safety of GM crops.”
Two more webinars on other aspects of the trade dispute are scheduled May 2, on biodiversity and cultural rights, and May 7, with farmers’ perspectives on non-GM corn opportunities. The recording of this panel will be available April 25 here
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular