The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
EPA Panel Divided on Whether Glyphosate Causes Cancer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) meetings on glyphosate concluded last Friday after scientists spent the better part of four days discussing and analyzing numerous studies on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
The Scientific Advisory Panel meetings brought together experts in toxicology and epidemiology to determine if the EPA is correct in its current assessment that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic." The agency's finding has been controversial as it runs counter to a report issued last year by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, which found glyphosate to be a "probable human carcinogen."
So, what conclusions did the Scientific Advisory Panel reach?
The assembled experts were split on the question of glyphosate's carcinogenicity. Some panelists felt that the EPA did its job and supported the agency's determination that glyphosate isn't a carcinogen, while others concluded that there is "suggestive" evidence of carcinogenic potential.
"I'm a little surprised there's this controversy," said panelist Marion Ehrich, co-director of the Laboratory for Neurotoxicity Studies at the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine. "I thought the EPA did a pretty good job."
Monique Perron, a scientist working in the Health Effects Division of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, said "professional judgment" played a role in her conclusion after looking at the "weight of evidence" from a number of glyphosate studies. According to Perron, the EPA looked at published studies as well as unpublished studies that were funded by Monsanto.
Panelist Lianne Shepard, assistant chair in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the University of Washington, said there is suggestive evidence that glyphosate exposure causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
"Clearly, it's suggestive to me, and it's the most appropriate public health conclusion to reach," she said.
Some of the most dramatic moments of the meetings came from the public comments portion. At one point while panelists were pouring over data, Reverend Billy and The Stop Shopping Choir interrupted the proceedings and broke out in song, harmonizing a refrain of "Monsanto is the Devil. No glyphosate."
Many in attendance scratched their heads when representatives from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment were allowed to speak in front of the panel.
The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, or BfR, as it is known, advised and drafted a report for EFSA that found glyphosate "unlikely to cause cancer." The assessment was controversial because at the time it was working on the EFSA report, the BfR was being advised by the Glyphosate Task Force, a chemical industry front group that includes Monsanto in its ranks.
Unsurprisingly, both reps said glyphosate is not a human carcinogen. According to an EPA spokesperson, the agency didn't invite either organization—the foreign scientists simply asked if they could appear and showed up. How they got there (and who arranged for their travel) was the subject of gossip among those in attendance.
According to Carey Gillam, research director for U.S. Right to Know, environmental advocacy groups were angered by the amount of time allotted to those supportive of glyphosate compared to those who want regulators to curtail use of the chemical. During public comments, representatives from Monsanto were allotted roughly three and a half hours to make their argument that glyphosate is safe, with other chemical companies getting additional time.
Those critical of glyphosate and Monsanto, on the other hand, were only given between five and 15 minutes to speak. A spokesman for the EPA said speakers were allotted the amount of time they asked for. A number of those who spoke out against glyphosate said they were told by the agency they could only speak for a few minutes.
Alexis Baden-Mayer of the Organic Consumers Association, a vocal critic of Monsanto, was given only five minutes to speak. During her allotted time, Baden-Mayer read letters from families with loved ones who had been diagnosed with cancer after being exposed to Roundup. Among the stories read before the panel was Jack McCall's.
A longtime Cambria, California farmer, McCall used Roundup on his farm for nearly 30 years before he was diagnosed with a rare and aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Three months after his diagnosis, McCall passed away. In March, his wife filed a wrongful death lawsuit accusing Monsanto of purposely downplaying the cancer risks associated with Roundup exposure.
Another notable public comment came from Dr. Peter Infante, a nationally renowned epidemiologist who was the only epidemiologist slated to be on the EPA panel but was controversially ousted from the panel after Monsanto lobbying firm CropLife America sent the EPA a letter calling for him to be disqualified due to "patent bias" against glyphosate.
In his address to the panel, Dr. Infante said there is "impressive evidence" tying glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
"There is clearly the evidence for the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma related to glyphosate exposure," Infante told a reporter after his address to the panel. "Is it conclusive? No, I don't think so. But I think that EPA is concluding that there is no evidence. And that's exactly wrong, according to their own criteria."
The EPA plans to release its final assessment on glyphosate in early 2017. The report will have serious implications for both the public and for Monsanto.
As for Monsanto, the agrochemical giant has been named in more than three dozen lawsuits claiming exposure to Roundup caused people to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The EPA and the European Union are also working on licensing agreements for glyphosate, which could result in usage limits.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly for Monsanto, the company is working on a $66 billion merger with multinational chemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer AG.
If a pact is not struck beforehand, the agency's assessment on glyphosate will likely have an effect.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Last week, the Peruvian Palm Oil Producers' Association (JUNPALMA) promised to enter into an agreement for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil production. The promise was secured by the U.S. based National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in collaboration with the local government, growers and the independent conservation organization Sociedad Peruana de Ecodesarrollo.
The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.
The researchers suggest that it is time to rethink retreat, which is often seen as a last resort and a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be seen as the smart option and an opportunity to build new communities.
"We propose a reconceptualization of retreat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed," the paper states. "Strategy integrates retreat into long-term development goals and identifies why retreat should occur and, in doing so, influences where and when."
The billions of dollars spent to rebuild the Jersey Shore and to create dunes to protect from future storms after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 may be a waste if sea level rise inundates the entire coastline.
"There's a definite rhetoric of, 'We're going to build it back better. We're going to win. We're going to beat this. Something technological is going to come and it's going to save us,'" said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor with the disaster research center at the University of Delaware and lead author of the paper, to the New York Times. "It's like, let's step back and think for a minute. You're in a fight with the ocean. You're fighting to hold the ocean in place. Maybe that's not the battle we want to pick."
Rethinking retreat could make it a strategic, efficient, and equitable way to adapt to the climate crisis, the study says.
Dr. Siders pointed out that it has happened before. She noted that in the 1970s, the small town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin moved itself out of the flood plain after one too many floods. The community found and reoriented the business district to take advantage of highway traffic and powered it entirely with solar energy, as the New York Times reported.
That's an important lesson now that rising sea levels pose a catastrophic risk around the world. Nearly 75 percent of the world's cities are along shorelines. In the U.S. alone coastline communities make up nearly 40 percent of the population— more than 123 million people, which is why Siders and her research team are so forthright about the urgency and the complexities of their findings, according to Harvard Magazine.
Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.
If communities could practice strategic retreats, the study says, doing so would not only reduce the need for people to choose among bad options, but also improve their circumstances.
"It's a lot to think about," said Siders to Harvard Magazine. "And there are going to be hard choices. It will hurt—I mean, we have to get from here to some new future state, and that transition is going to be hard.…But the longer we put off making these decisions, the worse it will get, and the harder the decisions will become."
To help the transition, the paper recommends improved access to climate-hazard maps so communities can make informed choices about risk. And, the maps need to be improved and updated regularly, the paper said as the New York Times reported.
"It's not that everywhere should retreat," said Dr. Siders to the New York Times. "It's that retreat should be an option. It should be a real viable option on the table that some places will need to use."
Leaked documents show that Jair Bolsonaro's government intends to use the Brazilian president's hate speech to isolate minorities living in the Amazon region. The PowerPoint slides, which democraciaAbierta has seen, also reveal plans to implement predatory projects that could have a devastating environmental impact.
Last week we received positive news on the border wall's imminent construction in an Arizona wildlife refuge. The Trump administration delayed construction of the wall through about 60 miles of federal wildlife preserves.