Glyphosate Herbicide Formulations are Genotoxic says European Union

Despite the tragic and ‘corrupt’ nature of the EU Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and their report Thursday stating the ‘unlikely’ carcinogenicity of the most widely used active substance in herbicides – glyphosate – there is a very important admission in the report: “It is likely, therefore, that the genotoxic effects observed in some glyphosate-based formulations are related to the other constituents or “co-formulants”.

This single EFSA admission may change the face of how pesticides are regulated worldwide, as up until now only studies on the ‘active’ substances, such as glyphosate in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide formulation, have been taken into account by regulators.

EFSA proposes that the toxicity of each pesticide formulation and in particular its genotoxic potential should be further considered and addressed by Member State authorities while they re-assess uses of glyphosate-based formulations in their own territories.

Sustainable Pulse comment: Glyphosate-based herbicides would not work well to kill weeds for farmers or gardeners without the addition of these extra additional chemicals known as adjuvants.

Independent scientists have long warned that pesticides are authorized for use based on medium- or long-term tests on laboratory animals carried out with a single chemical ingredient, which is known as the active ingredient because it is assumed to be responsible for giving the pesticide its pest- or weedkilling action.

However, the complete pesticide formulations as sold and used also contain additives (adjuvants), which increase the pest- or weedkilling activity of the pesticide. These complete formulations do not have to be tested in medium- and long-term tests – even though they are the substances to which farmers and citizens are exposed.

This is a serious defect of the regulatory process, according to a published study by the team of Professor Séralini (Mesnage et al. 2014, Biomedical Research International). The study found that for eight major pesticides (out of a total of nine analyzed), the commercial formulation is up to 1000 times more toxic than the active ingredient assessed for safety by regulators.

Sustainable Pulse Comment: IARC’s (WHO) review was based on both independent and industry funded science on both glyphosate alone and glyphosate-based herbicides. IARC listed glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. EFSA on the other hand relied very heavily on the Biotech industry’s Glyphosate Task Force to provide studies for them on glyphosate alone.

“The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said earlier this year that glyphosate was genotoxic and would “probably” cause cancer in humans.

However, the IARC report looked at both glyphosate – an active substance – and glyphosate-based formulations, grouping all formulations regardless of their composition. The EU assessment, on the other hand, considered only glyphosate. Member States are responsible for evaluating each plant protection product that is marketed in their territories.

This is because the EU and IARC take different approaches to the classification of chemicals. The EU scheme –assesses each individual chemical, and each marketed mixture separately. IARC assesses generic agents, including groups of related chemicals, as well as occupational or environmental exposure, and cultural or behavioural practices.

This is important because although some studies suggest that certain glyphosate-based formulations may be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA), others that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect. It is likely, therefore, that the genotoxic effects observed in some glyphosate-based formulations are related to the other constituents or “co-formulants”. Similarly, certain glyphosate-based formulations display higher toxicity than that of the active ingredient, presumably because of the presence of co-formulants. In its assessment, EFSA proposes that the toxicity of each pesticide formulation and in particular its genotoxic potential should be further considered and addressed by Member State authorities while they re-assess uses of glyphosate-based formulations in their own territories.

This distinction between active substance and pesticide formulation mainly explains the differences in how EFSA and IARC weighed the available data. For the EU assessment, studies conducted with glyphosate were more relevant than studies conducted with formulated products containing other constituents, particularly when the other constituents could not be clearly identified.”

Is GMO Pork the Future of Our Food?

Lorraine ChowNovember 4, 2015

U.S. consumers are already widely skeptical about genetically modified (GMO) crops, but could genetically modified meat ever make it onto our plates? CBC News reports that, in addition to GMO salmon, there are two different varieties of GMO pork that are currently in development, raising questions about the future of our food.

Genetically engineered animals are not approved for consumption anywhere in the world, not only because the public is wary, but also because the industry is a regulatory minefield. However, before turning to GMO pork, let’s first consider GMO salmon.

If the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves AquaBounty’s salmon, it will be the first GMO animal to enter the market. This salmon—engineered to grow twice the rate of its farmed counterpart—is heavily opposed by anti-GMO camps who have nicknamed the product “frankenfish,” because it’s made from genetic material of other fish, such as the ocean pout.

In case you’re wondering if GMO salmon will ever become a meal option, the company has been knocking on the FDA’s doors for nearly 20 years for approval. Still, GMO salmon and all GMOs products alike have been championed by proponents and many scientific minds as a way to feed our planet’s growing population, to ensure food security and to promote species’ survival.

On to pork. There are two genetically modified pigs that have been designed to improve pork production, CBC reports.

First, researchers at the University of Edinburgh are developing a pig that is “edited” with a warthog gene to resist African swine fever, a horrific disease that has no vaccine and that has caused the widespread slaughter of pigs across eastern Europe. Researchers estimated that this GMO pig could be commercially viable within five to 10 years if approved by the FDA.

Second, at Seoul National University, researchers have developed a “double-muscled” pig. By editing a single gene, these pigs have leaner meat and have a higher yield of meat per animal. (You can see in the photo above that these animals have pronounced rear muscles). As Nature reported, these pigs are being aimed at the Chinese market, where demand for pork is increasing.

As CBC observed, in contrast to GMO salmon, “the pigs aren’t ‘transgenic’—that is, they don’t contain genes from other organisms. That makes them unlike some genetically modified crops already on the market, which may contain genes from organisms such as bacteria.”

The health and safety issues surrounding GMO pork were recently discussed on the Canadian radio program The Current.

Jayson Lusk, an agricultural economist at Oklahoma State University, said on the show that these researchers are making pigs “aimed at addressing what we’d all probably agree are important problems.”

“There are risks with these technologies—there are risks with every technology,” he said. “There are also risks with not approving these technologies.”

However, he noted that the general public is wary of GMO products.

“I don’t think it’s necessarily a fear of genetic engineering—it’s a fear of uncertainty,” he said.

As genetic tinkering with crops and animals advances, we’ll be seeing many more stories like these. Besides GMO pigs, New Zealand researchers have genetically engineered a cow that produces B-lactoglobulin-free milk, which causes allergies and digestive and respiratory reactions in infants. In Minnesota, scientists have also genetically modified cows without horns to reduce the risk of injury to farmers and other animals.