pesticide dangers


Monsanto continues to insist that glyphosate, the active ingredient in their best-selling RoundUp pesticide, poses no risk to human health. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to believe their claims, however, and many experts believe it’s only a matter of time before glyphosate goes the way of Monsanto’s past creations (saccharine, PCBs, and Zyklon-B, just to name a few).

If you’ve been reading our articles for long, you’re probably no stranger to the case against glyphosate. This globally prevalent pesticide stands at the center of a sprawling and complex debate. The ethics of genetic modification, the disadvantages of monocrop agriculture, the politics of patenting and owning seeds (and the debt slavery that ensues for farmers in developing nations), the worldwide collapse of bee colonies, the precipitous rise in chronic and degenerative disease—all of these talking points lead inevitably back to Monsanto and their beloved glyphosate.

And yet even if we leave aside all of these hotly debated questions, there are two simple ones that still remain—questions that should be easy enough to answer. First question…

Does glyphosate pose risks to human health?

Unsurprisingly, Monsanto’s answer is no. Representatives from the company claim that the safety profile of glyphosate is assured by “decades of comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world.”

This statement was issued, by the way, in response to the World Health Organization’s classification of glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” Needless to say, when the WHO issues a proclamation about the toxicity of a substance, you can bet that it’s substantiated—and yet Monsanto has continued to fight, calling the classification a mere “allegation.”

Their case became even harder to trust in February of 2017, when a United States District Court judge ordered Monsanto to unseal a cache of incriminating documents. And incriminating is an understatement. Remember those “comprehensive safety reviews”? The unsealed documents revealed that Monsanto wrote its own research papers, then forged credentials to make it look like independent research. They also prevented a health review by the EPA, thanks to a mole within the agency, and even were tipped off about the WHO’s reclassification of glyphosate months before the official announcement (which gave them time to launch a smear campaign against the data).

You can read more about these unsealed documents here, but suffice it to say that Monsanto has nothing legitimate to offer that proves the safety of glyphosate.

Real research demonstrates worrying connections between glyphosate contamination and developmental disorders like autism[1] and ADHD, birth defects,[2] accelerated cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease,[3] celiac disease and other gastrointestinal issues,[4] chronic kidney disease, diabetes, depression, heart disease, liver disease, and cancer.

And the coup de grace: Monsanto’s own unsealed documents reveal evidence of acute toxicity. The company knew the risks that RoundUp poses, and therefore did whatever was necessary to bury the data and prevent further safety reviews.

A quick perusal of mainstream media will reveal that despite this mountain of data demonstrating the toxicity of glyphosate, the battle is far from over. Many sources simply deny that any research has ever linked glyphosate with disease etiology.

More commonly, pundits rely on the argument that glyphosate could be toxic, but we just don’t know. They claim that even the WHO’s classification means that the pesticide could cause cancer, but we just don’t know. Regardless, isn’t this a good enough reason to exercise more restraint? 1.6 billion kilograms of RoundUp pesticide have been applied since 1974 in the United States, and a staggering two thirds of this total have been applied in the last ten years alone.[5]

Advocates claim that no restraint is required, because glyphosate levels never exceed the point of toxicity in the human body. Which leads us to our second question…

Does glyphosate accumulate in the human body?

Once again, Monsanto and its supporters answer with a resounding no. They claim that glyphosate residues would never be able to build to toxic levels, because it’s designed to be biocompatible and biodegradable.

Yes, Monsanto actually says that their poison is biodegradable—in the glyphosate FAQ on their website, they claim that the pesticide “breaks down into naturally occurring compounds” as soon as it’s done killing weeds.[6]

Never mind the fact the environmental assays contradict this claim—let’s stay focused on human biology. Many studies over the years have conclusively demonstrated that glyphosate does bioaccumulate within the human body; it is not easily excreted or metabolized, and it most certainly does not break down into harmless compounds.

Researchers from the University of California San Diego recently released data from a long, comprehensive analysis of glyphosate levels in the human body. They collected urine samples from a large group of people between 1993 and 1996, and then again between 2014 and 2016.

What they found was rather shocking: glyphosate levels had increased an average of 500% over the twenty-year period, with some individuals exhibiting a 1,208% increase.[7] The glyphosate levels found during this study are 100 times higher than those linked with liver disease and other health problems.

So what’s your verdict?

Isn’t this data enough to give us pause? If you’re ready to act with caution when it comes to glyphosate, all you need to do is eat exclusively organic, get serious about detoxification practices, and join the movement to ban the use of glyphosate-containing pesticides.


[1] http://www.autismone.org/content/autism-explained-synergistic-poisoning-aluminum-and-glyphosate-stephanie-seneff

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241196/

[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.med.nyu.edu/science/article/pii/S0300483X14000493

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5044953/

[6] https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/glyphosate-herbicide/

[7] https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2017-10-24-exposure-to-glyphosate-chemical-found-in-weed-killer-increased-over-23-years.aspx

Image source

A federal appeals court recently ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the entire class of chlorpyrifos-containing pesticides in the United States. The decree, while still subject to further delays and appeals, marks a major victory for environmental and public health groups.

This is not the first time these pesticides have been banned. As we reported in a previous article, the EPA overturned a ban on chlorpyrifos in March 2017. The decision was largely carried out by Scott Pruitt, then administrator of the EPA under the Trump administration (his own staff at the EPA recommended that chlorpyrifos-containing products be taken off the market).

Throughout his tenure, Mr. Pruitt was the targeted recipient of intense lobbying on behalf of the pesticide industry—a cozy relationship that led to lavish spending, family favors, and other ethical scandals. Since the summer of 2017, Mr. Pruitt has become the subject of no less than thirteen federal investigations into these “legal and ethical violations,” and has since resigned.[1]

The recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was issued in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups shortly after the commercial ban was rejected by Mr. Pruitt. The court ruled that there was “no justification for the E.P.A.’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children,” and ordered the agency to enact a ban with sixty days.[2]

Studies show adverse effects on childhood neurological development

The EPA still maintains that their staff has been unable to “access” sufficient data to warrant an outright ban of chlorpyrifos, but most experts agree that this stock response is nothing more than a stall tactic originally conceived by Mr. Pruitt. There most certainly is sufficient data to warrant concern over chlorpyrifos toxicity, especially in children.

For example, one study carried out by researchers at the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health reported “evidence of deficits in Working Memory Index and Full-Scale IQ” in seven-year-old children who had been exposed to chlorpyrifos-containing pesticides for all or most of their lives.[3]

Another study published in the journal Neurotoxicology examined the effects of prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos, and found it to be correlated with mild to moderate tremors in children, as well as an increased risk of more serious movement disorders.[4]

Despite the EPA’s reluctance, environmentalists are celebrating

The EPA hasn’t yet made it clear what their next action will be. The agency reserves the right to request a reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, to ask for an extension on the chlorpyrifos ban deadline, or to appeal to the Supreme Court.

As mentioned above, representatives still claim that they require more data in order to make their decision. Agency spokesman Michael Abboud stated that “the E.P.A. is reviewing the decision,” and explained that “the Columbia Center’s data underlying the court’s assumptions remains inaccessible and has hindered the agency’s ongoing process to fully evaluate the pesticide using the best available, transparent science.”

While loyalty to genuine, evidence-based science is certainly an admirable sentiment, the slowness of the E.P.A.’s actions is still strange. After all, the agency’s first priority is to protect the health of the environment and American citizens, not corporate interests—one would hope that any evidence that chlorpyrifos adversely affects children would spur at least some degree of swift regulatory action.

Despite these ambiguities, though, environmental activists view the Ninth Circuit’s ruling as cause for celebration.

For starters, the current ban is more all-encompassing than the one rejected by Scott Pruitt in 2017—it prohibits not only commercial household uses of chlorpyrifos (e.g. as an insecticide), but also all industrial use on farms. The previous ban still allowed farmers to legally use chlorpyrifos, a caveat with which environmentalists took issue, given that the chemical’s adverse effects have been shown to be especially pronounced in the children of farming families.

If the ban is enacted, it will be a huge blow to pesticide companies. Over fifty different crops—including a variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains—are grown using chlorpyrifos-based pesticides. According to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, a whopping 640,000 acres of California farmland was treated with such pesticides in 2016 alone.[5]

Regardless, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling serves as a beacon of hope to many environmentalists who had begun to believe that not even the Environmental Protection Agency could be trusted to, well…protect the environment. The ruling demonstrates that evidence-based science and targeted activism, coupled with a well-functioning judicial system, can still triumph over corrupt politics and corporate cronyism.

With any luck, by the time farmers throughout the United States plant and harvest their next round of crops, law will require them to do so without toxic, chlorpyrifos-containing pesticides.



[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1003160/

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26385760

[5] https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur16rep/chmrpt16.pdf

Image source

We’d all like to believe we live in a world that can be taken at face value—one in which the system works as it should, without corruption, backroom deals, and legal loopholes. Living and working in integrity seems like a simple enough prospect, and it seems obvious that our industrial undermining of our health and the environment cannot continue.

The unfortunate truth, however, is that everything is not as it seems, and that many people in positions of great power do not heed the imperatives of ecological and personal sustainability.

Take as a prominent example the EPA’s recent overturning of the ban on chlorpyrifos, the main ingredient in a pesticide manufactured by Dow Chemical. The EPA cited “serious scientific concerns and substantive process gaps” as an explanation for the change of heart, but many believe the story to be more complicated.

Scott Pruitt: New EPA Head Puts Profits over people

Dow’s best-selling pesticide has a long and controversial history. It has been in use since 1965, despite escalating concerns regarding its impact on human health. Following a rigorous Human Health Risk Assessment by the EPA, chlorpyrifos was banned in 2000 for household pesticide applications.

The assessment revealed significant potential health consequences, including damage to the parts of the brain that control memory, learning, language, behavior, and emotion. These effects appear to be most pronounced in children who have been exposed to chlorpyrifos, and can lead to IQ impairment, attention disorders, and other cognitive and behavioral dysfunctions.[1]

Nevertheless, over 40,000 farms still spray this worrying chemical on fifty different types of crops. A decade ago, two environmental groups organized a petition to enact a nationwide ban on all uses of chlorpyrifos, and in 2015 the Obama administration backed the idea.

The ban was well on its way to being implemented, but Scott Pruitt, the new head of the EPA under the Trump administration, rejected it earlier this spring. He maintained that further study is needed in order to obtain “regulatory certainty,” even though EPA employees concluded last year that the pesticide should be banned.

This decision as a frightening sign. The pesticide industry’s heavy lobbying is well-known, but the EPA has long been viewed as a bastion of ecological integrity, an agency staunchly dedicated to protecting the health of American citizens and the environment, not the bottom lines of chemical manufacturing companies.

The Environmental Working Group reports that Croplife America, the primary lobbying group for the pesticide industry, petitioned the EPA in late 2016 to reject the proposed chlorpyrifos ban.[2] It seemed that the EPA would hold its course, and in fact was even scheduled to finalize the ban in March 2017—until Scott Pruitt and the Trump administration took the reins.

The EWG has pushed back hard against the decision to reject the ban, and has organized a petition and funding campaign to reopen the discussion. EWG President Ken Cook expressed his disapproval for the new EPA administrator by stating that, “like a toddler running toward his parents, Pruitt leaped into the warm and waiting arms of the pesticide industry.” Cook also reminds us that Pruitt is a man who “isn’t sure if banning lead from gasoline was a good idea.”[3]

Keep in mind that the EWG is not in the business of fear-mongering, exaggerating, or taking sides. They are an evidence-based organization dedicated to educating and protecting the public—they’re the folks we have to thank for invaluable resources like the annual Dirty Dozen testing results. Unlike the EPA, they provide transparent, honest assessments of environmental risks, and truly do have our health in mind.

And besides, the overturning of the ban is anything but fringe news. The event was covered by the full gamut of mainstream news outlets, and all of them pointed out that Scott Pruitt rejected the ban despite the EPA’s own evidence against the pesticide.

If you’re interested in more evidence demonstrating the grave health risks of chlorpyrifos-containing pesticides, there’s no shortage of it.

The latest incident occurred not long after Pruitt’s rejection of the ban: forty-seven farm workers near Bakersfield, California complained of vomiting, nausea, and gastrointestinal distress after being exposed to chlorpyrifos. And the farm they were working on doesn’t even use the chemical; it was later confirmed that the pesticide was carried by wind from a neighboring farm. For this reason, many families in California’s Central Valley fear that they are being slowly poisoned by pesticide drift.

What you can do to fight back

Sadly, Scott Pruitt’s decision heralds an era of more relaxed regulation of industrial chemicals—but this doesn’t mean we just have to sit back and let it happen.

The Environmental Working Group is doing everything they can to fight for tougher regulation. We’re lucky to have them on our side at a time when it seems that the EPA has forsaken the very mission for which it was created.

You can read the EWG’s guide on how to avoid chlorpyrifos-contaminated foods here, and you can support future EWG petitions and action campaigns by donating here.



[1] https://archive.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/web/pdf/hed_ra.pdf

[2] https://static.ewg.org/pdf/croplife-petition-2016.pdf?_ga=2.222166424.1258030035.1499280385-1761394054.1499280385

[3] http://www.ewg.org/release/epa-chief-scraps-scheduled-ban-pesticide-harms-kids-brains

Image source