Adult Beverages and Glyphosate - Getting More Than You Paid For

Last year's news that Monsanto/Bayer was successfully sued by a California man over its glyphosate-containing product, Roundup, shook the company badly.  Lawyers for Dewayne Johnson claimed that exposure to glyphosate caused his cancer, a claim that is not unique given that over 800 cancer patients are suing Monsanto over similar claims.  This follows a 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which found that the organophosphate pesticides glyphosate, malathion and diazinon "may be carcinogenic to humans" as shown here:

Here, for your illumination, is a commercial for Roundup's Extended Control product:

Please notice how the gentleman in the advertisement is not using any form of protection (i.e. gloves or a mask) while applying the product.  While this is sending a concerning message to consumers, it appears to be the least of the problems that Roundup has created for mankind.

According to a 2016 paper by Charles Benbrook, Roundup is now the most widely and heavily applied weed-killer in history.  Here is a summary showing how much Roundup has been used since it was first introduced for commercial use in 1974 from his paper:

"Since 1974 in the U.S., over 1.6 billion kilograms of glyphosate active ingredient have been applied, or 19 % of estimated global use of glyphosate (8.6 billion kilograms). Globally, glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996. Two-thirds of the total volume of glyphosate applied in the U.S. from 1974 to 2014 has been sprayed in just the last 10 years. The corresponding share globally is 72 %. In 2014, farmers sprayed enough glyphosate to apply ~1.0 kg/ha (0.8 pound/acre) on every hectare of U.S.-cultivated cropland and nearly 0.53 kg/ha (0.47 pounds/acre) on all cropland worldwide." (my bold)

Here is a table showing how the use of glyphosate has mushroomed in the United States:

To give you a perspective of the increased use of glyphosate, over the one decade-long period from 2005 to 2014 (one-quarter of the four decades since glyphosate was introduced to the market), 1070 million kilograms of glyphosate was used which amounts to a 66.6 percent share of the total amount used between 1974 and 2014 in the United States.

Here is a map showing glyphosate use across the United States in 2015 from the United States Geological Survey:

Here is a bar graph showing the use of glyphosate by year and by crop:

A study of waterways in 38 states by the United States government found that glyphosate was present in the majority of rivers, streams, ditches and wastewater treatment plants and was present in 70 percent of rainfall samples.

  

With this background, given the nearly ubiquitous use of glyphosate, it is no surprise that a study by the United States Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) found that glyphosate is present in the beverages that we use to relax and unwind; beer and wine.  USPIRG tested 5 wine and 10 beer products of various brands for glyphosate and found that, of the 20 samples, 19 contained glyphosate and that 3 out of 4 organic beer and wine products contained glyphosate even though the use of glyphosate is not allowed in organic farming.  This suggests that even organic producers are having difficulty avoiding glyphosate contamination in their products.

To help you put the level of glyphosate contamination in wine and beer into context, according to the Environmental Protection Agency which is responsible for setting pesticide residue tolerances, glyphosate residues are allowed on 150 different food and food crops at a level of between 0.2 ppm and 400 ppm (200 to 400,000 ppb).  The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has proposed a "No Significant Risk Level" for glyphosate at 1.1 milligrams per day for an adult with a weight of 154 pounds.  These extremely low levels represent an increased lifetime risk of cancer of one in 100,000 adults. 

Here are the results in parts per billion, keeping in mind that most people drink more than one serving of these beverages in order from highest to lowest glyphosate content:

Wines:

1.) Sutter Home Merlot - 51.4 ppb

2.) Beringer Estates Moscato - 42.6 ppb

3.) Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon - 36.3 ppb

4.) Inkarri Estates Malbec Certified Organic - 5.3 ppb

5.) Frey Organic Natural White Blend - 4.8 ppb

Beers:

1.) Coors Light - 31.1 ppb

2.) Tsingtao Beer - 49.7 ppb

3.) Miller Light - 29.8 ppb

4.) Budweiser - 27.0 ppb

5.) Corona Extra - 25.1 ppb

6.) Heineken - 20.9 ppb

7.) Guinness Draught - 20.3 ppb

8.) Stella Artois - 18.7 ppb

9.) Stella Artois Cidre - 9.1 ppb

10.) Ace Perry Hard Cider - 14.5 ppb

11.) New Belgium Fat Tire Amber Ale - 11.2 ppb

12.) Sam Adams New England IPA - 11.0 ppb

13.) Sierra Nevada Pale Ale - 11.8 ppb

14.) Samuel Smith's Organic Lager - 5.7 ppb

15.) Peak Beer Organic IPA - no detected level

While the levels of glyphosate found in adult beverages by USPIRG are not necessarily dangerous in themselves, what is concerning is that glyphosate is present in many of the other food products that we eat.  Given the nearly universal presence of glyphosate in the environment and in the food chain, consumers that make a choice to avoid consuming this very widely used pesticide will have an increasingly difficult time doing so.  Even those consumers that choose organic products assuming that they are getting a "clean" food may find that they are eating more glyphosate than they thought.

The Ubiquitous Impact of Roundup

Just about all of us are aware of Roundup, Monsanto's ultimate answer to the weeds that plague gardeners and farmers alike.  This glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) is famous for its ability to kill weeds right to the root as shown in this video:

Roundup and its sister GBH-based herbicides are extremely popular; these chemicals are applied to at least 24 percent of the total global cropland and are also in heavy use in both domestic and urban environments.   Glyphosate is the world's most widely used herbicide with 620,000 tons being produced in 2008 alone.  With all of this herbicide in use, one has to wonder how much of an impact it has on both the environment and human life.  Fortunately, researchers in the United Kingdom, France and Italy have answered that question for us in a paper entitled "Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure" recently published in the Environmental Health Journal.

Let's open by noting that residues of glyphosate-based herbicides are pretty much ubiquitous in our world.  Traces of GBH end up in drinking water through rain, surface runoff and percolation into groundwater and are also found in the food that we eat.  In fact, this 2014 study found that soybeans that were genetically modified to withstand the application of GBH (i.e. Roundup Ready soybeans) contained glyphosate in both plant leaves and beans whereas there was no glyphosate in soybeans that were either conventional or organic.  In some cases, the levels of glyphosate residue were "extreme, far higher that those typically found" as shown on this graphic:

AMPA stands for aminomethylphosponic acid, the major byproduct of glyphosate degradation.  In case you wondered how important soybeans are to our diet, in 2011 - 2012, soybeans were planted on 30 million hectares or 74 million acres of cropland in the United States with 93 to 94 percent of the crop being Monsanto's Roundup Ready genetically modified soy.  This same GM soy accounted for 75 percent of the world's total soy production in 2011.  Soy is widely used in the food industry and is the second largest crop in the United States in terms of cash sales and the number one American export crop.  The majority of soy is processed into oil and meal and is used to make shortening, margarine, cooking oil and salad dressing.  Lecithin, a natural emulsifier is extracted from soybeans and helps keep the chocolate and cocoa butter in candy from separating.  Soy is also incorporated into animal feed. 

Now that we have that background, let's look at the study.  First, the rats used in the study were divided into two groups; a control group and a group that was given an ultra-low daily dose of glyphosate in their drinking water over roughly a two year period.  The daily intake of glyphosate was 4 nanograms (one billionth of a gram) per kilogram of body weight, the same level that is representative of what may be found in contaminated tap water.  As well, it is important to note that the level of glyphosate used is well below the global acceptable daily limit.

In the past, it has generally been thought that glyphosate poses minimal health risks to mammals since the biosynthetic pathway that these herbicides use is present in plants and some bacteria and absent in vertebrates.  After the rats used in the study were euthanized, their bodies were examined and it was found that the livers and kidneys were the two organs most affected.  

Let's look at the key results:

1.) Male rats appeared to suffer more acute damage to their livers and kidneys and this resulted in an increased rate of premature death.  

2.) Roundup treated female rats showed three times as many anatomical signs of pathology in their kidneys and livers than the control group.  

3.) A testosterone/estrogen imbalance was detected with testosterone serum levels increased by 97 percent compared to the control group.  This suggests that there are endocrine disrupting effects of glyphosate.

Findings from previous studies in which mice were fed diets containing Roundup-tolerant genetically modified soybeans also showed marked increased liver aging among other issues, observations that were backed by this study.

The authors of the study conclude with the following:

"It was previously known that glyphosate consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke kidney failure and reproductive difficulties. The results of the study presented here indicate that consumption of far lower levels of a GBH formulation, at admissible glyphosate-equivalent concentrations, are associated with wide-scale alterations of the liver and kidney transcriptome that correlate with the observed signs of hepatic and kidney anatomorphological and biochemical pathological changes in these organs. In addition, as the dose of Roundup we investigated is environmentally relevant in terms of human, domesticated animals and wildlife levels of exposure, our results potentially have significant health implications for animal and human populations. Furthermore, data also suggests that new studies incorporating testing principles from endocrinology and developmental epigenetics, in particular to evaluate the endocrine disruptive capability of GBH/glyphosate, should be performed to investigate potential consequences of low dose exposure during early life as well as in adults."

With soybeans becoming such an integral part of our diet, whether we realize it or not, and the use of Roundup Ready genetically modified soybeans nearly cornering the market, this study should give us reason to question the growing use of Monsanto's headline herbicidal product.

Monsanto's Past and Our Food Supply

Updated January 2017

As most of us are aware, Monsanto is a major supplier of the world's food through its corn, cotton, canola and soybean seed (germplasm) business and is currently looking to merge with Bayer which would create a massive agribusiness.  On its own, Monsanto had net sales of $13.502 billion in 2016 and net income of $1.336 billion and has set a long-term target of doubling its earnings-per-share by the end of fiscal 2019, an issue that could be complicated by its dropping net sales which are down from $15.85 billion in 2014.  The company is the largest biotechnology seed company in the world.

Here is a chart showing Monsanto's major businesses:

Monsanto's seeds are marketed to every agricultural region in the world and, in countries where they have received approval, Monsanto markets its genetically modified seeds including its Roundup Ready soybeans, canola, corn (under the DEKALB brand) and cotton seeds, plant varieties that allow farmers to apply more of Monsanto's famous herbicide on their crops without the fear of killing the genetically protected seedlings and plants.  In 2016, Monsanto spent $1.512 billion on research and development, up from $1.725 billion in 2014.  As an aside, it is interesting to note that Monsanto's patent on Roundup Ready soybeans expired in 2014.   

Monsanto spent years buying up America's seed companies in an effort to control the world's seed business.  The company's 2005 purchase of Seminis earned Monsanto a 40 percent share of the U.S. vegetable seed market and 20 percent of the world's total seed market in one transaction alone.  Seminis supplied the genetics for 55 percent of the lettuce found on the shelves of U.S. grocery stores along with 75 percent of the tomatoes and 85 percent of the peppers plus a substantial portion of beans, cucumbers, melons, carrots, squash, zucchini and watermelons.  According to a report by Food and Water Watch, in 2009, Monsanto's products were in use on 282 million acres worldwide and on 40 percent of U.S. agricultural land.

From this video, we get the first glimpse of how Monsanto's business model began to change in the 1980s:

With Monsanto's modern day focus on the agricultural industry, we tend to forget about the corporation's past.  Monsanto was founded in 1901 as a small chemical company by John Francis Queeny.  Its first product was saccharin, a sugar substitute that was supplied to Coca-Cola.  As the years passed, Monsanto's product offerings expanded to include aspirin, sedatives and laxatives.  When John Queeny's son, Edgar, took over in the late 1920's the company's product line expanded to include industrial chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides including DDT and Agent Orange.  It was also producing a chemical that had the trade name of Aroclor which is better known to most of us as polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs.  These chemicals were widely used as coolant fluids in electrical equipment as a replacement for flammable mineral oil and were manufactured at Monsanto's Anniston, Alabama facility among others.  I can recall working with pole-mounted electrical transformers filled with PCB coolant in the early 1970s when I worked for a utility company.  The use of PCBs was ubiquitous until it was banned by the United States Congress in 1979 because of its environmental toxicity and persistence in the environment.  In a trial in 2001, Monsanto claimed that first found out that PCBs were harmful to human health and the environment back in 1966 when scientists in Sweden discovered PCBs in human hair, fish, birds, eggs and pine needles and that the company began to take steps to curb the problem at that point in time.  In fact, this is not the truth as you will see in the remainder of this posting which speaks volumes about Monsanto's corporate culture.

Here is an internal memo dating from October 11, 1937 where it is noted that experimental work with animals showed that prolonged exposure to both PCB vapour and liquids led to toxic effects:

As well, this internal document dating from December 1947 from instant to the Celanese Corporation states that experiments with Aroclor in the 1930s led to liver damage in rats and that the "...vapors of the other Aroclors (other than Aroclor 1268) are toxic and should be avoided.":

An additional internal document that outlines handling instructions for Aroclor notes that "...prolonged and repeated exposure to such fumes may, in addition to causing irritation, interfere with the normal skin functions and result in physiological disturbances."  It also recommends that a gas mask is required when dealing with Aroclor fumes and that cold cream should be applied to the skin to prevent since particles of Aroclor from entering pores.  Workers who had contact with Aroclor were to change their work clothes daily and not wear them outside the plant.  Before changing into street clothes, workmen were to bathe with plenty of soap and warm water.  It was noted that failure to follow these precautions could result in skin infections, ill health and discomfort.

From 1952, here is an internal document that outlines an agreement between the United States Public Health Service and the manufacturers of chlorinated hydrocarbons (including PCBs) about labelling requirements for Aroclor:

Stunningly, the document makes note of a rather unusual proposed use for Aroclor....as a chewing gum additive!  The memo goes on to note that Aroclor is not designed with the intention that people would bathe in it.  It also notes that there have been few deaths associated with use of the product but that there have been a relatively large number of cases of skin irritation including those cases transmitted by workers to their wives at home.

Here is another internal document from 1955 in which Monsanto's Medical Department recommends that company employees at its Krummrich Plant not eat lunch within the confines of the Aroclors Department because "...in any case where a workman claimed physical harm from contaminated food, it would be extremely difficult on the basis of past literature reports to counter such claims.":

Lastly, here is a document outlining the reasons why the United States Navy was not using Pydraul 150, a hydraulic fluid that contained Aroclor in its submarines:

In its own toxicity tests, the Navy found that all rabbits tested were killed and that there was definite liver damage after inhalation of Pydraul.

By the later 1960s, Monsanto was fielding increasing questions about its product from a number of its Aroclor customers and struggling with pollution problems at its aging Anniston, Alabama plant.  By 1969, the global Aroclor business had grown into a $22 million a year business, generating healthy profits of $10 million.  Obviously, Monsanto needed to protect its investment so it created a committee whose job was to protect the sales and profits generated by Aroclors, to permit the development of new uses for Aroclors and to protect the image of the Organic Division and Monsanto as a whole as shown in this confidential memo:

What is particularly frightening is that during the 1960s, Aroclor was very widely used; it was a component of highway line marking paints (one million pounds were used annually) which were likely leaching into watersheds and were used in rubber-based paints and surface coatings that were used to coat the interior walls of potable water storage tanks and swimming pools. 

Now, let's get to Monsanto's bottom line as shown in this memo from February 16, 1970:

Note the first sentence of the last paragraph which states "...we can't afford to lose one dollar of business.".  Also note that customers who were asking questions about Monsanto's Aroclor/Pydraul hydraulic fluid products were to be given verbal answers only and that no written answers were to be provided.  As well, no fluids were to be taken back from customers, rather, newly formulated fluids that were less damaging to the environment were to be sold to the customer.

PCBs are now found globally and have been linked to cancer, effects on the immune, reproduction, nervous and endocrine systems according to the EPA.  Since PCBs are not naturally occurring substances, all occurrences in the environment can be attributed to manmade sources.  PCBs are found around the world which suggests that PCBs are transported in air.  The highest concentration of PCBs in air are found indoors, particularly in buildings that were constructed using PCB-containing rubber sealants.  It is currently assumed that most of the world's population receives its major exposure to PCBs through the food chain because PCBs are lipohilic (fat-loving i.e. they dissolve in fat).  Foods of animal origin are an important source of exposure for humans whereas, plant-based foods generally contain much lower levels of PCBs, often just above the detection level for these chemicals.  PCBs are also found in human milk, particularly in individuals that consume large amounts of contaminated food such as fish.

While Monsanto transformed itself into an agricultural and biotechnology company by divesting of its interests in its chemical business between 1997 and 2002, it has a heritage that is unforgettable.  What should be of concern to the world's consumers is that the same company that brought us PCBs, one of the world's most persistent and widespread chemical contaminants, is now attempting to gain a monopoly on our food through "better science".