The Debate That Is Glyphosate
For decades, we have been lied to about the toxicity of synthetic chemicals. In the days of Rachel Carson, evidence of harms from DDT and other pesticides were exposed to the public. Yet, somehow, overlapping all the way into the Age of Technology, we have forgotten that it is possible that all of us could be regularly exposed to dangerous chemicals around our homes, as well as commercially, especially in the production of our food. Pesticide products are marketed as 'safe when you follow the label instructions', but I would confidently guess that most consumers do not thoroughly read the labels, nor have they researched the products or studies of their effects on human health. People don't read after the asterisks, they just hear the industry claims that they're not harmful, and any further thought ceases.
There are wide debates around the true safety of most chemical substances, and to me, it's always been quite suspicious. The proponents for these chemicals are typically within the industry: working for or funded by the corporations. Meanwhile, the opposing side is often simply health-seeking, perhaps invoked by a trail of tears, and their information found is suppressed by the dollars of the chemical industry. I cannot wrap my head around the trust people blindly submit to these corporations that have been caught lying to and poisoning us for the entirety of their existences. And I used to think that our regulatory agencies were here to regulate on behalf of the public health and wellbeing, yet with their extensive involvement in these industries, they still allow the harms of humanity to increase as time goes on.
The chemical intensity of industrial agriculture, and nonchalance for residential use of these same or similar products, has only increased, and we do not have healthy ecosystems to show for it. From a broad perspective, we have a system of degraded soils, weak and obese livestock, and nutrient-starved foods. When you look at it all from this lens, it seems quite apparent that it must be from the synthetic inputs that we put on our resources. How else could it be that we have advanced so much with our technology and medicine, yet our populations are increasingly chronically ill? You are what you eat, as well as what you eat eats! These days, 60% of Americans have a chronic illness. Here in the United States, we use 1 billion pounds of pesticides each year, and 250 million pounds of that is sprayed on our crops alone, according to the Rodale Institute's Power of The Plate analysis.
Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide, isn't just sprayed on fields for pest prevention, but also sprayed directly on the crops to dry out the grains quicker so they can be harvested sooner. Therefore, it's in just about everyone's food. It seems that every issue around the potential dangers of glyphosate and other chemicals is still up for debate, but it always goes back to the money as the priority when corporations have so much power. As you will see, Bayer does not prioritize human health concerns; it denies the need for concern so that it is still capable of making incredible profits, and pays hush money to our government to keep their narrative afloat.
In the early 1960s, glyphosate was introduced to the market as a pipe & boiler cleaner due to its effectiveness at breaking down minerals such as calcium and other deposits in plumbing routes. Within a decade, this agent was recognized as an herbicide by a Monsanto scientist, and then re-patented. There were reports of dead vegetation around collecting ponds and other waterways following descaling treatments. It came to market in 1974 as Roundup, manufactured by Monsanto. This is where I find an overlap of concern: people were aware of the devastating effects from DDT and other pesticides, but willfully ignorant to and accepting of this new one. Since the beginning, we've been told by the chemical company that it was not dangerous to humans and animals, or the soil, yet the EPA originally classified glyphosate as a Class C carcinogen in 1985, which meant “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential”. However, by 1991, Monsanto successfully convinced the EPA to declassify it enough to claim that is is non-carcinogenic. This has led to an unnecessary and arduous fight between citizens and corporation in recent decades, as the effects of exposure to these chemicals can take years to exhibit as chronic or lethal. Many other parts of the world recognize it to be harmful, yet here in the US, the denial remains magnificent, thus perpetuating the lies and the damage.
Monsanto was one multifaceted chemical corporation, and also patented crop seeds that were genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup, meaning they are resistant to the purpose that the killing agent was designed for. Supposedly the patented seeds self-terminate after harvest, and are sold to farmers who are then required to repurchase every year, because it would be illegal for the farmers to harvest their own seeds from those crop productions, even if they were successful. Think about it...Is this because they are truly super seeds, or do the genetically modified plants still get some of the murderous effects of these synthetics? Another note to make is that farmers are subsidized and insured based on the crops that they grow (from seed) and the inputs (chemicals) they use. So taxpayers are funding these genetically altered crops and harmful synthetic solutions.
The proper term to summarize pesticides or any chemical ending in “-cide”, such as herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, bactericides, or rodenticides, is Biocides. All of these chemicals have been designed to literally kill life, whether it is other vegetation, “bugs,” fungi, bacteria, or rodents. More recently, in 2010, Monsanto patented glyphosate as an antibiotic. So they've capitalized on the fact that it kills vegetative life, and it kills bacterial life, yet they can still boldly claim that it doesn't harm animal life or soil life, even though animals (including humans!) and soils are loaded with important, beneficial bacteria in order for our internal ecosystems to function properly. Again, we've known for over half a century that the agents we use to kill some things cause death and systemic harm to a ripple effect of life. The circle of life is more of a web, so if one thing consumes poison, and something else consumes that which has consumed the poison, then the secondary organism inevitably consumes all that the primary one did, and on and on up the food chain. So how could we possibly conclude that glyphosate is excluded from this concept?
The explanation we receive from Big Industry is that it is minuscule amounts and biodegrades, but there is ample evidence, if you look, that many of these chemicals are stored in plant cells and microorganisms, and can take days to several weeks to degrade. They don't just get in and immediately get eliminated and disappear into nothingness. They cause harm the whole time they are active. Additionally, the majority of us are exposed on a daily basis, in many of our meals. Much of what we ingest does get eliminated, but goes through our bodies first, and then finally goes into our water supply, through human excretions.
For glyphosate specifically, the primary operation is to inhibit an enzyme in a biochemical pathway of plants that is responsible for the synthesis of certain amino acids. This is the ESPSP enzyme that is part of the Shikimate pathway. Therefore, plants cannot build these essential proteins, which leads to their death after the application.
The disconnection here is because animals, including human beings, don't have this particular pathway. But what is ignored in this argument is that our microbiome is comprised of many species of gut bacteria that do contain the shikimate pathway. Some of the gut bacteria are responsible for the barrier, or gut lining, that is critical to immune function, as it is designed to filter out toxins. If those organisms are inhibited within our bodies, then part of our gut microbiome function is damaged. A perforated gut barrier can lead to all kinds of internal damage and cell dysfunction, including the development of cancers, type 2 diabetes, other organ dysfunction, and even depression, as our internal systems are all connected.
There is ample evidence globally about the correlative effects of glyphosate to human disease. The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined glyphosate specifically to be carcinogenic, yet here in the US, the EPA still claims that it is not, and is therefore safe to use, per following labeled instructions. However, the EPA has not been fully transparent in historical matters, such as the recent Flint Water Crisis, where they were publicly exposed for trying to cover up their knowledge that the water was tainted, which ended up poisoning thousands of innocent people. This was just one corrupt matter very close to my hometown. Unfortunately, it was not the first time this organization has failed the people. I will not give the Environmental Protection Agency my trust and admiration. I wish the organizations that our government employs could be transparent and honest, but these agencies just do not seem to operate on behalf of the welfare of the people they are supposed to be protecting! But it's not just the regulatory agencies; it's our elected representatives as well.
On Bayer's own website, they state, “All political contributions are made without regard to the private political preferences of our company’s executives and include consideration of Bayer’s interests in legislative or policy-related activity, company facilities and employees in the state, and local political factors. Our Bayer Good Government Panel (BGGP) supports political issues and candidates consistent with Bayer’s policy objectives, promotes the election of responsible, qualified candidates to public office, regardless of party affiliation, and supports candidates for office, political parties, or other political committees in cases where the views of those candidates or entities are in general agreement with those of Bayer.” The way I interpret this, they are openly admitting to paying politicians on behalf of their company's interests, and they support candidates, policies, and committees when they agree with Bayer.
Of course if you want your company to have power, you have to have political support. You are free to look at their breakdown of payments each year on Bayer's website under Political Disclosures. They paid $594,550 in 2020 alone to political campaigns across the country. Monsanto has historically contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to state politicians. And Congress is responsible for allocating funds to regulatory agencies. This pay-to-play funding should be noted as a suspicious conflict-of-interest.
If our government officials weren't beholden to the corporations that bribe them, and worked in honor of the taxpayers who they are elected to represent, then maybe the oversight committees and organizations could actually regulate corporations honestly so that we are not being poisoned, and perhaps they would all then be more willing to intake data from sources other than the industry themselves. Dozens of countries have at least partially banned the use of glyphosate products, including many European countries, as well as the United States' northern and southern neighbors. This global curtailing is a result of decades of research correlating the use of the weed killer to drastic increases in cancer and other chronic diseases to varying levels of exposure to the chemicals.
The greatest portion of victims of these effects have been landscapers and home gardeners, who largely do no wear protection when using these toxic chemicals. Although used on a vast scale for agricultural purposes, the people who apply glyphosate in agricultural settings are usually covered head to toe in Hazmat gear, and therefore are more protected than your typical homeowner who goes around their sidewalk with their gallon sprayer wearing flip flops, spraying the weeds in the cracks whenever they pop up. Bayer and Monsanto have paid an insurmountable sum in settlements thus far for the effects of their products, and Bayer at one point told their stockholders that they would be setting aside $4.5 billion for further suits that are expected to come their way in the future, according to a July 2021 article in The Counter. Bayer initially said that they would phase out the sale of glyphosate-based products (namely, Roundup) for residential use in 2023, solely “to mitigate litigation risk, and not because of safety concerns.” This statement alone makes it quite evident that they refuse to acknowledge the hazards of such products, and will continue denying them, even after settling over 95,000 (out of 125,000) claims that they did cause harm.
It is their words with the EPA's backing, versus millions of individuals who have seen the damage themselves, or can at least connect the dots, to determine that it has all been a giant lie. One of my goals is to help get more people realize the deception that has taken place, for almost fifty years in this case. It would be one thing if they at least acknowledged the dangers it can cause. But they would prefer to pretend that it's harmless and that people use it responsibly. That is not the world we live in. People seem to prefer ease and convenience, and unfortunately don't take proper precautions to mitigate their own risks, or do their own research. We want the ease of a squirt jug, or the convenience of fast food, and don't care too much about the rest, which is costing us our health.
The responsibility lies on the consumers, yes, but also on the honesty and transparency of the creators and manufacturers. We need a free market without corporate-political interference, and with informed consent. At that point, whatever the consumers don't want would go out of business, because humans care about our own health and can stand up for integrity when the government isn't getting in the way. Then true innovation could occur, and the people would have more power, rather than what we have now: the government and corporations working hand-in-hand to fill each other's pockets, while harming the people but saying they're not.
It is unclear to me even at this point to what extent Bayer will be able to sell Roundup in the coming years. This is certainly not the only product that we should be weary about, and if it happens that the United States finally deems it responsible to ban such a product, I can guarantee that scientists and manufacturers will create new chemicals marketed to us as safe, without a full understanding of the impacts over time. We must remain watchful and adamant that these issues don't continue to go unchecked on a mass scale. It is great that we have institutions researching and sounding the alarms, but we must become louder than the industry is wealthy. The health of our culture and the planet depends on us ensuring that we stop poisoning ourselves, locally and broadly. This is just a scratch on the surface, but if you take nothing else away from this essay, please avoid using synthetic pesticides, at least for your own health's sake!