Agribusiness titan Monsanto is the goliath every activist would like to slay:
Its patented Round Up brand of herbicide is ubiquitous in farmland world over, but new research suggests the product poses a danger to human health. [Note: an earlier version of this post dropped the word herbicide by accident so it read as though soy contained the chemical. I corrected it but the google cache still shows the old version in the header. Apologies. I often think I’ve corrected something and saved it and find that the save didn’t actually take place…]
From Marie Trigona at America’s Program
“A study released by an Argentine scientist earlier this year reports that glyphosate, patented by Monsanto under the name “Round Up,” causes birth defects when applied in doses much lower than what is commonly used in soy fields.
The study was directed by a leading embryologist, Dr. Andres Carrasco, a professor and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires. In his office in the nation’s top medical school, Dr. Carrasco shows me the results of the study, pulling out photos of birth defects in the embryos of frog amphibians exposed to glyphosate. The frog embryos grown in petri dishes in the photos looked like something from a futuristic horror film, creatures with visible defects—one eye the size of the head, spinal cord deformations, and kidneys that are not fully developed.
“We injected the amphibian embryo cells with glyphosate diluted to a concentration 1,500 times than what is used commercially and we allowed the amphibians to grow in strictly controlled conditions.” Dr. Carrasco reports that the embryos survived from a fertilized egg state until the tadpole stage, but developed obvious defects which would compromise their ability to live in their normal habitats.
Pointing to the color photos spread on his desk, Dr. Carrasco says, “On the side where the contaminated cell was injected you can see defects in the eye and defects in the cartilage.”
For the past 15 months, Dr. Carrasco’s research team documented embryos’ reactions to glyphosate. Embryological study is based on the premise that all vertebrate animals share a common design during the development stages. This accepted scientific premise means that the study indicates human embryonic cells exposed to glyphosate, even in low doses, would also suffer from defects.
“When a field is fumigated by an airplane, it’s difficult to measure how much glysophate remains in the body,” says Dr. Carrasco. “When you inject the embryonic cell with glysophate, you know exactly how much glysophate you are putting into the cell and you have a strict control.”
Glyphosate is the top selling herbicide in the world and is widely used on soy crops in Argentina.
Monoculture soy is grown on more than 42 million acres of fields across Argentina and sprayed with more than 44 million gallons of glyphosate annually. It is part of a technological package sold by Monsanto that includes Round Up Ready seeds GM to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate. This allows growers to fumigate directly onto the GM soy seed, killing nearby weeds without killing the crop. In the winter, crops are sprayed to kill off weeds and seeds are then planted without having to plow the soil, a process commonly referred to as “no-till farming.” Nearly, 95% of the 47 million tons of soy grown in Argentina in 2007 was genetically modified, adopting the Round Up ready technology marketed by Monsanto.
The study on the top-selling agrochemical has alarmed policymakers, so much so that Dr. Carrasco has received anonymous threats and industry leaders demanded access to his laboratory immediately following the study’s release. Industry leader Monsanto wouldn’t talk to the Americas Program for this story, but in a press release on its website, the company says that “glyphosate is safe.”
My Comment:
There – the cat’s out of the bag. Now you know why I’m down here. South America has the last remaining land masses suitable for agriculture, the greatest biodiversity, the richest vegetation, the richest fauna….
No wonder one of the most predatory and rapacious corporations in the world is also here…
You’re good.
Still, this stuff is hard to follow.
Monsanto is to the food supply as Goldman Sachs is to the money supply.
I found this:
Monsanto, acquiring Montana-based WestBred for $45 million. WestBred specializes in wheat germplasm, which is wheat’s genetic material. Monsanto’s release says it will apply its own breeding tools to that germplasm to develop higher yielding varieties for U.S. wheat farmers.
Thanks.
Yes – it is hard to follow…
genetic modification seems to be to exactly like derivatives..unnecessary and with high potential for abuse
Lila,
To play Devil’s Advocate a bit.
1) Studies utilizing amphibians are not good proxies for potential human effects as amphibians are substantially less resilient than human beings genetically.
2) You fail to take into account the trade-off of not using this or other herbicides (i.e decreased crop yields). How many people would go hungry or starve if such chemicals were completely banned? It’s difficult to account for but certainly warrants some thought. This reminds me of the old DDT controversy (lives saved from Malaria vs. possible birth defects/health problems).
Hi –
Thanks. Yes – I am not anti-technology but there’s such a thing as a false alternative…
There are natural pesticides..
Indians farmers and households used neem leaves for centuries, and did without the side effects of pesticides
The point is the credibility of companies like monsanto is zero. Their track-records suggest that if there were side effects, they wouldn’t be reported. Think of Dow and its hideous record of covering up the effects of its chemicals – even on American women.
Also – while animal trials are not completely satisfactory, we cannot ethically try things out on human beings, so what else can we do?
By the way, it’s not clear to me that experimenting on animals is very ethical either..
Personally, i would prefer that we use folk remedies which have established themselves as safe through prolonged use..
Natural and organic methods are also much more accessible to ordinary people, less expensive, require less government interference, and are more libertarian on every count
DDT is a very complicated story and I don’t want to get into it here.
Re – DDT – yes, it has limited effectiveness against insect borne diseases like malaria, but in India, as in other places, widespread use leads to DDT resistance species, and an increase in malaria, which is why its use was eased off..
so long term, even supposedly effective chemicals turn out to have effects we can’t foresee –
that’s why considering black swans is vital in deciding what sorts of pesticides we use..
I would certainly agree with you that natural pesticide alternatives are likely to be preferable to artificial chemical concoctions. Mainstream science tends to scoff at natural remedies but there is much value to be found them. It’s not clear to me though that the production of these can be scaled up to such a degree as to support a food supply sufficient to accommodate a planetary population of 6+billion people.
Not to belabor the point on DDT since I realize that it is off topic, however the argument of over usage leading to resistance can also be applied to the general/widespread use antibiotics. I’m not certain that the eventual diminishment of effect is cause to cease the use, particularly given the known short term consequences.
I agree with you regarding the importance of acknowledging and accommodating for potentially long term unseen consequences and black swans in general. Of course by the very nature of the thing, a rare or obscure side effect/result is difficult to account for.
As a side note (perhaps inappropriate for this space), I very much enjoy your work even if I don’t always agree with it. It’s nice to find a fellow libertarian who acknowledges the potential existence of some absolute good/moral standard outside of simple utilitarianism.
Hi Jake –
I sometimes get upset by libertarians who seem to think that the US got where it did because of economic transactions alone.
What about the huge mass of voluntary work that’s characterized civil society here for generations and which Americans take for granted?
What happens when people grow more and more
obsessed with financial success and refuse to take up their civic obligations or do it only when it gains something for them..
We grew up on mother’s milk (Christianity, ethical behavior) but like to tell each other we did it on little pills we bought ourselves (rational economic transactions)
Libertarianism minus ethics is only criminality.
Without ethics a society is naturally suited only for the rule of the powerful – which is what we have today
Perhaps you didn’t hear about the deformed frogs in Minnesota in the 1990’s:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/frogs.html
I think 60 Minutes even did a show about them. I don’t think they ever found the cause, and from this website, it says funding dried up.
Many people suspect chemicals, especially Monsanto ones, but who knows.
Unlike the poster up top, I think frogs are very suitable for determining the bad side effects from chemicals because problems readily show up, whereas in more complex/tougher organisms, problems take a lot longer to show up and causes are not as easy to determine.
As far as animal testing in general… that is tough to decide on, so long as it’s not pointless testing, I suppose the purpose and ownership are the important parts to consider. If the frog suffers from testing or from partially being sideswiped by a hawk, what’s the difference to the frog?