Birth Defects Caused by Monsanto’s Weedkiller, Roundup, Scientists Say

The widespread use of Roundup, a popular herbicide containing the chemical glyphosate, is facing increased scrutiny. A new report urges for stricter regulatory measures concerning its application in agriculture and gardening across the United States. For years, critics have voiced concerns about glyphosate’s potential threat to public health, but these warnings have often been dismissed by industry regulators.

Earth Open Source, an organization dedicated to promoting sustainable food production through open-source collaboration, has conducted a thorough examination of existing data. Their findings indicate that European regulators have been aware for some time that glyphosate, first introduced by Monsanto in 1976, is capable of causing birth defects in laboratory animal embryos.

Established in 2009, Earth Open Source is a U.K.-based non-profit with a global reach. Its directors, experts in business, technology, and genetic engineering, along with a team of young volunteers, collaborate with international scientists to assess the impact of glyphosate. Their analysis draws on research from various countries, including Argentina, Brazil, France, and the United States.

This report adds to the growing body of evidence questioning the safety of glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the U.S. Despite the lack of recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates significant usage of glyphosate in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings.

The study highlights that as early as 1993, the herbicide industry was aware of the potential for glyphosate to cause heart dilation and other visceral anomalies in rabbits at low to medium doses. Furthermore, it suggests that European regulators have known since 2002 about the developmental malformations glyphosate can induce in lab animals.

Despite these findings, the European Commission’s health and consumer division approved glyphosate’s use in Europe for another decade in 2002. Even as recent as last year, German regulatory bodies reported to the European Commission that glyphosate does not lead to birth defects, a conclusion drawn despite several industry studies and independent research indicating otherwise.

The European Commission has postponed its review of glyphosate until 2015 and will not apply more current, stringent standards until 2030. The commission has yet to comment on its awareness of glyphosate’s toxicity studies from 2002 but has acknowledged the Earth Open Source study.

“Germany concluded that study does not change the current safety assessment of glyphosate,” a commission official told HuffPost in an email. “This view is shared by all other member states.”

John Fagan, a co-founder of Earth Open Source and an expert in molecular and cell biology, emphasizes that the report aims to consolidate and critically assess existing evidence on glyphosate’s safety and the regulatory response, rather than present new laboratory research.

“We did not do the actual basic research ourselves,” said Fagan. “The purpose of this paper was to bring together and to critically evaluate all the evidence around the safety of glyphosate and we also considered how the regulators, particularly in Europe, have looked at that.”

The report criticizes the hasty and flawed approval of glyphosate, suggesting that such oversight is not uncommon in pesticide regulation. It calls for an urgent review of glyphosate and other pesticides under the most rigorous and current standards.

“Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable,” wrote the report’s authors. “What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.

“They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so,” the authors added. “This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards.”

Monsanto, the company behind Roundup, maintains that the Earth Open Source report offers no new evidence and that regulatory bodies worldwide agree on glyphosate’s safety regarding reproductive effects and birth defects, even at high exposure levels.

Monsanto spokeswoman Janice Person said in a statement that the Earth Open Source report presents no new findings.

“Based on our initial review, the Earth Open Source report does not appear to contain any new health or toxicological evidence regarding glyphosate.

Regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world agree that glyphosate does not cause adverse reproductive effects in adult animals or birth defects in offspring of these adults exposed to glyphosate,” Person said, “even at doses far higher than relevant environmental or occupational exposures.”

While the impact of Roundup on human health remains uncertain, studies have shown its detrimental effects on human cell lines. The need for more independent research into Roundup and glyphosate’s toxicity is clear, given the preliminary evidence of reproductive issues in animals fed genetically modified crops treated with Roundup.

One laboratory study done in France in 2005 found that Roundup and glyphosate caused the death of human placental cells.

Another study, conducted in 2009, found that Roundup caused total cell death in human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells within 24 hours. Yet researchers have conducted few follow-up studies.

“Obviously there’s a limit to what’s appropriate in terms of testing poison on humans,” said Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, which advocates against genetically modified food. “But if you look at the line of converging evidence, it points to a serious problem. And if you look at the animal feeding studies with genetically modified Roundup ready crops, there’s a consistent theme of reproductive disorders, which we don’t know the cause for because follow-up studies have not been done.”

“More independent research is needed to evaluate the toxicity of Roundup and glyphosate,” he added, “and the evidence that has already accumulated is sufficient to raise a red flag.”

Past criticisms of Monsanto’s marketing of Roundup as “environmentally friendly” led to a lawsuit by New York State’s Attorney General in 1996, resulting in a settlement and a change in promotional language.

The EPA is currently reevaluating glyphosate’s safety and effectiveness, with a review process that includes considering data from Earth Open Source among other sources. The outcome of this review, expected by 2015, will determine the future regulation of glyphosate.

As debates over glyphosate regulation continue globally, Argentina emerges as a key battleground in the fight over its use and safety.

The report by Earth Open Source revisits concerns previously raised by Argentine scientists and locals about the adverse effects of glyphosate. This herbicide is extensively used in Argentina, especially on genetically engineered Roundup Ready soy crops that span about 50 million acres—half of the nation’s arable land. In 2009, an estimated 200 million liters of glyphosate were sprayed over these crops.

The Argentine government’s endorsement of genetically modified soy in the 1990s was a strategic move to overcome economic downturns, benefiting many small-scale farmers.

However, not long after the initial success, communities living near soy plantations started experiencing a surge in health issues, including an increase in birth defects and cancer cases, alongside agricultural and livestock losses due to herbicide drift.

The debate intensified with the publication of a study by Argentine scientist Andres Carrasco in 2010, titled “Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling.”

This research, appearing in the Chemical Research in Toxicology journal, demonstrated that glyphosate could induce deformities in frog and chicken embryos at concentrations much lower than those used in farming practices.

The study also drew parallels between the malformations observed in the lab and the birth defects reported in humans residing in areas where genetically modified soy is cultivated.

In the United States, Don Huber, a retired plant pathology professor from Purdue University, has raised concerns about genetically modified crops treated with Roundup.

He suggests these crops harbor a bacterium potentially linked to miscarriages in animals. Huber alerted the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, in February, emphasizing the significant health risks this pathogen might pose to plants, animals, and possibly humans. This bacterium is notably prevalent in diseased corn and soybean crops.

Huber’s apprehensions stem from the genetic engineering of these crops to resist Roundup, allowing farmers to use the herbicide extensively without harming the crop itself. This practice has drawn criticism, particularly towards Monsanto’s Roundup, which leads the market despite the presence of other glyphosate-based herbicides, such as those from China, which are sold in Argentina at competitive prices.

Huber, in his correspondence with the Department of Agriculture, pointed out his concerns about glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, linking it to the proliferation of soil pathogens, increased plant diseases, nutrient chelation in plants, and nutrient bioavailability reduction in animal feed, potentially leading to animal health issues.

Despite Huber’s communication with the Agriculture Department and his call for a comprehensive investigation, there’s little indication that such an inquiry will take place. The regulatory division between the USDA, which oversees GM crops, and the EPA, which regulates herbicides, might contribute to a potential oversight gap for products like Roundup.

The USDA acknowledges its research on glyphosate but maintains that its findings are public and peer-reviewed. Huber, while admitting his research isn’t definitive, urges regulatory bodies to act swiftly, citing the urgency of the situation over the traditional timeline for peer-reviewed research.

Huber’s stance has stirred debate within the agricultural community and online, yet he has chosen not to disclose his research or identify his collaborators, citing potential professional repercussions due to industry-funded academic research.

At Purdue University, several of Huber’s former colleagues distanced themselves from his claims, advising those in agriculture to consult with University Extension personnel before altering crop practices based on such assertions.

Since Monsanto introduced Roundup in the 1970s, it has become a bestseller, though competition has increased since its patent expired in 2000. Monsanto continues to defend Roundup’s safety and benefits, countering critics who highlight its potential risks.