THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

 7 April 2005

Dear friends and colleagues,

RE: WORRYING EFFECTS OF ROUNDUP ON HUMANS, ENVIRONMENT

We wish to bring to your attention two recent studies on the herbicide Roundup produced by Monsanto, and its effects on humans and animals.

Roundup with its active ingredient glyphosate has long been considered to be safe for humans and the environment while effective in killing weeds. It is widely used alongside glyphosate tolerant GM crops because it eliminates all other plants except the GM crops that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to glyphosate.

However, as new research suggest, Roundup is also a danger to other lifeforms and non-target organisms. (Item 1). University of Pittsburg’s biologist Rick Relyea has found that Roundup is "extremely lethal" to amphibians. In what is considered one of the most extensive studies on the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms in a natural setting, Relyea found that Roundup caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles.

In another study, a group of scientists led by Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen in France (Item 2. 3) found that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup at concentrations lower than the agricultural use. This, they suggest, could explain the high levels of premature births and miscarriages observed among women farmers in the US using glyphosate.

The stakes are large, because the usage of glyphosate is intrinsic to that of genetically modified plants specifically conceived to "tolerate" this active ingredient.

Due to such worrying effects on humans and the environment, we urge caution on the adoption of glyphosate tolerant GM crops and the inherent usage of the herbicide Roundup.  

With best wishes,

Chee Yoke Heong
Third World Network
121-S Jalan Utama
10450 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twnet@po.jaring.my
Website: www.twnside.org.sg

REF: Doc.TWN/Biosafety/2005/B

Item 1

Roundup highly lethal to amphibians, finds University of Pittsburgh researcher
Public release date: 1-Apr-2005
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/uopm-rhl040105.php
        
Contact: Karen Hoffman
klh52@pitt.edu
412-624-4356
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

PITTSBURGH--The herbicide Roundup is widely used to eradicate weeds. But a study published today by a University of Pittsburgh researcher finds that the chemical may be eradicating much more than that.

Pitt assistant professor of biology Rick Relyea found that Roundup, the second most commonly applied herbicide in the United States, is "extremely lethal" to amphibians. This field experiment is one of the most extensive studies on the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms in a natural setting, and the results may provide a key link to global amphibian declines.

In a paper titled "The Impact of Insecticides and Herbicides on the Biodiversity and Productivity of Aquatic Communities," published in the journal Ecological Applications, Relyea examined how a pond's entire community--25 species, including crustaceans, insects, snails, and tadpoles--responded to the addition of the manufacturers' recommended doses of two insecticides--Sevin (carbaryl) and malathion--and two herbicides--Roundup (glyphosate) and 2,4-D.

Relyea found that Roundup caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles. Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were completely eliminated and wood frog tadpoles and toad tadpoles were nearly eliminated. One species of frog, spring peepers, was unaffected.

"The most shocking insight coming out of this was that Roundup, something designed to kill plants, was extremely lethal to amphibians," said Relyea, who conducted the research at Pitt's Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology. "We added Roundup, and the next day we looked in the tanks and there were dead tadpoles all over the bottom."

Relyea initially conducted the experiment to see whether the Roundup would have an indirect effect on the frogs by killing their food source, the algae. However, he found that Roundup, although an herbicide, actually increased the amount of algae in the pond because it killed most of the frogs.

"It's like killing all the cows in a field and seeing that the field has more grass in it—not because you made the grass grow better, but because you killed everything that eats grass," he said.

Previous research had found that the lethal ingredient in Roundup was not the herbicide itself, glyphosate, but rather the surfactant, or detergent, that allows the herbicide to penetrate the waxy surfaces of plants. In Roundup, that surfactant is a chemical called polyethoxylated tallowamine.
Other herbicides have less dangerous surfactants: For example, Relyea's study found that 2,4-D had no effect on tadpoles.

"We've repeated the experiment, so we're confident that this is, in fact, a repeatable result that we see," said Relyea. "It's fair to say that nobody would have guessed Roundup was going to be so lethal to amphibians."

--------------------------
Item 2

PRESS RELEASE

Pr. Gilles-Eric SERALINI's group in the University of Caen (Normandy, France) just published original results concerning the toxicity of Roundup. It is one of the most used herbicides worldwide and the most used with genetically modified plants (GMOs).

The majority of GMOs commercialized in the world are designed for food and feed. These plants have been modified to remain alive after herbicide absorption, this herbicide being spread on the cultures.

This greatly facilitates its use, as well as the presence of its residues in the food chain. It is also evoked as a common pollutant in rivers.

It is shown in this work that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup, to concentrations lower than the agricultural use. This could explain miscarriages and premature births in the United States in farmers. Moreover, below toxic levels, the effects of Roundup are measured on the synthesis of sexual hormones; this allows to classify this herbicide in potential endocrine disruptors. Finally, the effects of Roundup are always greater than those of glyphosate, which is known as its active compound.

This work was supported in particular by CRIIGEN (www.crii-gen.org) and by The "Fondation pour une Terre Humaine"

Contact : Pr. Gilles-Eric SERALINI, tel. 33 2 31 56 54 89, criigen@ibfa.unicaen.fr

Environmental health perspective
Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and
aromatase

Sophie Richard, Safa Moslemi, Herbert Sipahutar, Nora Benachour, Gilles-Eric Seralini
doi:10.1289/ehp.7728 (available at http://dx.doi.org/) Online 24 February 2005

Abstract
Roundup is a glyphosate-based herbicide used worldwide including on most genetically modified plants in which it can be tolerated. Its residues may thus enter the food chain and glyphosate is found as a contaminant in rivers. Some agricultural workers using glyphosate have pregnancy problems, but its mechanism of action in mammals is questioned. Here we show that glyphosate is toxic on human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than the agricultural use, and this effect increases with concentration and time, or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants. Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient. We tested its effect on aromatase with lower non-toxic concentrations, the enzyme responsible for estrogen synthesis. The herbicide acts as an endocrine disruptor on aromatase activity and mRNA levels, and glyphosate interacts within the active site of the purified enzyme, but its effect is facilitated by Roundup formulation in microsomes or in cell culture. We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup and not only glyphosate can be observed in mammals. We suggest that the presence of Roundup adjuvants enhances glyphosate bioavailability and / or bioaccumulation

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 3

Roundup Doesn't Poison Only Weeds (translated from French)
By Herve Morin
Le Monde, 12 March 2005
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/032805HB.shtml

The most used herbicide in the world: Monsanto's Roundup and its competitors, formulated, like Roundup, on a base of glyphosate, have long enjoyed a reputation for harmlessness to human health and the environment. However, several recent studies seem to indicate that this active ingredient, used by farmers as well as by public road services and Sunday gardeners, could well not be as inoffensive as its promoters claim. The stakes are big, because the usage of glyphosate grows along with that of genetically modified organisms, the great majority of which have been specifically conceived to "tolerate" this active ingredient, fatal to plants.

In fact, while Roundup and similar products were originally used against weeds, "they have become a food product, since they are used on GMOs, which can absorb them without dying," maintains the biochemist Gilles-Eric Seralini. A member for years of the French Commission on Biomolecular Genetics (CBG), responsible for preparing the files for requests for field studies, then GMO commercialization, he ceaselessly demands more intense studies on their eventual health impact.

Also a member of Criigen, an association which has made control of GMOs its passion, he has oriented his own research toward the study of the impact of glyphosate. In an article published February 24 in the American journal Environmental Health Perspective, the biochemist and his team from the University of Caen demonstrate, in vitro, several toxic effects of this compound as well as of the additives associated with it to facilitate its diffusion.

For their study, the researchers used human placental cell lines, in which very weak doses of glyphosate showed toxic effects and, at still weaker concentrations, endocrinal disturbances. This, for Gilles-Eric Seralini, could explain the high levels of premature births and miscarriages observed in certain epidemiological studies - which are, however, controversial - covering women farmers using glyphosate. "The effect we have observed is proportional to the dose, but also to the length of exposure," he emphasizes.

His team has also compared the comparative effects of glyphosate and Roundup. And it has observed that the commercial product is more disruptive than its isolated main active ingredient. "Consequently the evaluation of herbicides must take into account the combination with additives in the product," he says.

Gilles-Eric Seralini acknowledges that his study must be extended by animal experiments. But he rejects criticisms that have been made on the absence of any real link between in vitro and normal utilization: "Farmers dilute the pure product and are punctually exposed to doses 10,000 times stronger," he insists. "Our results show that the length of exposure must be taken into account."

Sea-Urchin Models

He is joined in his conclusions by Robert Belle, from the National Center for Social Research (CNRS) biological station in Roscoff (Finistere), whose team has been studying the impact of glyphosate formulations on sea-urchin cells for several years. This recognized model for the study of early stages of cancer genesis earned Tim Hunt the 2001 Nobel Prize in medicine. In 2002, the Finisterian team had shown that Roundup acted on one of the key stages of cellular division.

"This deregulation can lead to cancer," warns Robert Belle, who, to make himself understood, insists on summarizing the mechanisms of cancer genesis: during the division of a cell into two daughter cells, the two copies of genetic inheritance, in the form of DNA, may give rise to very numerous errors, up to 50,000 per cell. That's why repair mechanisms or natural cell death (apoptosis) are automatically set in motion. However, it happens that a cell escapes these alternatives (death or repair) and can perpetuate itself in an unstable form, potentially cancerous over the long term.

The Breton team has recently demonstrated (Toxicological Science, December 2004) that a "control point" for DNA damage was affected by Roundup, while glyphosate alone had no effect. "We have shown that it's a definite risk factor, but we have not evaluated the number of cancers potentially induced, nor the time frame within which they would declare themselves," the researcher acknowledges. A sprayed droplet could affect thousands of cells. On the other hand, "the concentration in water and fruits is lower, which is rather reassuring."

For the researcher, it's not necessarily a matter of banning the product - "Now it's for the public authorities to evaluate the benefits and the risks" - but it is important that users take every possible precaution, for themselves as well as for the public. "I've seen people in their underwear spray several square meters in a playground," he exclaimed, revolted.

"Such in vitro studies are not adequate for deducing the effects on people," however, insists Sophie Gallotti, coordinator of studies on contaminants at the Agence francaise pour la swcurite sanitaire des aliments (Afssa) [French Agency for Food Health Security]. The same sentiment is expressed by Remi Maximilien, toxicological expert at Afssa, for whom the sea-urchin experiment "shows a potential mechanism for cancer genesis that remains to be proved in human beings."

Contested Interpretation

Monsanto is not impressed by these results. "It's not up to us to judge the interest of these publications, the validity of which we do not contest, but the interpretation," indicates Mathilde Durif, spokeswoman for the French subsidiary of the American giant. These results contradict sixty other available studies and "neither the European authorities nor the World Health Organization, nor the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) have classified this product as carcinogenic."

Glyphosate is, however, an active ingredient and "it is necessary to use it according to the recommended usage." A cautious attitude that seems slightly in contradiction with the firm's marketing efforts. And these are now already under attack by the Breton association, which reproaches Monsanto with making its product's "biodegradability" an advertising argument – one already judged to be a lie by the American legal system.

Translation: by t r u t h o u t French language correspondent

leslie.thatcher@truthout.org