Glyphosate is the most successful weedkiller in the world, it is considered environmentally and toxicologically safe, cheap and highly effective. Its breakthrough came with the introduction of glyphosate-resistant crops such as genetically modified soy, cotton and corn by Monsanto. 90% of genetically modified crops grown worldwide are glyphosate-resistant. Monsanto sells the total herbicide under the name Roundup.
Effect of glyphosate
Glyphosate (chemical formula: C3H8NO5P) is a broad-spectrum herbicide. This means that it destroys every plant it comes into contact with, so-called weeds as well as field weeds, which are so important for beneficial insects such as bees. Glyphosate has the positive property of binding immediately to soil particles, which means that it is hardly washed out and is rarely found in water samples. If the active ingredient is ingested by animals, it is largely excreted in urine and feces. It is also found in breast milk. In pregnant Thai farmers, it has also been detected in the umbilical cord of the unborn child. The effects are still insufficiently researched.
The harmfulness of glyphosate is the subject of much debate. However, in view of its widespread use for almost 40 years, an excessively harmful effect on health is actually unlikely.
It is undisputed that glyphosate destroys diversity in our fields; flowering weeds and the insects that live on them don't stand a chance. In view of the fact that the number of insects has decreased by 75% over the last 30 years, the EU's extension of the authorization of glyphosate is highly regrettable.
Is the EU on its knees?
The result was close! At the end of November 2017, a decision was made at European level to extend the approval of the total herbicide glyphosate for a further five years. This was preceded by months of battles for the sovereignty of interpretation and opinion. IARC, consumer advocates, NGOs and environmental organizations on the one side, BFR, EU Commission, farmers' associations and agricultural companies on the other.
The European Food Safety Agency (Efsa) was even accused of lobbying and plagiarism beforehand, as passages in its report on the health risks of glyphosate were copied verbatim from a Monsanto report. In particular, paragraphs questioning the credibility of studies showing an increased risk of cancer from glyphosate use were copied.
It was also unpleasant to note that Germany, of all countries, voted in favor of the extension, as Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, which is planning to take over Monsanto, is based there. The extension of glyphosate was also immediately reflected in an increase in Bayer's share value.
Deep trenches
The mood can now be summarized as follows: For some, glyphosate is a highly harmful poison and is suspected of being carcinogenic.
For others, it is a pesticide like any other. Its safety and harmlessness have been sufficiently tested and no (negative) effects are to be expected if it is used properly. And many farmers are convinced that efficient food production would not be possible without glyphosate.
In Austria alone, a total of 312 tons of the active ingredient glyphosate were placed on the market in 2016(AGES). The total amount of active substance placed on the market in 2016 was over 4,300 tons (Green Report 2017). According to the hazardous substance label, glyphosate is considered corrosive and dangerous to the environment. The Austrian AGES plant protection product register lists a total of 7 corrosive active substances and 472 environmentally hazardous active substances/plant protection products.
Problems with new approval
Even if we cannot clarify the harmfulness of glyphosate, it is understandable why glyphosate in particular is causing such a stir. Because the topic is far-reaching. If we look at glyphosate, the discussion inevitably leads to genetic engineering and South America. There, rainforest has to make way for glyphosate-resistant soybeans created by Monsanto, and this genetically modified soy ends up as cheap feed for livestock in European animal factories.
The discussion about the treatment of our livestock comes up immediately and what is the right or wrong way to eat and how much agricultural production is subject to the dictates of globalization.
The conflict over glyphosate is therefore an important one, where much more is at stake than just one active ingredient among many.
An EU decision against glyphosate would have been an opportunity, an opportunity for alternative sustainable agriculture, an opportunity to talk about plant diversity, diversity of beneficial insects such as bees and birds and animal welfare.
