Glyphosate exposure significantly increases (+41%) the risk of contracting non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The latest study from the University of Washington-published on 10.2.19 in ‘Science Direct‘-removes all doubt.
Glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the meta-analysis
‘Glyphosate is the broad-spectrum systemic herbicide most widely used in the world. Recent assessments of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) by various regional, national, and international agencies have generated controversy’. Thus begins the University of Washington’s research, ‘Exposure to Glyphosate-Based Herbicides and Risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Meta-Analysis and Supporting Evidence‘. (1)
‘
Our current meta-analysis
of human epidemiological studies suggests a convincing link
between exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) and increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
‘.
The risk of contracting non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a neoplasm of lymphatic tissue, increases to an extent of 41 percent in subjects heavily exposed to glyphosate. The researchers analyzed scientific studies evaluating the impact of glyphosate on humans, also taking into account research conducted on animals. ‘This research provides the most up-to-date analysis on glyphosate and its link to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, incorporating a 2018 study of more than 54,000 workers using licensed pesticides’, explains co-author Rachel Shaffer.
The analysis assesses reliability and relevance of a number of studies that have considered the impact of glyphosate on human health. These include the latest update of theAgricultural Health Study, published by the U.S. government in 2018, along with five control studies. By resorting to data on groups subjected to a higher level of exposure, where available, the overall risk of contracting non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma appears to be increased by 41 percent.
‘To put our findings into context of an increased risk of NHL in subjects with high GBH exposure, we reviewed available animal and mechanistic studies that provided evidence supporting the carcinogenic potential of GBH. We have documented further support from studies on the incidence of malignant lymphoma in pure glyphosate-treated mice, as well as potential links between GBH exposure and immunosuppression, endocrine changes, and genetic alterations that are commonly associated with NHL.
Overall, in agreement with the evidence coming from experimental animal and mechanistic studies, our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a convincing link between GBH exposures and increased risk of NHL‘.
Glyphosate, ‘
the never-ending story
‘
The University of Washington study
represents the culmination of more than a decade of research
on the risks associated with human and animal exposure to
glyphosate
. The world’s most widely used pesticide has been associated with serious harm to human health and has been classified as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans‘ by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (AIRC), WHO, in 2015. But the scientific community, inevitably exposed to the vigorous influences of the
lobby
of manufacturers of
pesticides
, has not yet reached a unanimous consensus.
The
Environment Protection Agency
(EPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, had asserted in a 2017 draft assessment that the herbicide ”is
is not likely to be carcinogenic
‘ for human beings. The EuropeanChemicals Agency (Echa).
had in turn argued, also in 2017, that ”
the available scientific evidence does not meet the criteria for classifying glyphosate as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction
‘. (2)
On the judicial front meanwhile, compensation actions against Monsanto-Bayer were triggered. A former school custodian, regular user of ‘Round-up‘ (glyphosate) who later developed terminal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2014, obtained an order for the agro-chemical giant to pay 289 million of dollars (a figure later reduced to US$ 78 million by the appellate court).
On the old continent, the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) had first assessed the ‘insufficient evidence’ of scientific evidence for a link to cancer. And in the subsequent review of the maximum content of glyphosate in food, in April 2018, it indicated that ‘The review-which covers all glyphosate-treated crops-also includes a risk assessment showing that, at current levels of exposure, there is no identified risk to human health‘. (3)
Politicians in Europe
had thus reached yet another compromise
, in November 2017, to grant yet another renewal to the glyphosate authorization. For 5 years instead of 10, under the banner of contradiction. Based on scientific opinions, however, which have garnered pointed and fierce criticism, from independent experts and civil society.
Glyphosate and pesticides. The demands of civil society and the responses of politics
A scientific report
commissioned by MEPs from the political groups ‘
European Greens’
, GUE and S&D, in January 2019, highlighted the dark side of the recent renewal of the authorization for the use of
glyphosate
. Showing how already the German Federal Risk Assessment Agency (Bfr), delegated by the European Commission to the
risk assessment
later taken up by Efsa, had based its report on ‘copy – pasting’ more than 50 percent of the studies submitted by Monsanto (now Bayer)
& Co.
Independent and transparent studies have been clamored for by civil society. The battle continues, millions of signatures have been collected to have scientific assessments of pesticide safety carried out on the basis of independent scientific studies. The ‘full discovery‘, that is, making available to the public all the acts considered in the scientific evaluation processes entrusted to Efsa. And a political agreement in that direction – between Parliament, Commission and Council – was reached on 11.2.19 in Strasbourg after months of intense negotiations. (4)
In fact, on 16.1.19, the European Parliament had approved by a very large majority (526 votes in favor, 72 abstentions and 66 against) the recommendations of its ‘Pest’ Commission, which was established in February 2018 just after the last glyphosate authorization renewal to review the EU pesticide authorization procedure. The Strasbourg Assembly therefore requested:
– The publication of all studies considered in pesticide licensing procedures, including those submitted by applicants,
– The introduction of a ‘comment period,’ during which interested social partners(stakeholders) can submit studies that the evaluator will also need to consider,
– effective monitoring, following the placing of substances on the market, of their effects on public health and the environment.
Dario Dongo and Sabrina Bergamini
Notes
(1) Luoping Zhang et al. (2019). ‘
Exposure to Glyphosate-Based Herbicides and Risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Meta-Analysis and Supporting Evidence
‘. Science Direct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.02.001
– Echa. Glyphosate not classified as a carcinogen by ECHA https://echa.europa.eu/it/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa
(2) Unless it is confirmed that glyphosate causes serious eye damage and is toxic to aquatic organisms with long-lasting effects
(3) Cf. Efsa, ‘Review of the existing maximum residue levels for glyphosate according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005‘
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/it/efsajournal/pub/5263
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
Journalist. Consumption, rights, nutrition, social, environment. Head of Consumers Help. She collaborated with ResetDOC, Il Riformista, La Nuova Ecologia, IMGPress.
