Anti-pesticide sentiment has never been more prevalent, as California courts and anti-agricultural organizations frighten the public with non-science based claims of the harmful effects of crop protection materials such as glyphosate. What farmers need to understand though now, is that much more than glyphosate is currently at stake. The legislature is now being pressured to change the whole pesticide regulatory system as we know it. Watch this brief interview with Michael Miiller, Director of Government Relations with the California Association of Winegrape Growers to learn more.
Tag: Glyphosate
-
Trial Lawyers Once Again Coming for U.S. Farmers & Dairy Producers
It isn’t often that US farmers and dairy producers’ side with the EPA. However, in the case of a growing number of suits targeted at farming practices, and one ingredient in particular, US farmers and dairy producers are supporting the EPA and its science-based approval system as it links to glyphosate. Glyphosate, or what many commonly refer to as RoundUp as it is the main active ingredient in the product, is under fire in California where cases are underway claiming a cause and effect of the weedkiller and cancer.Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in U.S. agriculture, and as Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue stated, “If we are going to feed 10 billion people by 2050, we are going to need all the tools at our disposal, which includes the use the glyphosate”. US farmers and ranchers utilize weed killer to maximize the output on their farms and maintain healthy crops and forage, for both consumers and their herds. Glyphosate has been used for years across the country and users must follow strict guidelines and application practices. New guidelines are even now being integrated as the industry looks to decrease any “drift” from the product and its potential effect on pollinators.
This past April, the EPA reaffirmed its previous findings that glyphosate is not a cancer risk to users, nor is it a risk to children or expectant mothers. The EPA has repeated its claims that products such as RoundUp are safe for use on backyards and areas where children play.
It’s no surprise though that organizations like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) have come out against the EPA’s findings and are in support of the erroneous claims against the product. EWG and trial lawyers across the country are now turning their backs on science and turning the issue into a fiscal opportunity at farmers’ expense, lining their own pocketbooks with frivolous litigation.
The cases filed in California state a direct link between the use of glyphosate-based products and cancer. Disregarding all available science, one case was initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff and millions of dollars were to be awarded to a groundskeeper who blamed the regular use of RoundUp on his cancer. Following the initial ruling, such activist groups as EWG jumped at the opportunity to skew public perception and promote anti-science based claims against the product and US agriculture.
This issue is yet another example of trial lawyers using US agriculture as an easy target for frivolous lawsuits. Farmers and ranchers rely on science-based information and research to ensure they are utilizing best practices, and to safeguard against erroneous claims like those noted above. We must support the continued use and reliance on best-science to guide our management practices, and to protect our industry against those seeking an “easy win”. In this case, US farmers and dairy producers support the EPA and its reaffirmation of the safety of glyphosate.
By: Laurie Fischer, CEO, The American Dairy Coalition -
Testing Your Product for Glyphosate
Glyphosate: In the News
Chances are you’ve been hearing a lot in the news recently about glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide and plant growth regulator Roundup®.
In early August, a jury awarded $289 million to a former groundskeeper who claimed that exposure to Roundup® caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This heavily publicized case was quickly followed by a report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which found that 31 out of 45 of the conventionally grown cereals being tested “…had glyphosate levels higher than what EWG scientists consider protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety”.
According to the EWG report, glyphosate levels in cereals must remain under 0.01 milligrams or a concentration of 160 ppb (part-per-billion). Levels above this benchmark standard were reported to cause increased health concerns for consumers.
The EWG report authors reached a consumption limit of 0.01 milligrams per day by applying a 100x safety factor to California’s Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for glyphosate (1.1 mg/day). This NSRL under Prop. 65 itself represents a more than a 100x reduction from the acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) set by both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) after their reviews of the toxicity data for glyphosate. In other words, the Environmental Working Group set a “safety limit” that was 10,000-fold below the risk-based limits set by EPA and WHO!
The European Commission is famously cautious when it comes to setting pesticide residue limits. Even using the safe intake level set by the Commission – consuming 0.3 mg of glyphosate per kg of body weight per day-a person would have to weigh less than one-tenth of a pound to stay under the EWG benchmark.
Studies such as the EWG report raise the anxiety level for consumers trying to feed their families a healthy diet. As a result, that concern is filtering up through retailors, meaning if it hasn’t already reached you, it will soon. As with most regulatory issues in agriculture, preparation is key. One step is to consider testingfor glyphosate residues now so that you’re pre-armed with the data your customers will demand.
What You Need to Know About Glyphosate Analysis
The first thing to know about glyphosate testing is that, despite the fact that it is one of the most commonly used pesticides in the US (and the world), it is not included in general pesticide residue screens. With modern techniques and instrumentation, a multi-residue screen can cover over 300 compounds, but the chemical nature of glyphosate (high polarity / water solubility) makes it distinct from the vast majority of commonly applied pesticides. That means a specialized test is needed to be able to detect it.
The good news is that the specific formulation of glyphosate used (isopropylamine salt, sodium salt, etc.) does not affect the analysis needed. It is, however, important to know the residue definition for your specific market and commodity. For instance, the residue definition for glyphosate in wheat for the US and the EU requires that you only measure the amount of glyphosate in the commodity. Codex, on the other hand, requires that you also measure the amount of N-acetylglyphosate, which is a metabolite of glyphosate; Australia requires glyphosate, N-acetylglyphosate and AMPA (another metabolite). Make sure the testing lab you use is measuring the correct compounds for your needs.
The last thing that’s important when testing for glyphosate is to make sure that the laboratory doing your testing has previously validated their method for your commodity or commodity group. Many of the methods for glyphosate analysis, including the official EU QuPPE method, have not been validated for tree nuts, avocado, animal products or other high fat matrices. Safe Food Alliance offers glyphosate analysis for most agricultural commodities grown in California (including tree nuts); either by itself, or as part of our Polar Pesticide Screen, which also includes glufosinate, ethephon, paraquat, diquat, mepiquat, and chlormequat.
For more information on the services Safe Food Alliance laboratory offers, contact Annette Magee at annettem@safefoodalliance.com.
This article was written by Wiley Hall from the Safe Food Alliance. https://safefoodalliance.com/newsletter/2018-09/testing-your-product-for-glyphosate/