I haven't read UC-SD's Dr. Saurez' article in Environmental Health Perspectives (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP11383) in GREAT detail but of the 9 neurobehavior tests he ran on these Ecuadorian farmworker children, he found a statistically significant (2% chance its chance) on social perception -- affect recognition. I note that herbicide exposure was grouped into terciles and these were statistically analyzed. If you look at Figure 2A showing the purported effect of Roundup on social perception, you'll see that about half the dots are outside of the (basely perceptible) 95% confidence interval.
I use quotation marks here for my emphasis added below.
Citing a review based on two epidemiological and 15 in vivo studies, glyphosate showed "a moderate level of evidence" with an increased risk of ASD in children. Pregnant women within 2 km of heavy pesticide use areas had a 16% higher chance of having kids on the autism spectrum than similar women living more than 2 km from these areas.
How might this be? "Elevated intracellular chloride levels of neurons and neocortical tissue have been observed in autism." -- Maybe a better way to avoid autism is to avoid salt?
Glycine binding of the glycine receptor of neurons "can influence" the rate of calcium influx into neurons during neurodevelopment.
Given "glyphosate’s potential" to be a glycine mimetic, "it could" cause similar patterns of overconcentrated chloride within immature neurons.
I respect science and am sure that Environmental Health Perspectives has reviewers more capable than I, but I wonder if a flawed method of assessment of children's recognition of cues from their interlocutors, a wide net of potential variables in looking for a significant response, (in my M.S. study I found a significant effect at the 5% level when I analyzed 20 variables), and a strained causal linkage should make us a bit more critical of rushing to embrace this finding.
I suspect that few of the people that I encounter who are unalterably opposed to use of Roundup have critically reviewed the scientific literature in coming to their stance. Is it a matter of identifying with the appropriate tribe rather than evaluating the evidence?
As with everything in life, one must weigh potential costs against potential benefits. Some studies are more concerning than others. I found reports of the Sri Lankan study (I didn't spend too much time with the study itself, admittedly) to be of greatest concern. If Roundup breaks down only slowly in hard water, this has implications for nearly everyone who uses well water. Eighty-five percent of well water in the U.S. is hard.
I have used Roundup in the past--and it may have its place--but we should at the very least reconsider the intensity with which we're using it. And we should always proceed with caution before putting chemicals into the environment. Manufacturers have built-in incentives to oversell benefits and undersell harms, many of which don't become manifest for decades. Why not err on the side of caution?
Hmmm.... I imagine that the techniques used to asses the cognitive abilities of the children could have been flawed. I have no way of adequately assessing that.
If you would like to write a full post countering this one I wrote on glyphosate, I'd be open to publishing it.
Non-arsenical insecticides (occupational exposures in spraying and application of)
Eating red meat
Drinking hot Mate tea hot
Drinking very hot beverages at above 65 °C.
Not to mention the lethality of getting on the freeway.
So yeah, if you don't fry food, drink tea, or spray for ants not applying Roundup would be an important health factor. Just hire someone who likes to live dangerously to do it.
David, you raise a good point. I do think that the published material that the EPA has on Roundup should be updated, that glyphosate is not as benign as we had previously thought. It has been linked to cancers and other ailments. It can persist in the environment longer than we had previously thought.
Like the things you have listed above, their hazards can be mitigated. High-temperature frying, for example, can be made less dangerous by good ventilation. There may be ways of mitigating the hazards from glyphosate. The studies that piqued my concern were the ones that concentrated on or included children's health. I think that should be a priority.
Nov 30, 2023·edited Nov 30, 2023Liked by Paul Hormick
The Roundup issue is more than somewhat contentious, and the "probably carcinogenic" category even more so - a bit of an expandable box into which almost anything can be thrown to cover someone's back if it all goes belly up one day. The list from https://substack.com/profile/28799299-david-flietner is illustrative.
Now - over 40 years ago I was the study pathologist working in an independent lab in the UK that considered early preclinical studies of Roundup. I recall that compared to many agricultural chemic it was pretty benign - as it remains in the context of those studies. That's how it got onto the market. But then there have been 40+ years of more and more work done until today you can justify your own opinion as to its safety. We all bring bias to the table.
What I would say is that Roundup should not be completely banned, there are instances when nothing else will do the job and applied with all the necessary precautions it is almost certainly reasonable to use it ... though I was interested in the comment in the article about glyphosphate-metal complexes in certain environments. That is concerning. What it, and frankly all herbicides, would not be used for is cosmetic, garden application. There are other ways to control dandelions and chickweed and most amateur gardeners are not going to follow the application methods on the table - even if they have the equipment to do so.
Richard, thank you for your thoughtful and informed comment. I agree with you that banning Roundup outright is not desirable. Having volunteered on a number of restoration projects, there are a few invasives that are almost impossible to eradicate without Roundup.
Here in Southern California, Arundo donax, the giant reed, is an aggressive invasive. Ridding a landscape of the weed is difficult even with the use of Roundup.
Cancer concerns are one thing, but the worry over the use of glyphosate increases now that we know that the herbicide is connected with liver and kidney disease. Other research ties Roundup to other ailments.
My intention in writing about Roundup was not to advocate for banning it. I just had read some recent science on its safety and wanted to share it here on my Substack
I haven't read UC-SD's Dr. Saurez' article in Environmental Health Perspectives (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP11383) in GREAT detail but of the 9 neurobehavior tests he ran on these Ecuadorian farmworker children, he found a statistically significant (2% chance its chance) on social perception -- affect recognition. I note that herbicide exposure was grouped into terciles and these were statistically analyzed. If you look at Figure 2A showing the purported effect of Roundup on social perception, you'll see that about half the dots are outside of the (basely perceptible) 95% confidence interval.
I use quotation marks here for my emphasis added below.
Citing a review based on two epidemiological and 15 in vivo studies, glyphosate showed "a moderate level of evidence" with an increased risk of ASD in children. Pregnant women within 2 km of heavy pesticide use areas had a 16% higher chance of having kids on the autism spectrum than similar women living more than 2 km from these areas.
How might this be? "Elevated intracellular chloride levels of neurons and neocortical tissue have been observed in autism." -- Maybe a better way to avoid autism is to avoid salt?
Glycine binding of the glycine receptor of neurons "can influence" the rate of calcium influx into neurons during neurodevelopment.
Given "glyphosate’s potential" to be a glycine mimetic, "it could" cause similar patterns of overconcentrated chloride within immature neurons.
I respect science and am sure that Environmental Health Perspectives has reviewers more capable than I, but I wonder if a flawed method of assessment of children's recognition of cues from their interlocutors, a wide net of potential variables in looking for a significant response, (in my M.S. study I found a significant effect at the 5% level when I analyzed 20 variables), and a strained causal linkage should make us a bit more critical of rushing to embrace this finding.
I suspect that few of the people that I encounter who are unalterably opposed to use of Roundup have critically reviewed the scientific literature in coming to their stance. Is it a matter of identifying with the appropriate tribe rather than evaluating the evidence?
As with everything in life, one must weigh potential costs against potential benefits. Some studies are more concerning than others. I found reports of the Sri Lankan study (I didn't spend too much time with the study itself, admittedly) to be of greatest concern. If Roundup breaks down only slowly in hard water, this has implications for nearly everyone who uses well water. Eighty-five percent of well water in the U.S. is hard.
I have used Roundup in the past--and it may have its place--but we should at the very least reconsider the intensity with which we're using it. And we should always proceed with caution before putting chemicals into the environment. Manufacturers have built-in incentives to oversell benefits and undersell harms, many of which don't become manifest for decades. Why not err on the side of caution?
Hmmm.... I imagine that the techniques used to asses the cognitive abilities of the children could have been flawed. I have no way of adequately assessing that.
If you would like to write a full post countering this one I wrote on glyphosate, I'd be open to publishing it.
Other things classified by IARC as probably carcinogens in humans:
Creosotes (from coal tars)
High-temperature frying
Fireplaces [Household combustion of biomass fuel (primarily wood), indoor emissions from]
Non-arsenical insecticides (occupational exposures in spraying and application of)
Eating red meat
Drinking hot Mate tea hot
Drinking very hot beverages at above 65 °C.
Not to mention the lethality of getting on the freeway.
So yeah, if you don't fry food, drink tea, or spray for ants not applying Roundup would be an important health factor. Just hire someone who likes to live dangerously to do it.
David, you raise a good point. I do think that the published material that the EPA has on Roundup should be updated, that glyphosate is not as benign as we had previously thought. It has been linked to cancers and other ailments. It can persist in the environment longer than we had previously thought.
Like the things you have listed above, their hazards can be mitigated. High-temperature frying, for example, can be made less dangerous by good ventilation. There may be ways of mitigating the hazards from glyphosate. The studies that piqued my concern were the ones that concentrated on or included children's health. I think that should be a priority.
The Roundup issue is more than somewhat contentious, and the "probably carcinogenic" category even more so - a bit of an expandable box into which almost anything can be thrown to cover someone's back if it all goes belly up one day. The list from https://substack.com/profile/28799299-david-flietner is illustrative.
Now - over 40 years ago I was the study pathologist working in an independent lab in the UK that considered early preclinical studies of Roundup. I recall that compared to many agricultural chemic it was pretty benign - as it remains in the context of those studies. That's how it got onto the market. But then there have been 40+ years of more and more work done until today you can justify your own opinion as to its safety. We all bring bias to the table.
What I would say is that Roundup should not be completely banned, there are instances when nothing else will do the job and applied with all the necessary precautions it is almost certainly reasonable to use it ... though I was interested in the comment in the article about glyphosphate-metal complexes in certain environments. That is concerning. What it, and frankly all herbicides, would not be used for is cosmetic, garden application. There are other ways to control dandelions and chickweed and most amateur gardeners are not going to follow the application methods on the table - even if they have the equipment to do so.
Richard, thank you for your thoughtful and informed comment. I agree with you that banning Roundup outright is not desirable. Having volunteered on a number of restoration projects, there are a few invasives that are almost impossible to eradicate without Roundup.
Here in Southern California, Arundo donax, the giant reed, is an aggressive invasive. Ridding a landscape of the weed is difficult even with the use of Roundup.
Cancer concerns are one thing, but the worry over the use of glyphosate increases now that we know that the herbicide is connected with liver and kidney disease. Other research ties Roundup to other ailments.
My intention in writing about Roundup was not to advocate for banning it. I just had read some recent science on its safety and wanted to share it here on my Substack