By JR Bruning, a trustee of Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand.
Alan Emerson’s article “A debate that’s more fiction than fact” is a disservice to farmers and growers.
The reassessment of glyphosate has been extraordinarily political. New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) hasn’t reassessed glyphosate, and the more toxic glyphosate-based herbicide formulations that farmers are exposed to, since the 1970s.
No, the European Food Safety Authority has not classified glyphosate as a carcinogen. But the finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen still stands.
Applicators might keep in mind the fact that the European vote to renew glyphosate occurred after a vote deadlock. Certain issues were left as “outstanding” or “could not be finalised” by the assessment due to gaps in the available data.
Emerson fails to mention that farmers are often the plaintiffs in court cases. Blood cancers are a known occupational disease for people who use pesticides.
The science is not settled, it’s extraordinarily contested.
I am not saying don’t use glyphosate. It is an important herbicide. Cockies need to spot spray and arable growers need to prep before seeding. Many herbicides are much more toxic. But the regulator abstaining from proper risk assessment and a lack of funding for science fails farmers. Europe has much more rigorous rules around application on and around crops, and they don’t pour glyphosate down roadsides, and into freshwater environments.
Our drinking water levels for glyphosate are based on an unpublished 1981 Monsanto study. The World Health Organisation in 2022 based it finding on its 2003 assessment, where the principle reference relates to a 1981 Monsanto study. Science, hey?
We find it easy to dismiss a weight of evidence. Regulatory agencies including the European Food Safety Authority historically primarily base their findings on a narrow group of studies supplied by industry. Industry data becomes the weight of evidence. In Europe’s recent review, many studies were excluded because the formulation studied by independent scientists is not a guideline; the formulation is the real-time mixture that applicators and farmers are exposed to.
The EPA has just dismissed a request for the first reassessment in 40 years because “what we received from the applicant does not meet the criteria for significant new information and does not justify a reassessment of this substance”.
But the EPA did this by strictly keeping to regulatory protocols, while excluding important white papers, and court documents. The EPA does not conduct reviews of the published literature.
Regulatory science is political. In this gap, with $52 billion in agricultural exports, we could have long-term funding for scientists to do this sort of public-good research.
The ESR and the Centre for Public Health Research struggle to access funding to assess pesticide-related risks. The Ministry of Health is not interested. As all the lab testing is privatised, universities won’t run studies without funding. AgResearch is letting staff go and the board has confirmed that the Crown Research Institute must never run at a loss. This is after years of frozen funding levels.
The shifting of science to prioritise private-public partnerships and patents that return royalties is part of the story. Toxin-related research is outside government funding agendas.
This is important research that might show harm, but when it’s politically controversial, it’s dead in the water.
The United States Roundup trials revealed “the importance of multiple exposure episodes per year, over multiple years, including a certain percentage of high-exposure episodes caused by application equipment problems, leaky hoses and valves, spills, wind, spray patterns and equipment clean-up and repair”.
Court transcripts show how glyphosate pools in the epidermis, resulting in longer-term exposures for accidentally exposed workers. Applicators take off gloves to drive, to answer the phone or eat lunch or when they use a backpack. Unfortunately, unintentional pesticide poisoning is all too common.
Other contaminants in the retail formulation include heavy metals and synergists.
Ironically, because glyphosate is such a golden child we were late recognising glyphosate resistance in weeds. Now it’s common to mix herbicide formulations. Herbicide resistance is a global problem.
Investment in integrated pest management, and scoping of global research to inform farmers and growers of best practice is simply not in government science budgets, which revolve around methane mitigation while ignoring climate adaption.
Synergies from mixtures are not studied in New Zealand. Do residues of pesticide mixtures bioaccumulate at such a level where earthworms and honeybees are put at risk? Or, due to glyphosate’s binding properties, are soil minerals less bioavailable in frequently sprayed paddocks? Do herbicide-sprayed feed-crops impact livestock fertility?
Which spraying patterns tip applicators into occupationally related chronic health conditions? Digestive tract, mental health and autoimmune conditions will be more likely to be considered unrelated, and just bad luck. Applicators can’t even get their blood tested to assess exposure levels.
Ultimately, if we have an agricultural and horticultural products regulatory review, and officials continue to fail to address mixture synergies, while dismissing the fact that farmers, growers and soils are frequently unavoidably exposed to mixtures, we can miss issues which drive disease and suppress productivity.
Farmers and growers are in a double bind. This sci-knowledge gap leaves farmers and growers as the bad guys, damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
In Focus Podcast: Full Show | 9 August
A feature documentary film, Six Inches of Soil, has been screening in NZ cinemas recently. It follows three young British farmers through their first year of transitioning to regenerative practices. The film has been brought here by regenerative farmer network Quorum Sense and its chair Becks Smith talks with Bryan about the network, the film and why we’ve been talking about regen the wrong way.
Ongoing issues farmers have been having when trying to clear migrant workers through immigration appear to have been fixed, with a stopgap measure introduced to ensure calving is a bit easier. Federated Farmers dairy chair Richard McIntyre updates Bryan about the changes and what he’s doing to make sure an enduring solution is found.
Senior reporter Neal Wallace says there are big challenges ahead for the red meat sector as it grapples with lower stock numbers and over-capacity. One processor in Oamaru has already laid off staff and Neal says there may be more rationalisation to come. He also discusses the ongoing push to get more rural GPs trained and working in our communities.
