Must-read recap: The New Lede's top stories

Mexico further slashes glyphosate imports; new book details Roundup trials drama; higher-than-reported harmful emissions from Gulf oil and gas production; "Devil's bargain" pesticides.

As trade dispute heats up, Mexico further slashes glyphosate imports

Amid a high-stakes stand-off with US trade officials over favored American agricultural products, Mexico is slashing the amount of glyphosate allowed to be imported into the country by 50% for 2023.

The move is no surprise; Mexico issued a decree in 2020 giving its farmers until 2024 to stop using the weed killing chemical. But coming amid an increasingly heated dispute with US trade officials, the action underscores Mexico’s commitment to free itself from a dependence on the synthetic pesticides and genetically engineered crops promoted by American interests.

Along with banning glyphosate, Mexico is ratcheting back imports of genetically engineered corn that is designed to be sprayed with glyphosate. Mexico says the changes are needed to protect the health of its population. The country has also signaled concerns about other GMO crops sprayed with glyphosate.

Glyphosate is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, and is linked to an array of other human and environmental health problems. It was introduced by Monsanto in 1974 and is the world’s most widely used weed killer, known best as the active ingredient in the Roundup brand. Monsanto developed genetically engineered corn, soybeans, canola and other crops to tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate, a trait that makes it easier for farmers to kill weeds in their fields.

Foods made with crops sprayed with glyphosate commonly carry residues of the weed killer, and people then consume the residues through their daily diets. 

Mexico’s retreat from these types of agricultural products has triggered a firestorm of industry opposition in the United States. In response, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) and other US agencies are fighting Mexico’s efforts, alleging violations of trade provisions of the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA) with respect to Mexico’s restrictions on GMO corn.

Mexico’s policies “threaten to disrupt billions of dollars in agricultural trade,” the USTR said in a press statement last month. Mexico’s moves to limit GMO corn “will stifle the innovation that is necessary to tackle the climate crisis and food security challenges if left unaddressed,” the USTR said. 

The two sides started “technical consultations” regarding Mexico’s measures to limit GMO corn by an April 5 deadline as a formal first step to try to resolve the dispute. (Read the rest of the story.)

New book details behind-the-scenes drama of Roundup trials

It’s been nearly eight years since the filing of the first US lawsuit alleging that Roundup weed killer and other herbicides made by Monsanto with a chemical called glyphosate can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Fueled by findings from international cancer scientists, the allegations sprawled into nationwide litigation that ultimately included more than 100,000 plaintiffs, and unveiled long-hidden corporate secrets.

After plaintiffs won the first three trials, Bayer AG, which bought Monsanto in 2018 as the first Roundup trial was getting underway, agreed to pay more than $11 billion to try to settle the litigation, and pledged to withdraw Roundup and other glyphosate-based products from the US consumer market. Though most plaintiffs have now settled, many opted out of the settlement, and trials around the US are continuing.

Chadi Nabhan, MD, MBA, a lymphoma specialist formerly with the University of Chicago, has been a key expert witness in many of the plaintiffs’ cases, including those who won the first three trials.

In his new book, Toxic Exposure: The True Story behind the Monsanto Trials and the Search for Justice, Nabhan gives readers a behind-the-scenes look into how he and other experts working for the plaintiffs’ lawyers pieced together a complicated scientific puzzle that convinced jurors of the company’s liability and the link between Roundup and NHL.

The book details what it was like for Nabhan to join the fight against Monsanto, explains how the trials affected his life’s trajectory, and highlights the struggles faced by plaintiffs suffering from cancer. The New Lede sat down with Nabhan to discuss the link between Roundup and NHL, his experiences at the trials, and what he thinks the public should know.

Q: Why was it important for you to share your experience with readers, and what do you hope they take away from your book?

A: When I went through these three trials, there was a lot of information that I learned through my own research, as well as through the legal proceedings, that I suspected the general public may not be aware of. I strongly feel that making people aware of the information about Roundup and its link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma is critical.

In February of 2019, I was being cross-examined by Monsanto’s attorney Brian Stekloff. And one of the things that he challenged me with was that I wasn’t going around the country and telling people about Roundup, its risks, and its association with cancer and lymphoma. And my answer was that I didn’t know that I could, since the trials were ongoing. He told me, in front of the judge, “No, actually, you can.” The minute he said that, I started thinking about the best way to share this information with the public. Writing a book to the general public seemed to be the best way to disseminate the information broadly.

My hope is to raise more awareness about the scientific link between Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. I hope readers really understand how I came to the conclusion that Roundup is not safe, and that patients need to be aware of the risks. I also hope that the general consumer does not take things at face value all the time. It’s okay to be a skeptic and ask questions. Monsanto always contended that if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said glyphosate was safe, then it was safe. I think what the readers are going to notice is that just because the EPA said it’s safe, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s safe. I really hope that this leads to more people asking critical questions, because ultimately, we all could be in the shoes of these patients. (Read the rest of the Q&A.)

Harmful emissions from Gulf oil and gas production far higher than EPA reports, study finds

Offshore oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico are releasing far higher quantities of a potent greenhouse gas than regulators have estimated, according to a new study published Monday.

The analysis reveals that the climate change impact of these activities is more than double what official estimates suggest.

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,  found that 2021 calculations  by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – using data from the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) – correctly estimated carbon dioxide emissions but underestimated methane emissions.

The data, which is based on engineering information, rather than on-site observations, failed to capture methane emissions because an older type of shallow-water platform used in offshore drilling often behaves like a “super-emitter,” leaking large amounts of the greenhouse gas, said Alan Gorchov Negron, a PhD candidate at the University of Michigan and first author of the study. These platforms are central hub gathering and processing facilities, which collect oil and gas through pipelines that extend from smaller nearby platforms.

“They’re a fraction of the platforms in the Gulf of Mexico but they contribute disproportionately to the total methane emissions and total greenhouse gas emissions,” said Negron.

“We don’t know exactly why the methane emissions are higher than what the inventory expects,” he added. “It’s either because of unknown emissions or unreported emissions.”

Methane emissions are considered major contributors to harmful climate change.

The study’s findings come “on an eve of a series of expansions in [oil and gas] production” for the Gulf of Mexico, said Negron. At an auction last week, oil and gas extraction companies gained access to 1.6 million acres of waters in the Gulf – a drop in the 73.3 million-acre federal waters “bucket” that BOEM has opened for bidding. Ten more lease sales are proposed for between 2023 and 2028, said Negron. (Read the rest of the story.)

Letter to the EPA: Take action on “Devil’s bargain” pesticides

An Open Letter to: Michael Regan, Administrator; Michal Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention; and Ed Messina, Office of Pesticide Programs Director, Environmental Protection Agency

(By Peter T. Jenkins, senior counsel, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.)

The environment needs protection from neonicotinoid-coated pesticidal seeds, which are by far the greatest single insecticide application across the country, covering more than 100 million acres. Fundamental ecosystem integrity, plus the welfare of millions of birds and other animals where the coated seeds are planted, are at risk. You can be the difference makers if you seize the opportunity.

You know, as we NGO-types have recited to you in the past through broadly-supported letters and petitions, that a major body of evidence now shows neonic-coated seeds are the Devil’s bargain. While there may be some effective uses, they are mostly used prophylactically with no assessment of need. And yet they do great harm to essential pollinators, beneficial insects, and farmland birds, while contaminating the environment with their toxins.

In Ontario, Canada, when farmers were compelled to prove they needed to use neonic-coated seeds before being allowed by the provincial government, their use declined by a huge margin with no adverse economic effect.

Neonics have largely been banned in Europe since 2015. But, in the US, their excess production as a result of your agency’s leniency is a waste that resulted in the ongoing tragedy in Mead, Nebraska, where AltEn gathered about 80,000 tons of unwanted neonic-coated seeds in order to distill them for ethanol but instead ending up contaminating the environment to the tune of roughly $100 million in total damages. EPA’s uncritical approval of these seeds enabled the Mead disaster.

Of all the environmental threats in the United States, pesticides are conceptually the easiest to prevent because all the approved products out there resulted from registrations by your agency. But I am not asking you to cancel registrations, I am just asking you to take a closer look at EPA’s interpretation and regulatory issues that have allowed the harms of neonic-coated seeds to spin out of control. In particular, I refer to Office of Pesticide Programs Director Edward Messina’s decision of Sept. 27, 2022, which denied the petition by the nation’s leading commercial beekeeper, Bret Adee, as well as the Center for Food Safety and many others.

Their filing sought a new interpretation of EPA’s Treated Article Exemption to no longer exempt neonic-coated seeds from direct regulation as pesticides. That petition, filed in 2017, laid out clear reasons for doing so. (Read the rest of the opinion column.)