Must-read recap: The New Lede's top stories
Evidence links weedkiller to cancer, US conservation challenges, scientists criticize US chemical regulation, pesticides and climate change, and a food additive associated with diabetes.
New US research finds “worrying” evidence linking Monsanto weedkiller to cancer
New research by top US government scientists has found that people exposed to the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate have biomarkers in their urine linked to the development of cancer and other diseases.
The study, published last week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, measured glyphosate levels in the urine of farmers and other study participants and determined that the presence of high levels of the pesticide were associated with signs of a reaction in the body called oxidative stress, a condition that causes damage to DNA. Oxidative stress is considered by health experts as a key characteristic of carcinogens.
The authors of the paper – 10 scientists with the National Institutes of Health and two from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – concluded that their study “contributes to the weight of evidence supporting an association between glyphosate exposure and oxidative stress in humans.” They also noted that “accumulating evidence supports the role of oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of hematologic cancers,” such as lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia.
“Oxidative stress is not something you want to have,” said Linda Birnbaum, a toxicologist and former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. “This study increases our understanding that glyphosate has the potential to cause cancer.”
The study findings come after the CDC reported last year that more than 80% of urine samples drawn from children and adults contained glyphosate. The CDC reported that out of 2,310 urine samples taken from a group of Americans intended to be representative of the US population, 1,885 were laced with detectable traces of glyphosate.
Glyphosate is the most heavily applied herbicide in history, both in the US and globally. One of the best-known glyphosate-based products is Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller. Roundup has been used by farmers as well as consumers for more than 40 years. Officials with Monsanto and its German owner Bayer AG have always assured the public and regulators that exposure to the weed killer does not pose a threat to human health.
Bayer said the new NIH study has many “significant methodological limitations that affects its reliability,” and said the results conflict with other government research. (Read the rest of the story.)
US politics complicates bid to protect nature
It’s been a month since the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP15) ended with a historic international agreement aimed at expanding efforts to protect and preserve land, water and ecosystems around the globe.
Now the more than 190 countries that approved the ambitious plan to protect 30% of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030 – among other goals- are faced with how to turn their promises into political realities.
In the United States, efforts to counteract the extinction crisis must contend with a unique set of challenges. Not only did the US sit on the sidelines at COP15, declining to join in the agreement, but newly strengthened Republican forces in Congress signal that progress on protecting nature won’t come easy.
Last year, Republican congressmembers introduced the “30 x 30 Termination Act,” which would overturn a Biden Administration’s conservation plan very similar to a target in the Global Biodiversity Framework adopted at COP15. Republicans call the plan a “land grab.”
Though the act has so far failed to pass, congresswoman Lauren Boebert of Colorado plans to reintroduce it now that Republicans control the US House of Representatives.
The situation at the federal level has environmental advocates worried and ramping up their own conservation efforts to confront the extinction crisis.
“We’re not playing at the international level and we’re not taking [the extinction crisis] seriously on our own soil,” said Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. (Read the rest of the story.)
Updated approach to regulating chemicals is “urgently needed,” say scientists
The US regulatory system for chemicals is not adequately protecting human health, and an overhaul is urgently needed, according to recommendations made this week by a group of environmental and health scientists.
In a paper published Thursday in Environmental Science and Technology, the group of 12 researchers criticized the nation’s chemical regulatory system for operating in ways that allow farmers, consumers and others to be exposed to unsafe chemicals on a regular basis.
Adoption of a new, “essential-use” approach is required, the researchers said. The framework proposed asks governments and businesses to assess chemicals using three questions: 1) “Is the function of the chemical necessary for the product?” 2) “Is the use of the chemical the safest feasible option?” and 3) “Is use of the chemical in the product justified because such use is necessary for health, safety, or the functioning of society?”
Current laws and practices employed by the US Environmental Protection Agency essentially require that a chemical must be proven unsafe to be barred from the market. The proposed system would flip that on its head, similar to the theory of the “precautionary principle,” which considers that a product should be proven safe to be approved.
“The current system of managing chemicals is broken,” said Carol Kwiatkowski, an author of the paper and a senior scientist at the Green Science Policy Institute, an environmental health advocacy group. “The essential-use approach is the first feasible solution that will actually protect people and the environment before extensive damage is done.”
Co-authors include researchers from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the University of Massachusetts, the University of Toronto, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group.
More than 350,000 chemicals and mixtures of chemicals have been registered for production and use, according to a global review published in 2020. Environmental health advocates say not enough is known about the possible adverse effects these chemicals are having on the environment and human health. Many are clearly dangerous for humans exposed to them, including certain types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Some chemicals on the market in the US have been shown to disrupt hormones and impact reproductive health, cause cancers and other diseases and interfere with neurological development, among other harms. (Read the rest of the story.)
Report finds “vicious cycle” between pesticide dependence and climate change
Pesticide use is a significant factor in harmful climate change, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions in multiple ways, according to a report issued this week.
The report released by the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) found that greenhouse gases are emitted during production of these pesticides as well as when they are applied to crops, and later on, as they linger in the soil. In turn, climate change creates conditions that lead to greater pesticide use, creating a vicious cycle.
“Some pesticides themselves are powerful greenhouse gases,” Margaret Reeves, a senior scientist at PANNA in California and an author of the report, said during the webinar announcing the report.
Reeves cited a pesticide called sulfuryl fluoride as an example. The fumigant has nearly 5,000 times the potency of carbon dioxide, and in 2018 alone, three million pounds of sulfuryl fluoride were applied in California for agricultural purposes, Reeves said.
A 2021 study found that sulfuryl fluoride remains in the atmosphere for about 36 years.
Last year environmental groups filed a petition urging the California Air Resources Board to phase out sulfuryl fluoride due to its impact on climate change, arguing that phasing out sulfuryl fluoride would provide the same climate benefits as taking 1 million cars off US roads each year.
Reeves said many pesticides also release volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which react with nitrous oxide to produce ground-level ozone, a greenhouse gas that harms human lungs and burns plant tissue. The US Department of Agriculture has found that ozone may damage plants more than all other air pollutants combined. (Read the rest of the story.)
Common food additive associated with type 2 diabetes risk
Chemical compounds commonly used to cure ham, bacon and other meats are associated with type 2 diabetes risk, according to new research.
Nitrites are often used to extend the shelf life of food products. While harmless nitrites also occur naturally in foods, nitrite additives have been linked to certain cancers. A study published this week in PLOS Medicine has determined another health risk from the chemicals: type 2 diabetes. Researchers found people with elevated intake of nitrites, specifically from food additives and drinking water, had a higher risk of eventually developing the disease.
The study authors wrote that their findings show a “direct association” between nitrite additives and type 2 diabetes risk. The study is the first to find an association between the chemicals and type 2 diabetes.
The research team, which included scientists from the World Health Organization, the University of Paris, and Sorbonne University, used data from a nationwide study of over 100,000 French adults that tracked their dietary choices and health status between 2009 and 2021. From that data, the team estimated nitrite exposure. Participants with higher exposure to nitrites from food additives, and specifically those with higher exposure to sodium nitrite, had a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
Processed meats were the biggest source of nitrite additives consumed by study participants, at 60%, followed by ready-to-eat meals with processed meats at 16%. Other foods with processed meats made up virtually all of the nitrite consumption.
In the paper, the researchers write that their findings are not evidence of a causal relationship between nitrites and diabetes. (Read the rest of the story.)