As the war on weeds gears up for summer, the London-based Institute for Science in Society publishes a Manifesto on Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. The Manifesto was published today, June 8, and already 155 scientists and medical professionals have signed, calling on all governments to ban glyphosate-based herbicides. The Manifesto states in part:
More than 80 scientists worldwide are calling on governments at all levels to ban the spraying of glyphosate herbicides, based on overwhelming evidence of harm from scientific studies and witness testimonies compiled by the group.
Please circulate widely and forward to your local government representatives
请广泛传播并且提交给你们当地的政府代表。
This letter has been signed by 292 scientists and 408 non-scientists from 46 different countries - add your name
这个宣言已获得46个国家292位科学家与408非科学家人士的签署。
We, the undersigned international scientists and medical professionals, call on governments at all levels to ban the spraying of glyphosate herbicides. As professionals who have read the literature on glyphosate herbicides and their effects, we have concluded that they are causing irreparable harm.
The World Health Organization’s recent reclassification of glyphosate as a 'probable human carcinogen' is only a small part of the known toxicity of glyphosate herbicides. Chronic exposure to glyphosate herbicides is associated not only with cancers, but also with infertility, impotence, abortions, birth defects, neurotoxicity, hormonal disruption, immune reactions, an unnamed fatal kidney disease, chronic diarrhoea, autism and other ailments.”
In addition to human diseases, glyphosate herbicides are linked to more than 40 new and re-emerging major crop diseases. They are causing irreparable harm to the entire food web; including the plant kingdom, beneficial microbes that supply nutrients to our crops and soils, fish and other aquatic life, amphibians, butterflies, bees, birds, mammals, and the human microbiome.
For the sake of the planet, our children and our grandchildren, all spraying of glyphosate herbicides should be immediately replaced with eco-friendly alternatives that restore damaged food webs. We urge you to have the courage to stop the destruction of life on our planet as leaders for future generations.
Non-scientists can sign a separate list in support of the Manifesto. If your local government is spraying toxic herbicides in a war on weeds, you can print out the Manifesto and present it to your officials.
In Washington state there are six counties that have adopted a no-spray policy. They are: Thurston, Snohomish, Clallam, Jefferson, San Juan and Island. If you don't live in one of these counties, then your county is likely spraying a highly toxic substance, increasing exposure for all life forms, at taxpayer expense.
在美国华盛顿州，已经有六个县采纳了“不喷洒除草剂”政策。他们是：Thurston, Snohomish, Clallam, Jefferson, San Juan 与Island。如果你没有居住在这些县，那么你的县可能依然在喷洒这些高毒性物质，增加对所有生命的危害，而由纳税人承担喷洒费用。
Why should you be concerned?为什么你应当关注？
The EPA evaluated 271 case reports of injury resulting from glyphosate exposure between 2002 and 2008. The reported exposures were primarily from people who had sprayed glyphosate in their yards and gardens. The EPA reported 98 (36%) cases of neurological symptoms, including seizures, unconsciousness, neuropathy, dizziness, tremor, malaise, anxiety, slurred speech, loss of coordination, numbness & tingling, lethargy, confusion and difficulty concentrating; 80 (30%) cases of dermal symptoms, including blisters, lesions, hives, rash, redness, swelling, peeling, burning, itching and soreness; 13 (5%) cases of gastro-intestinal symptoms, including vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps, blood in urine & stool, and diarrhea; 28 (10%) cases of upper-respiratory symptoms, including fluid and blood in lungs, pneumonia, bronchitis, sore throat, congestion, sinusitis, coughing, choking, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing and heavy breathing; 39 (14%) cases of ocular symptoms, including corneal abrasion, redness, burning, swelling, itching, blurred vision; 1 case of cardiovascular symptoms of chest pain, tachycardia, irregular heartbeat and palpitations; 10 (4%) cases of some combination of the above; and 2 cases of no adverse symptoms. Also reported were: vomiting blood, low platelet count, fatigue, loss of appetite, fever, chills, salivary gland swelling, muscle and joint pain.
Because glyphosate readily binds to metals, it causes mineral deficiencies in our bodies. It bioaccumulates in our organs and muscle tissue. Glyphosate has also been detected in our urine and breast milk.
Several studies have shown that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. There are no “safe” levels of endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disrupting chemicals act at extremely low concentrations and this response invalidates the dogma of 'the dose makes the poison.' In 2009 Gasnier et al. published an article in the journal Toxicology citing evidence that glyphosate-based herbicides are endocrine disruptors with “...the first endocrine disrupting actions at 0.5 ppm [parts per million]." Compare this to the EPA 'safe' level of 0.7 ppm for drinking water.
数项研究表明草甘膦是一种内分泌干扰剂。内分泌干扰剂没有“安全”剂量。内分泌干扰化学品在非常低浓度发生作用，所以“剂量致毒”的教条不适用于这种情况。2009年，Gasnier et al.在《毒理学》杂志发表了一篇论文，列举证据证实草甘膦除草剂在“0.05 ppm浓度造成内分泌干扰作用”。把这种浓度与美国环保署（EPA）对饮水规定的草甘膦残留“安全”水平0.7 ppm比较看看。
Monsanto, maker of glyphosate, has lost lawsuits that challenged their claim that glyphosate is biodegradable in both New York and France. A report by Mercurio et al. showed that glyphosate can persist in sea water for up to 315 days!
孟山都，草甘膦的制造商，声称草甘膦“生物降解”。在纽约与法国孟山都输掉了挑战它这种说法的法律诉讼。 Mercurio et al.发表的报告表明草甘膦在海水中保持其作用的时间长达315天。
What about EPA approval of glyphosate?如何理解美国环保署（EPA）对草甘膦的批准？
World-wide government regulatory authorities only require that the active ingredient be tested for toxicity. The actual product, containing surfactants and 'inert' ingredients is not tested. This allows the manufacturers to change the formulation at any time without any oversight.
According to Vallianatos & Jenkins, authors of Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA, the scientific credibility of the EPA has been damaged due to the history of fraud in the testing of these toxic chemicals that has been going on for decades.
Vallianatos quotes the EPA scientist Adrian Gross as saying that EPA scientists don't actually read the studies they get from the chemical companies, but it's a “cut-and-paste business.”
According to Vallianatos, “Staff scientists were openly using industry's own in-house (and therefore inherently biased) science in the formal approval process of dangerous chemicals. This was not oversight, it was rubber-stamping” [p. 123].
Chapter 7 gives a hair-raising account of how data is fabricated and falsified in these industry studies. According to Gross, such studies are unreliable “because EPA toxicologists don't really review them. ... Instead, they go straight to the company's summary and lift it word for word and give it as their own evaluation of those studies” [p. 130].
A new assessment report has been due out by the EPA for some time now. One reason for the delay is that the European reassessment has been delayed and the EPA is relying on renewal in the EU as part of their justification for renewal. Germany is the rapporteur member state (RMS) responsible for the safety review on glyphosate in Europe. The RMS submits the renewal assessment report to the European Food Safety Authority with a recommendation on whether or not to renew registration for glyphosate use in the EU.
The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung) is responsible for advising the European Food Safety Authority on glyphosate.
德国联邦风险评估研究所（Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung）负责给欧洲食品安全机构（EFSA）提供关于草甘膦的意见。
The Glyphosate Task Force, a consortium of chemical and biotechnology companies in Europe, headed by Monsanto Europe, prepared the dossier that was submitted to Germany requesting the re-approval of glyphosate.
In the toxicology portion of the report, it clearly states:
德国联邦风险评估研究所报告中的毒理学部分，清楚写明：
“Due to the large number of submitted toxicological studies, the RMS was not able to report the original studies in detail and an alternative approach was taken instead. The study descriptions and assessments as provided by the GTF were amended by deletion of redundant parts and new enumeration of tables. Each new study was commented by the RMS. These remarks are clearly distinguished from the original submission by a caption, are always written in italics and may be found on the bottom of the individual study summaries.”
In other words, the German Institute didn’t even bother to cut and paste. They just added a few comments in italics. The German reassessment of glyphosate was performed by the chemical companies via the Glyphosate Task Force. In the US, the glyphosate review dossier was submitted to the EPA by the Joint Glyphosate Task Force.
An Environmental Protection Agency memo dated October 30, 1991 states that the EPA classified glyphsate as a possible carcinogen in 1985. In this 1991 memo, without any justification, this classification was changed to Not Carcinogenic. Three scientists refused to sign, two of whom wrote beside their name: Do Not Concur. This document contains data that clearly shows a statistically significant increase in tumors in laboratory animals treated with glyphosate. But because there weren't more tumors in the group of animals who received a higher dose of glyphosate than there were in the group that received a lower dose, Monsanto, relying on the the 'dose makes the poison' dogma, made the claim that the tumors could not be related to glyphosate.