The Health Controversy of Glyphosates

Shennie Barroso
FN330
February 19th, 2015

Introduction
More than 18 million farmers around the world use agricultural biotechnology to improve
harvest growth, prevent damage from insects and pests, and reduce the environment impact of farming.
The use of biotechnology in the United States has provided significant advances for fighting rare
diseases, using less energy, and having efficient and improved food products in the market.1 The
innovation of modern biotechnology has led to the development of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). GMOs have had a large impact on the production of plants and crops since the 1994.2 It has
provided both negative and positive influences through presentation of research, which has swayed
public opinion and consumer acceptance of GMO products.
Literature Review
Since being brought to market in the 1970s, glyphosate, also known by Monsantos trade name
of Roundup, has been studied and researched on its impact on the environment, soil, plants, and
humans.3 Genetically modified (GM) food crops, such as wheat and corn, are treated with herbicides and
pesticides in the field to become resistant to weeds and insects.4 Glyphosate, a non-selective herbicide
that serves as a plant growth regulator, was developed and patented by the Monsanto Company in 1974.3
It is among the most widely used and well-known herbicides in the United States.4 According to Duke
and Powles, glyphosate is an environmentally benign herbicide.3 Transgenic plants have been
genetically modified to become glyphosate resistant, and this modification has steadily increased
worldwide, as it enabled farmers and food producers to kill the unnecessary weeds while leaving the
crops alone.4
Despite the increasing use of glyphosate internationally, recent research has emerged on the
health risks of glyphosate. Genetically modified crops raise fear and concern in many peoples minds

about the safety or adverse health effects.2 The developing research on the impact on human health has
led to a number of countries coming to realization of the effects of consistent use of the product, and
they have responded by placing bans on utilization of glyphosate.
Methods
The research explored on the effects of glyphosates and the concern of the public can be vastly
expressed by the effects on human health, specifically our unknown consumption of the substance and
the cancer-related potential it raises. These studies, while each separating into their own niche on the
effects of glyphosates in health, contribute to the significant amount of research dedicated to bringing
awareness to the negative impacts of herbicides and pesticides on the production of crops for human
consumption.
A cross-sectional study performed by Kruger et al5 evaluated the differences in glyphosate
residues between cattle, hares, rabbits and human to gather understanding of the exposure of the residue
to each category of animal. Samples of urine and organ tissues were collected from German and Danish
cows from conventional farms. Samples of urine from German cows in GM-free farms were also
gathered. Urine samples were also collected from hares and fattening rabbits. Urine samples were
collected from healthy and chronically diseased humans. Samples were prepared and tested for
glyphosate using ELISA and gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy.
Secondly, a study by Paganelli and colleagues6 takes an embryological approach and discussed
the effects of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) on producing teratogenic effects i.e. the ability to
cause a birth defect. Low doses of the GBH Roundup Classic herbicide were diluted and then injected
into the 2-cell stage embryos of Xenopus laevis, more commonly known as the African clawed frog.
Retinoic acid (RA) and the RA signaling pathway had previously been linked to neural defects of
craniofacial malformations at the tadpole stage. The researchers also investigated the detection of RA

activity by injecting embryos with RAREhplacZ (RAREZ), leaving them untreated and measuring RA
activity. Fertilized chicken eggs with 20 microL of 1/3500 or 1/4500 dilutions of GBH. Control embryos
were injected with 20 microl of water. Researchers examined the affect of GBH treatment on neural
crest development, rhombomeric patterning, and neuronal differentiation.
Lastly, a 2013 study by Thongprakaisang et al7 aimed to determine the effects on the hormone
estrogen that glyphosates exhibited at concentrations typically exposed to humans and the environment.
The estrogenic effects of glyphosates were compared with endogenous estrogen in the estrogendependent human breast cancer cells T47D. The shared effects between phytoestrogen and genistein,
two isoflavones present in soybeans, were examined as well. In vitro estrogen receptor activationreporter assay and cell viability MTT assay were established, along with a Western blot analysis and cell
number counting.
Results and Discussion
The results of the Kruger study5 concluded that glyphosate concentration in German cows was
significantly higher than Danish cows. Cows from the GM free region had significantly smaller
glyphosate concentrations in their urine. The organs presented varying levels with no significant
difference of glyphosate levels. Hares showed significantly lower glyphosate residues than rabbits in
urine. Humans fed conventional diets had higher glyphosate levels than humans consuming mostly
organic diets. Chronically ill humans had significantly higher levels of glyphosate residues in their urine
than healthy adults. These results determine that the presence of glyphosates in humans and the feed we
eat could impact the population and increase health hazards among us.
Much like the first study, the Paganelli study6 reported significant results. The GBH disrupted the
development of the craniofacial skeleton in the treated embryos. Embryos injected with pure glyphosates
showed similar phenotypes to the GBH-treated embryos. GBH produced similar effects in chicken

embryos, with a gradual loss of rhombomere domains, reduction of the optic vesicles, and
microcephaly.6(1591) This implied that glyphosate was accountable for the phenotypes detected, rather
than any confounding factors. The treatment of GBH increased RA activity. Researchers concluded that
the phenotype produced by GBH is mainly a consequence of the increase of endogenous RA activity.
In the third study, glyphosate exercised proliferative impact only in human hormone-dependent
breast cancer T47D cells, but not in hormone-independent breast cancer MDA-MB231 cells.7 The
induction of the estrogen response element (ERE) transcription activity was increased 5 to 13-fold of the
control. Results of the interaction effects of the isoflavones showed the significant enhancement of ERE
activation in combination of glyphosate and genistein. The indication of the results was that even low
glyphosate concentrations contained estrogenic activity. The ability of glyphosate to act as an endocrine
disruptor and cause cancer tumors, as well as the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genistein
in contaminated soybeans, may present an even greater risk of breast cancer.
Conclusion
While the large conglomerates of GM foods and products like Monsanto rest in their towering
stonewalled buildings millions of miles away from any farm, their obligation to the health of consumer
will eventually sneak up behind them. These significant studies discussed and many others present the
view of GMOs in a different light that what is publicly shared for consumer knowledge. There is
evidence in the field that represents the dangers of glyphosate use on human health. Striking research in
the area of glyphosates on human health suggests more work needs to be done to utilize an alternative
weed and insect elimination system, or to simply alter farming to an all-organic system to please
consumers and increase acceptance of products without GMOs, and without glyphosates.

References
1

What is Biotechnology? Biotechnology Industry Organization Website.

https://www.bio.org/articles/what-biotechnology. Updated 2015. Accessed February 14, 2015.

2

Bakshi A. Potential Adverse Health Effects of Genetically Modified Crops. J Toxicol and

Environ Health, Part B. 2003; 6(3): 211-225.

3

Duke SO, Powles SB. Mini-reviewGlyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag

Sci. 2005; 64:319-325.

4

Chemical Watch Factsheet: Glyphosate. Beyond Pesticides Website.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Glyphosate.pdf. Accessed February 14, 2015.

5

Kruger M, Schledorn P, Schrodi W, Hoppe HW, Lutz W, Shehata AA. Detection of

Glyphosate Residues in Animal and Humans. J Environ Anal Toxicol. 2014; 4(2):210-216.
6

Paganelli A, Gnazzo V, Acosta H, Lopez SL, Carrasco AE. Glyphosate-Based Herbicides

Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling. Chem Res Toxicol.
2010; 23:1586-1595.
7

Thongprakaisang S, Thiantanawat A, Rangkadilok N, Suriyo T, Satayavivad J. Glyphosate

induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. Food and Chem Toxicol. 2013;
59:129-136.