Weed-killing chemical linked to cancer found in some children's breakfast foods

Authored by cbsnews.com and submitted by MiamiPower

A new report found glyphosate, a weed-killing chemical that some health authorities link to cancer, in a number of popular breakfast foods and cereals marketed to children. The study by the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) discovered trace amounts of the most widely used herbicide in the country in oats, granolas and snack bars. Thirty-one out of 45 tested products had levels higher than what some scientists consider safe for children.

Recently, some scientists, doctors and activists around the world have worked to keep glyphosate out of crops due to concerns that it is a dangerous carcinogen.

"We're very concerned that consumers are eating more glyphosate than they know," said Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at EWG. He has been working to improve food safety standards for more than a decade. He said he and his team at EWG had a lab test involving "45 samples of products made with conventionally grown oats" and found glyphosate – the active ingredient in the Monsanto weed-killer Roundup – in all but two.

"I was shocked," said Dr. Jennifer Lowry, who heads the Council on Environmental Health for the American Academy of Pediatrics.

"We don't know a lot about the effects of glyphosate on children," Lowry said. "And essentially we're just throwing it at them."

EWG used its own, more stringent standards to conclude that products with excessive levels of the herbicide included Quaker Old Fashioned Oats, Cheerios, Quaker Dinosaur Egg Instant Oats, Great Value Instant Oats, and Back to Nature Classic Granola. Glyphosate was even found in a few organic products, though most had non-detectable levels.

The World Health Organization says glyphosate is a "probable carcinogen," and California lists it as a chemical "known to the state to cause cancer."

Monsanto disputes that, saying in a statement, "glyphosate does not cause cancer" and "has a more than 40-year history of safe use."

Of EWG's study, Monsanto says "even at the highest level reported… an adult would have to eat 118 pounds of the food item every day for the rest of their life in order to reach the EPA's limit" for glyphosate residues.

But just last week, a jury in California ordered Monsanto to pay one man $289 million in damages after he claimed the company's weed killers caused his cancer. EWG's Faber is skeptical of EPA's glyphosate limits.

"We don't think it does enough in particular to protect children," Faber said.

"It is time now for them to step up and do their jobs to ban glyphosate," said Zen Honeycutt, who heads Moms Across America, a group formed to raise awareness about toxic exposures. Her family switched to an organic-only diet after her three sons developed allergies and other health problems.

"We want to trust that what is in the grocery store is safe and the shocking reality is that in many cases it's not," Honeycutt said.

In a statement Quaker said: "We proudly stand by the safety and quality of our Quaker products. Any levels of glyphosate that may remain are significantly below any limits of the safety standards set by the EPA and the European Commission as safe for human consumption."

General Mills told CBS News: "Our products are safe and without question they meet regulatory safety levels. The EPA has researched this issue and has set rules that we follow."

Scuderia on August 15th, 2018 at 14:22 UTC »

On the general weight of the science on safety of glyphosate/roundup as a herbicide.

Current EPA review of glyphosate.

Based on a weight of evidence approach from a wide range of assays both in vitro and in vivo including endpoints for gene mutation, chromosomal damage, DNA damage and repair, there is no in vivo genotoxic or mutagenic concern for glyphosate.

EFSA opinion of Glyphosate.

On endocrine disrupting qualities of glyphosate.

The conclusion of the WoE evaluation is that glyphosate demonstrates no convincing evidence of potential interaction with the estrogen, androgen or thyroid pathways in mammals or wildlife.

European Review of Glyphosate finding it poses no significant risk to humans

Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans

Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. For purposes of risk assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA.

-Full PDF

Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis.

To estimate potential human exposure concentrations to glyphosate as a result of working directly with the herbicide, available biomonitoring data were examined. These data demonstrated extremely low human exposures as a result of normal application practices. Furthermore, the estimated exposure concentrations in humans are >500-fold less than the oral reference dose for glyphosate of 2 mg/kg/d set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1993). In conclusion, the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations.

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: a review.

Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate. Most reported associations were weak and not significantly different from 1.0. Because accurate exposure measurement is crucial for valid results, it is recommended that pesticide-specific exposure algorithms be developed and validated.

Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations

WHO safety analysis of glyphosate based off of many animal studies.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of glyphosate exposure and risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers.

This systematic review and meta-analysis rigorously examines the relationship between glyphosate exposure and risk of lymphohematopoietic cancer (LHC) including NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), multiple myeloma (MM), and leukemia. Meta-relative risks (meta-RRs) were positive and marginally statistically significant for the association between any versus no use of glyphosate and risk of NHL (meta-RR = 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-1.6, based on six studies) and MM (meta-RR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.0-1.9; four studies). Associations were statistically null for HL (meta-RR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.7-1.6; two studies), leukemia (meta-RR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.6-1.5; three studies), and NHL subtypes except B-cell lymphoma (two studies each). Bias and confounding may account for observed associations. Meta-analysis is constrained by few studies and a crude exposure metric, while the overall body of literature is methodologically limited and findings are not strong or consistent. Thus, a causal relationship has not been established between glyphosate exposure and risk of any type of LHC.

Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies

There was no evidence of a carcinogenic effect related to glyphosate treatment. The lack of a plausible mechanism, along with published epidemiology studies, which fail to demonstrate clear, statistically significant, unbiased and non-confounded associations between glyphosate and cancer of any single etiology, and a compelling weight of evidence, support the conclusion that glyphosate does not present concern with respect to carcinogenic potential in humans.

Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study

Note that there was a weak but slight association with multiple myeloma that the authors suggest that further follow up is required. Also this was among applicators who inherently are exposed to significantly higher amounts of glyphosate than end product consumers.

Also a re-analysis of the AHS data failed to show the same link between glyphosate and multiple meyloma.

Multiple Myeloma and Glyphosate Use: A Re-Analysis of US Agricultural Health Study (AHS) Data

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review

To examine potential cancer risks in humans, we reviewed the epidemiologic literature to evaluate whether exposure to glyphosate is associated causally with cancer risk in humans. We also reviewed relevant methodological and biomonitoring studies of glyphosate. Seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies examined the association between glyphosate and one or more cancer outcomes. Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate.

Here is a good article that summarizes a lot of the data on glyphosate and cancer and the recent IARC paper.

Germany's BfR did who was responsible for doing a risk assessment on Glyphosate for the EU made this press release in response to the IARC report.

In the opinion of BfR, the classification of glyphosate as "carcinogenic in Group 2A" (probably carcinogenic to humans) as published in the 20 March 2015 issue of the "Lancet" journal comes as a surprise, since other evaluations performed by supranational bodies such as the WHO-Panel of the Joint Meeting of Pesticide residues (JMPR, 2004), and also by national regulatory agencies such as the U.S.EPA had concluded the contrary, i.e., that glyphosate was not carcinogenic. Unfortunately, the database on which the IARC evaluation is based is not known, since a background monograph that is usually produced by IARC following the evaluation meetings has not yet been released. Therefore, a comprehensive and scientifically sound consideration of the data and arguments that led to the IARC- conclusion is simply not possible at the moment.

Here is a pretty decent article that highlights some of the short comings in the IARC report.

Highspeed350 on August 15th, 2018 at 13:00 UTC »

Do not make the mistake of believing EWG is unbiased just because they are nonprofit.

CrispKringle on August 15th, 2018 at 12:35 UTC »

Thirty-one out of 45 tested products had levels higher than what some scientists consider safe for children.

It would have been helpful to publish the list.