Is Glyphosate carcinogenic?
As well as been widely used in agriculture and gardening, glyphosate has also been a staple of bush regeneration since the 1980’s. It was first used in the restoration of Wingham Brush, a rainforest reserve near Taree, New South Wales. The exotic vines were dominating the canopy, smothering the tops of the trees, causing them to eventually die. Hand weeding was initially tried but it became too time consuming. It was decided to resort to using glyphosate (AABR).
In March 2015 the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. This was based on studies done on experimental animals. In more recent studies, the Ramazzini Institute (RI) in 2019 launched the Global Glyphosate Study (GGS), a multi-institutional study with the aim of providing the most comprehensive toxicological evaluation of glyphosate. They had similar results to the IARC study.
Government agencies have taken a less risk adverse approach. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has declared there is ‘No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate. Glyphosate products used according to label directions do not result in risks to children or adults’. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) have a similar approach, declaring glyphosate products safe to use when following the label.
While following the label seems simple enough, it is not that straight forward. if you use glyphosate regularly over years as part of your job or just in your own garden, then the chances that there could be times that you are exposed to the chemical increases greatly. There could be times you don’t bother with wearing protective overalls for example. While it may not have been proved beyond a doubt it is harmful, that doesn’t mean after prolonged use that it could be harmful. After all, a chemical that is designed to kill weeds, could also have an effect on the human body. It could be regarded like alcohol. While millions of people drink it with no long-term health effects, there are numerous diseases from long term excessive use of alcohol, ranging from cancer to cirrhosis of the liver.
The long-term use of glyphosate over decades has starting to have the effect of many weeds developing a resistance to it. This has resulted in land managers needing to use more toxic chemicals to achieve the same result that could have been achieved by glyphosate on its own. It is similar to antibiotics, with some bacteria now developing a resistance to it.
Despite the risks glyphosate is used extensively in land management as it a cost effective and a labour-saving method of controlling weeds. It is a broad-spectrum herbicide meaning it can tackle a wide range of plants from grasses through to vines. It is also off-patent, making it cheap to use, which is important when there are acres that need spraying.
With these various views, what is the correct approach towards using glyphosate? Perhaps an integrated approach to weed management is the best, using a combination of chemical and non-chemical weed control methods. My philosophy when using chemicals while working as a bush regenerator was to only use it when absolutely necessary. Too often spraying was seen as the answer as it quick and easy, but in the long term it didn’t necessarily do any good as the weeds just came back. So rather than just spraying an area because there are weeds, perhaps an integrated plan of attack is needed. For example, a combination of spraying once, then using mulch to stop the weeds coming back. There are also many other chemical free methods of weed control including flame weeding, steam weeding and manual weeding.
With a bit of planning and foresight, the use of glyphosate could be greatly reduced, and perhaps in the long term, eliminated completely. Using glyphosate has been the dominant paradigm for such a long time, that perhaps a gradual change is needed to explore new methods and for people to accept them.
