The use of herbicides and pesticides on crops has become the default method for conventional agriculture. Despite growing public concerns over the use of chemicals on our food supply, these products continue to saturate the market and are utilized at a steady rate. While researchers continue to evaluate the long term effects these potent chemicals have on humans and the environment, another chemical has been added to farmers’ ever-growing arsenal. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to expand the use of Enlist Duo, an effective weed killer, from 15 to 34 states. But should we be worried about the toxicity of this popular herbicide?

Enlist Duo

Originally, in 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the use of a brand new herbicide, Enlist Duo, for genetically modified corn and soybean crops. Enlist Duo is a chemical manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, which is a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company–one of the largest chemical companies in the world.

After the initial approval of Enlist Duo, the EPA asked a court to give it another opportunity to re-review the approval of the chemical. In a highly unusual move, the agency asked for a withdrawal of its own approval of the product. According to the EPA, it had reviewed the patent submitted by Dow to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and discovered a significant discrepancy. Particularly, the company claimed the product’s combination of two chemicals, 2,4-D and glyphosate, amplified each other and created a far more potent herbicide.

The EPA was concerned that Dow had not disclosed this synergy during the agency’s initial review of the product’s environmental and health risks. The agency scientists wanted to decide if there needed to be a larger no-spray zone at the edge of farm fields. Studies where rats, rabbits, birds, and fish were given one large dose of Enlist Duo showed no increased toxicity in the animals after two weeks. However, the agency never requested that Dow chronically dose rats with a combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate. Therefore, long-term health effects of the chemical mixture are unclear.

“Pesticide spraying” Image Courtesy of Jetsandzeppelins : License (CC BY 2.0)

Lawsuit

Several environmental groups, led by the National Resources Defense Council, brought a lawsuit against the EPA over Enlist Duo in 2014. The plaintiffs stated that the EPA had violated the law because it had not adequately considered the effect that Enlist Duo would have on public health and the environment, particularly the monarch butterfly population.

Dow, of course, opposed the allegations as well as the EPA’s request to vacate the original approval, suggesting instead that the court remand the registration back to the EPA for further evaluation. The company voluntarily agreed to stop sales of the product while the EPA reevaluated it. Additionally, Dow stated that it had abandoned the synergy patent in question when a thorough review revealed that the particular synergies were not in the final formulation of Enlist Duo. However, advocacy groups noted in a legal filing that Dow abandoned the patent a year after the EPA approved Enlist Duo, and only after the EPA requested synergy data from Dow.

Eventually, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA’s original approval. The three-sentence judicial order did not elaborate on any reasoning for the decision. This meant that Dow could continue to market the chemical to farmers for sale, even while the EPA was re-reviewing its initial approval. The company reneged its voluntary offer to cease sales, claiming the offer was never agreed to; thus, the chemical remained on the market.

2,4-D and Human Health Effects

Last year, the Chicago Tribune released an investigative article that revealed that the EPA had changed its interpretation of a key study of 2,4-D. Essentially, the EPA changed the no-adverse-effect level of 2,4-D from 7mg/kg to 21mg/kg in rats, paving the way for the agency to reduce consumer protections. EPA scientists dropped a tenfold child-safety factor after conducting a study that concluded there was no longer evidence of a special susceptibility of children to the chemical compound. Regulators set the allowable daily intake of 2,4-D for people at 0.21mg/kg. Thus, the significant change allowed for 41 times more 2,4-D to enter the American diet than previously allowed, an astounding change.

2,4-D has been around since the 1940’s and was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, a highly toxic and controversial herbicide used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam War. The EPA has discounted safety data showing that 2,4-D has been linked to cancer and other health problems, such as hypothyroidism and Parkinson’s disease. In order to make the change in allowable daily intake, the EPA has tossed aside research produced by Dow’s own scientists regarding kidney problems and kidney lesions caused by 2,4-D.

The overuse of chemicals, like Roundup, year after year has resulted in an increase in weed resistance, or “superweeds,” leaving companies scrambling to find more effective products to market to farmers. As a result, agriculture is now turning back toward older, more toxic products, like 2,4-D. But if you’re concerned about exposure to more toxic weedkillers, disclosures in Dow’s patent applications are very telling. The company’s application for genetically modified corn and soybeans foreshadows a day when weeds develop a resistance to both glyphosate and 2,4-D. The records show that Dow eventually envisions a day when the company must add even more traits to corn and soybeans so that the crops can survive being sprayed with up to 17 different chemicals.

Concerns Regarding Enlist Duo Use

One of the largest concerns surrounding Enlist Duo use is that Dow may have lied on its patent application. A Dow spokesperson adamantly denies that contention, stating that the EPA and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have “different standards of data requirements” and the company’s claims that the two chemicals amplified each other were “based on a limited dataset.”

After the re-review and approval of Enlist Duo this year, the EPA has also announced a proposal to expand where the new herbicide can be used. Currently it is used to suppress weeds on corn and soybean crops. Now, the EPA is considering whether to allow its use on cotton crops. This expansion means that the new herbicide may be approved for use in 34 states, as opposed to the original 15 states. Moreover, the World Health Organization has issued findings that glyphosate and 2,4-D are probable and possible carcinogens, respectively, in addition to the other health concerns related to 2,4-D.

Monarch Butterfly Populations

In addition to human health hazards, environmentalist groups are concerned about Enlist Duo’s effect on the monarch butterfly population. Monarch butterflies have struggled in recent years, with populations in a steep decline due to the overuse of glyphosate products, like Roundup. Enlist Duo’s chemicals specifically obliterate milkweed, the plant that monarchs need to survive. A 1999 survey found that milkweed was in at least 50 percent of Iowa corn and soybean crops; by 2009, milkweed was only found in 8 percent of those same fields.

Additionally, estimations of the monarch butterfly populations have remained low, despite an initial bump in numbers, after a winter storm killed millions before they ever left the Mexican monarch reserve. Storms devastated 133 acres of trees west of Mexico City and affected over 7 percent of monarchs, with about 6.2 million butterflies frozen or killed.

“Monarch caterpillar on common milkweed in Minnesota” Image Courtesy of USFWSmidwest : License (CC BY 2.0)

The EPA’s failure to consider the effects of Enlist Duo on monarch butterflies has environmentalists extremely concerned for the ailing population, teetering on the brink of extinction.

Conclusion

The market for Enlist Duo is potentially massive, with 94 percent of soybeans and 89 percent of corn planted in the U.S. genetically modified to survive herbicides, primarily the glyphosate in Roundup. However, the EPA’s suggestion to more than double the number of states permitted to use Enlist Duo has outraged environmentalists and advocates across the country. Many people believe that reviving a World War II-era chemical to combat superweeds isn’t the best solution for the sustainability of industrial agriculture–especially when it could have a negative effect on the monarch butterfly population. The EPA contends that the chemical is “perfectly safe,” and poses no long-term health risks to humans.

The EPA is accepting public comments through December 1, 2016 regarding the agency’s proposal to expand the use and registration for Enlist Duo. 

Resources

Primary

EPA.gov: Registration of Enlist Duo

Additional

Dow: Annual Reports

NRDC: EPA Proposes to Re-Approve Combination Herbicide Enlist Duo

NRDC: EPA Unlawfully Approved Herbicide Enlist Duo

Chicago Tribune: Weedkiller’s Revival is Cause for Concern

Chicago Tribune: EPA Tosses Aside Safety Data, Says Dow Pesticide for GMOs Won’t Harm People

Chicago Tribune: Court Clears Way for Revival of Worrisome Weedkiller

Chicago Tribune: Congress Questions EPA About Dow’s Enlist Duo Pesticide Risks

CBS DFW: EPA May Increase Use Of Weed Killer Despite Concerns

The Guardian: Storms Devastate Monarch Butterflies’ Forest Habitat in Mexico

NRDC: EPA Unlawfully Approved Herbicide Enlist Duo

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Enlist Duo: Effective New Herbicide or Monarch Butterfly Threat? appeared first on Law Street.

What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.