Weedkiller Ingredient Widely Used In US Can Damage Organs and Gut Bacteria, Research Shows (theguardian.com) 85
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The herbicide ingredient used to replace glyphosate in Roundup and other weedkiller products can kill gut bacteria and damage organs in multiple ways, new research shows. The ingredient, diquat, is widely employed in the US as a weedkiller in vineyards and orchards, and is increasingly sprayed elsewhere as the use of controversial herbicide substances such as glyphosate and paraquat drops in the US. But the new piece of data suggests diquat is more toxic than glyphosate, and the substance is banned over its risks in the UK, EU, China and many other countries. Still, the EPA has resisted calls for a ban, and Roundup formulas with the ingredient hit the shelves last year. [...]
Diquat is also thought to be a neurotoxin, carcinogen and linked to Parkinson's disease. An October analysis of EPA data by the Friends of the Earth non-profit found it is about 200 times more toxic than glyphosate in terms of chronic exposure. [...] The new review of scientific literature in part focuses on the multiple ways in which diquat damages organs and gut bacteria, including by reducing the level of proteins that are key pieces of the gut lining. The weakening can allow toxins and pathogens to move from the stomach into the bloodstream, and trigger inflammation in the intestines and throughout the body. Meanwhile, diquat can inhibit the production of beneficial bacteria that maintain the gut lining. Damage to the lining also inhibits the absorption of nutrients and energy metabolism, the authors said.
The research further scrutinizes how the substance harms the kidneys, lungs and liver. Diquat "causes irreversible structural and functional damage to the kidneys" because it can destroy kidney cells' membranes and interfere with cell signals. The effects on the liver are similar, and the ingredient causes the production of proteins that inflame the organ. Meanwhile, it seems to attack the lungs by triggering inflammation that damages the organ's tissue. More broadly, the inflammation caused by diquat may cause multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, a scenario in which organ systems begin to fail. The authors note that many of the studies are on rodents and more research on low, long-term exposure is needed. The report notes that the EPA is not reviewing the chemical, "and even non-profits that push for tighter pesticide regulations have largely focused their attention elsewhere."
"[T]hat was in part because U.S. pesticide regulations are so weak that advocates are tied up with battles over ingredients like glyphosate, paraquat and chlorpyrifos -- substances that are banned elsewhere but still widely used here. Diquat is 'overshadowed' by those ingredients."
Diquat is also thought to be a neurotoxin, carcinogen and linked to Parkinson's disease. An October analysis of EPA data by the Friends of the Earth non-profit found it is about 200 times more toxic than glyphosate in terms of chronic exposure. [...] The new review of scientific literature in part focuses on the multiple ways in which diquat damages organs and gut bacteria, including by reducing the level of proteins that are key pieces of the gut lining. The weakening can allow toxins and pathogens to move from the stomach into the bloodstream, and trigger inflammation in the intestines and throughout the body. Meanwhile, diquat can inhibit the production of beneficial bacteria that maintain the gut lining. Damage to the lining also inhibits the absorption of nutrients and energy metabolism, the authors said.
The research further scrutinizes how the substance harms the kidneys, lungs and liver. Diquat "causes irreversible structural and functional damage to the kidneys" because it can destroy kidney cells' membranes and interfere with cell signals. The effects on the liver are similar, and the ingredient causes the production of proteins that inflame the organ. Meanwhile, it seems to attack the lungs by triggering inflammation that damages the organ's tissue. More broadly, the inflammation caused by diquat may cause multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, a scenario in which organ systems begin to fail. The authors note that many of the studies are on rodents and more research on low, long-term exposure is needed. The report notes that the EPA is not reviewing the chemical, "and even non-profits that push for tighter pesticide regulations have largely focused their attention elsewhere."
"[T]hat was in part because U.S. pesticide regulations are so weak that advocates are tied up with battles over ingredients like glyphosate, paraquat and chlorpyrifos -- substances that are banned elsewhere but still widely used here. Diquat is 'overshadowed' by those ingredients."
So pre-market testing was thorough then (Score:3)
"it is about 200 times more toxic than glyphosate in terms of chronic exposure."
And this didn't come up in testing? Seriously?
Re: So pre-market testing was thorough then (Score:4, Insightful)
What pre-market testing? The US lets chemical companies claim things are safe until proven otherwise.
Re: So pre-market testing was thorough then (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to put a stop to that. ANY new chemical to be released into the environment even in small amounts should be treated like medications which require FDA approval of each drug before it can be commercially sold at scale.
Mandatory studies establishing safety to humans and risks to the environment. And EPA approval required along with usage guidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Naa, that would be un-American! Profits rule and who cares if a few people die that would not have had to and a few others require expensive medical treatments. In fact, even better for profits!
Re: So pre-market testing was thorough then (Score:2)
Why don't they just default to an attitude that if it's banned in other places like the UK and China. Then it should either by default be banned in the US have much more research performed. Especially China, if China is banning some chemical it probably should be banned globally.
Re: So pre-market testing was thorough then (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If China bans it, the stuff must be really nasty.
Re:So pre-market testing was thorough then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If the "academic toxicology literature is basically useless" then what are you basing your claims on?
Re:So pre-market testing was thorough then (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, lots of people got sick using glyphosate. That's going to happen with any pesticide or herbicide when you spend 10 hours a day on an open station tractor spraying it and getting covered in it with no PPE. This is more a workplace safety/OSHA issue than a product issue.
Re:So pre-market testing was thorough then (Score:4, Insightful)
This is more a workplace safety/OSHA issue than a product issue.
Then it gets into your food. Chemical pesticides are unequivocally bad. All of them. I don't care what the corrupt oversight agencies say, all chemical pesticides are inherently dangerous. The best pesticides are natural pesticides: animals.
Re:So pre-market testing was thorough then (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> You are simply wrong. It must be embarassing to post like that. I know I find it exhausting to interact with people who have no education or intellectual curiosity to learn facts because you're mire interested in hysteria.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.10... [acs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are simply wrong.
I totally understand the need to feel like you haven't been hoodwinked by the chemical industry, but you have been. They poison our food, and then deny that poison is poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There is some debate about that. Here are some of the counter points that people should be aware of for complete information. I point to the people of Sri Lanka, as they are a focal point for the damage this product may cause.
Chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) is a global epidemic. Sri Lanka has experienced a doubling of the disease every 4 or 5 years since it was first identified in the North Central province in the mid-1990s. The disease primarily affects people in agricultural regions who are missing the commonly known risk factors for CKD. Sri Lanka is not alone: health workers have reported prevalence of CKDu in Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and the state of Andhra Pradesh in India. A global search for the cause of CKDu has not identified a single factor, but rather many factors that may contribute to the etiology of the disease. Some of these factors include heat stroke leading to dehydration, toxic metals such as cadmium and arsenic, fluoride, low selenium, toxigenic cyanobacteria, nutritionally deficient diet and mycotoxins from mold exposure. Furthermore, exposure to agrichemicals, particularly glyphosate and paraquat, are likely compounding factors, and may be the primary factors. Here, we argue that glyphosate in particular is working synergistically with most of the other factors to increase toxic effects. We propose, further, that glyphosate causes insidious harm through its action as an amino acid analogue of glycine, and that this interferes with natural protective mechanisms against other exposures. Glyphosate’s synergistic health effects in combination with exposure to other pollutants, in particular paraquat, and physical labor in the ubiquitous high temperatures of lowland tropical regions, could result in renal damage consistent with CKDu in Sri Lanka.
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601... [mdpi.com]
Mesoamerican Nephropathy (MeN), also known as Chronic Kidney Disease of unknown etiology (CKDu), is an unusual form of kidney disease affecting agricultural workers in Central America. Its prevalence is alarmingly high among young male sugarcane workers in Nicaragua and El Salvador. The absence of known etiologies for CKD, such as hypertension and diabetes, has led researchers to explore a number of potential risk factors, though none adequately explain the timing and epidemic nature of the disease. In this paper, we explore the idea that glyphosate, an herbicide routinely used on sugarcane, could play a signi cant causal role in MeN, mediated by its property as an analogue of the coding amino acid glycine. Glyphosate is a glycine molecule with a methyl phosphonyl group attached to its nitrogen atom. Its substitution in place of glycine could disrupt multiple proteins critical for kidney health. Here, we rst present prior evidence from the research literature that glyphosate may be substituting erroneously for glycine. In particular, multiple species of both bacteria and plants have mutated to remove a highly conserved glycine residue in the enzyme in the shikimate pathway that is disrupted by glyphosate, and this mutation has caused the enzyme to be completely insensitive to glyphosate. We have identi ed multiple proteins with key roles related to kidney function, whose disruption by glyphosate substitution for critical glycine residues could explain most of the unique features of MeN. Speci cally, glycine
https://www.academia.edu/36062... [academia.edu]
The current chronic kidney disease epidemic, the major health issue in the rice paddy farming areas in Sri Lanka has been the subject of many scientific and political debates over the last decade. Although there is no agreement among scientists about the etiology of the disease, a majority of them has concluded that this is a toxic nephropathy. None of the hypotheses put forward so far could explain coherently the totality of clinical, biochemical, histopathological findings, and the unique geographical distribution of the disease and its appearance in the mid-1990s. A strong association between the consumption of hard water and the occurrence of this special kidney disease has been observed, but the relationship has not been explained consistently. Here, we have hypothesized the association of using glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the disease endemic area and its unique metal chelating properties. The possible role played by glyphosate-metal complexes in this epidemic has not been given any serious consideration by investigators for the last two decades. Furthermore, it may explain similar kidney disease epidemics observed in Andra Pradesh (India) and Central America. Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with a localized geo environmental factor (hardness) and nephrotoxic metals.
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601... [mdpi.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, maybe 200X bugger all is still bugger all?
Re:So pre-market testing was thorough then (Score:4, Interesting)
Because these idiots at Monsanto (bought by Bayer Agriculture in 2018) are profiting immensely from it. It isn't just the herbicide. Monsanto is really big into genetically modified plants. It isn't that the genetic modification is dangerous, it's why they are doing it. They make these plants resistant to the various chemicals they're spraying on them, so that they can douse the plants with glyphosate or whatever else. Then this stuff jumps trophic levels and gets more concentrated as it crawls up the food chain.
This is Monsanto, the kind guys that brought us DDT, Agent Orange, bovine growth hormone, PCBs, and other lovely ecological scourges. We've known for years that this garbage causes everything from lymphoma to multiple myeloma to kidney disease, but... PROFIT! Now, maybe RFK Jr. should get on that instead of trying to screw over everybody on vaccines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it did, and was summarily ignored, just like all the other bad things previous herbicides had going.
Not surprising it's more toxic (Score:5, Insightful)
As Glyphosate is not toxic (apart from repeatedly swimming in it and guzzling it by the pints daily) to mammals.
The whole reason it's frowned on is because Lawyers got involved, and because scientists couldn't say "Without a doubt, Glyphosate does not cause cancer" it got marked as a carcinogen. There again, scientists will never say "without a doubt", as there is always room for doubt in anything but the most settled of science, after decades or centuries of analysis. The data shows Glyphosate as being safe, and it being "extremely unlikely" that there is any connection between normal exposure to Glyphosate and cancer. It's one of the safest herbicides around, if not the safest for mammals. So it's no surprise that anything that is used instead is more toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually looking to seed my yard with clover to reduce weeds and reduce maintenance. The HOAs around me are going to throw a fit, but I'm luckily not part of them.
I will always keep my home looking nice, landscaped upkept and weeds pulled. But I'm done with trying to keep a perfect lawn.
Re: (Score:1)
I've never understood why average people bother with lawns.
My yard is a toilet for my dog and a buffer from my neighbors. I don't much care what it looks like.
neighbor kids screeching in front of your house (Score:2)
kids like to play on grass. Main reason.
That's sounds like an argument for xeriscaping your lawn with cactus.
Re: (Score:2)
Could I be the reason my mom doesn't like children?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Congratulations. You're the reason pests creep into other people's homes or invasive weeds overrun people's properties by forcing out native plants.
If you don't care about your lawn then move to the desert where you don't have to worry about such things. There are those who want a nice green lawn or lots of flowers for pollenators.
Re:Not surprising it's more toxic (Score:5, Insightful)
> You're the reason pests creep into other people's homes or invasive weeds overrun people's properties by forcing out native plants.
Why would anybody think not using herbicides is the same thing as not mowing your lawn and not weeding?
Re: (Score:3)
And you are the one killing off monarch butterflies and bees with your obsession vision of a perfect lawn
Pollinators that are attracted to your pesticide laden 'flowers', (probably not local species they are adapted to), take it back to their hive and hurt the entire colony, while monarch butterflies rely on milkweed, something that only appears in untended lawns, and exceeds the weed height allowed by most municipalities
Re: (Score:1)
Too far of a commute from the desert to my kid's school
Re: (Score:2)
No man who knows about lawn care is going to use roundup on their green grass to kill a single or any amount of dandelion. Glyphosate kills everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not surprising it's more toxic (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in the wrong area of America, when I was there. Northern New Mexico has rock 'n weed patches, not lawns on the whole, so for me the crazy lawn thing was something that happened somewhere else.
The UK is obsessed with gardening, about 150x more so than the USA. We certainly do have lawns in the UK, and some people are very into them, but there doesn't seem to be the same level of obsession with the perfect manicure. If anything a good scattering of daises is considered rather pretty. Even very well ke
Re: (Score:3)
Even very well kept gardens with full time gardeners won't generally have that astro-turf level of uniformity so highly prized in America.
What's the deal? Can you explain it to a foreigner?
This article [fortune.com] explains it (mostly). It goes back to the massive growth of suburbs after world war 2. There is more nuance to it than that, but the article does a much better job of explaining it than I can.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawn care as a 1960s Jewish folk tradition is explored in the Coen Bro's 2009 satire, A Serious Man.
The protagonist ponders the futility of spending his weekend mowing, an activity whose only saving grace is a widow who likes to promiscuously sunbathe.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I understand the concept of lawns came over from the UK but really took off in the US during the post WW2 housing boom driven by generous home loan conditions offered by the US government to returning veterans that brought home ownership to a huge number of Americans. Lawns made for a fairly simple way to mass landscape new large suburban developments and became emblematic of the suburban middle class life that boomed after the war.
With this lawncare became kind of a proxy for showing one was a pr
Re: (Score:2)
> lawns came over from the UK but really took off in the US during the post WW2 housing boom
I either have grass or mud and weeds. So I reseed any bare spots every Spring.
Do you mean people tolerated slippery mud and thicket all summer before the 50's?
I get that motorized mowers make everything easier but I see plenty of pictures of nice homes and parks from the 19th century with cut grass at the Historical Society.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say lawns were invented after WW2, I stated they took off after WW2 in this country and they did https://www.history.com/articl... [history.com] . They most definitely existed before but were not the culture fixture that the above was asking about prior to WW2.
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason, Americans seem to be obsessed with the idea of entire neighborhoods having a uniform appearance. I'm not sure why, but they'll actually get very angry if someone has an RV parked in their driveway and start advocating HOAs in that instance (who typically ban RVs and similar vehicles from the entire neighborhoods.)
I... don't understand the mentality. British immigrant here (possibly returning in the next year or two depending on whether things get worse, ironically more to protect my America
Re: (Score:2)
We have resorted to spraying our living space with hazardous materials so we our neighbor won't see a dandelion.
I am in favor of prohibiting consumer access to pesticides completely, or at least limit access to a single 500ml bottle ready-to-use solution per year. They are justified on agricultural operations, but you have to know what you are doing to dispense them safely. Overuse outside of a controlled setting will result in environmental contamination.
Re: (Score:1)
Not everyone can afford $500 for an exterminator to come out, sometimes multiple times, if they have roaches, ants, termites, or wasps infesting their house.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone can afford $500 for an exterminator to come out
We're talking about herbal pesticides specifically. There are plenty of options for pest control inside your home which don't involve substantial amounts of specialized chemicals posing an environmental risk.
Flying insects such as wasps can be dealt with using bug zappers and traps.
It should be fine to let people buy 1 can of wasp spray per year, but bear in mind that is a matter of convenience not necessity, and you absolutely do not need it to e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are sprays and things farmers, ranchers, suburban and rural homeowners are responsible enough to use OUTSIDE ONLY to prevent termites where there is not a exterminator for 100 miles.
I mean.. that's fine. You got a ranch, horses/livestock, or at least a few acres of land and can prove it, or especially a farm, then you are not a "consumer" as it were. That's a type of pro. operation, and give them all the bug spray they reasonably need, so long as it's not being used to blanket a lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
My HOA actually has a legal restriction with the city to not use glyphosate on our property, because our stormwater drainage is connected to the city sewer system which has outflows to a river after treatment.
No problem by me, as my property doesn't even have a lawn - just a recessed french drain and a few mulched flowerbeds. My allergies are so happy I don't have to mow every week!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't manicure my lawn and I've lost no money and no status. As long as I don't pose a fire hazard, the government leaves me alone.
Some of the lawn care obsession is a self-imposed disease. And some of it is baked in local ordinances and difficult to avoid. But I choose to lay the blame at the feet of the individuals. Because it's funny how so many men bend over backwards for THIS perceived social obligation, but are fucking pricks when confronted on how badly they've been parking their pickup truck.
Don't
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The reality is just about anything in sufficient concentration causes cancer. Oxygen is likely highly carcinogenic. In fact I suggest we ban it, and require its removal as part of environmental remediation, lets start with buildings use to house state and federal legislative bodies.
Re:Not surprising it's more toxic (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is operating on a blacklist approach...
One chemical gets a bad name and there's a campaign against it, so it gets replaced with something that hasn't attracted so much negative publicity yet. The replacements are often worse, or the side effects are not so well known and once use becomes widespread the side effects are found to be worse.
You've seen this with legislation that pushed vehicles from gasoline to diesel, reducing co2 while increasing other emissions.
You've seen this with food where fat/salt/sugar (that we've been consuming for thousands of years and which are perfectly safe and even needed in moderate quantities) has been demonised, leading to worse replacements where new negative side effects are regularly emerging.
Micro plastics, coolants and various other things are also getting worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate anyone who engages in lawn care.
What about people who aggressively judge others for inconsequential personal practices?
Re: (Score:2)
They can do whatever they want so long as they are not dumping toxic chemicals in their lawns in any amount whatsoever
It's not an inconsequential personal practice, when they are causing environmental contamination.
Traces of chemicals will inevitably be spread out to neighbors' yards when groundwater flows, and throughout the environment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing about keeping a nice lawn that means one has to use toxic chemicals. Furthermore the above was making a genuinely dumb statement about them looking down on ALL people who keep lawns and I was responding to that.
There's nothing inherently bad about having a lawn outside of water scarce regions.
Re: (Score:2)
Abolish lawns. I hate anyone who engages in lawn care. You are admitting to me and anyone else with a functioning reason center that you're retarded.
There are plenty of ways to have a nice lawn and not use any chemicals. If you know what you're doing, you can keep pests away from your home's foundation and keep unwanted weeds to a minimum while never using a single chemical. Hell, we switched to the old human powered blade mower this year and the lawn already looks nicer than before.
Lastly, the homeowners association requires grass lawns, and for those lawns to be kept manicured. It requires minimal effort on our part, so I don't see a problem with law
Re: (Score:2)
JFC (Score:2)
Show on the doll where the landscaper touched you.
Darwin. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the cost of cheap food. If the food suddenly gets more expensive governments fall.
Bit surprised diquat is used in a consumer product (Score:5, Informative)
I have to admit I was a little surprised to learn diquat is used in a consumer home product. Diquat is a product I use in farming, but I've always considered it to be a bit more dangerous to human health than glyphosate, so I'm very careful to use proper PPE to avoid exposure when mixing and applying.
I guess I can understand why diquat might be useful in a home setting as it wouldn't kill lawns if you sprayed some on a weed in your grass. It's also unlikely to cause herbicide resistance. We use diquat to dry down perennial crops as it does not kill the plant, and is not systemic.
Diquat is also best applied at night. I've never had it work very well when applied during the day, so that's another reason I'm surprised it's in a consumer weed spray.
I've heard of farmers using acetic acid (vinegar) as an alternative to diquat, and it apparently works quite well, but it's quite a bit more dangerous than diquat as it can burn skin and lungs easily, and it's very hard on machines.
Slaps face (Score:2)
Diquat instead of Paraquat, that should fine .. (Score:2)
Paraquat was toxic as hell, so we'll use an analogous company and think it is safe.
The sad thing here is the logic that by substituting a different toxin you buy time before enough cases are found, And for plaintiffs to get the science takes time and you delay delay delay. So change it up every now and then and restart the clock.
A little bit like tweaking a drug that is running out of patent time
We deserve it (Score:5, Insightful)
My Weedkiller Formula (Score:1)
Also notable (Score:2)
At one point, diquat was used for weed control in lakes because it won't disperse or break down to become ineffective even if just poured in the water.
Imagine what that says about washing it off of fruits and vegetables or it's ability to diffuse into aquifers.
So wait, let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Well alright then. I'll keep that in mind, thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
You're saying, I should *not* drink weed killer?
Well alright then. I'll keep that in mind, thanks.
Personally, I prefer a 1:1:1 solution of glyphosate, Biferthin, and Zeta Cypermethrin for my evening drinking. I find that adding a little tequila adds some additional flare as it can be kind of euphoric and the alcohol stems the convulsions somewhat.
And insect repellents mess with hormones (Score:1)
But malaria and EEE fuck you up worse than whatever is in the mosquito spray, so I'll take my chances.