A weedicides round-up

Bayer’s Round-Up weedicide has come under the judicial scanner in the US for allegedly triggering cancer. It has lost three lower court cases in California, the latest order directing it to pay $2 billion to two cancer patients. Even as the US Environmental Protection Agency declared on April 30 that “there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen”, Bayer is in for rocky times. It faces the wrath of numerous litigants who have used its product (earlier Monsanto’s before the two merged in 2018). As with GMOs, the scientific community is bitterly divided. Studies have linked it to auto-immune disorders, autism in children, intestinal and liver disorders and much else. Glyphosate’s increased use is on account of its effectiveness and affordability, as it saves both money and time compared with manual labour. In India glyphosate is permissible only in tea and non-crop areas, and more recently in paddy bunds. Telangana, Maharashtra, Punjab and Kerala have proscribed its use, but the Centre remains ambivalent. Sri Lanka has banned glyphosate in all crops, including tea, after its being linked to oesophagal and kidney cancers. Its growing use in India has been linked to the ‘illegal’ cultivation of herbicide-tolerant Bt cotton. In herbicide-tolerant varieties, glyphosate can be liberally used without the crop being affected. Glyphosate’s rising use worldwide has been linked to the proliferation of herbicide-tolerant GM varieties in US and South America. The EU has increased the permissible limit of glyphosate in its animal feed to meet its requirements.

It is believed that India’s pulses imports from Canada and Australia could contain high levels of this weedicide. The FSSAI has observed that while “MRL (maximum residue limit) for glyphosate in pulses has not been specified in our regulations...Codex standards (established by FAO/WHO) shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of import clearances.”

Even as the jury is out on the impact of glyphosate, it is better to be safe than sorry. Glyphosate residues in water need to be monitored, even if it is not directly sprayed on crops. Its use as a crop dessicant, post harvest, should be curbed. But as there is no escaping its effectiveness in wiping out deep-rooted weeds, organic alternatives need to be found. Farmers’ income support schemes that help subsidise labour costs should be dovetailed into the promotion of organic techniques. The glyphosate issue is part of a larger crisis of toxicity in agriculture. To deal with this, organic methods have to become economically viable.

COMMENT NOW