|
CHEMICAL INFORMATION SHEETS > GLYPHOSATE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATA SEARCH
47 Eugenia St Rivett ACT 2611
E-mail
: biomap@spirit.com.au Tel&Fax 6 2885881
GLYPHOSATE
CHEMICAL
NAME: GLYPHOSATE
Isopropylamine
salt of N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine
CAS REGISTRY
NUMBER: 1071-83-6
CHEMICAL FAMILY: Phosphonate/organic phosphorus compound
MOLECULAR FORMULA: C3 H8 NO5 P
DESCRIPTION: Colourless or white, odourless crystals
USAGE:
A Schedule
5 herbicide in the form of the mono(isopropyl ammonium) salt.
A broad spectrum (non selective) post-emergent plant growth
regulator used for the control of grasses, sedges and broadleaved
weeds.
A systemic
herbicide that translocates to the roots of plants. Used
as the active constituent in many commercial herbicide products.
Formerly a Monsanto-held patent, glyphosate products are now
formulated by a number of pesticide producers. Used in forestry,
farming and pastoral activities, local councils, weed control
and transport agencies, as well as domestic and industrial
uses.
HEALTH EFFECTS:
HUMAN AND TEST ANIMAL DATA
Short Term
(Acute Toxicity)
Acute
Toxicity (standard animal tests) : Oral Toxicity: low
LD50 (rat,
oral): 4873 mg/kg. LD50 (mouse, oral): 1568 mg/kg.
Lethal oral doses produce severe stress, breathing difficulties, blood
in the lungs, convulsions and death.
LD50 (rabbit, dermal): Greater than 5000 mg/kg.
LC50 (rat): greater than 12.2 mg/kg in air (4 hour exposure)
Can
cause slight skin irritation, severe eye irritation. Dust
may cause mild to moderate irritation of nose and throat.
Toxicity
of glyphosate formulations may be due to presence of surfactants
and other additives/contaminants.
Long Term (Chronic
Toxicity)
No
chronic effects from human exposure reported in peer reviewed
literature. [1]
Mouse
feeding studies noted non-neoplastic changes including necrosis
of hepatocytes male mice and hypertrophy in female mice.[2]
(Non-cancerous liver damage) potential
for adverse human health impacts of glyphosate formulations
requires more investigation.
Carcinogenicity
Long
term animal studies did not show carcinogenic activity.[3]
No information
on human cancer risk is available.
Glyphosate
is readily nitrosated to N-nitrosoglyphosate. Whilst this
compound has not been assessed for carcinogenicity potential,
at least 3/4 of another 120 N-nitroso compounds showed carcinogenic
potential. Nitrosation occurs in the stomach by reaction of
nitrite in human saliva. Standard carcinogenic tests using
rats would not detect this effect since rats do not secrete
nitrite in their saliva.[4]
In
1986, the oncogenic potential of glyphosate was not fully
understood. A review of a mouse cancer study noted a slight
increase in renal tubular adenomas and a one- year feeding
study in dogs observed a reduction of weight of pituitary
gland in mid to high doses. The United States Environment
Protection Agency reveiwed thses studies and concluded that
the mice feeding study did not represent a safety concern
because such high doses of glyphosate had been administered
to the test animals. (up to 3% of total diet). They did require
an additional rat study conducted at high dose levels.
In
1991, following review of the new rat study, the US EPA placed
glyphosate in Group E. Evidence of non-carcinogenciity
for humans.[5]
Reproductive
Effects
Animal
studies did not produce any effects. Diets of up to 30 mg/day
did not produce any reproductive effects in male or female
rats, over three generations. No teratogenic effects were
observed in rabbits given up to 350 mg/kg/day on days 6-27
of pregnancy. Toxic effects noted at the highest dose in both
treated animals and their offspring. [6]
No
information on human reproductive risk is available.
Mutagenicity
Not mutagenic in a standardised series
of tests using bacteria, cultured mammalian cells and whole
animals.[7] One study showed very weak mutagenic
activity in an in vitro mammalian cell test. [8]
No information
on human genetic risk.
Damage to cell
structure and function
Glyphosate, or some additive to commercial
glyphosate products, may cause damage to DNA via sister
chromatid exchange. [9]
Glyphosate can affect the capacity
of cells to produce energy. This occurs due to disruption
of cell membrane structure. [10]
Further
investigation of potential for cell and sub-cellular impacts
is required
Synergism Potential
All
commercial pesticide products are mixtures of chemical compounds.
They contain the active constituent/s (a.i.) and other compounds
such as solvents, surfactants, lubricants, preservatives,
solubilizers and suspending agents. They may also contain
impurities and/or contaminants. Some commercial glyphosate
products contain the solvent POEA, which is contaminated
with the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane, a common solvent used in
laboratories and contained in many consumer products. According
to the manufacturer, the levels of this contaminant are kept
below 1 part per million ( ppm). Another contaminant is N-Nitrosoglyphosate.
According to the manufacturer, levels of this contaminant
are kept below 0.1 ppm.
No
information is available on the human toxicity of pesticide
mixtures containing glyphosate. It is often mixed with other
pesticides. [11]
HEALTH EFFECTS:
WILDLIFE
General Toxicity
The US EPA regards
glyphosate as being slightly toxic to birds, aquatic vertebrates
and fish and moderately toxic to embryo and larvae.
Acute
toxicity to freshwater fish: Rainbow trout 86 mg/L.
Chronic
toxicity to freshwater fish: Fathead minnow with maximum threshold
concentration (MATC). >25.7 mg/L.
Avian
toxicity (reproductive study): Mallard ducks > 1000ppm.
The
use of glyphosate for vegetation control and the resulting
decreased habitat complexity caused a decrease in invertebrate
populations and songbird numbers (especially insectivores).
One US study found the total abundance of songbirds was 36%
lower on clear-cut treated with herbicides for at least three
years. The effect related to the complexity of vegetation.[12]
Frog
Toxicity
Toxicity
to wildlife has mainly focussed on its acute toxicity to frogs.
The Final Report, Acute toxicity of a herbicide to selected
frog species[13]
investigated the toxicity of technical grade glyphosate and
the glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup 360. The method
used was through acute bioassays with frog species common
to the south-west of Western Australia. The report found
that:
technical
grade glyphosate and Roundup 360 can be acutely toxic to adult
frogs and tadpoles in laboratory bioassays tadpoles
were many times more sensitive to the herbicide formulation
tested than adult frogs tadpoles were approximately
an order of magnitude more sensitive to the formulation than
to technical grade glyphosate the
above results and the results of other studies reported in
the literature tend to suggest that the surfactant used in
the formulation is more harmful to aquatic animals than the
glyphosate The
report also stated that:
the
acute toxicity value ( 48 hour LC50 or Lethal Concentration)
to the juvenile Crinia insignifera was 51.8 mg/L
for Roundup 360 (the commercial formulation containing
the solvent) the acute toxicity value ( 48 hour LC50 or Lethal
Concentration) to the juvenile Crinia insignifera was
83.6 mg/L for glyphosate alone the toxicity
of Roundup to fish changes significantly with temperature
and pH, with greatest toxicity at high temperature and pH.
A potential hazard
exists for frogs and tadpoles in shallow water bodies. Further
study is required to determine the actual concentrations and
persistence of the formulation in aquatic environments As
a result of this study, commercial herbicide products containing
the herbicide glyphosate have been reformulated, with the
toxic surfactant replaced by another compound/s.
Limitations
of the study : Replicating real world conditions in a laboratory
is impossible and as a result, laboratory studies can only
provide a guide to toxicity potential, not a definitive prediction.
Professor Tyler of the University of Adelaide (Zoology) noted:
[14]
The WA
toxicity trial involved placing the animals in an exposure
chamber where there would be some skin contact with the
solution. However, under normal application in the environment,
the application method (of boom spraying) may result in atomised
spray, which may increase overall exposure potential for the
animals.
All bioassays
were conducted at 20 +/- 2 degrees C under ambient laboratory
light. Temperatures in real world conditions may be as high
as 42 degrees C (in the Northern Territory) and certainly
well above 30 degrees C in northern NSW summer months.
The WA
study looked at three frog species, with the bulk of the investigation
focussed on two species, Crinia insignifera and
Litoria moorei. Under real world conditions, many thousands
of species of amphibians, invertebrates and other aquatic
creatures may be exposed to herbicides and risks to the viability
of their communities is not well understood. The studies have
not been done.
Australia’s
biodiversity is well documented and to assert negligible risk
to the environment based on a small laboratory study on two
localised frog species is not scientifically defensible.
The WA
study investigated acute poisoning potential only. No attempt
was made to investigate sub-lethal, chronic, reproductive,
endocrinal or immunological effects, which may also pose significant
risks to the viability of aquatic communities.
The WA
study did indicate a 48 hour LC50 of 83.6 mg/L for glyphosate
alone for Crinia insignifera. This is a significant
level if reproduced by normal applications in the environment.
Thus it is not just the formulation that may pose unacceptable
risks to wildlife. The data generated by the WA study indicates
both commercial formulation and the active constituent
alone pose risks.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS: PLANT RESISTANCE
Australian
research [15] reports that fescue and perennial
ryegrass cultivars, soybean and convolvulus arvenis L. Lines
displayed varying degrees of resistance to glyphosate.
Genetic engineering of crops such as soy now allows this
and other commercially important food crops to be sprayed
with glyphosate, thus extending the potential global market
for glyphosate-based products.
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE AND TRANSPORT
Elimination,
Bioaccumulation and Residues in Food and Animals.
Slowly
absorbed through the digestive system and rapidly eliminated.[16]
A urine test for glyphosate in urine is available.
Does
not bio-accumulate in animal tissue but residues can be detected
after exposure. Glyphosate and its metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic
acid (AMPA) have been identified in the tissues, urine and
faeces of rats and rabbits, in the liver in poultry, pigs
and cattle and the kidney of pigs and cattle.[17]
Has been detected in rice. [18]
Persistence
The persistence
of glyphosate in the environment is variable. It is
strongly bound to clay particles and is considered moderately
persistent in soil. Degradation via microbial action is moderately
slow. Half lives range from a few days to several months or
years. The more sand in the soil, the slower the inactivation
via the bounding to clay.
Application
of glyphosate to sandy loam resulted in weakening of subclover
planted 120 days after application. A significant decrease
in nodule numbers and root weights of the plants was observed.
This indicated that breakdown of glyphosate in soils with
a high sand content is slow. Study recommended care in advocating
glyphosate use in soils with high (>80%) sand content.
[19]
Nitrosation:
N-nitrosoglyphosate was generated in soils treated with sodium
nitrate (20 ppm) and glyphosate (740 ppm) at elevated levels.
The highest level generated was noted in soil of low organic
matter and clay content. The formation of N-nitrosoglyphosate
was not observed in soils treated with lower levels, nitrite
nitrogen (2ppm) and glyphosate (5ppm).[20]
The manufacturer
claims that the product is completely biodegradable, breaking
down into natural products in both soil and water. Stated
half-life of 60 days in the soil, a time frame described
as rapid by manufacturer. Other information indicates that
breakdown time is extremely variable from a half-life of 24
days in forest soils in Ontario to 249 days in Finland.[21]
Very little leaching
capacity. Low potential to contaminate ground water as it
is tightly bound to soil
Glyphosate and its metabolites are considered as residues
of concern in plants. [22]
Maximum Residue Limits (in mg/kg or parts per million/ppm)
have been set for a number of commodities.
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED RESISTANCE
TO GLYPHOSATE
Resistance has
been genetically engineered into food crops such as soya beans
so that this core food crop can be sprayed with glyphosate
without killing it. This means that up to 200 times more glyphosate
residue may be present in soy-based foods.
MANUFACTURER
AGREES TO CHANGE ADS
In the USA, Monsanto
has agreed to change its advertisements for glyphosate-based
products. As part of the agreement, Monsanto will discontinue
the use of the terms “biodegradable” and “environmentally
friendly “ in all advertising in New York State.
[1]. Canadian Centre of Occupational Health Database,
CCINFO 1991. Glyphosate, 1,4-Dioxane
[2]. US EPA. Pesticide Fact Sheet, Glyphosate.
June 1986.
[3].US EPA. Health Advisory, Glyphosate.
Office of Drinking Water. August 1988.
[4]. Shearer R. Consultant in genetic toxicology.
Health effects of glyphosate. 1984.
[5]. 1)
Pers. Com. Mick Tydens, Monsanto. 2) Monsanto Backgrounder
Roundup Herbicide by Monsanto 3) Reregistration
Eligibility Document for Glyphosate, (EPA 738-R-93-014).
United States Environment Protection Agency, Washington,
September 1993.
[6].Canadian CCINFO 1991.
[8]. Canadian CCINFO (1991).
[9]. Vifusson @ Vyse. The effect of pesticides
Dexon, captan and Roundup on sister chromatid exchange in
human lymphocytes in vitro in Mutation Research
(1980) 79, pp59-72.
[10].
For discussion of the biological mechanism (uncoupling
of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation) see Clorunsungo,
Bababunmi and Basair , 1979. Effect of glyphosate on
rat liver mitochondria in vivo in Bull. Env. Contam.
Toxicol. 22. pp. 357-364. This study does not meet US EPA
requirements for toxicity assessment since the herbicide
was given by injection, which is considered an inappropriate
exposure route for humans. See also Pollak, J.K. The
Toxicity of Chemical Mixtures; An Introduction to Recent
Developments in Toxicology. CHAST, The University of
Sydney 1993.
[11].Quite
apart from their own toxicity, the additives that are contained
in many pesticide products may cause metabolic reactions
and in this way significantly enhance the toxicity of the
formulation.
For example,
when four organochlorine pesticides, dieldrin, endosulfan,
toxaphene and chlordane were tested individually they were
found to be weakly estrogenic. When two of these pesticides
applied in combination, their activity increased between
160 and 1600 fold. Science 7/6/96.
[12]Roundup Information Summary. Soil and Health Association
of New Zealand Inc. September 1993.
[13].Department of Environment Protection, Perth,
Western Australia. Technical Series 79. June 1995.
[14].Pers, Corr. November 1996.
[15].Powles S. B. And Holtum J.A.M. (Eds)
Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry.
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. 1994. Pp. 231-235.
[16]. Canadian CCINFO (1991)
[18].Short, K. Quick Poison, Slow Poison. Pesticide
Risk in the Lucky Country Envirobook, Sydney. 1994.
p.69.
[19]. Eberbach P.L. and Douglas L.A. Persistence
of Glyphosate in Sandy Loam. School of Agriculture and
Forestry, The University of Melbourne 1983.
[20]. Khan and Young. N-nitrosamine formation
in soil from the herbicide glyphosate. Agric. Food Chem.
Vol. 25, no.6. 1977.
[21]. Short (1994) p. 69.
|