Difference between revisions of "Team:Goettingen/Human Practices/Survey"

Glyphosate was first synthesized by the chemist Dr. Henri Martin in 1950, while working for the Swiss pharmaceutical company Cilag, which was founded in 1936 in Schaffhausen. Unfortunately (fortunately?), Dr. Martin did find out that glyphosate may serve as a very efficient herbicide. About 20 years later, the American chemist Dr. John E. Franz who was working for the American company Monsanto (recently bought by Bayer) observed that glyphosate specifically inhibits the 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase in plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea. Hence glyphosate was registered an placed on the market in 1974 (1-4).

In 2011 a survey by the University of Göttingen (partly lead by our panel discussion guest Horst-Henning Steinmann) was carried out among ~900 german arable farmers. Based on their statements, an application of glyphosate on an area of 4.3 million hectare arable land was estimated. This represents ~40% of the total arable area.

A newspaper article by the “Deutsche Welle” published on the 25.09.18 talks about the same data of glyphosate usage in the agricultural sector.

From 1994 – 2014 various data of glyphosate application and production were collected globally. These data show that during this 40 years the glyphosate production increased significantly from ~ 50 000 tons to ~826 000 tons per year. The statistic also indicates that the glyphosate production is constantly increasing (approximately 40 tons/year).

In Germany about 5000 tons of glyphosate are used per year which makes up ~ 0.6 % of the global use.

Glyphosate was registered and placed on the market in 1974 by the American company Monsanto for agricultural use under the trade name Roundup after the chemist Dr. John E. Franz who was working for the company realized its mode of action against the enzyme EPSP Synthase in plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea.

In September 2016 Monsanto was acquired by the German multinational pharmaceutical and life sciences company Bayer (for US$66 billion). The German chemical company BASF however bought it´s share in the herbicide glufosinate

As mentioned before, glyphosate inhibits the the 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase in plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea and was therefore placed by Monsanto as a herbicide.

Since glyphosate inhibits the aromatic biosynthetic pathway in many bacteria and parasites, glyphosate might also be effective as an antimicrobial (antibiotic). In 2003 Monsanto has filed a patent for the invention that the herbicidal agent glyphosate can be used in combination with the polyvalent anion oxalic acid to prevent and treat pathogenic infections caused by protozoan parasites of the phylum Apicomplexa (Patent No.: US7,771,736B2) (Background).

In december a European Citizen' s Initiative which demanded: "Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides" was signed by 1 070 865 people of 22 different European countries after the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" and after EU member states agreed on a five-year renewal period for the controversial herbicide glyphosate, used by Monsanto in its Roundup product. (November 2017). The decision was taken by EU member states' experts, with 18 votes in favour, nine against and one abstention.

In the beginning of 2018 Julia Klöckner, the Federal Minister of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection of the CDU party announced that she wants to agitate for a reduction of glyphosate usage in Germany.
Why?

“It is a very effective weed killer. Therefore the application in small amounts is okay. But by its wide use arable landscapes turn into monotonous fields and insects don‘t find enough food anymore. It should not be forbidden until there will be better alternatives but it should at least be reduced.”

“ new alternatives should be searched for”

“There are good, purely natural alternatives, therefore the use of glyphosate should be forbitten or at least reduced.”

“poison is poison, it harms the biodiversity and its long term effects are not known. I think the use should be at least reduced until we are sure that it is not cancerogenic! “

“It is a very effective and ecological agent. It should not be reduced neither be forbitten.”

- All the plants that get into contact with glyphosate die. Therefore it‘s good against weeds. That is in a small amount okay. But therefore arable landscapes turn into monotonous fields and insects don‘t find enough food anymore.
It doesn’t have to be forbidden until there will be better alternatives but it should at least be reduced. - new alternatives should be searched
- Monsanto is the best
- Unknown risks (for insects/environment/organisms)
- it destroys life
- usage should be controlled
the following comments were made in german:
- Ein Insektizid, das nicht erwiesenermaßen gesundheitsunschädlich ist, darf nicht in jedem verkauften Lebensmittel (kennzeichnungsfrei) enthalten sein. Der Einsatz von gentechnisch verändertem RoundUpReady-Saatgut in Kombination mit Glyphosat-Spritzung ist bedenklich, da so noch häufiger gespritzt werden kann.
- Der alternative Landbau hat bereits Alternativen aufgezeigt, die leider immer noch viel zu wenig beachtet werden.
- Da es soweit ich das verstehe, nicht selektiv ist, sterben auch Insekten, die nicht wie der Maiszünsler die Futterpflanzen angreifen. Es braucht ein System, das nicht pauschal alles tötet.
- Mögliche negative Folgen sind nicht genau erforscht, aber sehr wahrscheinlich. Z. B. Insektensterben, krebsauslösend, Einschränkung der Diversität bei Pflanzen
- Ich persönlich sehe das größte Problem in der Nutzung z.B. in Bananenplantagen, wo die Arbeiter viel zu viel davon abbekommen und krank werden. Vor glyphosat in meinem Essen habe ich wenig Angst, da sind doch sowieso Rückstände von vielem Mist drin.
- Pauschalaussagen sind immer unangebracht. Man kann sehr schnell für oder gegen etwas sein. Die Zeit hat uns gezeigt, dass es zwar viel zu bemängeln gibt, aber wenig wirklich fundiertes und nachhaltiges.
- Es gibt gute, rein natürliche Unkrautbekämpfer in der Natur und den Begriff "Unkraut" könnte man an dieser Stelle auch mal zur Diskussion stellen.
- Ist nicht gut für den Körper
- Reduziert ja!!! Verboten nein
- Es ist schädlich gegen Bienen
- Pures Gift, karzinogen
- Tolles Mittel, sehr ökologisch.
- Ungenaue Folgen für die Artenvielfalt! Unfaire Nutzung der resistenten Nutzpflanzen in den USA
- Sinnvoll und mit Verstand eingesetzt, werden Unkräuter beseitigt und die Landfläche bringt mehr Ertrag. Mehr Ertrag heißt, dass eventuell weniger Menschen auf der Welt hungern müssen.
- funktioniert gut
- Weil es die Gewässer mit Antibiotika belastet
- Genetische Verändeung von Pflanzen zur Produktion großer Monokulturen reduziert die Diversität der Pflanzenarten in einer bestimmten Region. Durch das daraus resultierende Artenschwinden bei Pflanzen sorgt nicht nur für eine Veränderung der Flora, sondern ebenfalls für eine Veränderung in der Fauna und in den Bodennährstoffen/Mineralen. Auf einen längeren Zeitraum gesehen reduziert sich dadurch, auf den Mensch gesehen, die Nahrungsvielfalt, die Umweltqualität und viele andere Fakten.
- Glyphosat ist zwar schädlich, aber so viele Mengen aufzunehmen, dass die schädliche Grenze erreicht wird, ist kaum möglich.
- Des zeug hilft wenigstens was
- Weil Spätfolgen nicht eindeutig geklärt sind. Vor allem, weil es ein Antibiotikum ist und in übermäßigem Gebrauch Residenzen fördert. Wichtige Breitbandantibiotika im medizinischen Bereich könnten wirkungslos werden und damit Patienten nicht geheilt werden.
- Aber.... nur wenn die Alternative nicht noch schädlicher ist
- Gift bleibt Gift. Gefahr für Artenreichtum.
- Würde man ökologische grüne Landwirtschaft betreiben und auf Monokulturen verzichten benötigt man Glyphosat nicht. Böden werden nicht ausgelaugt und Artenvielfalt erholt sich wieder.
- Solange die Unbedenklichkeit für Mensch und Umwelt nicht nachgewiesen ist, sollte man darauf verzichten.
- Das Produkt, welches nach Glyphosat auf den Markt kommt, kann von der Wirkung her eigentlich nur gleich gut oder noch viel „schrecklicher“ als das jetzt eingesetzte Glyphosat sein. Keine Firma der Welt würde ein schlechter wirkendes Herbizid entwickeln...

Dr. John E. Franz who was working for the American company Monsanto (recently bought by Bayer) observed that glyphosate specifically inhibits the 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase which exists in plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea.

In 1996 Monsanto launched their first Roundup Ready crop – the Roundup Ready soybean. This specific genetically modified soybean is resistant to glyphosate and was obtained by the expression of inserted DNA into the Glyphosate-tolerant Soybean (GTS) plant DNA. This insert contains the EPSP synthase of Agrobacterium tumefaciens (check here) Since then multiple other Roundup Ready crops resistant to glyphosate haven been developed. All of them are resistant to Roundup, so farmers that plant these seeds must use Roundup exclusively (Glyphosate) to keep other weeds from growing in their fields.

However glyphosate is not only used in the combination with GT crops. In Germany those genetically modified crops are forbitten and glyphosate is used in three application modes which are pre-sowing (20.7% of application area), pre-harvest (11.2%) and stubble application (68.1%).

Genetically modified organisms – GMOs are organisms whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering.

The effect of glyphosate in different areas is still unclear. Concerning the health and biodiversity risks of glyphosate a Danish farmer in Europe alleged that glyphosate caused his piglets to be born with deformities; in countries like Argentina, experts have blamed cancer, miscarriage and deformation in humans on glyphosate. Environmentalists also point out potential harmful effects of glyphosate on biodiversity and ecosystems. In addition it was recently published that Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees which increases their susceptibility to infection and might be the cause for the increased mortality of honey bees.

Another concern is the emerging weed resistance. By planting GT crops the farmer uses exclusively glyphosate to remove other weeds. On the one hand this leads to the reduction of other chemical herbicide intermixtures. On the other hand, a study shows that the use of glyphosate has significantly increased in the USA which might correlate with the emerging of weed resistances.

Clearly something has to be done about the effects on biodiversity and accumulation in the soil. Hence we took a further step in our experiments. We engineered B. subtilis in a way that it contains the enzyme GAT (glyphosate acetyltransferase) . This allows the bacterium to acetylate glyphosate rendering it inactive. This could be used to clean up contaminated fields and sites.

“It is a very good idea – interesting and useful!“

“It would be better to fight the cause and not the symptom.”

“In general I think it is a very good approach but I have some concerns about your genetically modified bacteria. What happens when they spread and displace other very useful microorganisms or cause other harm?”

“I really like the project and the idea behind it. I would totally support it unless it would cause other environmental problems!”

“Maybe the you could also find a way to degrade glyphosate with bacillus.”

There is for example an organisation called “Agrar Koordination” which organizes informational events and projects. One project focuses on gene technology in agriculture and another on the usage of pesticides. In addition, we organized quite a few informational events for young and old, including an information booth and a panel discussion with local politicians. Check out our human practice page to find out more.

The survey shows high interest in acquiring information via youtube videos. Except from that there were no preferred scource of information about glyphosate.

Most of the participants thought that more effort is needed to inform the public about the controversially discussed glyphosate. The survey also revealed, that only small numbers of the public seems to have well-founded knowledge about that subject.

Without the use of glyphosate the operational costs of agriculturists could rise up to elven percent because more machines and more working man would be needed since more ploughing would be carried out.

This indicates that the prices for food in the supermarket would most certainly rise.

There are ways to detect glyphosate. Most of them are based on different chromatography methods. In the past, laboratories used the gas chromatography followed by mass spectrometry to detect glyphosate. It is based on the vaporisation of the substance that is going to be analyzed (gas chromatography). Therefore, glyphosate needs to be derivated with a substance more prone to vaporisation.

At the moment the HPLC followed by fluorescence detection is the standard procedure to detect glyphosate. Since glyphosate does not exhibit fluorescence properties it again needs to be derivated to become fluorescent.

Both of these methods require expensive equipment and are very time-consuming. The derivatisation of glyphosate could also result in a biased detection result.

Other possible detection methods are the ELISA KIT and the Strip test kit which are based on the detection by antigen – antibody interaction. These tests could be carried out at home but they are still quite expensive and prone to false positive results.

The survey shows, that most of the people are willing to use a test themselves in order to detect glyphosate in their food.

As previous studies suggested, several german non-alcoholic were positively tested on glyphosate.

Several different herbicides exist. However, there is one which works similar to glyphosate. This herbicide is called glufosinate-ammonium and inhibits the enzyme glutamine synthetase. This enzyme catalyses the synthesis of glutamine from glutamate and ammonia and plays a central role in plant nitrogen metabolism.

Advantages
very effective, higher yields, use of only one herbicide and not a mixture of several different once which might be more toxic, reduction of the use of machines and man power, cheap, important to fee the growing population

Disadvantages
loss of biodiversity, unknown long-term effects, emerging resistances, water pollution, toxic effect for humans or other animals

- Very good idea :)
- Glyphosate does no harm, it is the perfect product.
- Interesting and useful
- Good idea
- very interesting idea
- promissing idea

They should find out whether it is toxic or not for animals and humans. What happens when it comes into the water etc.
They should try to conduct serious studies instead of dubius ones
Not enough transparency and knowledge
Stay away from our Monsanto money!
Risk Management
development of alternatives
education
taking part in the discussion
explain that not everything can be controlled
The following comments were made in german
- Eine wissenschaftlich fundierte Diskussion über mögliche Risiken; diese darf nicht durch Lobbying/Sponsoring/Drittmittel von industriellen Vertretern beeinflussbar sein.
- Risiken zu untersuchen, Alternativen vorzuschlagen.
- Aufklärung
- Es ist die Aufgabe völlig unvoreingenommen und frei jeglichen Zwängen und voreiligen Schlüssen zu forschen zu untersuchen, ggf Risiken zu erkennen und qualifizieren. Leider, ist dies fast nie der Fall.
Entweder werden Studien an Wissenschaftler gegeben vor der einen oder anderen Partei. Sehr häufig werden Erkenntnisse falsch interpretiert und pupliziert. Es fehlt eine echte reale unvoreingenommene Wertung. Das kann jedoch leider auch nicht die Wissenschaft.
- Bewusstmachen natürlicher Alternativen zur sog Unkrautbekämpfung und ein Nachdenken über die Ressourcen, die tatsächlich benötigt werden, um die Menschheit mit den notwendigen Lebensmitteln zu versorgen. Stichworte hier: Nachhaltigkeit, Lebensmittelverschwendung, Ökobilanz.
- Bitte mehr Geld zur Verfügung stellen und andere Mittel nutzen.
- Aufklärung.
- Alternativen erforschen.
- Zu versachlichen.
- Aufklärung Verbesserung anderer Methoden/ Abbauwege für Glyphosat.
- Nachweisen in wie weit Glyphosat wirklich schädlich ist. Lösungen suchen und finden, wie am Besten mit Glyphosat umzugehen ist.
- Über Risiken und Vor-und Nachteile aufklären!
- Eine Aufklärung über Langzeitfolgen, eine Sicherung der Pflanzendiversität (nicht nur durch Samenbanken und in Reservaten) und eine Stabilisierung/Reduzierung der aktuellen Glyphosat-Werte.
- Neutrale unideologische Fakten zu schaffen.
- Mehr Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: Ottonormalbürger kennt sich nicht aus mit den wissenschaftlichen Fakten und vertritt oft nur die eingeflößte Meinung von Kritikern/Umweltaktivisten.
- Forschen forschen forschen.
- Herauszufinden, inwieweit Resistenzen gebildet werden, um die Schädlichkeit für den Menschen beweisen zu können, um Glyphosat verbieten zu können.
Oder einen Wirkstoff zu entdecken,der Glyphosat abbaut.
Oder ein pflanzengift entwickeln,das nicht gleichzeitig ein Antibiotikum ist...
- Wie gefährlich ist Glyphosat für Mensch und Tier?
- Alternativen aufzeigen. Z. B. Bodenbearbeitung.
- Argrarwirtschaft kleiner zu machen - man kann nicht nur den Beruf Landwirt ausüben und Vernunft walten lassen.
- Auswirkungen auf andere Lebewesen erforschen.
- Aufklärung! Das Zeugs ist nicht giftig für den Menschen (in den angewandten Dosen)!
- Für Aufklärung zu sorgen. (Ich merke grad selbst, dass ich zum Thema Glyphosat doch eher nur „gefährliches Halbwissen“ habe).

Even though glyphosate is such a prominent topic in the media, lots of people do not feel informed at all. This is in parts because there is so much unfiltered information out there, especially on the internet, that lead to confusion.

There were several paper published from different agencies and scientists that contradict each other. Together with unfiltered information on the internet that often claim to be based on "scientific studies" lead to low trust in scientists and research.