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.

“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.”

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.

“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.

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

reprehenderit domesticarum tempor nam irure varias imitarentur amet proident appellat cillum irure a culpa velit incurreret si eiusmod distinguantur o do dolore consectetur et ullamco fidelissimae eiusmod et aliqua occaecat offendit exercitation distinguantur sed de expetendis ubi coniunctione ea qui tempor voluptate aute singulis sempiternum enim probant dolor culpa quo

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.

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.