for the people | for the planet | for the future© Flickr/CIMMT

Human contamination by
glyphosate
Friends of the Earth Europe, June, 2013

Friends of the Earth Europe asbl Rue d’Edimbourg 26 | 1050 Brussels | Belgium
Tel. +32 2 893 10 00 | Fax +32 2 893 10 35 | info@foeeurope.org | www.foeeurope.org

for the people | for the planet | for the future

Table of Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 3
Glyphosate in food......................................................................................................................... 3‘Acceptable Daily Intake’ ................................................................................................... 4
The ‘Maximum Residue Level’................................................................................................. 4
Monitoring for glyphosate residues in food ..................................................................... 6
Detection of glyphosate residues in humans ................................................................. 7
Friends of the Earth results ...................................................................................................... 7
Glyphosate frequency of detection in the participating countries: ................... 8
Conclusions and demands ........................................................................................................ 8
References....................................................................................................................................... 10

Prepared by Friends of the Earth Europe | June
2013
This briefing has been produced with the financial assistance of theEuropean Commission funded Development Fields project. The contents ofthis briefing are the sole responsibility of Friends of the Earth Europe andcan under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of theEuropean Commission.

2/ 12

for the people | for the planet | for the future

Human contamination by glyphosate
Friends of the Earth Europe, June 2013

Introduction
Glyphosate is the world’s best-selling chemical herbicide. Glyphosate-containing herbicides,
such as Monsanto’s Roundup, are the most widely used herbicides in Europe and areapplied in farming, forestry, parks, public spaces and gardens. Glyphosate-containing
herbicides are also crucial to the production of genetically modified herbicide resistant crops.
In recent years a number of scientific studies have raised concerns about glyphosate’ssafety and there have been calls for glyphosate-containing herbicides to be banned. New
research by Friends of the Earth has detected glyphosate residues in the urine of 44 percent
of people tested, from 18 different European countries.

Glyphosate in food
Glyphosate-containing herbicides are applied in large amounts to both genetically modified(GM) crops and non-GM crops. GM crops may receive two or three applications ofglyphosate in a season [1] while glyphosate-containing herbicides may be sprayed justbefore harvest onto non-GM cereals, pulses, sunflowers and oilseed crops. This is done toremove weeds and dry out the grains, a process called ‘dessication’ [2]. Glyphosate remains
largely unchanged in non-GM plants, but GM plants will convert glyphosate into aminomethyl
phosphonic acid (AMPA), N-acetyl-glyphosate or N-acetyl-AMPA, depending on the type ofgenetic modification used [3]. When conducting risk assessments of residues in food, theEuropean Food Safety Authority views such breakdown products as equivalent to glyphosate[4].

Once applied, glyphosate and its break down products are transported throughout the plant
into the leaves, grains or fruit [5]. They cannot be removed by washing, and they are notbroken down by cooking [6]. Glyphosate residues can remain stable in foods for a year or
more, even if the foods are frozen, dried or processed [7]. Some processing may evenconcentrate the residues; for example, during production of wheat bran the glyphosate
residues may be concentrated by a factor of four [8].

3/ 12

for the people | for the planet | for the future

Industry studies show that when livestock are fed glyphosate at levels allowed in feed,
glyphosate residues may be present at low levels in milk and eggs from the animals, as wellas in the liver and kidneys [9]. In fact, the European Food Safety Authority is planning to
examine the issue of glyphosate residues in animal products, because “[c]onsidering thewide use of glyphosate on feed crops, a significant livestock exposure to glyphosate and its
metabolites might be expected, resulting in a carry-over of residues in the food of animal
origin.” [10]‘Acceptable Daily Intake’
In 2002, EU authorities set an ‘acceptable daily intake’ (ADI) for everyday exposure toglyphosate, of 0.3 mg glyphosate per kilo of bodyweight per day. This means, forexample, that an ‘acceptable’ consumption of glyphosate residues for a child weighing
20kg would be 6 mg every day. The Food and Agriculture Organisation has set an evenhigher ADI, of 1 mg/kg/day, meaning it would be ‘acceptable’ for a 20 kg child to eat 20
mg of glyphosate every day. But concerns have been raised about these high limits. A
group of independent scientists recently suggested the ADI should be set much lower, at
0.025mg/kg, based on research published in scientific journals since 2002 [11].

The ‘Maximum Residue Level’
The ‘maximum residue level’ (MRL) is the legal limit for pesticide residues in foods andanimal feed. Limits are set for each pesticide in different foods. When setting MRLs, theauthorities must ensure that the ‘acceptable daily intake’ will not be exceeded, but because
the ADI for glyphosate has been set so high, the MRL in different foods can also be set at avery high levels. For example, the European MRL for wheat and peas is 10mg/kg, meaning akilogram of wheat can contain up to 10 mg of glyphosate [12]. As a comparison, the typical
Vitamin E content of wheat is 7-10mg/kg [13]. The MRL for glyphosate in soya, oats andbarley is even higher, at 20 mg/kg, while for wild fungi it is 50 mg/kg.
Over time, the permitted limit for glyphosate in many staple food crops has been going up. In
the last two decades, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which sets international MRLs,
has raised the MRL for glyphosate across a range of crops, in some cases more than once;some examples are shown in table 1. European limits can be higher or lower thaninternational levels.

4/ 12

for the people | for the planet | for the future

Year ADI was
set for eachfood/feedCrop

1997 [14]Soybeans

5 - 20mg/kg(x4)

Soybean fodder

20 - 200mg/kg(x10)

Cotton seed

0.5 - 10 mg/kg(x20)

Maize grain

0.1 - 1 mg/kg(x10)sorghum

0.1 - 20 mg/kg(x200)

Cotton seed

10 - 40 mg/kg(x4)

1 - 5 mg kg(x5)

1999 [15]2006 [16]Increase ofinternational MRL(multiple)(from – to)(EU MRL remains 10 mg/kg)
Maize grain(EU MRL remains 1 mg/kg)

2012 [17]Barley straw and fodder

None - 400 mg/kg

Grass hay

50 - 500 mg/kg(x10)

Lentils

0.1 - 5 mg/kg(x50)

Sweetcorn

0.1 - 3 mg/kg(x 30)

Sugar beet

1 - 20 mg/kg(x20)(EU MRL increased to 10 mg/kg)

According to the German government, “[c]hanges to maximum glyphosate residue levels areusually based on changes in agriculture” [18]. In other words, the expanded or increased useof glyphosate-containing herbicides, for example due to the introduction of GM glyphosate
tolerant crops, will lead to an increase in the maximum residue level. In addition, increases
may be trade-related. In 2012, at the request of Monsanto, the European Commission raised
the EU’s MRL for glyphosate in lentils to 10mg/kg, above the international limit [19]. This was
to allow the import of glyphosate-treated lentils from Canada and the United States.
The ‘maximum residue level’ reflects the needs of industrial agriculture and trade, and it
tends to go up. In turn, rising limits allow farmers to use more glyphosate-containing

5/ 12

for the people | for the planet | for the future

herbicides on a range of crops, so it seems likely that people are being exposed to evermore glyphosate in their food.
Monitoring for glyphosate residues in foodDespite glyphosate’s global dominance as a herbicide, there is little testing of glyphosate
residues in food. In 2009 European Union authorities conducted 186,852 tests on cereal
samples for pesticide residues. But only five countries tested for glyphosate [20], amounting
to 462 samples of which 42 tested positive. In fact, EU authorities only agreed to begin
regular monitoring of glyphosate in cereals from 2010, and there is no testing at all ofglyphosate residues on imported GM soybeans [21]. Glyphosate testing does not appear tobe prioritised; even in the European Union only a small number of testing laboratories havethe facilities to detect the chemical [22]. The lack of data means it is difficult to find out how
much glyphosate people are being exposed to in their food.

The UK government does test for glyphosate residues in bread. Their results show that
contamination is common [23], particularly in wholemeal bread.

Glyphosate residues in UK
wholemeal bread
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

1
0.8

0.6
0.4

% wholemeal breadsamples containing
residues

maximum residue level
detected mg/kg

0.2
02006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Separate testing of wheat bran found residues of up to 5.7mg/kg [24] and a study inGermany found glyphosate residues in barley of up to 23 mg/kg [25]. The UK government
has issued advice to farmers on how to reduce glyphosate residues in wheat crops [26], andleading bakeries in Denmark no longer accept glyphosate treated grain [27].

6/ 12

for the people | for the planet | for the future

Detection of glyphosate residues in humans
As with food, there has been little investigation of glyphosate contamination in humans.
Industry-funded studies have suggested almost all glyphosate is excreted from the bodywithin a week [28]. However, given its widespread use, people could be having frequent, oreven continuous, exposure to glyphosate in their food. A few studies have looked forglyphosate in humans. An industry-funded study measured glyphosate in the urine of US
farmers, and their families, after application of the herbicide to their crops [29]. One the dayof application, 60% of the farmers had detectable glyphosate in their urine, ranging from <1
to 233 ng/ml (parts per billion, ppb). Urine samples were taken for another 3 days, by whichtime glyphosate was detectable in 27% of samples, with the level ranging from <1 to 68
ng/ml (ppb).

Research by a university in Canada found glyphosate in 5% of blood samples taken fromwomen undergoing surgery, up to the level of 93.6 ng/ml (ppb) [30], although it was notfound in blood samples from pregnant women. An independent study in Iowa tested
glyphosate concentrations in the urine of farming and non-farming families. Glyphosate was
detected in the majority of samples, including more than 80% of the children’s urine samples[31]. For mothers and children there were no statistically significant differences between thefarming and non-farming families, suggesting they were being exposed to similar levels ofglyphosate [32].

Friends of the Earth results
On average 44 per cent of all samples from volunteers in 18 countries were found to containtraces of glyphosate. All volunteers who gave samples live in cities, and none had handledor used glyphosate products in the run up to the tests. The evidence suggests that asignificant proportion of the population could have glyphosate in their bodies – and it is notclear where it is coming from.

7/ 12

for the people | for the planet | for the future

Glyphosate frequency of detection in the participating countries:
Malta (90 percent), Great Britain, Germany and Poland (70 percent each), Netherlands (63percent), Czech Republic (60 percent), Belgium and Latvia (55 percent each), Cyprus (50percent), Spain and Croatia (40 percent each), Hungary and France (30 percent each),
Austria and Georgia (20 percent each), Switzerland (17 percent), Bulgaria and Macedonia(10 percent each).

Conclusions and demands
New research from Friends of the Earth has shown that people from all over Europe – in EU
and none EU countries – have glyphosate residues in their urine. The evidence suggeststhat a significant proportion of the population could have glyphosate in their bodies – and it is
not clear where it is coming from. Despite the fact that glyphosate is the world´s best-sellingchemical herbicide and glyphosate-containing herbicides are the most widely-used
herbicides in Europe, very little testing is done for glyphosate residues in food, feed, orwater. Tests for glyphosate in the body do not take place at all.

Friends of the Earth wants to know:Why do people have glyphosate in their urine? Where does it come from?



Why haven´t public authorities done any testing on glyphosate residues in humans?



Why is food, animal feeds (such as imported soy) and drinking water so rarely tested
for glyphosate?

What are the health impacts of glyphosate in our bodies? Is it guaranteed thatglyphosate residues are completely excreted? If not, what happens to the remaining
residues?

Why haven´t there been any long-term health studies on on-going glyphosate uptake
in humans?



Why have the maximum residue levels (MRLs) for glyphosate in food and feed beensteadily increased?



Who is profiting from increasing glyphosate use?



Why are authorities considering applications to grow glyphosate-resistant geneticallymodified crops in Europe?

8/ 12

for the people | for the planet | for the future

Given the uncertainty about how glyphosate is entering people and the need tominimise exposure to glyphosate, Friends of the Earth demands that:

The EU and national governments must immediately start a monitoring programme forglyphosate in food and feed, including imported animal feed crops such as GM soy.
Levels of glyphosate (and its breakdown product AMPA) in the environment should
also be monitored, covering aquatic systems and soil. These monitoring programmes
should be comprehensive and the results should be made available to the public
without delay.



National governments must introduce a glyphosate reduction programme anddesiccation (spraying crops shortly before the harvest) should be banned without
delay. All other uses for glyphosate should be evaluated by 2015, existing maximum
residue limits (MRLs) should be re-evaluated, and there must be no further increases
in the MRLs.



No glyphosate resistant genetically modified crops should be authorized in the EU.

All food processors and retailers should minimise their customer´s exposure toglyphosate residues by specifying glyphosate-free products from their suppliers. They
should extend their internal pesticides monitoring programme and include glyphosate
in their regular testing.

9/ 12

for the people | for the planet | for the future

References[1] Andras Szekacs and Bela Darvas (2012) Forty Years with Glyphosate, Herbicides Properties, Synthesis and Control of Weeds, Dr. Mohammed Nagib Hasaneen (Ed.), ISBN:
978-953-307-803-8, InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/herbicidesproperties-synthesis-and-control-of-weeds/forty-years-withglyphosate[2] UK Food Standards Agency (2006) Pesticide Residue Minimisation Crop Guide: Cereals[3] European Food Safety Authority (2009) Opinion on the modification of the residue
definition of glyphosate in genetically modified maize grain and soybeans, and in products ofanimal origin EFSA Journal 7(9):1310[4] European Food Safety Authority (2009) ibid[5] European Food Safety Authority (2012) Opinion on the modification of the existing MRL
for glyphosate in lentils EFSA Journal 10(1):2550[6] European Food Safety Authority (2009) Opinion on the modification of the residue
definition of glyphosate in genetically modified maize grain and soybeans, and in products ofanimal origin EFSA Journal 7(9):1310 p 17
[7] European Food Safety Authority (2009) Opinion on the modification of the residue
definition of glyphosate in genetically modified maize grain and soybeans, and in products ofanimal origin EFSA Journal 7(9):1310 p 17
[8] WHO/FAO (1994) Report of the 1994 Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel Of Experts On
Pesticide Residues In Food And The Environment And The WHO Expert Group On
Pesticide Residues, Rome. Section 4.2.6[9] FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (2005) Evaluation of glyphosate (158)Available at http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/lpe/lpe-g/en/[10] European Food Safety Authority (2012) Opinion on the modification of the existing MRL
for glyphosate in lentils EFSA Journal 10(1):2550[11] Antoniou M et al. (2012) Teratogenic Effects of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides:
Divergence of Regulatory Decisions from Scientific Evidence. Journal of Environmental andAnalytical Toxicology S4:006. doi:10.4172/2161-0525.S4-006[12] Taken from EU Pesticides database, available
at ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm Accessed 19/04/2013[13] deMan JM (1999) Principles of Food Chemistry Aspin Publishers, USA. p367
[14] Report of the twenty-eighth session of the Codex Committee on pesticide residues, The
Hague, The Netherlands 15 - 20 April 1996 Available at http://www.codexalimentarius.org[15] Report of the thirty-first session of the Codex Committee on pesticide residues, The
Hague, 12 - 17 April 1999 Available at http://www.codexalimentarius.org[16] Report of the thirty-eighth session of the Codex Committee on pesticide residues,
Fortaleza, Brazil, 3 - 8 April 2006 Available at http://www.codexalimentarius.or[17] Report of the 44th session of the Codex Committee on pesticide residues Shanghai,
China, 23 - 28 April 2012. Available at http://www.codexalimentarius.org[18] Bundesregierung 2011, parliamentary request by the German Green Party. Drucksache
17/7 168 http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/071/1707168.pdf[19] European Food Safety Authority (2012) Opinion on the modification of the existing MRL
for glyphosate in lentils EFSA Journal 10(1):2550
10/ 12

for the people | for the planet | for the future[20] European Food Safety Authority (2012). The 2009 European Union Report on Pesticide
Residues in Food. Appendix III http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2430.htm.
[21] Commission answer to European Parliamentary Question, given 27 November 2012. E008349/2012[22] Poulsen ME, Christensen HB & Hermann SS (2009) Proficiency test on incurred andspiked pesticide residues in cereals Accreditation and Quality Assurance Vol 14. pp 477485[23] Data from the Annual Reports of the UK Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues inFood (2006-2011). Available atwww.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/advisorygroups/PRiF/PRiF_Results_and_Reports[24] Pesticides Residues Committee (2005) Pesticides Residues Monitoring Report: Second
Quarter Ending June 2005 Available atwww.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/advisorygroups/PRiF/PRiF_Results_and_Reports[25] http://www.derwesten.de/region/westfalen/glyphosat-im-getreide-gefundenid6901210.html[26] Home Grown Cereals Authority (2008) Pre-harvest glyphosate application to wheat andbarley Information sheet 02/summer 2008.
[27] For example: Kohberg Bakery Group (2012) United Nations Global Compact:
Communication on Progress p 2 Available at http://www.unglobalcompact.org/[28] Brewster DW, Warren J & Hopkins WE (1991) Metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague–
Dawley rats: tissue distribution, identification, and quantification of glyphosate-derived
materials following a single oral dose. Fundamental & Applied Toxicology. Vol 17 pp43–51.
[29] Acquavella JF et al (2004) Glyphosate biomonitoring for Farmers and Their Families:
Results from the Farm Family Exposure Study Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 112
pp 321-326[30] Aris A & Leblanc S (2011) Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated togenetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada Reproductive
Toxicology doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004[31] Curwin BD, et al. (2007) Urinary pesticide concentrations among children, mothers andfathers living in farm and non-farm households in Iowa. Annals of Occupational Hygiene Vol
51 pp53–65.
[32] Curwin BD et al (2007) Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and nonfarmers Environmental Research Vol 105 pp 307-315

11/ 12

for the people | for the planet | for the future

Friends of the Earth Europe
Member Groups
Austria
Belgium (Wallonia & Brussels)
Belgium (Flanders & Brussels)
Bulgaria
Croatia
CyprusCzech Republic
Denmark
England, Wales &Northern Ireland
Estonia
FinlandFranceGeorgia
Germany

Global 2000
Les Amis de la Terre
Friends of the Earth
Za Zemiata
Zelena Akcija
Friends of the Earth
Hnutí Duha
NOAH

Hungary

Magyar Természetvédok Szövetsége

IrelandFriends of the Earth

Italy

Amici della Terra

LatviaLatvijas Zemes Draugi

Lithuania

Lietuvos Zaliuju Judéjimas

Luxembourg

Mouvement Ecologique

Macedonia

Dvizhenje na Ekologistite na
Makedonija
Friends of the Earth Malta
Milieudefensie
Norges Naturvernforbund
Polski Klub Ekologiczny
Friends of the Earth Scotland
Priatelia Zeme
Amigos de la Tierra
Jordens Vänner
Pro Natura
Zelenyi Svit

Malta
The Netherlands
NorwayPolandScotlandSlovakia
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
UkraineFriends of the Earth
Eesti Roheline Liikumine
Maan Ystävät Ry
Les Amis de la Terre
Sakhartvelos Mtsvaneta Modzraoba
Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz
Deutschland (BUND)

Friends of the Earth Europe campaigns forsustainable and just societies and for the protectionof the environment, unites more than 30 nationalorganisations with thousands of local groups and ispart of the world's largest grassroots environmental
network, Friends of the Earth International.

12/ 12

Friends of the Earth Europe asbl Rue d’Edimbourg 26 | 1050 Brussels | Belgium
Tel. +32 2 893 10 00 | Fax +32 2 893 10 35 | info@foeeurope.org | www.foeeurope.org