Issue 1, April 29, 2019
Glyphosate and Risk Communication
Currently, there is much perceived risk associated with using glyphosate. It is all over the news and in the papers. We are receiving more questions and calls on this topic, and from what you have told us, you are too. Clients are concerned. Applicators are concerned. Recently a second jury found that glyphosate was responsible for causing the plaintiff's cancer. Many experts disagree with these verdicts. It’s important to keep in mind that these court decisions do NOT change the current body of science. Unfortunately, juries are not necessarily making decisions based on science as unavoidable human emotions come into play. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determination of “probable human carcinogen” identified glyphosate as a potential hazard. Many governments, including USEPA, have published risk assessments about glyphosate, finding it is unlikely to cause cancer in humans when used according to the label directions as required. Still, questions abound.
Our friends with Oregon State University have provided a useful short article and presentation video on the topic. Glyphosate Questions and Answers by Chip Bubl and Kaci Buhl can be found at: https://extension.oregonstate.edu/pests-diseases/pesticides/glyphosate-questions-answers. The IARC determination is discussed as well as the safety of other ingredients in Roundup and foods with glyphosate residues.
Kaci developed a presentation on glyphosate and communicating pesticide risk that may be useful especially to those who commonly receive questions on the safety of using glyphosate. You can view Kaci’s recorded presentation on YouTube via the following link: https://youtu.be/xEQVpKm921w. Within her presentation, Kaci highlights some of the herbicide’s characteristics, including its low toxicity. She discusses key differences between the hazard assessment used by the IARC and risk assessments used by public regulatory agencies, including the US EPA. The last half of the presentation covers the science of risk perception and strategies to communicate risk effectively. If you are responding to questions on glyphosate, the webinar is well worth your time.
Kaci recommends the following approach to address pesticide risk communication:
- Listen, ask questions, paraphrase:
- Frame as risk rather than safety:
- Provide toxicity information:
- Mention the common routes of exposure:
- Describe the benefit(s) of the application:
- Mention action items in the person’s control:
- Where to get more information:
This will help you to more accurately understand your client’s concerns regarding the pesticide. Their concerns may not actually be what you assume they are.
People don’t ask about risk; they ask about safety. Safety is a yes or no binomial question. Suggesting that a pesticide is safe can lead to risky behaviors because some may think they don’t need to take any precautions. Risk is more accurate because it’s a scale. Precautions can reduce risk. Talk about how risk is higher for certain people including pregnant women, children and the elderly.
Remember that the dose makes the poison for any chemical -- even caffeine and water. For pesticides, the product label is always the best place to start. Look for the signal word, which indicates the level of toxicity of the product. Products that are very low in toxicity will not have a signal word. The product Safety Data Sheet (SDS) provides additional health and safety information including LD50’s. Additionally, the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) website has fact sheets on many commonly used pesticides including this one on glyphosate:
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/glyphotech.html
It is important to consider exposure when determining risk. The greatest exposure to a pesticide will occur to the user while mixing, loading, and applying. Think too about the likely routes of entry (oral, dermal, etc.). Consider reentry information provided on the label, which is designed to prevent exposure. Has a food crop been treated with a pesticide? Consider that producers are required by law to follow label directions and, that residues in our food supply are monitored by the FDA. Tolerances are set by USEPA with safety factors built in. How much of the food would have to be consumed even to reach the minimum level and can a person even consume that much? Again, the dose makes the poison.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html#exposed
We can’t talk about risk without talking about benefit. There’s no acceptable risk in the absence of benefit. It might seem out of place if someone asks about the risk of using a pesticide and you start talking about the benefits of using that pesticide, but the benefits must be considered. What are we saving by making these applications? Time? Hand-pulling? Other manual labor? What does it make possible? Faster or more complete kill of perennial weeds? What are the alternatives? Other chemicals? Some commonly used alternative herbicides are much more toxic than glyphosate. Others may have environmental concerns.
Risk perception changes with perceived control. When someone feels they are in control, the risk is immediately lower compared to when they are not in control. Suggest alternative control options or ways to reduce exposure such as wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) or keeping unprotected persons out of the treated area per the label directions. Reading and following the label is powerful!
Finally, provide sources where they can get additional information. By doing this, you are saying “Don’t just take it from me.”
The National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC)
Located at Oregon State University
1 800 858-7378
npic.orst.edu
(Glyphosate specific information from NPIC can be found at the links provided above.)
The Agricultural Health Study: http://aghealth.nih.gov/
Genetic Literacy Project – “Is glyphosate (Roundup) dangerous?”
https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/is-glyphosate-roundup-dangerous/
Glyphosate is widely used and widely studied; loved by many and hated by many. Like OSU, University of Illinois Extension does not have a policy on glyphosate. Given a lack of any new evidence that would direct otherwise, University of Illinois weed scientists and other research-based weed control professionals across the country will continue to recommend glyphosate when appropriate as it is a widely used and effective weed killer – not only in genetically modified corn and soybeans, but also in orchards, forests, wetlands, landscapes, rights-of-way areas, etc. Overall, it is inexpensive and works very well in many situations. We are committed to safety, yet we are also committed to helping both professionals and land/home owners win their battles against invasive, habitat-destroying, yield-robbing weeds. If credible science proves otherwise, we will appropriately revise our recommendations. Of course in most situations, there are other herbicides and weed control methods you can choose from. Glyphosate is not the only option.
Users of products which contain glyphosate or any pesticide for that matter should carefully read and follow all label directions. The label will provide guidance on what clothing or personal protective equipment should be worn so that exposure and therefore the overall hazard associated with using the chemical is reduced. For applicators, reducing exposure by covering up the skin reduces the hazard.
Please feel free to reach out to any of the PSEP Specialists with any questions that you may have.