![\"carrasco.jpg\"](\"http:\/\/www.quarterman.com\/images\/carrasco.jpg\")
<\/a>\nAccording to\n<\/a>\nAccording to\nAmericas Program Report<\/a>:\n\nA study released by an Argentine scientist earlier this year reports that\nglyphosate, patented by Monsanto under the name “Round Up,” causes birth\ndefects when applied in doses much lower than what is commonly used in\nsoy fields.\n\nThe study was directed by a leading embryologist, Dr. Andres Carrasco,\na professor and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires. In his\noffice in the nation’s top medical school, Dr. Carrasco shows me the\nresults of the study, pulling out photos of birth defects in the embryos\nof frog amphibians exposed to glyphosate. The frog embryos grown in petri\ndishes in the photos looked like something from a futuristic horror\nfilm, creatures with visible defects\u2014one eye the size of the head,\nspinal cord deformations, and kidneys that are not fully developed.\n
\n“We injected the amphibian embryo cells with glyphosate diluted to\na concentration 1,500 times [less] than what is used commercially\nand we allowed the amphibians to grow in strictly controlled\nconditions.” Dr. Carrasco reports that the embryos survived from a\nfertilized egg state until the tadpole stage, but developed obvious\ndefects which would compromise their ability to live in their normal\nhabitats.\n<\/blockquote>\nWhy should Argentina care?\n\n\n
\nArgentina has seen an explosion in genetically modified (GM) soy bean\nproduction with soy exports topping $16.5 billion in 2008. The fertile\nSouth American nation is now the world’s third largest producer of soy,\ntrailing behind the United States and Brazil. However, this lucrative\nindustrial form of farming has come under fire with environmental groups,\nlocal residents, and traditional farmers reporting that GM soy threatens\nbiodiversity, the nation’s ability to feed itself, and health in rural\ncommunities.\n<\/blockquote>\nWhy should we care?\n\n“When a field is fumigated by an airplane, it’s difficult to measure\nhow much glysophate remains in the body,” says Dr. Carrasco.\n<\/blockquote>\nIt’s not just frogs that are being affected by this stuff.\n\nThe study on the top-selling agrochemical has alarmed policymakers, so\nmuch so that Dr. Carrasco has received anonymous threats and industry\nleaders demanded access to his laboratory immediately following the\nstudy’s release. Industry leader Monsanto wouldn’t talk to the Americas\nProgram for this story, but in a press release on its website, the\ncompany says that “glyphosate is safe.”\n<\/blockquote>\nSo, no worries, eh? Monsanto says it’s safe.\n\nAnd Monsanto must be able to show scientific studies that say so, right?\n
\nMany in the agro-business sector claim that Dr. Carrasco’s study has\nlittle scientific basis. Guillermo Cal is the executive director of\nCASAFE\u2014Argentina’s association of agrochemical companies that counts\nMonsanto, Dow Agro-sciences, Dupont, and Bayer CropScience among its\nmembers. Cal dismissed the recent study conducted at the University of\nBuenos Aires. In an exclusive interview with the Americas Program, Cal\nrebuked Dr. Carrasco’s study, stating, “There are hundreds of articles\nabout the impact of glyphosate in amphibians and none of these articles\nhave shown the disastrous effects that Dr. Carrasco is mentioning. I have\nthe suspicion that these are headlines and probably [this study is a]\npolitically motivated article.”\n\nOn further investigation, it turned out that the studies that Guillermo\nCal cited in the interview were all financed and conducted by the\ncompanies that market glyphosate. When asked about that Cal replied,\n“The developing companies are the ones that have to finance these studies\nbecause we need to have proof of the innocuous character of the product\nbefore the product is launched.”\n<\/blockquote>\nSo according to the Monsanto-funded head of the Monsanto-funded agrochemical\nassociation, the Monsanto-funded studies are correct, but Dr. Carrasco’s\nindependently funded study is not.\n
\nNevermind clinical studies that show increasing rates of cancer, birth\ndefects, and neonatal mortality in Argentina since RoundUp arrived in\nArgentina.\n
\nAnd of course nevermind what Argentine peasants can see for themselves:\n
\nIn a small town bordering soy farms in the province of Cordoba, the\nMothers of Ituzaingo group was formed in response to sudden increases\nin the local cancer rate. Ituzaingo has 5,000 residents\u2014in 2001 they\nreported more than 200 cases of cancer and by 2009 that number has\njumped to 300. This is 41 times the national average. (I conducted\nthis calculation: the national average or percentage is 0.145 of the\npopulation diagnosed with cancer\u2014in this town 6% of the population has\ncancer.) They have fought for regulations against fumigating soy crops\nin residential areas and a ban of agrochemicals.\n<\/blockquote>\nTo be fair, it’s not just RoundUp:\n\nSofia Gatica is an activist with the Mothers of Ituzaingo. Sofia joined\nthe grassroots group after suffering the death of her newborn baby. Her\ndaughter was still born with a malformed kidney. Her 14-year-old daughter\nis currently undergoing treatment for toxicity in the blood. The toxin\nwas identified as endosulfan, an insecticide used on soy fields.\n\nGatica describes the many birth defects that have occurred locally. “We\nhave had children born with only two thumbs and no fingers, malformed\nkidneys, children with six fingers. We have had babies born without an\nanus, or with malformations in the intestines.”\n<\/blockquote>\nAnd it’s not just aerial spraying:\n
\nThe case of Ituzaingo is not an isolated case. For nearly a decade,\ncommunities have reported health problems from aerial and terrestrial\nfumigation with the arsenal of pesticides and herbicides used in\nindustrial soy farming. And for nearly a decade they have been ignored.\n<\/blockquote>\nIn Argentina the peasants have taken many cases to court, although\nthe courts consistently rule for the agrochemical companies.\n\nSo this happens:\n
\nWorse yet, research shows that the mostly rural communities that suffer\nthe negative health effects of fumigations have not benefited from the\nsoy explosion. On the contrary, in most regions families have been pushed\noff land taken over by soy farming, leading to a loss of livelihood in\naddition to the severe health risks. According to a 2002 agricultural\ncensus, in four years more than 200,000 families were driven from their\ntraditional farms, and most of the families relocated in working class\nbelts outside of major cities.\n<\/blockquote>\nIt isn’t really the farmers who benefit.\n\nOf course, in the U.S., that migration to the cities already happened\ndecades ago.\nWe have no peasants left to complain.\nYet glyphosate and endosulfan continue to be sprayed on our fields,\nkilling our birds and bees, running into our wetlands, and destroying\nour ecology.\n
\nNo doubt that’s not serious, just as what’s happening in Argentina\nisn’t “serious”:\n
\nAuthorities and industry representatives maintain that the clinical\nstudies and citizen complaints must be backed up by “serious studies”\nin order for them to act. Gatica says that GM seed and agrochemical\ncompanies have converted Argentina into an experimenting ground to test\nthe toxicity of their herbicides and pesticides, principally glyphosate\nand endosulfan. “We can prove that agrochemicals have harmed us. We\ncan prove this with studies and with whatever is left of our children,”\nsays Gatica. The anger in her voice reflects the grief and rage she has\nchanneled into this David and Goliath battle.\n\nThe expansion of soy means the increased use and concentration of\nglyphosate. Over time, Round Up herbicide loses its technological battle\nwith evolution and new weeds develop that are more resistant to the\nherbicide, explains Javier Souza Casadinho, professor at the University of\nBuenos Aires and regional coordinator of the Latin American Action Network\nfor Alternative Pesticides. “Producers must use more applications, and in\nhigher doses with higher toxicity\u2014the application has gone from three\nliters in 1999 to the current dose of 12 liters, per hectare,” says Souza.\n<\/blockquote>\nThat’s happening in the U.S., too. Mutant pigweed that RoundUp can’t kill\nis common around here.\n
\nAnd the problem is not just on soy fields.\nRoundUp is used in many other applications, such as on your lawn.\nRight outside your house, where you and your children and your pets absorb it.\n