You only have to say the word to get a reaction. As with any other type of agriculture, it has stirred the pot of controversy in the world of wine. So, what is the deal with glyphosate and the vineyard?
Glyphosate or Roundup was the subject of a widely publicized lawsuit in 2018 which considered its role in the development of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Of course, anyone can sympathize with the plaintiff. I would wish cancer on no one.
However, that case and proposals by the French President Emmanuel Macron to ban the use of the herbicide raise some disturbing questions about glyphosate and the vineyard.
The Elephant in the Room
I won’t speak to the viticulture part of the argument. Instead, I want to focus on a more fundamental question. Is there a valid concern over the use of glyphosate at all?
The crux of the matter rests squarely with the 2015 decision by the World Health Organization (WHO) to classify glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.” Just that phrase raises eyebrows.
To the layperson who is unfamiliar with the language of science, it is a condemnation. The mere suggestion is enough to damn glyphosate. The word, probable, has little meaning. While it is valid from a scientific perspective, it only serves to confuse others.
But was WHO’s conclusion correct?
WHO’s Evidence Was Flawed
There are two ways to look at the correctness issue. First, let’s consider its place in the scientific community.
Numerous studies and reviews have not found any link between glyphosate or any type of cancer, including this one, and this one. The EU didn’t agree with WHO’s conclusion, either
The basis for WHO’s reports comes from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). It’s worth noting that part of the basis for their conclusions were trials done on laboratory animals. Mice are not little humans. Causation isn’t valid when comparing the two.
It’s also essential to consider that the physiological mechanism by which glyphosate works does not exist in humans.
Since its publication, the IARC findings have come under fire from a number of sources. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also concluded that there is no cause for concern with using glyphosate.
We must also consider the lawsuit itself. The plantiff’s lawyers didn’t even argue the case against glyphosate itself on the man. Instead, they claimed it was the ingredient’s interactions with other chemicals in the environment that caused the condition to develop.
What chemicals and how? From a science perspective, that is a huge leap to make without the evidence to back it up.
WHO and the Suppressed Data
If all of this still has you thinking about glyphosate and the vineyard, consider this finding about the data on which WHO based is probable warning.
It turns out that Dr. Aaron Blair, the Chairman of the IARC’s monograph suppressed data from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) that would have nullified WHO’s 2015 decision. Evidence suggests that he was aware of its existence since 2013.
Glyphosate and the Vineyard
These details insinuate that the WHO’s findings were based on incomplete evidence that was cherry-picked to support a flawed conclusion. The consensus in the scientific community is that glyphosate doesn’t present a concern for human health.
If the question of whether to use this herbicide rests with those impacts, the data don’t support a decision not to use it.
It’s also imperative to look at this controversy from a scientific point of view. Science cannot prove anything. It merely observes and draws conclusions from what it sees. Les we forget,
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
~Albert Einstein
We can only hope that the judge that hears the appeal will be more grounded in a scientific understanding to correct this incredulous claim.
As for glyphosate and the vineyard, there are two takeaway messages. First, pesticides are a necessary evil for agriculture. The alternative is low yields and the risk of a loss of production or even worse. The vines have a lot to contend with in the vineyard. Pesticides give them a fighting chance against the likes of parasites and disease.
Second, no pesticide is without its risks, even organic ones. Yes, they use chemicals too. They also use synthetic ingredients like copper sulfate where a so-called natural substitute doesn’t exist. Paracelsus, the Father of Toxicology has some sage advice on this score.
“All things are poisons, for there is nothing without poisonous qualities. It is only the dose which makes a thing poison.”
Even water is harmful with you drink enough of it.
The answer for glyphosate and the vineyard is simple. Apply it in accordance with the instructions on the label. If you do that and wear proper protection, you’re well ahead of the game.