2023

Thijs Blom: "Glyphosate does not belong in sources of drinking water, nor do any alternatives.”

Only trace amounts of glyphosate should be found in drinking water. However, the EU has recently authorised the controversial substance once again for 10 years. Thijs Blom joined the RIWA-Meuse National Water Traineeship as a data analyst and, along with his fellow trainees, has investigated how farmers and experts view this agent. 

Glyphosate, a commonly used herbicide, is regularly in the news, if only because its results are clearly visible on the fields in the spring. They turn ochre yellow as farmers spray the so-called green fertilisers (plants that serve as fertilisers) to death, after which they sow the crops they wish to grow. The substance has recently become controversial due to a possible link with an increased risk of Parkinson's and cancer, among other things. Weed control agent, plant protection product, herbicide, pesticide or agricultural poison – how the substance is referred to depends on the point of view. 

Drinking water companies are prohibited from producing drinking water from water containing more than 0.1 micrograms per litre of plant protection product. Glyphosate, the most commonly used agent, has been causing the most breaches of standards in the Meuse for years in the plant protection products category. However, in November 2023, the European Union decided to renew the authorisation of the contested product for 10 years. 

The future of glyphosate

This was reason enough for the National Water Traineeship to conduct a study on the use of glyphosate. The future of glyphosate is a report by Thijs Blom, Sophie Luijendijk, Simone Runtulalo and Hugo Bosland, all trainees at the National Water Traineeship. They conducted interviews with farmers who use the agent, with a number of experts, such as a philosopher of agricultural and food ethics, and with Bayer employees. This is one of the largest producers of glyphosate and the company that acquired Monsanto, which put glyphosate on the market in the 1970s. Because the agent is so controversial, all the interviewees will remain anonymous.

"We were curious about their experiences and opinions," says Thijs Blom, who as data analyst at RIWA-Meuse manages the database with data about the water quality of the Meuse. "We asked questions like, how do you feel about this tool, what are your experiences, do you want to use less of it? Are there any good alternatives?"

‘Probably the most extensively investigated substance in the world’ is how the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) refer to glyphosate in the substance evaluation in 2023. These organisations decided to carry out this evaluation, after the licence to use glyphosate expired a few years ago and the producers applied for an extension. However, these organisations were not able to evaluate the harmful effects of the substance on humans, animals and plants. 

Combination with other substances

For drinking water companies, it is very important to know how harmful a substance is. "Enforced water quality standards help with this," explains Blom. "You just don't want to have glyphosate in sources of drinking water; every breach of standards in the Meuse is one too many.”

Complicating the issue is the fact that glyphosate is regularly used in combination with other, toxic substances to enhance its effectiveness. In Roundup, for example, the most commonly used anti-weed agent. "They include substances that may be more harmful than glyphosate," says Blom, referring to information from the Dutch Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocidal Products (CTGB), the licensing authority for these substances in the Netherlands.

Photo 1: Thijs Blom, water trainee and data analyst at RIWA-Meuse.

Drinking water companies discontinue the abstraction of water from the Meuse when glyphosate levels are too high. Stopping the abstraction of Meuse water is the first barrier in the purification process to prevent the substance from entering the drinking water. "That is why RIWA-Meuse always advocates the source approach: making sure that harmful substances do not end up in the water," says Blom. "Or as the now famous statement of RIWA-Meuse goes: you don't have to take out what doesn't go into the water!"

More stringent measures

RIWA-Meuse annually shares water quality data on plant protection products that exceed the permitted 0.1 micrograms per litre with the Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (CTGB). The CTGB then takes that data into account in their assessments. "Because glyphosate has been the main cause of the breaches of standards for so many years now, the CTGB has taken increasingly stringent measures," says Blom. "They're working, because the number of breaches is declining. But only when it reaches zero will we, as an advocate for the drinking water companies, be satisfied."

Professional gardeners and water boards are now allowed to use plant protection products containing glyphosate only in exceptional cases, while growers and farmers are allowed to (still) use the substance. In the past, the municipal gardening services sprayed the product everywhere between the grey concrete tiles, but since 2016 glyphosate is no longer allowed for private use on closed and semi-open pavements, such as asphalt, concrete, stones and gravel. And since 2019, all applications on closed and semi-open pavements in the Meuse river basin have been banned. This applies to both professional and private users, in agriculture and for other applications. It is striking that private individuals can still buy products containing glyphosate on the internet as of the writing of this report. 

Alternatives

The producer and the farmers cite in the report The future of glyphosate the fact that alternatives to glyphosate are often more expensive and sometimes more harmful or polluting. You can plough in the plants that serve as fertiliser, but that costs diesel, which means CO2 and particulate matter emissions. And heavy tractors in the fields are also bad for the soil. Blom: "What is more harmful is unknown. That calculation has not yet been made and is very complex. In short, there are pros and cons to be found."

Some of those interviewed mentioned food security as an advantage of using glyphosate, says Blom. "Though the philosopher thought that it might provide more food now, but that it will cause so much damage to the soil that you will have less fertile soil in a few decades."

The farmers who spoke to the trainees are actively reducing the use of glyphosate, but this is not the case for all other farmers. Blom thinks that a possible ban in the future could lead to more innovations. "On the other hand, farmers are now willing to test more alternatives, because they have this agent as a backup.” 

Much more complex

The trainees conclude their report with a recommendation to start a follow-up project and to begin a serious discussion about this. Such a discussion can focus on the different interests involved and it is an accessible way to give trainees insight into a complex situation.

Blom concludes: "I had a strong opinion beforehand. You don't want this substance in your sources of drinking water, of course. But over time, we've found that the situation is much more complex, because there is more to consider than we initially thought. It would be unfortunate if another harmful substance were to be used in agriculture, because alternatives could be more harmful.