Monsanto Corporation:Roundup Pros and Cons

by Kevin Yuan

Since the late 1900’s Monsanto Corporation, an organization focused on agricultural biotechnology produces biotechnology and herbicides for different plants such as corn, cotton and vegetables. Monsanto is considered one of the Big 6 Biotech Corporations because of its prominence in the agricultural market. In the late 1970’s, Monsanto Corporation introduced a new chemical called glyphosate for agricultural distribution in the United States. Glyphosate, the chemical soon branded by Monsanto as Roundup is a widely used herbicide used to kill a variety of plants includes grasses, weeds and woody plants.[1].

John E. Franz first discovered Glyphosate’s agricultural use and discovered glyphosate’s mechanism through his work with Monsanto.[2] Glyphosate kills plants specifically by disrupting the production of specific aromatic amino acids, which are the building blocks of protein that any organism requires to live; these 3 amino acids are phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. Although the biochemical mechanism involved with Glyphosate’s function is complex, it is important to understand that the glyphosate functions by inhibiting a particular enzyme, EPSPS, which plants need to synthesize essential amino acids that are essential for life.

Glyphosate essentially kills any plant, so random distributing of the product would kill every plant exposed. Initially, many farmers were forced into position where they had to use Roundup as a herbicide or a weed killer, but were limited to apply Roundup only around their planting area to prevent killing of favorable crops. However, new development from Monsanto Corporation was able to produce seeds and genetically modify plants to be resistant to glyphosate. This progress proved to be extremely effective as it allowed farmers to directly apply glyphosate on the fields, instead of just around them, killing every plant except those that are resistant.[3] This is important because weeds and unwanted plants compete for essential nutrients, light and water. Competition for these vital resources, weeds deter optimum growth of favorable plants. Weeds also serve as vectors/carriers for different plant diseases and can potentially transmit plants them that are wanted, possibly destroying an entire field, putting farmers in an economic bind. Glyphosate is also often sprayed on sidewalks and in crevices in sidewalks where weeds grow. Weed management systems with glyphosate resistant crops have had a profound effect, with many benefits such as improved yield and profitability.

This use of glyphosate in weed control not only proved to be a great economical benefit but also “improved the safety of farmers and weed control operators.” Glyphosate allows farmers to plant crops relatively quickly and can also limit operational use of heavy machines. In fact, accidents involved with the use of heavy machinery have a prevalent cause of severe injury in agriculture. Glyphosate herbicides have greatly reduced the operation of many of the heavy machines and thus decreased the total number of accidents in the field.[4]

Despite the many benefits of Glyphosate regarding yield and weed control, there are also various number of negative consequences that comes with the use of glyphosate. One of the major downsides is the toxicity involved with glyphosate. Many herbicide products used containing glyphosate also carry what is known, as surfactants are compounds that lower the tension between two liquids. As noted by data in New Zealand identified Roundup to contain 18% Surfactant which allows the glyphosate chemical to penetrate the surface of the plant. With different chemicals mixed in with glyphosate, there are some adverse effects if one is exposed.[5] There are many studies that show that even minute exposure can cause some adverse effects. For instance, farmers that touched their eyes after using glyphosate experienced irritation in the eye[6]. Inhalation of glyphosate can cause different oral problems, such as irritation to the throat. Exposure of glyphosate to the skin can also cause eczema in the specific exposed area. Negative consequences of glyphosate have also been detected on animals that have been tested to see for adverse effects. Tests on rats revealed that inhalation of products containing glyphosate caused reduced respiratory ability and weight loss.[7] Long-term effects also showed development of tumors in the liver and thyroid and the pancreas. A study on rats done in 2010 found that when rats, prior to going through puberty were given Roundup (transorb) once everyday for 30 days showed that they had a decreased amount of testosterone production.[8]

 Glyphosate also has several environmental effects, specifically on both land and aquatic environments, on a larger scale, can affect entire ecosystems. When herbicides leaked into bodies of water, lethal effects to different aquatic organisms such as tadpoles and fish. In addition, when applied, glyphosate kills plants in any area where it is distributed and plants also in their surrounding areas[9]. The death of these living organisms, both on land and in water can have prodigious effects on a broader scale. For example, killing unwanted plants can have drastic effects affecting first insects, then birds and even small mammals. This interference of a food chain can lead to the destruction of entire ecosystems. Another major factor that needs to be taken into account is that due to subsequent use of Roundup in agriculture, weed resistance is a growing problem in the United States.[10] Because of this, farmers use a greater concentration of Roundup to dispose of unwanted weeds and this in terms further adversely affects plants that are surrounding the weeds, leading to a holistic effect on the ecosystem. The following concern surfaces as glyphosate resistant weeds can transfer that gene (resistant to glyphosate) to other plants/weeds and in turn, development of new herbicides with additional chemicals that potentially may have more adverse effects have to be introduced. This arms race can have extremely negative effects to the ecosystem and to the environment as a whole.

References:

1) O’Keeffe M G, “The control of Agropyron repens and broad-leaved weeds pre-harvest of wheat and barley with the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate.” Proceedings of British Crop Protection Conference – Weeds, 1, 53-60 (1980).

2) Alibhai MF, Stallings WC. “Closing down on glyphosate inhibition—with a new structure for drug discovery”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (6): 2944-6. Bibcode:2011PNAS…98.2944A. doi:10.1073/pnas.061025898.JSTOR 3055165. PMC 3334.PMID 11248008 (March 2001).

3) Steinrücken HC, Amrhein N "The herbicide glyphosate is a potent inhibitor of 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase".Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 94 (4): 1207–12. doi:10.1016/0006-291X(80)90547-1.PMID 7396959 (June 1980).

4) Franz JE, "N-phosphonomethyl-glycine phytotoxicant compositions", issued 1974-03-26, assigned to Monsanto Company

5) Causes and circumstances of accidents in the EU (2008). European Commission Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, F4 unit. epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/documents/phase_3_causes_circumstances.pdf

6) Gary L. Diamond and Patrick R. Durking, under contract from the United States

Department of Agriculture. “Effects of Surfactants on the Toxicity of Glyphosate, with Specific Reference to RODEA” (February 6,1997

7) Bradberry SM, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA “Glyphosate poisoning”. Toxicol Rev 23 (3): 159-67. Doi: 10.2165/00139709-200423030-00003. PMID 15862083

8)  Temple WA and Smith NA, “Glyphosate herbicide poisoning experience in New Zealand”, New Zealand Medical Journal, 105: 173-174, (1992).

9) Romano RM, Romano MA, Bernardi MM, Furtado PV, Oliveira CA. “Prepubertal exposure to commercial formulation of the herbicide glyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicular morphology”. Arch. Toxicol.84 (4): 309-17. Doi:10.1007/s00204-009-0494-z. PMID 20012598 (April 2010).

10) Giesy JP, Dobson S, Solomon KR. “Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment for Roundup Herbicide”. Reviews of Environemntal Contamination and Toxicology. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (2000)

11) Graves L. “Roundup: Birth Defects Cause by World’s Top Selling Weedkiller, Scientists Say”. Huffington Post (24 June 2011).

HPV and CA

The HPV Vaccine and California
By Kevin Yuan


Genital human papilloma virus, also called HPV, is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection, especially in the United States. There are more than a hundred strains of the virus, where less than half cause some form of genital infection, or something far worse, such as cervical cancer. In the span of 5 years, initial results suggest the vaccine has been found to prevent nearly 100 percent of precancerous cervical cells that would have been cause by two specific HPV strains (16&18). For some time, California has considered requiring the vaccine.  Vaccine but noting the success of the vaccine based on voluntary terms, California should not mandate or require young girls to have the HPV vaccine before entering middle school. Instead, it should only be a recommendation for this vaccine.


Despite the initial minor side effects associated with the vaccine, it is still too new to discount possible adverse side-effects in a 10 or even 20 year span. Ultimately, guardians of those young girls should make the decision themselves, after researching the benefits and consequences associated with the vaccine. Guardians can make an educated decision as to whether or not to have the vaccination for their children.


Even though cervical cancer is a serious issue, the HPV vaccine is extremely expensive. When we look at the different types of cancers in the United States, cervical cancer accounts for about 0.006 percent and the annual incidence count in California is only 1,488 according to the National Cancer Institute from time period 2004-2008. In addition, as of now, there are already effective treatments and screenings for cervical cancer. When a mandate is in order, things have to go into motion, and insurance companies will have to cover it in the states. Health care money is then prioritized in this one specific area, even though resources are limited. According to LA Times on March 16, 2010, nearly 1 out of 4 people in California under the age of 65 lack health insurance, and mandatory measures for this vaccine will shift already limited health care dollars towards only one asset involving HPV infections. Resources have to go into low socioeconomic areas where people are having trouble even having access to care, and getting better delivery of health where they could get screened and covering for not only cervical cancer but also a variety of health issues.


Although many advocates who wish to require the HPV vaccine by law may argue it will achieve widespread protection of the disease, we have to look at people’s liberty concerns. Understandably, universal protection is ideal but forcing little girls to have a government injection through a junction such as an executive order is wrong. The NPR reported on September 11, 2011 that the executive order mandating the HPV vaccine in Texas was overturned. Even Governor Rick Perry considers his decision a mistake and confers that “If I had to do it over again, I would have done it differently.” The fact that this law was proposed infringes on the people’s rights to make their own decisions. This is a liberty that cannot be overlooked despite the universal protection the vaccine might offer. However, the law was overturned, showing that the concern for the individual’s rights remains.

In conclusion, the HPV vaccine represents a significant breakthrough for women’s health. But, required immunization in California is a gesture that is unreasonable given the premature state of the vaccine, the decisions guardians have over their children and also the strain it will have on health care dollars. Instead, the vaccine should be available for those who want to be the vaccinated.

Public Health Crisis in Madagascar -- Ascaris

By Kevin Yuan

Ascaris lives in the intestine, and Ascaris eggs are passed in the feces of infected individuals. Ascaris lumbrocoids or Ascariasis infections are usually treated using benzamidazoles, such as Mebendazole or Albendazole. Although these anti-parasitics are chemically similar and both are extremely effective, the recommended dosage may vary. In the current state of our economy, expenses allocated regarding health issues are severely limited, especially when those allocations are towards topics affecting other countries. Given the limitations, countries that are determined to help Madagascar with its current Ascariasis crisis should allocate their  available funds should be used to hire teachers and build latrines, than to purchase anti-parasitics for those at risk in Madagascar.

The money in place should be used to fund teachers and latrines, because Ascariasis is a perpetual problem for Madagascans. The vulnerability of the 20 million people in Madagascar to Ascaris demands that long-term measures must be taken in order to provide the greatest benefits for reducing Ascaris infections in the future. Although the anti-parisistics used to treat Ascariasis are effective, the money available would not be able to treat all the children in Madagascar; in addition, Ascaris is an infection that can be acquired repeatedly, even after one gets treatment. The source of transmission is from ingestion of eggs from soil contaminated with human feces and is prevalent in areas with poor hygiene. With over 85% (as indicated by GEXSI) of the country’s inhabitants living in rural areas, the lack of hygiene, nutrition, and access to drinking water enables great susceptibility to Ascariasis. 

A significant portion of revenue available should be distributed to establishing latrines to reduce open defecation. With communal latrines costing from 250, low-cost communal latrines can be established. The money should be distributed to schools in rural villages where not only students will have access to the latrines, but also inhabitants of homes located near the schools. As Kightlinger et al mentions, “children were allowed to defecate in the village with 13% habitually defecating within 10m of their house.” The lack of sanitary measures illustrates the susceptibility of people, especially children, to Ascariasis. Ultimately, with the establishment of latrines, the benefits will drastically improve sanitary conditions.  

Part of the funds available should be used for hiring teachers who are well-informed about sanitation, especially regarding Ascaris infection. With money distributed towards education, health teachers can be hired to educate schoolteachers about hygiene, and that information can be passed to students. Hygiene education should build children’s knowledge to transmit information on appropriate health practices to families and communities. This education will also incline children that live near the school to utilize the latrines. Harnessing the health skills will provide long-term benefits. The half million should also be spent on “materials to support health promotion activities and habits, including posters, exercise books, and stickers posted on latrine and classroom doors” as suggested by UNICEF. Bringing teachers to educate about the importance of sanitation will show significant benefits in the long-run. 

In conclusion, we can clearly see that in order to generate the greatest benefit from the money, the funds should be utilized in a way to educe a long-term solution contrary to a short-lived solution by using the money for antiparistics.

Stress and College

by Kevin Yuan


Stress is simply a fact of nature, forces from inside or outside the world affecting an individual. The individual responds to stress in ways that affect not only the person himself but also the world around him. Because of the large amount of stress in our modern lives, we usually think of stress as a negative experience. This phenomenon is accompanied especially with students starting out in college, whether it is social stress, academic stress or other stresses. Studies done by several entities such as ABC news, The Bullet, and several college campuses have revealed a possible new phenomenon revealing that the Class of 2014 are more stressed than older peers. According to a survey conducted by the University of California, Los Angeles reported that “this year’s freshman class rated themselves as having the lowest emotional health in the past 25 years.” The survey included the responses of over 200,000 incoming freshman at four-year universities. Tevya Zukor, director of Counseling and Psychological Services at the University of Mary Washington, states herself that “the research being conducted on college and stress does tend to indicate that students are entering college with greater levels of stress…” Noting the clear rise in stress levels of those entering college, we must explore the facets contributing to this phenomenon.

The two most common stresses encountered by college student include academic stress and social stress. Obviously, the workload of college is exponentially more involved than that in high school and it comes with less help and hand-holding from parents and teachers. With challenging classes, scheduling events and issues to handle, and the necessity for a more independent nature of the learning, college requires entering students to adjust in an ephemeral amount of time. Coupled with the academic stress encountered by an entering college student, stresses involved with leaving one’s support structure, creating a new network of friends and dealing with being away from home make adjusting to the college life quite difficult.

The facets mentioned thus far explore the typical stresses an entering college student faces upon attending school but linked with these common stresses include the weak economy and the limited market of jobs for college graduates. Because of the bad economy, students are indirectly affected by its negative percussions. Professor Steven Greenlaw of the economics department at the University of Mary Washington reports that he has “students whose parents have been laid off because of the recession… they have serious problems going to school and staying in school.” Because of this, more and more college students are holding temporary jobs now in order to pay tuition and survive financially while in school. Many students share the same concern as Romen Borsellino, a junior at Amherst College in Massachusetts who claims that ‘I am torn in three different directions…I have to do something to make money, got to build a resume and find something I like to do. That alone is terrifying, especially during a busy school year.’ Many college students also say that pressure rises significantly after freshman year as they move closer to graduation in which they must eventually seek jobs in a weak economy. 

The decrease in job opportunities and the deflating economy has undoubtly affected entering college students in a significant way. Not only do entering college students have to worry about academics and social aspects of college but they have to worry about finding a job in the next four year.