Cuando la Salud y la Naturaleza

se enfrentan al Negocio y la
Ganancia: El GLIFOSATO en el
ojo de la tormenta
Roger Carvajal, Ph.D.
Como efecto de
este hecho en
Bolivia (Sta Cruz)
se ha
incrementado
drásticamente el
uso de herbicidas
tóxicos
adicionales:
PARACUAT
2-4 D
DICAMBA
DATOS SOBRE EL GLIFOSATO
El glifosato es un agrotóxico herbicida que se utiliza para eliminar hierbas. Es de
contacto, es decir no es absorvido por las raíces.
La acción del glifosato consiste en interfeir con los aminoácidos fenilalanina, tirosina y
triptófano de la hierba. Especificamente inhibiendo la enzima 5-enolpiruvilshikimato-3-
fosfato sintasa (EPSPS), asi logra eliminar a la hierba.
La patente del Glifosato perteneció a la empresa Monsanto hasta el año 2000.
El modelo agroindustrial introdujo el uso masivo del glifosato en la agricultura, con un
aumento exponencial, a partir de la técnica de siembra directa y de cultivos modificados
genéticamente para el tratamiento del aérea cultivable y el control químico de las
hierbas, consideradas por el agronegocio como “malezas”.
Durante más de 30 años, la empresa Monsanto sostuvo con información falsa que el
glifosato era biodegradable. Decenas de trabajos científicos que forman parte de la
Antología demostraron lo contrario, se trata de un agrotóxico altamente persistente en
el ambiente, en el suelo, en los lechos de los cursos de agua superficiales y en ellas
mismas o que se degrada en un metabolito denominado AMPA. Con esa información
científica objetiva, la empresa Monsanto fue condenada en Francia, en el año 2007, a
retirar la falsa característica de biodegradabilidad en las etiquetas de los formulados
comerciales con el principio activo del agrotóxico glifosato.
No es un fitosanitario, dado que no brinda ningún tipo de sanidad vegetal.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Apr;45(4):551-62. Epub 2006 Oct 4.

Thirteen week feeding study with transgenic maize grain

containing event DAS-Ø15Ø7-1 in Sprague-Dawley rats.
MacKenzie SA, Lamb I, Schmidt J, Deege L, Morrisey MJ, Harper M, Layton RJ, Prochaska LM, Sanders
C, Locke M, Mattsson JL, Fuentes A, Delaney B.
DuPont Haskell Laboratory, Newark, DE, USA.
Abstract
Maize line 1507, containing event DAS-Ø15Ø7-1 (1507), is a genetically modified (GM) maize plant that
expresses the cry1F gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) sbsp. aizawai and the phosphinothricin-N-
acetyltransferase (pat) gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes throughout the plant including in the
grain expression of the Cry1F protein confers in planta resistance to the European corn borer (ECB;
Ostrinia nubilalis Hübner: Crambidae) and other lepidopteran pests. Expression of the PAT protein
confers tolerance to the herbicidal active ingredient glufosinate-ammonium. The current study evaluated
the nutritional performance of rats fed diets containing 1507 maize grain in a subchronic rodent feeding
study. The grains in this study, 1507, its near-isogenic control (33P66), and a non-GM commercial hybrid
(33J56) contained similar amounts of proximates, amino acids, minerals, anti-nutrients, and secondary
metabolites. The subchronic feeding study compared standard toxicology response variables in rats fed
diets containing 1507 maize grain with those in rats fed diets containing non-GM maize grains. All diets
were prepared according to the specifications of PMI Nutrition International, LLC Certified Rodent
LabDiet 5002 (PMI) 5002). Diets were fed ad libitum to Sprague-Dawley rats for approximately 90 days.
In-life response variables included indicators of dietary performance and weekly evaluations for clinical
signs of toxicity. No toxicologically significant differences were observed in the nutritional performance
variables, clinical and neurobehavioral signs, ophthalmology, clinical pathology (hematology, clinical
chemistry, coagulation, and urinalysis), organ weights, and gross and microscopic pathology between
any pair of treatment groups. These results demonstrate that 1507 maize grain is as safe and as
nutritious as non-GM maize grain.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2009 Sep;47(9):2269-80. Epub 2009 Jun 12.

Subchronic feeding study of grain from herbicide-tolerant

maize DP-Ø9814Ø-6 in Sprague-Dawley rats.
Appenzeller LM, Munley SM, Hoban D, Sykes GP, Malley LA, Delaney B.
Pioneer, A DuPont Company, Johnston, IA, USA.
Abstract
This 13-week feeding study conducted in Sprague-Dawley rats evaluated the potential health effects from
long-term consumption of a rodent diet formulated with grain from genetically modified (GM), herbicide-
tolerant maize DP-Ø9814Ø-6 (98140; trade name Optimum GAT (Optimum GAT is a registered trademark of
Pioneer Hi-Bred)). Metabolic inactivation of the herbicidal active ingredient glyphosate was conferred by
genomic integration and expression of a gene-shuffled acetylase coding sequence, gat4621, from Bacillus
licheniformis; tolerance to acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibiting herbicides was conferred by
overexpression of a modified allele (zm-hra) of the endogenous maize ALS enzyme that is resilient to
inactivation. Milled maize grain from untreated (98140) and herbicide-treated (98140+Gly/SU) plants, the
conventional non-transgenic, near-isogenic control (091), and three commercial non-transgenic reference
hybrids (33J56, 33P66, and 33R77) was substituted at concentrations of 35-38% w/w into a common rodent
chow formula (PMI) Nutrition International, LLC Certified Rodent LabDiet 5002) and fed to rats
(12/sex/group) for at least 91 consecutive days. Compared with rats fed diets containing grain from the
conventional near-isogenic control maize, no adverse effects were observed in rats fed diets containing
grain from 98140 or 98140+Gly/SU maize with respect to standard nutritional performance metrics and
OECD 408-compliant toxicological response variables [OECD, 1998. Section 4 (Part 408), Health Effects:
Repeated Dose 90-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents, Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals. Organisation
of Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France]. These results support the comparative safety
and nutritional value of maize grain from genetically modified Optimum GAT and conventional, non-
transgenic hybrid field corn.
 NoticiasMonsanto pagará multa de 600 mil dólares por no reportar tóxicos

La empresa emitió productos químicos con cianuro de hidrógeno, dióxido de azufre, óxidos de nitrógeno y
mercurio desde el año 2006 hasta el 2009.
​La Agencia de Protección del Medio Ambiente de Estados Unidos (EPA por su sigla en inglés) y el Departamento de
Justicia, anunciaron este sábado que la compañía Monsanto ha aceptado pagar 600 mil dólares como multa por
no reportar cientos de emisiones descontroladas de productos químicos tóxicos en su fábrica de fosfato en Idaho.

Entre los productos químicos que se emitieron desde el año 2006 al 2009 en las instalaciones de Monsanto en la
ciudad de Soda Springs, había cianuro de hidrógeno, dióxido de azufre, óxidos de nitrógeno y mercurio.

Según las autoridades federales, estos productos químicos son peligrosos y pueden acarrear graves riesgos para la
salud de los trabajadores y la comunidad, por lo que las compañías están obligadas a reportar emisiones de este
tipo de manera inmediata
Fraude científico[editar]
En dos ocasiones la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de los Estados Unidos (USEPA) ha encontrado
científicos falsificando deliberadamente los resultados de las pruebas realizadas en los laboratorios de
investigación contratados por Monsanto para estudiar los efectos del glifosato. 464748
En el primer incidente, que involucró a Industry Biotest Laboratories, un revisor de la EPA declaró después de
la investigación sobre «falsificación de datos de rutina» que era «difícil de creer la integridad científica de los
estudios cuando se dice que tomaron muestras de los úteros de conejos machos». 495051
En el segundo incidente sobre falsificación de resultados, ocurrido en 1991, el propietario del laboratorio
Craven Labs, y tres empleados fueron acusados de 20 cargos; el propietario fue condenado a 5 años de
prisión y una multa de 50 000 dólares, el laboratorio fue multado con 15,5 millones de dólares y se le ordenó
pagar 3,7 millones en restitución.525354 Los laboratorios Craven habían realizado estudios para 262 empresas,
entre ellas los plaguicidas de Monsanto.
Monsanto afirma que los estudios en contingencia han sido repetidos y que la certificación del Roundup ante la
EPA actualmente no cita estudios de los Laboratorios Craven o IBT. Según Monsanto, la investigación a los
Laboratorios Cravens fue iniciada por la EPA gracias a que un grupo de trabajo creado por la industria
descubriera irregularidades.55
Publicidad engañosa[editar]
En 1996 Monsanto fue acusado de publicidad falsa y engañosa de los productos derivados del glifosato,
acarreando una demanda judicial iniciada por el fiscal general del estado de Nueva York. 56 El 20 de enero de
2007, Monsanto fue declarada culpable de publicidad engañosa por presentar al Roundup como biodegradable
y alegar que el suelo permanecía limpio después de su uso. Defensores del medio ambiente y de los derechos
del consumidor plantearon el caso en 2001 sobre la base de que el glifosato, el ingrediente principal del
Roundup, está clasificado por la Unión Europea, como «peligroso para el medio ambiente» y «tóxico para los
organismos acuáticos». Monsanto Francia tiene previsto apelar el veredicto. 57
Oficial de la EPA, acusado de ayudar a Monsanto a “cajonear” un estudio sobre el riesgo
cancerígeno de sus productos
•February 6, 2018
•Traducciones
Escritores fantasmas, papers científicos falsos y correos que autoinculpan. Cómo era el
“flujo de información” entre Monsanto y EPA sobre el riesgo de sus productos.
Link articulo original https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/monsanto-accused-of-
ghost-writing-papers-on-roundup-cancer-risk
fecha: 14 de marzo de 2017
autores: Joel Rosenblatt, Lydia Mulvany y Peter Waldman
Traducción periodística colaborativa La vaca MU: Anabel Pomar
El oficial de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental que estaba a cargo de evaluar el riesgo de
cáncer del Roundup de Monsanto supuestamente alardeó ante un ejecutivo de la compañía con
que “merecería una medalla” si lograba dar de baja la investigación de otra agencia de control
sobre la sustancia química clave del herbicida.
La jactante frase se realizó, de acuerdo con los agricultores y otros damnificados que señalan al
herbicida como el responsable de sus enfermedades durante una conversación telefónica
sostenida en abril de 2015 entre el funcionario acusado y personal de la compañía. Después de
dejar el año pasado su trabajo como gerente en la división de plaguicidas de la EPA, Jess
Rowland, se ha convertido en una figura central en más de 20 demandas en los EE.UU. que
2.2. Data collection
The raw biochemical data, necessary to allow a
statistical re-evaluation, should be made publically
available according to European Union Directive
CE/2001/18 but unfortunately this is not always the
case in practice. On this occasion, the data we required
for this analysis were obtained either through
court actions (lost by Monsanto) to obtain the MON
863 feeding study material (June 2005), or by courtesy
of governments or Greenpeace lawyers. We thank the
Swedish Board of Agriculture, May 30, 2006 for
making public the NK 603 data upon request from
Greenpeace Denmark and lawyers from Greenpeace
Germany, November 8, 2006 for MON 810 material.
This allowed us to conduct for the first time a precise
and direct side-by-side comparison of these data from
the three feeding trials with these GMOs.
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007 May;52(4):596-602. Epub 2007 Mar 13.

New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically

modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.
Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS.
Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering CRIIGEN, Paris, France. criigen@unicaen.fr
Abstract
Health risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or feed is under
debate throughout the world, and very little data have been published on mid- or long-term toxicological
studies with mammals. One of these studies performed under the responsibility of Monsanto Company
with a transgenic corn MON863 has been subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe,
where it was finally approved in 2005. This necessitated a new assessment of kidney pathological findings,
and the results remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany (Münster) allowed public
access in June 2005 to all the crude data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We independently re-analyzed
these data. Appropriate statistics were added, such as a multivariate analysis of the growth curves, and for
biochemical parameters comparisons between GMO-treated rats and the controls fed with an equivalent
normal diet, and separately with six reference diets with different compositions. We observed that after the
consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in growth for both
sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase for females. Chemistry
measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also by differential sensitivities in males and
females. Triglycerides increased by 24-40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose
33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31-35% (week 14,
dose 33%) for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to seven diets
tested. Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature and extent of the possible
pathology; with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.
International Journal of Biological Sciences 2009; 5(7):706-726

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

Joël Spiroux de Vendômois1, François Roullier1, Dominique Cellier1,2 and Gilles-Eric Séralini1,3 

Abstract
We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from
trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603,
MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been
modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues
of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different
Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately 60 different biochemical parameters were
classified per organ and measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM
maize-fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental non-GM
equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six reference groups, which
had consumed various other non-GM maize varieties. We applied nonparametric methods,
including multiple pairwise comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal
Component Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors (sex, weeks
of feeding, diet, dose and group). Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects
linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects
were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although
different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal
glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of
hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition,
unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification
cannot be excluded.
Letters to journal fail to disclose conflicts of interest

This pattern of significant but undisclosed conflicts of interest is relevant to not only the majority of the SMC's experts but also to
many of Seralini's other critics, including those responsible for the twenty or so letters published by Food and Chemical Toxicology
in response to Seralini's paper. Some of the letter writers are, in fact, exactly the same people that the SMC quotes. They are also
often to be found amongst the earliest signatories of the AgBioWorld ipetition. Maurice Moloney, for example, not only turns up twice
in the SMC's media rebuttals of Seralini, but comes in at no. 11 on the list of ipetition signatories, and he wrote a letter to the
journal.

Another letter writer demanding retraction is Prof. Mark Tester. Like Moloney and the JIC, Tester is a firm favourite with the
SMC, featuring in three of this year's SMC's media releases and in many more over the years. He was already a favoured expert a
decade ago when the SMC was accused of orchestrating a spin campaign to discredit a BBC drama on GM crops. The University of
Adelaide staff directory broadens out Prof. Tester's academic profile in a way the SMC never has: "His commercial acumen is clear
from his establishment of private companies and successful interactions with multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta,
Bayer and Pioneer-DuPont."

Many other letter writers also have undisclosed industry links. Take, for instance, Martina Newell-McGloughlin. She identifies
herself as the director of the International Biotechnology Program at the University of California/Davis, but fails to mention that the
Program is funded by the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Bayer. Another letter writer and a colleague at UC Davis, Kent
Bradford, has consulted for Monsanto. Lucia de Souza wrote to the journal with Leila Macedo Oda on behalf of ANBio – the
Brazilian Biosafety Association, without mentioning that ANBio's funders include Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont.

Then there are the letter writers who fail to mention their previous employers, like Andrew Cockburn, Monsanto's former director of
scientific affairs (Europe and Africa); L. Val Giddings, former Vice President of the Biotechnology Industry Organisation;
and Sivramiah (Shanthu) Shantharam, former Syngenta man and until recently head of the biotech industry's main lobby group in
India.
Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416
Review
Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome:
Pathways to Modern Diseases
1 and Stephanie Seneff 2,*
Anthony
1
Samsel
Independent
2
Scientist and Consultant, Deerfield, NH 03037, USA
Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; Tel.: +1-617-253-0451; Fax: +1-617-258-8642.
Received: 15 January 2013; in revised form: 10 April 2013 / Accepted: 10 April 2013 / Published: 18 April 2013

Abstract
: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry
asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the
Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450
(CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology,
one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne
chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over
time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP
enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as
impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a
Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism,
infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to
induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the
disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.
Keywords:
glyphosate; cytochrome P450; eNOS; obesity; cardiovascular disease; cancer; colitis; shikimate pathway; gut
microbiome; tryptophan; tyrosine; phenylalanine; methionine; serotonin; Alzheimer’s disease; Parkinson’s disease;
autism; depression
Toxicology Volume 262, Issue 3, 21 August 2009, Pages 184-191
Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines
CélineGasnieraCoralieDumontbNoraBenachouraEmilieClairaMarie-ChristineChagnonbGilles-EricSéralinia

Abstract
Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most widely used across the world; they are commercialized in different formulations.
Their residues are frequent pollutants in the environment. In addition, these herbicides are spread on most eaten transgenic
plants, modified to tolerate high levels of these compounds in their cells. Up to 400 ppm of their residues are accepted in
some feed. We exposed human liver HepG2 cells, a well-known model to study xenobiotic toxicity, to four different
formulations and to glyphosate, which is usually tested alone in chronic in vivo regulatory studies. We measured cytotoxicity
with three assays (Alamar Blue®, MTT, ToxiLight®), plus genotoxicity (comet assay), anti-estrogenic (on ERα, ERβ) and anti-
androgenic effects (on AR) using gene reporter tests. We also checked androgen to estrogen conversion by aromatase activity
and mRNA. All parameters were disrupted at sub-agricultural doses with all formulations within 24 h. These effects were
more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration. First, we observed a human cell endocrine
disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then
from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription
and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive),
and DNA damages at 5 ppm. A real cell impact of glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed or in the environment
has thus to be considered, and their classifications as carcinogens/mutagens/reprotoxics is discussed
 Send to
Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004. Epub 2011
Feb 18.
Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods
in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.
Aris A1, Leblanc S.
Abstract
Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate
herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as
the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the
correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine exposure levels of
GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid (AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite
3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid (3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern
Townships of Quebec, Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine
nonpregnant women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in
NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW,
their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating
PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in
reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.
PNAS | October 9, 2018 | vol. 115 | no. 41 | 10305–10310
Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees
Erick V. S. Mottaa,1, Kasie Raymanna,2, and Nancy A. Morana,1 a Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX 78712 Edited by Margaret J. McFall-Ngai, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu,

Glyphosate, the primary herbicide used globally for weed control, targets the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate
synthase (EPSPS) enzyme in the shikimate pathway found in plants and some microorganisms. Thus, glyphosate may affect
bacterial symbionts of animals living near agricultural sites, including pollinators such as bees. The honey bee gut
microbiota is dominated by eight bacterial species that promote weight gain and reduce pathogen susceptibility. The gene
encoding EPSPS is present in almost all sequenced genomes of bee gut bacteria, indicating that they are potentially
susceptible to glyphosate. We demonstrated that the relative and absolute abundances of dominant gut microbiota species
are decreased in bees exposed to glyphosate at concentrations documented in the environment. Glyphosate exposure of
young workers increased mortality of bees subsequently exposed to the opportunistic pathogen Serratia marcescens.
Members of the bee gut microbiota varied in susceptibility to glyphosate, largely corresponding to whether they possessed
an EPSPS of class I (sensitive to glyphosate) or class II (insensitive to glyphosate). This basis for differences in sensitivity was
confirmed using in vitro experiments in which the EPSPS gene from bee gut bacteria was cloned into Escherichia coli. All
strains of the core bee gut species, Snodgrassella alvi, encode a sensitive class I EPSPS, and reduction in S. alvi levels was a
consistent experimental result. However, some S. alvi strains appear to possess an alternative mechanism of glyphosate
resistance. Thus, exposure of bees to glyphosate can perturb their beneficial gut microbiota, potentially affecting bee
health and their effectiveness as pollinators.
Effects of sublethal doses of glyphosate on honeybee navigation
María Sol Balbuena, Léa Tison, Marie-Luise Hahn, Uwe Greggers, Randolf
Menzel, Walter M. Farina. Journal of Experimental Biology 2015 218: 2799-2805
ABSTRACT
Glyphosate (GLY) is a herbicide that is widely used in agriculture for weed control. Although reports about
the impact of GLY in snails, crustaceans and amphibians exist, few studies have investigated its sublethal
effects in non-target organisms such as the honeybee Apis mellifera, the main pollen vector in commercial
crops. Here, we tested whether exposure to three sublethal concentrations of GLY (2.5, 5 and 10 mg l−1:
corresponding to 0.125, 0.250 and 0.500 μg per animal) affects the homeward flight path of honeybees in
an open field. We performed an experiment in which forager honeybees were trained to an artificial feeder,
and then captured, fed with sugar solution containing traces of GLY and released from a novel site either
once or twice. Their homeward trajectories were tracked using harmonic radar technology. We found that
honeybees that had been fed with solution containing 10 mg l−1 GLY spent more time performing
homeward flights than control bees or bees treated with lower concentrations. They also performed more
indirect homing flights. Moreover, the proportion of direct homeward flights performed after a second
release from the same site increased in control bees but not in treated bees. These results suggest that, in
honeybees, exposure to levels of GLY commonly found in agricultural settings impairs the cognitive
capacities needed to retrieve and integrate spatial information for a successful return to the hive.
Therefore, honeybee navigation is affected by ingesting traces of the most widely used herbicide
worldwide, with potential long-term negative consequences for colony foraging success.t