The Chronic Kidney Disease and Chronic Prognoses
Mr Bodhi Danapala (BD) should be congratulated for his well articulated rejoinder in The Island’s Opinion Column of !st March in response to the previous day’s proclamations of Dr Channa Jayamsumana (CJ)and Dr Navin de Soyza of the General Committee of the GMOA, reported in The Island news paper, that the cause of the chronic kidney disease (CKD) is now known to be glyphosate, a widely used herbicide. CKD is a highly sensitive subject and its etiology is hitherto not fully understood. Any public pronouncement on its etiology must be based on sound scientific evidence and not on conjecture that can mislead the public..
Be that as it may, let us come to the crux of the matter. As also pointed out by BD, in an open access article By CJ et al in the Int.J.Environ.Res.Public Health: 2014, 11,2125-2147 titled "Glyphosate, hard water and nephrotoxic metals: Are they the culprits behind the epidemic of chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology in Sri Lanka?", it is hypothesized that metal complexes with glyphosate is the cause of CKD. The word "hypothesis" is printed at the very title of the paper. So how can the authors claim to have found the cause if it is yet a hypothesis! To quote from the article: "Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of the CKD it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with hard water and nephrotoxic metals". It goes on to say that glyphosate chelates with calcium and other metals in the hard water to become the causative agent of CKD. Basic chemistry tells us that metal complexes/chelates of glyphosate should be far less soluble than glyphosate alone, hence rendering it less absorbable by living organisms. In other words, glyphosate should be less toxic to living organisms in hard water than in soft water. It should have been preferable if these researchers had presented at least some analytical evidence to support their hypothesis. Did they analyze any samples of water from CKDU affected areas before hypothesizing? We know that glyphosate complexes do not render themselves to easy analysis, but at least glyphosate levels in non-hard water samples from water sources in the areas should have been indicative of the chemical levels in the region. For example, other countries have such analytical data based on which US and EU has established glyphosate allowable limits as 0.7 and 0.2 ppm respectively in drinking water.
Mr Bodhi Danapala (BD) should be congratulated for his well articulated rejoinder in The Island’s Opinion Column of !st March in response to the previous day’s proclamations of Dr Channa Jayamsumana (CJ)and Dr Navin de Soyza of the General Committee of the GMOA, reported in The Island news paper, that the cause of the chronic kidney disease (CKD) is now known to be glyphosate, a widely used herbicide. CKD is a highly sensitive subject and its etiology is hitherto not fully understood. Any public pronouncement on its etiology must be based on sound scientific evidence and not on conjecture that can mislead the public..
Be that as it may, let us come to the crux of the matter. As also pointed out by BD, in an open access article By CJ et al in the Int.J.Environ.Res.Public Health: 2014, 11,2125-2147 titled "Glyphosate, hard water and nephrotoxic metals: Are they the culprits behind the epidemic of chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology in Sri Lanka?", it is hypothesized that metal complexes with glyphosate is the cause of CKD. The word "hypothesis" is printed at the very title of the paper. So how can the authors claim to have found the cause if it is yet a hypothesis! To quote from the article: "Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of the CKD it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with hard water and nephrotoxic metals". It goes on to say that glyphosate chelates with calcium and other metals in the hard water to become the causative agent of CKD. Basic chemistry tells us that metal complexes/chelates of glyphosate should be far less soluble than glyphosate alone, hence rendering it less absorbable by living organisms. In other words, glyphosate should be less toxic to living organisms in hard water than in soft water. It should have been preferable if these researchers had presented at least some analytical evidence to support their hypothesis. Did they analyze any samples of water from CKDU affected areas before hypothesizing? We know that glyphosate complexes do not render themselves to easy analysis, but at least glyphosate levels in non-hard water samples from water sources in the areas should have been indicative of the chemical levels in the region. For example, other countries have such analytical data based on which US and EU has established glyphosate allowable limits as 0.7 and 0.2 ppm respectively in drinking water.
