In article e891b90db90798f6f9d71605e451c328@TeraNews,
Malcolm wrote:

Human Toxicity

Because the shikimic acid pathway does not exist in animals, the acute
toxicity of glyphosate is very low. Glyphosate can interfere with some
enzyme functions in animals but symptoms of poisoning are only seen at
very high doses. However, products containing glyphosate also contain
other compounds which can be toxic. In particular most contain
surfactants known as polyoxyethyleneamines (POEA). Some of these are
much more toxic than glyphosate. These account for problems associated
with worker exposure. They are serious irritants of the respiratory
tract, eyes and skin and are contaminated with dioxane (not dioxin)
which is a suspected carcinogen. Some are toxic to fish.

In California, glyphosate is the third most commonly-reported cause of
pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. Glyphosate is
the most frequent cause of complaints to the UK’s Health and Safety
Executive’s Pesticides Incident Appraisal Panel. New formulations,
with less irritating surfactants, have been developed by Monsanto
(e.g. Roundup Biactive), but cheaper, older preparations are still
available.

this is misleading. In the first part we are told that it isn't the
glyphosate that is toxic but the surfactant. Then in the second part the
word 'glyphosate' is used in place of 'glyphosate containing
formulations' or Roundup (old formulations). The last sentence even
argues against your case.

The following stuff (snipped) points out it is highly toxic to plants.
Wouldn't be much use as a herbicide if it wasn't now would it?

If you want to quote stuff, at least make sure it supports your position.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.