GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

14-08-2003, 06:22 PM

In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
animaux wrote:

Hardly ecofundamentalist. Hardly ANYfundamentalist. Quite the contrary.
However, I've seen the reports. I have no doubt I could pull up as much and
more than what paghat pulled up... I'm rather certain you would still
have your
own version of what you blame others of having, attacking the person, not the
findings. I suppose calling anything I say "ecofundamentalist
irrationality" is
a compliment? Hmmm. Damn. I'm doing it all wrong.

No, you cannot. And that's rather the point. All you have is posturing.
I have posted abstracts from peer-reviewed journals that show that RoundUp
is no danger when used as directed.

Peer reviews of the data noted that there was no basis within the data to
explain the assumed exposure rates. Turns out the data was based on
ASSUMPTIONS, according to the peer reviews, and was not based on
substantiated data .

Turns out, as in the Columbia case, RoundUp was formulated 100 times
stronger than the tiny exposures assumed for your vaunted article, &
entire regions were defoliated just as with Agent Orange. So IF the data
you like hadn't been largely based on assumptions rather than evidence, &
concocted by the most notorious promoter of faked data Monsanto has paid
for (Munro having a history of promoting data even after it has been
revealedto have been fraudulant), the final issue "when used as directed"
would be ALL the data tried to indicate, but then Monsanto sells mixtures
of the chemical that are impossible to use safely as directed.

Williams/Kroes/Munro published their data in Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology in 2000

Since it would be *so* easy for you to provide a scientific study
in a peer-reviewed journal that shows that RoundUp is a danger when
used as directed, please feel free to trot it out.

How about Julie Marc et al in Chemical Res. Toxicol., March 2003, looking
for further evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, & causes reproductive
disorders. Although the data (as most honest data) is inconclusive, it
shows again that elements Monsanto intentionally never studies. Marc
points out the "best case" conclusions that you credit (not caring that
one of the investigators has been caught promoting known faked data
before, & Monsanto got yet another batch of faked data into JAMA by
outright lying). According to the peer reviews, the Munro/Monsanto team's
data is based on ASSUMPTIONS not in evidence: 1) that exposures are
momentary & never chronic, 2) that momentary exposures are always minimal
hence all the data is built on that assumption of very slight exposure, 3)
that the product is always used as instructed, 4) that aereal drift does
not occur but 5) if it did occur it wouldn't matter, 6) that some
undeniable health problems associated with the product were solely the
cause of the surficant so could be removed from the data when assessing
glyphosate alone, 7) there need be no assessment or follow-up for fetal
development so that too may be left out of all data in order to conclude
"safe!"

All of the assumptions are either unproven, unlikely, known to be false,
and not supported in the Munro data itself. With the widespread use of
herbicides & pesticides, exposure rates ARE chronic, but to Monsanto's
hired team, "that doesn't count," because that wouldn't be glyphosate all
by itself. Also the product is not always used as directed -- of course
"that doesn't count," and it still doesn't count even when Monsanto
provides a chemical mix 100 times more concentrated that are impossible to
"use as directed," & this impossible-to-use-as-directed formulation was
what tMonsanto provided to Columbia to spray on villages & on people, &
which defoliated entire countrysides just as Monsanto did with agent
orange, completely destroyoing biodiversity. Obviously the health &
economy of a region completely defoliated destroys human lives, but to
Monsanto, well, "that doesn't count." This has been your only method of
reasoning as well, Billo, in your desire to evade the criteria for
credible science: Peer reviewed AND independent of Monsanto. The
resaerchers known to have lied? "That doesn't count." The researchers
previously provided similar data showing cigarettes are harmless? "That
doesn't count." The peer reviews stating the data is not reliable? "That
doesn't count." Researchers admitting under oath they faked data? "That
doesn't count." To you all that counts is you found bad data that agrees
with what you already wanted to believe.

So by peer review, the data you laud was next to worthless, the glowy
conclusions were not even in sync with that assumption-based data. And
that's your best shot! Peer reviewed and shown wonting! Even a Monsanto GM
researcher Dr Felsot at Washington State U. found the Munro data faulty &
assumption-based, though being a Monsanto man the WSU researcher still
believes the products used correctly are safe and mainly regretted Munro
again provided fodder that damages Monsanto credibility, since Felsot
personally believes a good case can be made for glyphosate without
resorting to what Munro himself calls "tactics" rather than science.

Marc concludes more fairly, without exaggerated declarations of the
Monsanto variety, that 1) glyphosate effects on human cell cycle mutation,
mitosis, & cytokinesis requires further investigation. From animal models:
2) Abnormal cell development occurs in developing embryos with as little
as ten minutes exposure to .08% glyphosate; with persisting abnormal cell
development after the exposure. 3) "Therefore we conclude the formulation
products of Roundup are directly responsible for the cell cycle
dysfunction." Whether the dysfunction goes as far as cancer is as yet
unproven, but opens that door so even farther open than was already the
case.

Further, while Monsanto data claims glyphosate is poorly absorbed by the
body, the independent Marc team proved conclusively that as formulated and
used -- i.e., when used "as diredted" in a legally formulated quantity --
the formulation product carries directly into all cells. Glyphosate by
itself would be more difficult to absorb, but in formulation (as actually
used) it is easily absorbed. So your Munro data compares apples & oranges
-- claiming something is safe if used as directed, but testing only a
component never actually used outside of a formulation. Hence: "It is
likely that the formulation products favor the penetration of glyphosate
in the embryos that were already reported to be impermeable to some
compounds." Monsanto data: Can't be absorbed. Reality: Absorbed.

Marc et al conclude definitively that glyphosate interfers with early cell
development, a finding is lends further credence to the possibility cancer
risk. Furthermore, glyphosate hindered protein synthesis associated with
fertilization, a finding that lends credence to the possibility of lowered
fertility rates of fauna.

Marc et al concluded categorically that Monsanto's claims that the
surficant is more toxic than glyphosate is false. It is the glyphosate
itself that is toxic & hinders cell development & fertility cycles. But
the presence of the surficant is required in order for the glyphosate to
penetrate the cells.

So as usual, Monsanto develops a slender slice of data that applies to
nothing, fudges even that slender slice, then applies it to everything in
order to say "safe if used as directed." It is now known that glyphosate
changes & interfers with cell development. Period. The remaining question
is whether or not the damage will or will not lead inevitably to increased
cancer cases. This will be hard to prove because RoundUp has no reliable
biomarkers, and all estimates of exposure rates are guesses and
assumptions. Monsanto will rely on this as long as they can to keep
RoundUp off the official lists of carcenogens -- & they have Billo's
favorite researcher, Ian Munro, to help them in this, just as he
previously helped cover up cancer risk in tabaccos when he was still the
hired gun for Philip Morris.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/