In article ,
paghat wrote:
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...

You mean Marc et al. Chem Res Toxicol, March 2002. OK, let's
take a look at that. As you state, your "proof" that
RoundUp is harmful is at best "inconclusive." In fact,
it's less that that -- it's the same pattern all over
again.

Let's actually *look* at your "proof."

As the authors note, "In normal usage and chronic exposure [in
contrast to your claims, paghat], several regulatory agencies
and scientific institutions worldwide have concluded that
there is no indication of any human health concern with
glyphosate and Roundup."

Quite an indictment from the scientific community, that.

But hope springs eternal in the ecofundamentalist breast.
In this article the authors decide to poison sea urchins.

And what did they find? Indeed, if you use enough Roundup
to almost kill the cells, their cellular mechanism starts to
have problems. As the authors note "The concentration of
Roundup that causes cell cycle dysfunction appears to largely
exceed the recommended usage concentration of the herbicide."

The amount required to cause cell cycle dysfunction was, in
fact, 1 million times higher than is found in soil residual.

In fact, the authors don't even go so far as to claim
"inconclusive." They come out with the convoluted:

"Our results question whether human health could be
affected by Roundup."

Not "our results suggest human health is affected by
Roundup."

Not "Our results suggest that human health *may* be
affected by Roundup."

No, it's "Our results *question* whether human health
*could* be affected by Roundup."

That's science-ese for "we didn't get any meaningful
results, but we're putting the best face on it."

Yes, Virginia, if you give cells a high enough dose
of anything, they will experience dysfunction.

Whoop de doo.


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.

Mark et al. show that it is possible to poison a sea urchin cell
if you get the dosage high enough, or as the authors state "largely
exceed recommended usage concentration." What a surprise.

Further, while the authors speculate on the applicability of their
studies to humans, they do not actually know. Did you know that
you will kill a dog if you feed it onions? Cats are even more
susceptible. Does that mean that onions are poisonous to humans?


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.


Well, not really. They did not test the effect of surfactant
alone, so they cannot and did not address the toxicity of
surfactant. Your first claim is thus false.

Instead they noted that glyphosate alone was
almost totally nontoxic but when added to other formulation
products, it was possible to poison a cell at high enough
concentrations. From that they conclude synergism.
However, in order to address how much was due to non-glyphosate
formulation components, they would, well, have to do that
test. They did not. Thus, their conclusion is not
supported by their data -- it was a half-experiment.



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,


This is, of course, untrue. The study I quoted specifically
looked at chronic exposure studies in the mouse, in the rat,
and in humans, including EPA and WHO studies. But you know
that evil WHO -- they're just shills for the Great Monsanto
Conspiracy.




2) that momentary exposures are always minimal
hence all the data is built on that assumption of very slight
exposure,

This is also untrue. In fact, were you actually
read the article, you will note that, as I stated before,
bad effects are dose related. From these one can calculate
*safe* dosages. The fact that drinking 50 gallons of
water at once will kill you doesn't mean that drinking
1 glass of water will kill you.

3)
that the product is always used as instructed,


This is also untrue. The determination of a
NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level) implies
that above that level there are, well, adverse
effects. Nobody has argued that if you overdose
you will not be harmed. The ability to overdoes
does not, however, imply that it is dangerous when
used as directed.


4) that aereal drift does
not occur but 5) if it did occur it wouldn't matter,

This is also untrue. Quite the opposite. The article
I quoted notes:

"Aerial droplets maximize drift because the droplets are
released at a higher altitude. For preliminary risk
assessment, the EPA has assumed that spray drift could
be 5% of the aerial application rate..." and goes on
to describe how drift is calculated.



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,

Once again, this is untrue. In fact, no such health problems have
been demonstrated. The only finding has been that the NOAEL for
the surfactant and the glyphosate are higher apart than together.


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!"

Once again, this is untrue. Certainly fetal rat studies are
documented across generations. No such claim was present.


billo