(Bill Oliver) "Nature-hating republican liar" wrote in message ...
In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 13 Aug 2003 02:28:51 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:


Please, since it's so non-toxic, have a nice cool drink of it.

As I noted, when you don't have science behind your claims,
you attack the person. It's the ecofundamentalist way.

The *science* does not back up the claims of toxicity made
by the hysterics. Of course one would not "have a nice cool
drink of it." That is not how it is properly used. As properly
used, the science shows no ill effect.

billo

Nature-hating republican liar:
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...undup+toxicity

http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/glyphosa.html

Questioning the "safe" herbicide.

Written by: Karen Thomas, October 1999

A longer look at some side-effects
of glyphosate formulations.

Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, it will kill any plant it
comes in contact with. It is registered for use on many food and
non-food crops as well as non-crop areas where total vegetation
control is desired. The most common uses include control of broadleaf
weeds and grasses in: hay/pasture, soybeans, field corn, ornamentals,
lawns, turf, forest plantings, greenhouses and rights-of-way.

The website of the National Registration Authority (NRA) of Australia
reveals 161 products registered for use in Australia containing
glyphosate. The most widely used glyphosate-based products (and the
ones with the most data available) are those manufactured by the
U.S.-based multinational corporation, Monsanto, which markets ninety
different glyphosate-based herbicides. Monsanto manufactures 22 of
the 161 glyphosate products registered for use in Australia. These
are sold by the macho tradenames Roundup, Squadron, Ricochet, Ranger,
Harpoon, Saddle, Honcho, Rustler, Defender and Torch.

While the "active" ingredient in these products is glyphosate other
ingredients are also present, but thanks to corporate protection laws
on the labelling of "inert ingredients" their identities are largely
unknown. These other ingredients have been shown to have synergistic
effects with glyphosate, resulting in more toxic properties than any
of the ingredients exhibit alone. (Many herbicides need a surfactant,
or "wetting agent", as part of the formulation to prevent run-off from
leaves with waxy or hairy surfaces. Such additives generally enable
much lower concentrations to be used in the spraying tank.)

One popular Monsanto glyphosate-based product is Roundup™. When
Roundup first entered the market, people wanted to believe the claims
of "low toxicity" and "environmental friendliness". Having suffered
through the emergence of toxicity evidence on other chemicals (such as
DDT, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D) that had also been originally thought to be
"safe", it was no wonder that people were anxious to believe that a
safer alternative existed. However no matter the amount of marketing
(or the marketing budget) a herbicide is still a herbicide. And even
a herbicide that is less toxic than other herbicides is still a
herbicide. As such it is designed, intended and applied precisely to
kill living plants.

For Roundup the claims of "low toxicity" and "environmental
friendliness" come from years of product testing, just ask the
manufacturer. In an American Chemical Society Monograph, Monsanto has
promoted Roundup as "virtually non-toxic to animals, birds, fish and
most bacteria", "essentially no residual soil activity, even when
applied at high rates" and "extensive use since 1974 has not induced
the proliferation of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes".

Over the years, each of these claims has come into question.

Non-toxic to animals?
In order to understand the questions, it is necessary to first
understand how the herbicide works. Unfortunately, this is not as
easy as it sounds. It is generally accepted that glyphosate works by
inhibiting three amino acids that are essential for plant growth. The
absence of these amino acids then inhibits a key enzyme, EPSP
synthase, and two other enzymes involved in the production of the
three amino acids. According to the manufacturer, the enzymes are
present in higher plants and microorganisms but not in animals.

Research has revealed some disturbing anomalies to the generally
accepted mode of action. Glyphosate has been shown to reduce the
activity of an enzyme in sugar cane which is not connected to the
three amino acids. When formulated as Roundup, it has been shown to
affect enzymes found in mammals such as rats where it decreased the
activity of two detoxification enzymes in the liver and intestine.

Studies as old as 1981 and as new as last month (September 1999) bring
into question the non-toxicity claims. It seems quite intuitive that
a material designed to kill plants is harmful to living organisms.
Acute effects from accidental exposure to Roundup include burning
eyes, blurred vision, blisters, rapid heartbeat, chest pains, nausea
just to name a few. Recently two Swedish oncologists released a study
linking Roundup to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer.

Non-toxic to aquatic life?
In 1995 questions about its toxicity to aquatic life were raised. A
study commissioned by the Western Australian Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) and conducted by Dr. Joseph Bidwell of
the Curtin Exotoxicology Program concluded that Roundup 360 can be
acutely toxic to adult frogs and tadpoles at the recommended
application rates (1.8 to 5.4 kg/ha). Roundup 360 was more toxic to
frogs and tadpoles than technical grade glyphosate. The surfactant in
Roundup, and not glyphosate itself, was assumed to have caused the
increase in toxicity. The study recommended that the Roundup product
label contain advice on the potential hazard in wetlands.


Why Frogs?

Aquatic animals generally

have highly permeable skins compared to land animals — water and
dissolved salts can move quite freely in and out; and
respire through exposed gills, where dissolved oxygen moves directly
from the water to the bloodstream.
Normally, they have a mucous coating which restricts this osmosis as
well as providing a mechanical protection against abrasion. However,
the wetting agents in many glyphosate formulations break down this
mucus, as well as attacking the delicate gill membranes, thus allowing
the glyphosate and other poisons and pathogens to enter the system.

The emphasis on frogs arises from their visibility — or audibility.
While only the tadpoles have gills, the adult frogs are still
vulnerable to damage on the skin, which can leave them dangerously
exposed to UV from the sun, in addition to poisoning from other
pollutants.





Based on this study, the DEP and the Environmental Protection
Authority (EPA) recommended that the NRA perform tests on the
surfactants used in the formulations. In a June 1996 report, the NRA
stated that the "aquatic toxicity of currently registered glyphosate
formulations is undesirably high and is mainly due to surfactants in
the formulations". Based on this review, the use of these products
were restricted to dry drains and channels and dry margins of dams,
lakes and streams. Amendments were made to the labels to avoid
aquatic contamination.

Monsanto and other manufacturers of glyphosate-based products now
offer "frog-friendly" versions; Monsanto's is named Roundup Biactive.
(However, at the time of this writing — October 1999 — customer
service representatives at Dawsons and Waldeck were not familiar with
the Biactive product or any frog-unfriendliness associated with the
glyphosate products.) These supposedly frog-friendly versions have an
"acceptable" margin of safety for aquatic environments as determined
by the NRA. However based on past performance, all safety claims must
be questioned.

No Residual Soil Activity?
The U.S. EPA has called glyphosate "extremely persistent under typical
application conditions". In the 1997 American Chemical Society
Monograph of Glyphosate written by Monsanto scientists, half-lives of
glyphosate range from 3 days to 22.8 years depending on the soil type
and microbial activity. Another study estimates the half-life of
glyphosate to be 3 to 134 days. Whatever the strict definition of "no
residual soil activity", studies (even by the manufacturer itself)
suggest long half-lives and therefore long lives of chemical activity.

No Resistance?
Then in 1996, the report that Monsanto and farmers hoped they would
never hear. An Australian researcher reported that ryegrass on at
least two properties in Victoria as well as on one in New South Wales
had developed a resistance to Roundup and tolerated five times the
recommended field application rate. This research came after years of
claims that resistance to Roundup was "highly unlikely".

False Advertising?
So why aren't herbicide manufacturers liable for false claims? In one
U.S. state, they are. In 1997, Monsanto negotiated an agreement with
the New York State Attorney General to alter its Roundup ads to delete
claims that the herbicide is "biodegradable" and "environmentally
friendly", and to stop equating U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
registration of pesticides with a safety assurance. These changes
were in response to five years of complaints by the New York State
Attorney General of false and misleading advertising. The company
paid $50,000 toward the state's legal expenses in the case. The
Netherlands also questioned the "biodegradable" claim and it is no
longer allowed to be used for Roundup in that country.

When asked to believe what the manufacturers claim, keep in mind that
two of the labs Monsanto hired to test the herbicide have been
convicted of falsifying data to the U.S. EPA. These results have been
reportedly replaced by the results of valid tests but, of course, the
original tests were assured to be valid as well.

Users of Herbicides?
Based on the information available at the moment, here are a few tips
for whacking weeds with the environment in mind.

Accept them — all weeds are not necessarily pests and may provide a
home for other insects and diseases that may otherwise harm the
non-weeds in the garden.


Opt for the old-fashioned technique of weeding by hand (guaranteed to
lower stress levels too).


Hot water applications are available for home and commercial use
(alternately, boil your own).


Some local manufacturers offer 100% glyphosate formulations, so it is
only the toxicity of glyphosate that is of some concern, not any
unknown surfactant or other "inert" ingredient.


If you employ a gardening service, make sure they are using only the
products that you approve for your safety and that of your family and
pets.


Provide information about glyphosate and Roundup toxicity to your
local Council. Perhaps hot water weed eradication systems will do the
job. At the very least confirm that what they are using is "safe for
frogs".


Most importantly, with any chemical pesticide, respect its toxicity.
It is a non-natural chemical designed to kill living things. As such,
it should be used SPARINGLY and in STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH LABEL
INSTRUCTIONS. Do not be unknowingly fooled by marketing.


References
Bidwell, Joseph R. and Gorrie, John R. "Acute Toxicity of a herbicide
to Selected Frog Species", Curtin Ecotoxicology Program, Curtin
University of Technology, Bently WA, June 1995.

Cox, Caroline, "Herbicide Factsheet: Glyphosate (Roundup)", Journal of
Pesticide Reform, Fall 1998, Vol. 18, No. 3.

Estok, D. et al, "Effects Of The Herbicides 2,4-D, Glyphosate,
Hexazinone, and Triclopyr on the Growth of Three Species of
Ectomycorrhizal Fungi" Bulletin Of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, v.42, 1989, p.835-839.

Franz, John; Mao, Michael — Sikorski, James "Glyphosate: A Unique
Global Herbicide", Monsanto, ACS (American Chemical Society) Monograph
189, 1997.

National Registration Authority, "Glyphosate Special Review",
Canberra, Australia, June 1996.

Prescott, Gayle, "Roundup — The Truth Hurts!" EcoEcho, Summer 1995,
pp. 32-33.

Lennart H. and Erikson, Mikael "A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin
Lymphoma and Expousre to Pesticides", CANCER, March 15, 1999, Vol.
85, No. 6, p. 1353-1360.

Van den Bosch, Robert, "The Pesticide Conspiracy", University of
California Berkeley, 1978.