It seems to me that the article referred by Mr. Kuska noted an increased
risk of birth defects when glycophospate was used in combination with other
pesticides and there has been some debate about how common this is in the
real world, (whatever the real world is). However, most pesticides are
persistent in the environment and end up being stored in the fat of animals
higher up on the food chain, including humans. Most, if not all, of us are
still carrying residues of DDT used long ago in North America, (and still
being used in South America) - as well as residues of pesticides currently
approved. So none of us on the planet are "pesticide free" - although it
would be hard to say whether the amounts present in our blood stream
(released whenever fat is burned for energy) would be at a level sufficient
to activate the increased risk from glycophospate found in this study of
agricultural workers. I guess my point is that "safe when used as directed"
is not quite as straightforward a statement as it might appear, because we
are living in a complex world now of chemical interactions not conceived of
even 100 years ago, when plants were either poisonous or not, or water was
either potable or not........ One need only look at the literature on
prescription drug interactions, as well as drug/food, drug/herb
interactions, to realize that life is seldom as simple as those statements
that appear on labels. On balance, I'd say that many of the chemicals and
drugs discoverd in the past century have vastly improved our lives, but
that's not the same as saying that they are risk-free - and some which were
miracles in their time have created nightmares later, as in the
supermicrobes now resisitant to practically everything in the medical
arsenal.
I think many here are reacting not so much to Round Up as being the
baddest chemical on the block, but rather to the notion that it is wise to
place all of one's faith in a miracle chemical - because the history of the
past century has not borne out that trust.