|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
Bill Oliver wrote:
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. WHAAT?? Those Bastar**!~ What did the sea urchins ever do to them, I ask you? And just *where* were the "Save the Sea Urchins!" people while all this was going on? Huh? Probably out eating Sushi...You can't get good protestors these days. |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
Bill,
I admire your tenacity with regard to this thread. I've learned a lot and I'd like to thank you for taking the time to debate (really debate, instead of the ad hominem attacks you are experiencing in replies) the issue. Dave "Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... 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 |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article , Rick wrote:
Bill Oliver wrote: WHAAT?? Those Bastar**!~ What did the sea urchins ever do to them, I ask you? And just *where* were the "Save the Sea Urchins!" people while all this was going on? Huh? Probably out eating Sushi...You can't get good protestors these days. It's OK, they were really sea urchin embryos, and were all provided by pro-choice free range sea urchins. Every sea urchin deserves the right to do what it wants with its fetuses. billo |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
Bill Oliver wrote:
In article , Rick wrote: Bill Oliver wrote: WHAAT?? Those Bastar**!~ What did the sea urchins ever do to them, I ask you? And just *where* were the "Save the Sea Urchins!" people while all this was going on? Huh? Probably out eating Sushi...You can't get good protestors these days. It's OK, they were really sea urchin embryos, and were all provided by pro-choice free range sea urchins. Every sea urchin deserves the right to do what it wants with its fetuses. billo Oh, stem cell research. The votes still out on that one. And Bob Forbid that I get the feminist Sea Urchin Lobby on my case. Rather prickly lot. I'm pro whatever it takes to keep from stepping on them. |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
"Bill Oliver" wrote ... Smashing in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity. In fact, studies which look at real criteria repeatedly have found that it is safe when used properly. I think this is an succinct and definitive rebuttal to the hysterical dogmatism of Paghat and other unthinking haters of big business. |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article , "Dave Gower"
wrote: "Bill Oliver" wrote ... Smashing in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity. In fact, studies which look at real criteria repeatedly have found that it is safe when used properly. I think this is an succinct and definitive rebuttal to the hysterical dogmatism of Paghat and other unthinking haters of big business. Aaaa, stop with the hysterics Davy. If hate were an issue, it would not be unthinking. Some things spring from love of the environment and very careful thoughtfulness, but I can see that sort of thing could be too alien for a few to imagine. That you suppose it is shows how little you think. The same sorts of gullible dolts who'd trust murderers as their personal bodyguards, rapists to babysit their kids, or thieves to guard their money WOULD trust that the same people who lied about agent orange for 40 years are tellin' ya the truth now about glyphosate. Even if it requires overlooking one hell of a lot of uninvested independent evidence to the contrary to see only the known-liars-generated proof of safety. And the depth of that gullibility is reflected in said dolts' continued "faith" even after Monsanto is caught time & again faking data. To praise Billo whose primary citation was from a chap caught promoting data he already knew had been faked shows how little you are thinking. It takes only the simplest observational skills to notice Monsanto's persistent habit of lying, which wouldn't be necessary if their product was even half as safe as they pretend. But even if as a sophist exercise one pretended Billo's "succinct and definitive" statement were in limited cases somewhat true, this also supposes people pig-ignorant enough to trust known liars as cited by Billo must in THIS case finally be telling the truth (while non-advocates of Monsanto who're not financially invested in the lies become the dogmatic hysterics), well, surely even you can see that such pig-ignorant people as gullible as all that will never be using such products "properly." That's the equivalent of the word "maybe" or "might" -- "IF used properly" is the term tossed in for continued deniability, as even if it is only because you used your left hand, the purveyors of lies & falsified data can always find something you did improperly so that your injury is never going to be the fault of their products. "If used properly" isn't even as safe as "if used as directed." As directed, they could still be culpable. But if "properly" means not at all, they're never culpable, your own ignorance will always be at fault -- just as Philip Morris first told you it was safe to smoke, then claimed nobody was ignorant enough to not realize they were killing themselves so the company's not at fault. Anyone who DID think would not for long puzzle over why Monsanto mined the tobacco industry's biggest "scientific" proof-finders & hired those very same people onto teams whose only goal is to "prove" glyphosate & GM crops are, like smoking, totally safe when used properly. That you don't even raise a brow over the selection of Philip Morris data-generators to provide the same sorts of "proofs" for Monsanto suggests you're within the target audience for the product -- dumb enough to believe anything the boss tells you, & slather around the place any ol' poison they say's great to use -- & maybe something good does come of it if the gene pool is cleaned up a little bit. -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/ |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
Dave Gower wrote: "Bill Oliver" wrote ... Smashing in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity. In fact, studies which look at real criteria repeatedly have found that it is safe when used properly. I think this is an succinct and definitive rebuttal to the hysterical dogmatism of Paghat and other unthinking haters of big business. Indeed. If paghat applied her rationale to everything, she could not eat anything. The vaunted study that showed negative effects of chronic exposure were at over 1000 mg/kg/day. If that were asprin, that would mean taking over 200 aspirin pills a day for a year. Not, of course, that you would live for a year that way. Obviously, that means that taking two aspirins three times a day for a week will kill you, right? billo |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
"Stephen M. Henning" wrote in message .. .
Chris Owens wrote: Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath through the invertebrates that encounter it. Yes there is a question. I spray with RoundUp every year around my rhododendrons and the mice, deer, turkeys, squirrels, etc. are just as numerous or more numerous than ever. I use a hand sprayer. I haven't seen one dead animal or insect. It only kills plants. When a person uses a statement like "there's no question" or "it goes without saying" or "it is obvious that", then you know they don't have any facts. Since when are "mice, deer, turkeys, squirrels" invertibrates? Or do you know as little about writing as you do about fact-finding? http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...undup+toxicity http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/page4.html Research on RoundUp's Toxicity--Part I Ingestion of RoundUp has been shown to cause "irritation of the oral mucous membrane and gastrointestinal tract…pulmonary dysfunction, oliguria, metabolic acidosis, hypotension, leukocytosis and fever." Monsanto's own toxicologist, Rebecca Tominack, participated in this study. (Tominack RL, Yang GY, Tsai WJ, Chung HM, Deng JF, 1991. Taiwan National Poison Center survey of glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ingestions. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1991; 29 (1): 91-109) Many people report experiencing severe digestive problems related to irritation of their gastrointestinal tract after overexposure to RoundUp, limiting the foods their bodies will tolerate to a very few bland foods. This is believed to be related to the fact that in a 1983 study by Heitanen, Linnainmaa and Vainio, RoundUp's main ingredient, glyphosate, was shown to decrease the hepatic level level of cytochrome P-450, monooxygenase activities, and the intestinal activity of aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase. The inhibition of erythrocyte glutathione conjugate transport by polyethoxylated surfactants has also been reported in a 1993 letter to FEBS from studies done by P. G. Board, part of the Molecular Genetics Group, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra. Glutathione is a tripeptide which the body produces from the amino acids cysteine, glutamic acid, and glycine. Glutathione is a powerful antioxidant produced in the liver, where it detoxifies harmful compounds so that they can be excreted through the bile. The glutathione released from the liver directly into the bloodstream helps to maintain the integrity of red blood cells and protect white blood cells. Glutathione is also found in the lungs. In the intestinal tract, it is needed for carbohydrate metabolism, and also appears to exert anti-aging effects, aiding in the breakdown of oxidized fats that may contribute to atherosclerosis. Glutathione's role in carbohydrate metabolism is compromised by the effect of RoundUp's surfactant, POEA, on erythrocyte glutathion conjugate transport. RoundUp causes damage to the liver that inhibits the liver's ability to process toxic substances. Research subject animals injected with glyphosate evidenced a depressed function of the liver. "Glyphosate decreased the hepatic function of cytochrome P-450 and monoxygnease activities and the intestinal activity of aryl hydrocarbon hydrolase." (Heitanen et al, 1983). The P-450 enzyme system is one of the main body systems for detoxifying harmful chemicals. When it becomes impaired by those same chemicals it is supposed to be detoxifying, the effects of a given chemical on the body increase dramatically. (Heitanen, et al., 1983. Effects of phenoxyherbicides and glyphosate on the hepatic and intestinal biotransformation activities in the rat. Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1983 Aug; 53(2):103-12.) Testing of patients suffering RoundUp overexposure has indicated damage to their P-450 enzyme system. Roundup produces significant increases in sister-chromatid exchanges (SCE), albeit in higher concentrations over those used for other pesticides. This suggests that it should be evaluated in other genetic tests measuring mutations and chromosome aberrations, although few studies of this nature have yet been done. A 1980 study by Vigfusson and Vyse noted sister-chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes in vitro. This lymphocyte disturbance correlates with the swelling experienced by persons poisoned by RoundUp. (Vigfusson, N.V. and Vyse, E.R. (1980), "The effect of the pesticides, Dexon, Captan, and Roundup, on sister-chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes in vitro". MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57.) William Meggs, M.D., Ph.D., School of Medicine, East Carolina University: In patients who have been chemically injured, Meggs has noted significant lymphatic hyperplasia, lymphatic tissue that is swollen and engorged. He has also found significant cobblestoning in upper airway passages. This represents chronic inflammation caused by lymphocytes migrating out of the blood stream and seeping into the tissues. Meggs has also noted thickening of the structure called the basement membrane, the structure on which the lining of cells that lines the interior of the nose sits. Meggs' study also found a defect in the tight junctions (the joining of cells together) and a proliferation of nerve fibers. "Chemicals bind to receptors on nerve fibers and produce something called neurogenic inflammation. These chemicals bind to these receptors and cause the release of potent substances that produce inflammation in tissue. When chemicals bind to nerve fibers, they can produce inflammation. Inflammation, in turn, produces other changes in the tissue, and it brings in these lymphocytes. We believe that inflammation causes these barrier cells to open up and sometimes even come off the basement membrane. Below the basement membrane is the nerve fibers, so we have a process whereby a chemical exposure will damage the lining of the nose. What happens is people have a large chemical exposure, they breathe in noxious chemicals, and this damages the epithelium. This huge exposure is able to penetrate this barrier we have between the chemicals we breathe in and these nerve cells beneath the lining layer that react to chemicals by producing inflammation. The inflammation, in turn, produces substances that cause further damage to the lining cell, and actually produce the substances which cause the tight junctions between these cells to open up. In some cases the cells actually come off and just leave these bare nerves exposed. Once you have the bare nerves exposed, low levels of chemicals that we all experience every day are enough to produce inflammation which in turn keeps the epithelium damaged." RoundUp was found to cause significant DNA damage to erythrocytes (red blood cells) in a study done in 1997 by Clements, Ralph and Petras. RoundUp's surfactant, POEA, is known to cause haemolysis. (Clements C, Ralph S, Pertas M, 1997. Genotoxicity of select herbicides in Rana catesbeiana tadpoles using the alkaline single-cell gel DNA electrophoresis (comet) assay. Environ Mol Mutagen 1997; 29(3):277-288.) (Sawada Y, Nagai Y, Ueyama M, Yamamoto I, 1988. Probable toxicity of surface-active agent in commercial herbicide containing glyphosate. Lancet. 1988 Feb 6;1(8580):299.) In haemolysis, hemoglobin leaks from the red blood cells, leaving them unable to transport sufficient supplies of oxygen to the body's tissues. The chest pains, difficulty breathing, and impaired cognitive skills reported by persons who have sustained RoundUp poisoning also point to impairment of the blood's oxygen transport system, hemoglobin, as being responsible for these symptoms. This impairment of the erythrocytes' ability to deliver adequate oxygen to both brain and body results in impaired tissue perfusion and hypoxia. "The brain is particularly vulnerable to hypoxia, and exposure to toxins that interfere with the intake, transport and utilization of oxygen provoke rapid and major neuronal damage. Compounds crossing the blood-brain barrier may induce both general and extremely localized neurotoxic effects." (Kyvik KR, Morn BE, 1995. Environmental poisons and the nervous system. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1995. June 10; 115(15):1834-8.) According to both the EPA and the World Health Organization in 1993 and 1994, glyphosate appears to mimic adrenaline. This would explain the sleeping problems encountered by many persons exposed to RoundUp, as for them, cortisol appears to no longer be properly regulated by their bodies' adrenal glands. (US EPA, 1993. EPA Reregistration Eligibility Document, Glyphosate, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C., September 1993.) (IPCS, 1994. Environmental health criteria 159: Glyphosate. International Programme of Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Geneva.) |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
(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. |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
(Bill Oliver) "Nature-Hating Republican Liar" wrote in message ...
In article , animaux wrote: Yeahbut, please, have a nice tall glass of it, anyway. Save your other blather for use elsewhere. Your "science" is not correct. It's head in the sand, science. Yes, yes. "Head in the sand science" meaning, of course, science that disagrees with your ecofundamentalist irrationality. billo Nature-Hating Republican Liar: http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...undup+toxicity http://www.holisticmed.com/ge/roundup.html Monsanto's Toxic Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enclosed is an article showing how Monsanto is dishonest about the toxicity of their herbicide, Roundup. This is followed by two articles showing the toxicity of Roundup which (despite industry claims otherwise) is used in significantly high amounts in genetically-engineered frankenfoods. You will then eat the residues of Monsanto's toxic herbicide! Subject: IT'S OFFICAL Monsanto's Roundup NOT environmentaly friendly PANUPS: Monsanto Agrees to Change Ads and EPA Fines Northrup King. January 10, 1997. Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), San Francisco, CA. Monsanto Agrees to Change Ads Monsanto Co. agreed to change its advertising for glyphosate- based products, including Roundup, in response to complaints by the New York Attorney General's office that the ads were misleading. Based on their investigation, the Attorney General's office felt that the advertising inaccurately portrayed Monsanto's glyphosate-containing products as safe and as not causing any harmful effects to people or the environment. According to the state, the ads also implied that the risks of products such as Roundup are the same as those of the active ingredient, glyphosate, and do not take into account the possible risks associated with the product's inert ingredients. As part of the agreement, Monsanto will discontinue the use of terms such as "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly" in all advertising of glyphosate-containing products in New York state and will pay $50,000 toward the state's costs of pursuing the case. The Attorney General has been challenging the ads since 1991. Monsanto maintains that it did not violate any federal, state or local law and that its claims were "true and not misleading in any way." The company states that they entered into the agreement for settlement purposes only in order to avoid costly litigation. According to a 1993 report published by the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, glyphosate was the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural workers. Another study from the School of Public Health found that glyphosate was the most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape maintenance workers. (Both studies were based on data collected between 1984 and 1990.) In the first nine months of 1996, Monsanto's worldwide agrochemical sales increased by 21% to US$2.48 billion, due largely to increased sales of Roundup. Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) Phone: (415) 541-9140 Fax: (415) 541-9253 email: http://www.panna.org/panna/ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biotech supporters have said that roundup is more environmentally friendly and less toxic. Dr. Joe Cummins located these two articles to show that this claim is not correct. Title: Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ('Roundup'): a review of 93 cases. Authors: Talbot AR; Shiaw MH; Huang JS; Yang SF; Goo TS; Wang SH; Chen CL; Sanford TR Address: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, Taiwan, Republic of China. Source Hum Exp Toxicol Abstract: Between 1 January 1980, and 30 September 1989, 93 cases of exposure to herbicides containing glyphosphate and surfactant ('Roundup') were treated at Changhua Christian Hospital. The average amount of the 41% solution of glyphosate herbicide ingested by non-survivors was 184 +/- 70 ml (range 85-200 ml), but much larger amounts (500 ml) were reported to have been ingested by some patients and only resulted in mild to moderate symptomatology. Accidental exposure was asymptomatic after dermal contact with spray (six cases), while mild oral discomfort occurred after accidental ingestion (13 cases). Intentional ingestion (80 cases) resulted in erosion of the gastrointestinal tract (66%), seen as sore throat (43%), dysphagia (31%), and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (8%). Other organs were affected less often (non-specific leucocytosis 65%, lung 23%, liver 19%, cardiovascular 18%, kidney 14%, and CNS 12%). There were seven deaths, all of which occurred within hours of ingestion, two before the patient arrived at the hospital. Deaths following ingestion of 'Roundup' alone were due to a syndrome that involved hypotension, unresponsive to intravenous fluids or vasopressor drugs, and sometimes pulmonary oedema, in the presence of normal central venous pressure. MESH Headings Adolescence*; Adult*; Age Factors*; Aged*; Aged, 80 and over*; Cardiovascular Diseases*; Case Report; Central Nervous System Diseases*; Child*; Child, Preschool*; Female; Glycine*; Herbicides*; Human; Infant*; Kidney Diseases*; Leukocytosis*; Liver Diseases*; Lung Diseases*; Male; Middle Age* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORML SPECIAL REPORT, November 12, 1996 DEA Herbicide Under Fire From Hawaii Residents Locals Complain Of Nausea, Other Ailments Due To Aerial Spraying Residents of the island of Hawaii are complaining of flu-like symptoms such as nausea, headaches, and fatigue and many are pointing fingers at the federal government and state law enforcement. For nearly a decade, Drug Enforcement Agency-coordinated marijuana eradication efforts have targeted the island of Hawaii, often spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide from low-flying helicopters over suspected marijuana patches. Recently, however, some residents are claiming that the pesticide, a chemical weed-killer similar to "Round Up," is killing wildlife and making some citizens sick. "You can actually taste it in your mouth," said Roger Christie of the Hawaii Hemp Council, who alleges that the pesticide is occasionally mixed with additives. Christie reports that gusts of wind disperse the pesticide to outlying communities, where it collects in rainwater catchments. Rooftop catchments are a common source of residents' drinking water. Christie is convinced that the spraying is directly linked to recently reported environmental and health problems. "In the last two weeks, hundreds of people have come to me with their complaints and said that's why I'm feeling this way too," said Ka'u resident Susan Smith in an interview with KGMB-TV earlier this month. "[Law enforcement] are flying over my house every other day. ... It's like a war zone out here." According to local area physician, Patricia Bailey, MD, Christie and Smith's claims are not without substance. Bailey has collected incident reports from some 40 persons, aged 9 months to 84 years, who claim that they have been affected by the spray. She cites generalized symptoms of eye and respiratory tract irritation. She further notes that about 75 percent of respondents suffered from diarrhea. Affidavits attained by NORML report frequent complaints from residents of flu-like symptoms such as nausea and headaches, sometimes lasting for more than a week after the spraying. Others complain of experiencing fatigue, irritability, soar joints and throats, and frequent itchiness and burning of the eyes. In one of the most severe reported cases, an Ocean View resident complained of experiencing prolonged numbness in her arms. "The numbness was the most prominent and frightening [symptom,]" she explained. "[It] felt uncomfortable to wear my watch [so] I took it off and carried it. I kept rubbing my arms, trying to warm them and get blood back circulating." The resident described the experience as "unnerving." "There is a statistical significance to the complaints," said Dr. Bailey. "I think [this] is serious now." Studies on the potential dangers of glyphosate to both humans and the environment are mixed. According the 1986 federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), laboratory and greenhouse studies performed mostly by the manufacturer (The Monsanto Company) indicated that glyphosate was only a moderately toxic herbicide that posed little danger to the environment. However, Noah Berry, vice president of EcoLaw Institute Inc., an Oklahoma organization that works to strengthen environmental laws, has examined the safety of glyphosate and concludes that the chemical "can do a lot of damage to our bio-diversity."3 In addition, a 1991 report by the Radian Corporation concludes that human exposure to glyphosate can cause "irritation of the skin, gastrointestinal tract and respiratory tract, convulsions and coma." Lenny Terlip of the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) told NORML that claims of glyphosate harming the environment and endangering the health of residents were "erroneous." He denied reports that the herbicide was mixed with any additives and said that the sprayings were not being conducted near houses or residential areas. He further added that the helicopter-mounted spray-guns have "pin-point accuracy," a claim rebuked by a review of some of the available scientific literature. According to the Journal of Pesticide Reform, "In general, movement of a pesticide through unwanted drift is unavoidable; drift of glyphosate is no exception." The article emphasized, however, that glyphosate drift is a "particularly significant problem ... [because] damage is likely to be much more extensive and more persistent than with many other herbicides."7 Two studies conducted in Canada measured glyphosate residues more than 650 feet away from target areas following helicopter applications to forest sites and a third study from California found glyphosate over 2,600 feet away following aerial application.9 By her own estimations, Smith judges that high wind gusts on the island of Hawaii can carry glyphosate residue even farther. "Why do we have to wait [until] five years from now [for an answer?]" asked Smith. "Why do we have to wait ... till they tell us, okay, it's toxic and now it's outlawed?" Recently, Smith gathered angry residents to an informal town meeting where they voiced their grievances with elected officials and state agency representatives, signed health impact affidavits, and met with news media. She and other area residents agreed to file a formal complaint with the DLNR. Photographs on display at the meeting documented orange-sprayed foliage in forests and yards as well as dead bird carcasses. Many residents elaborated on the symptoms of their illnesses. Glenn Sahara, a spokesman for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture who attended the meeting, attempted to deny that the spraying played any role. Instead, he stated that the animal deaths might be due to heart failure caused by the noise of low-flying helicopters. Many residents remained unconvinced. "We are being poisoned," claimed one elderly gentleman. "It's the children I am thinking of. Stop the aerial spraying!" This is an example of "law enforcement run amuck," claimed environmental activist and resident Jerry Rothstein. Rothstein has studied the original EIS and tells NORML that residents may file a lawsuit against both state and federal agencies for failure to comply with regulations mandated by the 1986 report. EIS rules require that law enforcement, "Take all reasonable steps to notify everyone, including residents, before spraying." For the time being, Rothstein is encouraging residents to participate in the updating of the scheduled 1996 EIS supplement. Public comments on this notice were requested in the August 13, 1996 issue of the Federal Register and public hearings will be held before a final version is drafted. "From the response of the Ka'u community, th[ese] latest aerial herbicide attack[s] appear to be among the worst yet," noted Rothstein. He said that in the past, law enforcement has attempted to dismiss complaints by alleging that they were only from marijuana growers attempting to protect their crops. These latest rounds of complaints, however, are too widespread to ignore, he said. Currently, only one other state, South Dakota, engages in aerial herbicide spraying.1 Swindell, Bill. "State Will Dump Pesticide on Pot." Tulsa World News: June 11, 1996. REFERENCES 2. Cox, Caroline. "Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects." J. of Pest. Rfm.: Vol. 15, Winter 1995. 3. Bishop, Hunter. "Herbicide causing illness?" Hilo Tribune-Herald: October 24, 1996. 4. NTP Chemical Repository. Radian Corporation: August 29, 1991. 5. Nivia, Elsa and Gips, Judith. "Drug Control and Herbicide Spraying in Columbia." Global Pesticide Campaigner, February 1993. 6. Cox, Caroline. "Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects." J. of Pest. Rfm: Vol. 15, Winter 1995. 7. Freedman, B. "Controversy over the use of herbicides in forestry, with particular reference to glyphosate usage." J. Envir. Sci. Hlth.: Vol: C8(2), 1990-1991. 8. Cox, Caroline. "Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects." J. of Pest. Rfm: Vol. 15, Winter 1995. 9. Ibid. 10. Personal conversation with Jerry Rothstein OnSite: 13 NOV 96 =A9 copyright 1996, 1997 NORML |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
(Bill Oliver) "Nature-hating Republican Liar" wrote in message ...
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. 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. billo Nature-hating Republican Liar: http://abcbirds.org/pesticides/Profiles/glyphosate.htm Glyphosate Toxicity Glyphosate can be acutely toxic to non-target plants, including aquatic plants and algae. The effects of this toxicity on natural plant succession alters the ecology of treated areas. In most cases, the plant species diversity will decrease, and along with it, the numbers of insects, mammals and birds utilizing these areas as habitat. Santillo, D.J. et al (1989), "Response of songbirds to glyphosate-induced habitat changes on clear-cut." Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 53 no. 1, 64-71. Connor, J.F. and McMillan, L.M. (1990), "Winter utilization by moose of glyphosate-treated cutovers." Alces 26:91-103. Glyphosate is toxic to mammals: Most toxicity tests cited by industry and the EPA investigate toxicity through oral exposure routes. The toxicity of glyphosate and the common surfactant POEA is much greater through inhalation routes of exposure, which is a likely exposure scenario for humans residing in areas of Colombia. Experimentally induced inhalation of Roundup by rats produced 100% mortality in 24 hours. Humans ingesting as little as 100 ml of Roundup have died ( suicide attempts using Roundup have a 10-20% success rate.) Martinez, T.T. and Brown, K. (1991) "Oral and pulmonary toxicology of the surfactant used in Roundup herbicide." Proceedings of the Western Pharmacology Society, v. 34, 43-46. Adam, A., et al (1997) "The oral and intratracheal toxicities of Roundup and its components on rats." Veterinary and Human Toxicology, Jun 39(3):147-51. Glyphosate produces toxic effects on mammalian sperm. Glyphosate is a potential endocrine disruptor. Youssef, M.I., et al (1995), "Toxic effects of carbofuran and glyphosate on semen characteristics in rabbits." Journal of Environmental Science and Health, part B, v. 30, 515-534. Walsh, LP, et al (2000) "Roundup inhibits steroidogenesis by disrupting steroidogenic acute regulatory (stAR) protein expression." Environmental Health Perspectives, AUG v108(N8):769-776. Toxic to aquatic organisms including fish and invertebrates: Studies with fish show that glyphosate can be moderately toxic alone, but when combined with the surfactant normally found in commercial products, the toxicity is greater. Toxicity increases with higher temperatures in fish; one study found that the toxicity of glyphosate doubled in bluegill and in rainbow trout test subjects when the temperature of the water was increased from 45 to 63 degrees F. Folmar, L.C. et al (1979) "Toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate and several of its formulations to fish and aquatic invertebrates." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v 8, 269-278. Significant stream drift of midge larva occurred when Roundup was added to test water at 2 mg/L. Glyphosate can act as a phosphorous source and could stimulate undesirable eutrophication of waterways. Austin, A.P., et al (1991), "Impact of an organophosphate herbicide (glyphosate) on periphyton communities developed in experimental streams." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 47, 29-35. Toxic to soil microbes including nitrogen-fixing bacteria, mycorrhizae, actinomycete, and yeast isolates: One study found that glyphosate inhibited the growth of 59% of selected naturally occurring soil microbes. Carlisle, S.M. and Trevors, J.T. (1988), "Glyphosate in the environment." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 39:409-420. Glyphosate, by inhibiting the growth of some microbes allows the overgrowth of others. This includes microbial plant pathogens. Fusarium is a naturally occurring soil fungus that is a plant pathogen. Fusarium invades the roots of plants and either kills the plant outright or prevents normal growth. Subsistence farmers in Colombia have noted that fields accidently sprayed with herbicides in attempts to destroy Coca do not produce at the same level as they did prior to being sprayed, and in some cases, no crops grow at all. Levesque, C.A. (1987), "Effects of glyphosate on Fusarium spp.: its influence on root colonization of weeds, propagule density in the soil, and crop emergence." Can. J Microbiol. Vol 33, pp354-360. Sanogo, S., et al,(2000) "Effects of herbicides on Fusarium solani f. sp glycines and development of sudden death syndrome in glyphosate-tolerant soybean." Phytopathology, v. 90 (N1): 57-66. Mycorrhizae are soil fungus that function to increase nutrient uptake by plants through a symbiotic association with the roots. Mycorrhizae have been implicated in the improved resistance to stress, and are necessary for the proper growth and development of most vascular plants. Studies have shown that glyphosate inhibits the growth of mycorrhizae. Killing of beneficial mycorrhizae can result in overgrowth of toxic or pathogenic fungus, such as Fusarium. Estok, D. et al (1989) , "Effects of the herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate, hexazinone, and trichopyr on the growth of three species of ectomycorrhizal fungi." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology v 42, pp 835-839. Levesque, C.A. and Rahe, J.E. (1992), "Herbicidal interactions with fungal root pathogens, with special reference to glyphosate." Annual Review of Phytopathology v.30, 572-602. Glyphosate destroys nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Plants are dependent on the availability of inorganic nitrogen in the soil. In order to be utilized by plants, nitrogen must be fixed by the addition of oxygen. Nitrification, the oxidative conversion of ammonium ions to nitrate, produces the principle form of nitrogen assimilated by higher plants, and is under control of relatively few species of bacteria. Hendricks, C.W. (1992), "Effects of glyphosate and nitapyrin on selected bacterial populations in continuous-flow culture." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology v. 49, 417-424. Glyphosate bound to soil particles may still be toxic and bioavailable to filter feeders, such as crustaceans and molluscs, and potentially other organisms that ingest significant quantities of soil during normal feeding, including bottom-feeding fish, shorebirds, amphibians, and some mammals. Welten, R., et al. (2000), "Ecotoxicity of contaminated suspended solids for filter feeders (Daphnia magna)." Archives of Env. Contam. And Tox. 39 (3): 315-323. Glyphosate - Notes on Environmental Fate and Application Glyphosate's toxicity is compounded by its persistence in the environment. Many studies show that glyphosate remains, chemically unchanged in the environment, for periods of up to a year. Recent research suggests that even when glyphosate binds to soil particles, it will cyclically "desorb" or lose its attraction to soil and become active as an herbicide. Persistence and degradation Soil: "Field half-lives range from 1-174 days, moderately persistent with estimated average half-life of 47 days" Wauchope, RD, et al. Pesticide Property Database for Environmental Decision Making. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicology, 1992. Weed Science Soc. Of America. Herbicide Handbook 7th Edition. 1994. Pp 10-58. "Persisted in soils in Oregon Coast Range with half-life of 55 days" Newton, M, et al. 1984 Fate of glyphosate in an Oregon forest ecosystem. J. Food Agric. Chem. 32:1144-1155. "Persisted for 360 days in three Canadian boreal forest site" Roy, DN, et al. 1989. Persistence, movement, and degradation of glyphosate in selected Canadian boreal forest soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 37:437-440. Water: "Half-life in pond water is 10-12 weeks" USDA Pesticide Background Statements. Vol I: Herbicides. Wash DC, 1987 pp 6-10. US EPA Pesticide Tolerance for glyphosate. Fed. Reg. 57:873940. 1992 pp 10-98. "Half-life of glyphosate (Accord) in forest pond sediments was 400 days" World Health Organization, UNEP, 1994. Glyphosate. Environmental health criterion #159. Geneve, Switzerland. "The rate of glyphosate degradation in soil correlates with the respiration rate, an estimate of microbial activity. Glyphosate has been found to inhibit growth (at 50ppm) of 59% of randomly selected soil bacteria, fungal, actinomycete, and yeast isolates; of nine herbicides tested, glyphosate was the second most toxic." This infers that with extensive glyphosate use, soil microbes are killed which degrade glyphosate, thus slowing degradation and increasing persistence. Glyphosate is much more persistent in anaerobic soils than aerobic. Carlisle, SM and Trevors, JT. Glyphosate in the environment. 1988. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 39:409-412. In water, glyphosate seems to bind tightly to soil particles, supposedly reducing the freely circulating glyphosate in water. One study shows that the desorption rate of glyphosate, the rate at which it unbinds from soil particles, can be high. Thus, the persistence of glyphosate bound to soil in the environment maintains its toxicity, to some degree. This study found that, "80% of applied glyphosate desorbed from soil particles in a two-hour period." Piccolo, A. et al. 1994. Adsorption and desorption of glyphosate in some European soils. J Environ. Sci. Health B29 (6) : 1105-1115. Restrictions on aerial application in the U.S. Label on most glyphosate products read: "Do not apply to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the high water mark. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters and rinsate." "Do not aerially apply higher than ten feet above the top of the highest vegetation treated." |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
"Dave Gower" "Nature-Hating Republican Liar" wrote in message ...
"Bill Oliver" wrote ... Smashing in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity. In fact, studies which look at real criteria repeatedly have found that it is safe when used properly. I think this is an succinct and definitive rebuttal to the hysterical dogmatism of Paghat and other unthinking haters of big business. Nature-Hating Republican Liar: http://abcbirds.org/pesticides/Profiles/glyphosate.htm Glyphosate Toxicity http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...undup+toxicity http://www.holisticmed.com/ge/roundup.html Monsanto's Toxic Roundup 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. http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/page4.html Research on RoundUp's Toxicity--Part I Ingestion of RoundUp has been shown to cause "irritation of the oral mucous membrane and gastrointestinal tract…pulmonary dysfunction, oliguria, metabolic acidosis, hypotension, leukocytosis and fever." Monsanto's own toxicologist, Rebecca Tominack, participated in this study. (Tominack RL, Yang GY, Tsai WJ, Chung HM, Deng JF, 1991. Taiwan National Poison Center survey of glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ingestions. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1991; 29 (1): 91-109) |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates using
glyphosate as table salt, nor nearly as apt to believe safety statistics generated by people hired away from Philip Morris to whitewash glyphosate as tidily as they previously whitewashed cigarettes. I'm also sure not many people would trust any statement generated by Monsanto researchers, once aprised that of their long & continuing history of lying & falsifying data, their thirty years of insisting agent orange was as safe as glyphosate is now being only the tip of the iceberg. The more recent issue of their claiming bovine growth hormone does not remain in the milk you & I buy was based on data revealed to be falsified. But even knowing nothing Monsanto claims can be relied upon, and at best it is wrong, dangerous, & unnecessary to use RoundUp, people use it anyway, a mite guiltily, perhaps furtively, but the endless need to weed the garden wears some gardeners down, and maybe just this once, just this tenth, just this spot, just this weed -- and it's just impossible to set foot in a garden store without being tempted by toxins that promise easy shortcuts for this or that. Would it change anything to know that Monsanto is politically active against free speech? Because they are. By means of lobbying & paying huge amounts of money to Congress, Monsanto was handed a special law that made it illegal to mention on organic products such as milk or corn flour that it is completely free of genetically engineered products. Armed with this special legistlation written specifically for Monsanto, so that stating mere facts is criminalized, they have gotten the government involved in suppressing factual labeling. They simultaneously going into civil courts to sue organic farmers out of business -- because even if Monsanto loses, they can better afford the legal costs -- whenever any advertisement or newspaper editorial or commentary of any kind implies even indirectly that genetically engineered products or bovine growth hormones (major Monsanto products) might be less than ideal. The goal is to stop farmers from even mentioning if their products are free of GM products, and using as their premise the idea that even to mention its lack implies that its inclusion is harmful therefore they have a civil suit for slandering their products. They really don't care if they're wrong or right; they just want to stop the discussion and honest labeling; they want to stop organic farming because their profits hinge on the success of chemical-dependant farmers; & they want the public to be as unaware as they can possibly keep people. So even if Billo weren't being absurdist when stating glyphosate could be safely used as table salt and good science about glyphosate can be had from the same hired guns who previously whitewashed tobacco... even if that were in some alternate universe actually plausible, even then, we should not support a company that is against free speech. Fox TV, lately trying to sue Al Frank out of his constitutional write to satirize Fox TV, is also joining forces with Monsanto to stop free speech about genetically engineered products: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/fox.html And you thought only in their trashiest "news" editorials were they far-right Republicans. Here's a legal expert's take on Monsanto's ongoing assaults on free speech: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment...4_jackson.html The important statement to take out of this is: THE MONSANTO SUIT UNDERMINES FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Period. I remember organic farmers being sued by Monsanto as long ago as fifteen years, when I was a volunteer at the Food Coop and first became aware of their more sinister tactics in trying to stop organic farming by whatever tactics they could concoct. So this is nothing new, andtheir current attempts to drown a small New England dairy in legal costs for selling growth-hormone-free milk is merely the latest of hundreds of campaigns Monsanto has undertaken. It's about time one of these disgusting acts against small, honest farmers became a cause celebre, & Monsanto seems finally to have awakened the wrath of civil rights attorneys. If I don't want bovine growth hormones in my milk, I should be permitted the right to select an organic product that has none. In almost any other country this information is available, and some countries have even banned these Frankenfood hormone-tainted products for human consumption. But in the good ol' USA, Monsanto was able to pay Congress to back their desire to criminalize merely stating genetically engineered products and hormones are not used. Monsanto's claim that the growth hormone is safer than table salt is beside the point. The claim is itself highly questionable & they Monsanto was caught (again!) in the this past year falsifying data about this hormone. But even if it WAS completely safe, I should be permitted the right to select products without growth hormone if I want, whether from paranoia, over caution, because I hope for better treatment of cows than occurs on chmically-boosted factory lines, or because my religion doesn't permit it. By Monsanto's reasoning it could become illegal to mention a product lacks PORK because to mention it contains pork implies it is unhealthful. I sure as hell don't want to eat pork because the pork industry got the kind of special laws Monsanto has been given that would deny me the right to know what has pork in it, with the pork industry suing kosher restaurants the way Monsanto is suing organic farmers. Make no mistake. These people are not satisfied merely to poison you for profits. They want to take away your civil rights as well. The people who lied about Agent Orange will lie about everything. And there's nothing liars hate more than the truth, as the light of truth always shows them out to have none on their side. -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/ |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
"paghat" wrote in message ... I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates using glyphosate as table salt, nor nearly as apt to believe safety statistics generated by people hired away from Philip Morris to whitewash glyphosate as tidily as they previously whitewashed cigarettes I'm not sure it really matters. At the rate that resistance in weeds is increasing the use of glypohosate may become meaningless in the near future. http://www.discover.com/sep_03/breaknumbers.html ( see graph ) "Since genetic engineers devised herbicide-resistant crops in the mid-1990s, weed killers such as Roundup have become the wonder drugs of the farming industry, clearing out pest plants while leaving corn and soybeans intact. But weeds are developing resistance as well. Weed specialist Ian Heap and his colleagues at the International Survey for Herbicide Resistant Weeds in Corvallis, Oregon, have found that more than 50 species of herbicide-tolerant weeds have popped up just since 1995-a trend fueled by the 2 billion pounds of herbicide farmers dump on their crops every year. "We're very concerned, because so many soy and corn farmers rely solely on Roundup for weed control," he says. He is urging farmers to use different herbicides each year and to invest in old-fashioned methods of weed control, such as tilling the soil. " |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter