What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
Well, if you want to compare it to table salt. I wouldn't put it on my
food, but then I wouldn't use salt to kill weeds. Unless it is in the driveway and I don't plan to grow anything there for many years. Ok the truth, if you buy the right formulation for the job it would be effective and safe on the environment. It is not soil active and some formulations are designed for aquatic use that will breakdown rapidly after application. But remember to read the label to determine what the safe uses are for that formulation. There are now over 100 different brands and formulations of glyphosate, commonly referred to as "Round-UP." " wrote in message m... Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
Who makes money from you using or not using the product. Who should you
trust? -- Joseph E. Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math " wrote in message m... Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
From http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pestcide/glyphos.html:
Glyphosate; Pesticide Fact Sheet, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service by Information Ventures, Inc. III. Environmental Effects/Fate: Soil: Residual Soil Activity: Glyphosate is not generally active in the soil. It is not usually absorbed from the soil by plants. Adsorption: Glyphosate and the surfactant used in Roundup are both strongly adsorbed by the soil. Persistence and Agents of Degradation: Glyphosate remains unchanged in the soil for varying lengths of time, depending on soil texture and organic matter content. The half-life of glyphosate can range from 3 to 130 days. Soil microorganisms break down glyphosate. In tests, the surfactant in Roundup has a soil half-life of less than 1 week. Soil microorganisms break down the surfactant. Metabolites/Degradation Products and Potential Environmental Effects: The main break-down product of glyphosate in the soil is aminomethylphosphonic acid, which is broken down further by soil microorganisms. The main break-down product of the surfactant used in Roundup is carbon dioxide. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Water: Solubility: Glyphosate dissolves easily in water. Potential For Leaching Into Ground-Water: The potential for leaching is low. Glyphosate and the surfactant in Roundup are strongly adsorbed to soil particles. Tests show that the half-life for glyphosate in water ranges from 35 to 63 days. The surfactant half-life ranges from 3 to 4 weeks. Surface Waters: Studies examined glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) residues in surface water after forest application in British Columbia with and without no-spray streamside zones. With a no-spray streamside zone, very low concentrations were sometimes found in water and sediment after the first heavy rain. Where glyphosate was sprayed over the stream, higher peak concentrations in water always occurred following heavy rain, up to 3 weeks after application. Glyphosate and AMPA residues peaked later in stream sediments, where they persisted for over 1 year. These residues were not easily released back into the water. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Air: Volatilization: Glyphosate does not evaporate easily. Potential For By-Products From Burning of Treated Vegetation: Major products from burning treated vegetation include phosphorus pentoxide, acetonitrile, carbon dioxide and water. Phosphorus pentoxide forms phosphoric acid in the presence of water. None of these compounds is known to be a health threat at the levels which would be found in a vegetation fire. Dave " wrote in message m... Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
" wrote in message m... Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are the latest opinions? I've used it for years, either hand-sprayed in a squirt bottle or pained on with a brush. Not once have I seen any degradation in plants that were close to the treated foliage except in cases of accidental overspray. It really is quite amazing how you can kill a plant and one right next to it doesn't even notice. I sometimes use plastic to protect a desirable plant, or simply wash it off with a watering can after spraying. So for what it's worth, my experience is that Monsanto is telling the truth. |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
" wrote:
Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath through the invertebrates that encounter it. It has a very short stability profile, however; so, it doesn't hang around to keep killing. And, as herbicides go, it's pretty safe for humans if handled correctly. So, basically, it comes down to the old question of cost-benefit ratios: Is the advantage of one-pass defoliation worth the loss of all your invertebrates in this particular instance? Chris Owens -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:01:44 -0400, Chris Owens
wrote: " wrote: Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath through the invertebrates that encounter it. It has a very short stability profile, however; so, it doesn't hang around to keep killing. And, as herbicides go, it's pretty safe for humans if handled correctly. So, basically, it comes down to the old question of cost-benefit ratios: Is the advantage of one-pass defoliation worth the loss of all your invertebrates in this particular instance? Chris Owens What I really need to know is its effect on ground water. Jack |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
I believe it was the court in New York State which addressed the idiotic
marketing device they used "...safe as table salt..." and were forced to stop using said slogan many years ago. On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:41:33 GMT, (brojack) wrote: On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:01:44 -0400, Chris Owens wrote: " wrote: Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath through the invertebrates that encounter it. It has a very short stability profile, however; so, it doesn't hang around to keep killing. And, as herbicides go, it's pretty safe for humans if handled correctly. So, basically, it comes down to the old question of cost-benefit ratios: Is the advantage of one-pass defoliation worth the loss of all your invertebrates in this particular instance? Chris Owens What I really need to know is its effect on ground water. Jack |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
"brojack" wrote in message ... What I really need to know is its effect on ground water. Jack Water: Solubility: Glyphosate dissolves easily in water. Potential For Leaching Into Ground-Water: The potential for leaching is low. Glyphosate and the surfactant in Roundup are strongly adsorbed to soil particles. Tests show that the half-life for glyphosate in water ranges from 35 to 63 days. The surfactant half-life ranges from 3 to 4 weeks. Surface Waters: Studies examined glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) residues in surface water after forest application in British Columbia with and without no-spray streamside zones. With a no-spray streamside zone, very low concentrations were sometimes found in water and sediment after the first heavy rain. Where glyphosate was sprayed over the stream, higher peak concentrations in water always occurred following heavy rain, up to 3 weeks after application. Glyphosate and AMPA residues peaked later in stream sediments, where they persisted for over 1 year. These residues were not easily released back into the water. There are plenty of other peer-reviewed studies on glyphosate's effects on water...... |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
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. -- Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to Visit my Rhododendron and Azalea web pages at: http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhody.html Also visit the Rhododendron and Azalea Bookstore at: http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhodybooks.html Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
(brojack) wrote:
What I really need to know is its effect on ground water. We have a shallow well (19') and this year the water level is only down a couple feet below the surface. We are very carefull about what we spray around our yard because we know we are going to end up drinking it. We use roundup and have never had any problems and our well has never tested showing any chemicals. We use roundup with a hand sprayer. The roundup is rendered harmless by the soil. As it goes through the soil it gets chemically tied up by any clay in the soil. -- Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to Visit my Rhododendron and Azalea web pages at: http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhody.html Also visit the Rhododendron and Azalea Bookstore at: http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhodybooks.html Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
N. Vigfusson & E. Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57, found
that glyphosate has a genetic mutagenic effect on human lymphic cells. To Monsanto of course that translates "unproven for cancer," but what it really shows is that glyphosate at least sets in motion conditions that result in nonhodgson's lymphoma, as further shown to be the situation by L. Hardell & M. Eriksson in "A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma" in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, March 15, 1999. A conservative assessment of these studies would indicate further study is needed to be sure the indicators, at this point being ALL against glyphosate, can always be substantiated; but the studies could be done fifty times with the same outcome & it would still be unproven by Monsanto's standard of lying & propogandizing. When one begins to accumulate peer-reviewed studies, it soon becomes obvious that the vast majority indict RoundUp's allegedly "safe as salt" key ingredient as a threat to the environment & to human health. In Australia it is already banned for use near wetlands. (During Australian court battles with Monsanto, company flacks were forced to admit to the accuracy of a study that showed glyphosate caused testicular tumors in rabbits, and had caused "severe" environmental damage -- but Monsanto argued this was a localized effect and would not happen elsewhere -- not that they studied that of course.) When one finds "positive" studies they turn out not to be peer reviewed, & were either done at Monsanto labs, written by Monsanto propogandists, were Monsanto-funded studies & did not qualify for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The worst studies are promulgated through corporate-sponsored ExToxNet, & CanTox, which cam look useful at first glance but are complete fraud that exists primarily to whitewash any deadly toxin that is of economic importance to the sponsoring corporations, notably Monsanto. The best studies are ignored or quoted out of context. One way to make glyphosate look "good" in slanted studies is to note only that the chemical breaks down quickly in the environment. Monsanto-bought studies don't look at what glyphosate breaks down into: Glyphosate easily nitrosates, forming N-nitrosoglyphosate, an unsafe chemical in its own right, & which degrades into Formeldehydemm Sarcosine, Methylamine, & aminomethylphosphonic acid -- so if it were even slightly true glyphosate per se does not migrate to water, this would be because deadly break-down chemicals do so instead. To Monsanto this translates "glyphosate does not migrate to water." Well, actually, it does, & Western Australia studies have proven it, but even in environments where the glyphosate itself is broken down rapidly hence cannot itself migrate to water, the harmful chemicals it breaks down into DO migrate to water. Monsanto sources take quotes out of context from real science, mix it with their own fake science such as that which they sponsor through Academic Press (a corporate publisher with sciency-sounding titles on the non-peer-review magazines), then post it to the web via the corporate-sponsored Extoxnet, & voila, easily accessed propoganda with no balance of science remaining. A western Australia study established that three species of frog were now extinct because of glyphosate products. Separate & supportive studies on loss of frogs & tadpoles in Canada have further established at least ONE permanent & irrepairable effect of glyphosate products on frogs: Extinction. The studies that have indicated that glyphosate itself may be involved in the rising rates of lymphatic cancers in humans is frightening enough, but the chemical mixes that have reach wetlands are undeniably involved in the mass extinction of frogs -- so the only sensible decision in light of even that one issue would have to be STOP USING THESE POISONS. Monsanto, while fighting in the Australian courts to not reveal what the miscellaneous ingredients in their glyphosate products really are, & to limit the scope of eventual bans on several once-normative uses of glyphosate in western Australia, rather like the cigarette companies at first would not admit to any faults in their products, but eventually did admit their glyphosate products had indeed caused "severe local effects" in the Australian environment, & also finally admitted that the low-organic-matter soils in Australia meant their glyphosate products would not biodegrade even after a full year. A few years back the EPA was preparing to put some heavy-duty restrictions on glyphosate. But Monsanto has some powerful lobbyists and have bankrolled many a congressional campaign. So congressmen in Monsanto's back pocket instructed the EPA to be more Monsanto-friendly. The public is not even allowed to know what the miscellaneous contents of products like RoundUp really are. The lab tests on pure chemicals ultimately do not apply to the toxic "mixes" of chemicals in these products. "Mixes" of chemicals can become increasingly dangerous; for instance, Monsanto doesn't want anyone to know that glyphosate used in the proxity of phosphates triples in toxicity -- which means really the label should carry the "Warning: do not use near areas that are fertilized." In 1996 Judge Robertson by court order forced Monsanto to reveal other ingredients of their glyphosate-based brands, but the list was then sealed by court order, so the public still does not know. Fifteen chemicals ARE known for RoundUp alone, but the packaging lists far fewer. NO STUDY has ever been done on the actual chemical mixes in play, and the public and independent researchers are not even allowed to know what those chemicals might be. But independent studies have measured toxins in watersheds, & it is clear that these deadly Monsanto products already pollute exactly the kind of areas Monsanto- purchased studies pretend aren't harmed. -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?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:45:16 GMT, "Stephen M. Henning"
wrote: (brojack) wrote: What I really need to know is its effect on ground water. We have a shallow well (19') and this year the water level is only down a couple feet below the surface. We are very carefull about what we spray around our yard because we know we are going to end up drinking it. We use roundup and have never had any problems and our well has never tested showing any chemicals. We use roundup with a hand sprayer. The roundup is rendered harmless by the soil. As it goes through the soil it gets chemically tied up by any clay in the soil. It has been banned in Denmark because of its effect on ground H2O. That's what prompted the question. Jack |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
brojack wrote:
Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath through the invertebrates that encounter it. It has a very short stability profile, however; so, it doesn't hang around to keep killing. And, as herbicides go, it's pretty safe for humans if handled correctly. So, basically, it comes down to the old question of cost-benefit ratios: Is the advantage of one-pass defoliation worth the loss of all your invertebrates in this particular instance? Chris Owens What I really need to know is its effect on ground water. Jack Jack, that depends entirely on the type of soil through which the RoundUp needs to go to get to the groundwater. All soils bind it to some extent; clay does quite heavily. Howsomever, any that does reach the ground water will have the same devastating, albeit brief, effect on the invertebrates there as it does in your garden. I assuredly would not think it safe for people to drink from a well supplied by such water until the glyophosphate had broken down. Chris Owens -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
paghat wrote: N. Vigfusson & E. Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57, found that glyphosate has a genetic mutagenic effect on human lymphic cells. To Monsanto of course that translates "unproven for cancer," but what it really shows is that glyphosate at least sets in motion conditions that result in nonhodgson's lymphoma, as further shown to be the situation by L. Hardell & M. Eriksson in "A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma" in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, March 15, 1999. A conservative assessment of these studies would indicate further study is needed to be sure the indicators, at this point being ALL against glyphosate, can always be substantiated; but the studies could be done fifty times with the same outcome & it would still be unproven by Monsanto's standard of lying & propogandizing. Of course, when you use near-lethal doses of *anything,* one can induce mutagenic effects. Using this criteria, table salt is a deadly poison. In one recent study, in order get teratogenic effects, rats were fed 1000 mg/kg of Roundup, which is the LD50. Sure enough, 50% died, and those that did not die had funny-looking babies. (Dallegrave E, Mantese FD, Coelho RS, Pereira JD, Dalsenter PR, Langeloh A. The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicol Lett. 2003 Apr 30;142(1-2):45-52.) This is consistent with multiple studies over the past two decades. But then, even Monsanto doesn't suggest that you eat 1000 mg/kg/day of the stuff. And, of course, the lymphocyte studies you mention use the single worse criteria for genetic damage -- sister chromatid exchange -- which can be caused by osmotic effects as easily as the test substrate. The study you mention by Vigfusson in 1980 used such high doses that most cells died outright. The results were not dose-related and were not internally consistent (i.e. cells from the same donor showed a response in one run and no response in another). The authors themselves wrote that their dose was so high that cytotoxicity was a confounding factor. Even were the results positive, the meaning of sister chromatid exchange is not known. If one looks at the myriad *other* mutagenicity studies that have been done, the picture is very different. Roundup is nonmutagenic at reasonable doses in repeated studies involving bacterial mutation assays, HGPRT locus studies, chromosome breakage studies, and others. There is one chromosome breakage study that found positive results at levels 70 times lower than most others, but used an unaccepted method, including incubating the cells in the substrate for 72 hours (where the OECD and EEC accepted method is 4 and 20 hours). Further, cytologic morphologic evaluation showed cytotoxicity, again making the results questionable. Killing cells always results in chromosome breaks. This study was also inconsistent in that it found breaks in human cells but none in bovine cells. The bottom line is that the studies that show effects are invariably those that are done in conditions where most of the cells are dying anyway -- from such a high dose, from osmotic stress, etc. 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. For instance, a more recent analysis from the Department of Pathology, New York Medical College (Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC, Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;31(2 Pt 1):117-65. ) found: The oral absorption of glyphosate and AMPA is low, and both materials are eliminated essentially unmetabolized. Dermal penetration studies with Roundup showed very low absorption. Experimental evidence has shown that neither glyphosate nor AMPA bioaccumulates in any animal tissue. No significant toxicity occurred in acute, subchronic, and chronic studies. Direct ocular exposure to the concentrated Roundup formulation can result in transient irritation, while normal spray dilutions cause, at most, only minimal effects. The genotoxicity data for glyphosate and Roundup were assessed using a weight-of-evidence approach and standard evaluation criteria. There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic. Glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA were not teratogenic or developmentally toxic. There were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with glyphosate. Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or subchronic studies. Results from standard studies with these materials also failed to show any effects indicative of endocrine modulation. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. For purposes of risk assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA... Acute risks were assessed by comparison of oral LD50 values to estimated maximum acute human exposure. It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans. When one begins to accumulate peer-reviewed studies, it soon becomes obvious that the vast majority indict RoundUp's allegedly "safe as salt" key ingredient as a threat to the environment & to human health. Quite the opposite. Repeated studies have shown that it is very safe. The presence of toxicity at very, very high doses in rats does not contradict this. In Australia it is already banned for use near wetlands. Litigation is not science. Political agendas are not a substitute for real science. When one finds "positive" studies they turn out not to be peer reviewed, & were either done at Monsanto labs, written by Monsanto propogandists, were Monsanto-funded studies & did not qualify for publication in peer-reviewed journals. This is, of course, circular. Anybody who writes an article that shows the safety of Roundup is dismissed as a "Monsanto propagandist." billo |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:24:53 -0400, brojack wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:45:16 GMT, "Stephen M. Henning" wrote: (brojack) wrote: What I really need to know is its effect on ground water. We have a shallow well (19') and this year the water level is only down a couple feet below the surface. We are very carefull about what we spray around our yard because we know we are going to end up drinking it. We use roundup and have never had any problems and our well has never tested showing any chemicals. We use roundup with a hand sprayer. The roundup is rendered harmless by the soil. As it goes through the soil it gets chemically tied up by any clay in the soil. It has been banned in Denmark because of its effect on ground H2O. That's what prompted the question. The Eros have turned into rabid, precautionary chemophobes. They have banned common-place garden chemicals used for decades. You even have to turn into the authorities any unused products. I guess it will get dumped on top of all the old fridges! Europe will soon turn into a Amish-like technogolgy-deprived backwater. The eastern countries are stupid to want to trade in their new-found freedom for the regulator's paradise of Europe. Jack |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: In article , paghat wrote: N. Vigfusson & E. Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57, found that glyphosate has a genetic mutagenic effect on human lymphic cells. To Monsanto of course that translates "unproven for cancer," but what it really shows is that glyphosate at least sets in motion conditions that result in nonhodgson's lymphoma, as further shown to be the situation by L. Hardell & M. Eriksson in Of course, when you use near-lethal doses of *anything,* one can induce mutagenic effects. Using this criteria, table salt is a deadly poison. ... . Smashing in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity. [billo's cut-&-paste job deleted for space] Nice that you're steeped in the Monsanto party line, which you tidily paraphrase from Monsanto's official response to peer-reviewed independent studies that showed a connection between glyphosate & lymphoma. Going the Monsanto party line just won't do. Because first of all, some of the studies that indict glyphosate in fact regard MINIMAL exposures, so that Monsanto's tiresome "even table salt is a poison" argument ends up being as big a red herring as it was when the New York Attorney General sued them over the table salt argument, & won. It appears that you believed Monsanto rather than checking the studies, because the Hardell & Ericksson study BY NO MEANS subjected anyone to lethal doses of anything. So you repeated the lie that cancer or cell death was caused by near-lethal doses, and anything less is safe as salt. Simple logic would indicate nobody induced lymphic cancer in humans by feeding them lethal doses of glyphosate, yet that's what you're claiming yourself to believe. In reality, the 404 lymphoma victims in the Swedish study were individuals who presented at a cancer center because they had cancer, they were not volunteers given lethal doses of glyphosate. The study they became part of sought to find lifestyle associations for ordinary lymphoma patients, and included assessments of diet, smoking, drinking, weight, workplace, hobbies, and environment, in a large enough group to find statistical significance. They were not looking to prove Monsanto gave these people cancer, it just surfaced as statistically significant. It was found that the actual incidents of lymphoma encountered in the normal course of medical practice in a cancer clinic could be corrolated to exposure to glyphosate products, and the significance increased dramatically when use of these products was continued for ten or more years. The control group was twice the size the lymphoma sufferers, and there was no similar connection found for healthy people. THAT is the finding of the Hardell & Ericksson study, and they smashed nobody over the head with lethal doses of glyphosate, salt, or ballpeen hammers. I having trouble believing you intentionally lied, but also having trouble believing you're dumb enough to believe what you paraphrased about the lymphoma connection being true only with lethal doses, as that was simply irrational. What is certain is Monsanto intentionally lied, and what you paragraphased from Monsanto literature is not founded in fact. The lymphoma connection has yet to be refuted by any peer-reviewed research. It is just only one of many reasons responsible gardeners never use RoundUp, but it's an interesting one to focus on if only because Monsanto has put so much extra lobbying efforts in the government to keep anything from being done about it, and propoganda effort to muddy simple findings hoping the public will believe their lies foremost. This is, of course, circular. Anybody who writes an article that shows the safety of Roundup is dismissed as a "Monsanto propagandist." Rather, when a pattern well established of "positive" findings coming from Monsanto labs or studies that are funded by Monsanto, but indictments coming from independent research not sponsored by Monsanto; when the "positive" findings are published in non-peer-reviewed journals funded by the chemical and petroleum industries, then paraphrased on industry-financed ExToxNet run by a guy who claims Dioxons are safe and the EPA should stop condemning them; yet negative findings surface in peer-reviewed journals ...... well, it's clear where the propoganda is to be found. It's not circular logic, it's factually propoganda, & worse yet, it's not even true, just as when you suggested those 404 lymphoma victims would have had to have been experimentally given lethal doses of glyphosate in order to get the cancerous results -- that was one of the major Monsanto whoppers, but as propoganda it seems to have worked swell on you. The peer-reviewed science from Sweden ended with recommendations for further studies (which sure as hell will not be funded by Monsanto) because "glyphosate deserves further epidemiologic studies." Monsanto countered exclusively by attempts to condemn the study and several times to undermine the researchers themselves, though that at least failed. Unless Monsanto funded it, or conducted it, and agree with the outcomes, Monsanto just never agrees. Of course propoganda CAN be based on facts. When environmentalists with their clear agenda cite Hardell & Ericksson, they may have a propogandistic purpose, but they don't have to lie because the facts really are against Monsanto. Monsanto clearly believes they have to lie, and so do so. There's also a moral distinction: fact-telling environmentalists are for the environment; lie-telling Monsanto is for the profits. Only Monsanto has something to lose by being truthful. So tell me you were being disengenuous for sophist reasons, & you're actually an organic gardener & get the willies from Monsanto's overt creepiness. -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 ringmay.com,
Tim Miller wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:24:53 -0400, brojack wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:45:16 GMT, "Stephen M. Henning" wrote: (brojack) wrote: What I really need to know is its effect on ground water. We have a shallow well (19') and this year the water level is only down a couple feet below the surface. We are very carefull about what we spray around our yard because we know we are going to end up drinking it. We use roundup and have never had any problems and our well has never tested showing any chemicals. We use roundup with a hand sprayer. The roundup is rendered harmless by the soil. As it goes through the soil it gets chemically tied up by any clay in the soil. It has been banned in Denmark because of its effect on ground H2O. That's what prompted the question. The Eros have turned into rabid, precautionary chemophobes. They have banned common-place garden chemicals used for decades. You even have to turn into the authorities any unused products. I guess it will get dumped on top of all the old fridges! Europe will soon turn into a Amish-like technogolgy-deprived backwater. The eastern countries are stupid to want to trade in their new-found freedom for the regulator's paradise of Europe. Rather, Monsanto gives bags & bags of money to Congressional campaigns, promises jobs for Americans (certainly plenty of jobs for their lobbyists), & in general have the political might to stop EPA dead in its tracks when they were moving to restrict glophosate a few years ago. Apparently the Danes weren't as easily for sale. What induced the Danish response was the discovery that glyphosate had made it into the drinking water at a level five times that which is regarded as safe (make that potentially safe). The finding was that of the Denmark && Greenland Geological Research Institution. Again, they weren't looking to cause Monsanto harm. They merely discovered that two products in particular, Roundup & Touchdown, were ALREADY in groundwater used for drinking purposes at unexpectedly high levels. As when this was discovered to be true in Australia, Monsanto is arguing it's a regional effect and in reality glyphosate breaks down so rapidly it can't possibly be in drinking water. Which is to say, when they are caught out in a lie, they repeat the lie more loudly. The Geological Resarch Institute was IN NO WAY invested in promoting false findings; the findings are real; the Danish response is minimal, since glyphosate will still be legal in some contexts, and fact is, it should be entirely banned. The Institute has said it point-blank, and the Danish Environmental Ministry has repeated it point-blank: Monsanto's claims that glyphosate is rapidly broken down by bacteria in the environment is false. False. What is true is that this claim has never been supported by any research other than was bought & paid for or conducted by Monsanto. The Institute for Environment & Resources at Denmark's Technical University concluded that regional wells in Roskilde and Storstroms cannot be safely used for TEN YEARS. Meanwhile an INDEPENDENT Norwegian study not paid for by Monsanto (for a change) has found that claims of rapid degradation in the environment are untrue. The break-down of glyphosate is unpredictable and extremely varied, but only in rare and ideal conditions as rapid as Monsanto has promulgated for years. A Finish study likewise found that glyphosate lingers at toxic levels for long periods, with an average half-life of 249 days (as opposed to the maximum 60 day halflife claimed by Monsanto). A half dozen studies on glyphosate's long-term destruction of beneficial funguses in the soil credit the possibility that glyphosate usage can render soils entirely incapable of supporting plant life for many years, once the mycorrhizal webs are interupted. Make no mistake. Glyphosate is dangerous stuff. If you and I were the only two dumbass shitheads using it, then it'd be okay, but tons and tons and tons are being dumped everywhere, and Monsanto is developing glyphosate-tolerant crops so that they can sell three, four, TEN times the amount of glyphosate to be dumped on the planet. Monsanto's future hinges on their ability to sell lots of glyphosate to use on glyophosate-resistant crops -- expect them to continue to fight with every weapon they can to keep governments from responding rationally to a very large threat, and to keep the public too confused by Monsanto misinformation to be sure of anything. -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?
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
paghat wrote: In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: In article , paghat wrote: N. Vigfusson & E. Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57, found that glyphosate has a genetic mutagenic effect on human lymphic cells. To Monsanto of course that translates "unproven for cancer," but what it really shows is that glyphosate at least sets in motion conditions that result in nonhodgson's lymphoma, as further shown to be the situation by L. Hardell & M. Eriksson in Of course, when you use near-lethal doses of *anything,* one can induce mutagenic effects. Using this criteria, table salt is a deadly poison. ... . Smashing in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity. [billo's cut-&-paste job deleted for space] Nice that you're steeped in the Monsanto party line, which you tidily paraphrase from Monsanto's official response to peer-reviewed independent studies that showed a connection between glyphosate & lymphoma. No, I actually paraphrased it from a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal. It appears that you believed Monsanto rather than checking the studies, because the Hardell & Ericksson study BY NO MEANS subjected anyone to lethal doses of anything. So you repeated the lie that cancer or cell death was caused by near-lethal doses, and anything less is safe as salt. Wrong again. Perhaps you should read all the studies, not just the ones you like. If, by "the Hardell and Ericksson" study you mean Hardell L, Eriksson M, Nordstrom M. Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies. Leuk Lymphoma. 2002 May;43(5):1043-9., then you are wrong again. In fact, they did not find an increased risk for cancer with Roundup. Try again. While there was a slightly increased univariate association between exposure to Roundup and a rare form of lymphoma, the risk *disappeared* when subjected to multivariate analysis. As the authors state: Among herbicides, significant associations were found for glyphosate (OR 3.04, CI 95% 1.08-8.52) and 4-chloro-2-methyl phenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) (OR 2.62, CI 95% 1.40-4.88). For several categories of pesticides the highest risk was found for exposure during the latest decades before diagnosis. However, in multivariate analyses the only significantly increased risk was for a heterogeneous category of other herbicides than above. Simple logic would indicate nobody induced lymphic cancer in humans by feeding them lethal doses of glyphosate, yet that's what you're claiming yourself to believe. In reality, the 404 lymphoma victims in the Swedish study were individuals who presented at a cancer center because they had cancer, they were not volunteers given lethal doses of glyphosate. And how many of those lymphoma victims had been exposed to glyphosate, eh? If you are quoting the 1999 study, the answer is *three*. What, paghat, is the statistical power of that. You are waxing poetic about a study of three cases and four controls, not 404 cases and a thousand or so controls. Be honest. And the 2002 study showed no increased risk for cancer with glyphosate when other factors were taken into account. Thank you very much. It is very common to find associations between things that are not causal. That's why we do multivariate statistics. Let's say that I found a study saying that people who drive pick-ups have a higher risk of lung cancer. That does not imply that pick-ups cause lung cancer; it may be that more smokers drive pick-ups and *smoking* causes lung cancer. That's why the finding that "in multivariate analysis the only significantly increased risk was for ... other herbicides than above" is important. The study they became part of sought to find lifestyle associations for ordinary lymphoma patients, and included assessments of diet, smoking, drinking, weight, workplace, hobbies, and environment, in a large enough group to find statistical significance. They were not looking to prove Monsanto gave these people cancer, it just surfaced as statistically significant. It was found that the actual incidents of lymphoma encountered in the normal course of medical practice in a cancer clinic could be corrolated to exposure to glyphosate products, and the significance increased dramatically when use of these products was continued for ten or more years. The control group was twice the size the lymphoma sufferers, and there was no similar connection found for healthy people. THAT is the finding of the Hardell & Ericksson study, and they smashed nobody over the head with lethal doses of glyphosate, salt, or ballpeen hammers. What part of "However, in multivariate analyses the only significantly increased risk was for a heterogeneous category of other herbicides than above." do you not understand? The univariate findings disappeared when other factors were taken into account. I having trouble believing you intentionally lied, but also having trouble believing you're dumb enough to believe what you paraphrased about the lymphoma connection being true only with lethal doses, as that was simply irrational. Which is not what I stated, of course. And the study you quote does not support your position. What is certain is Monsanto intentionally lied, and what you paragraphased from Monsanto literature is not founded in fact. No, I paraphrased from the peer-reviewed article I cited. The lymphoma connection has yet to be refuted by any peer-reviewed research. The lymphoma connection was refuted by the authors you cite. It was was never *established* in any peer-reviewed research. [When environmentalists] their clear agenda cite Hardell & Ericksson, they may have a propogandistic purpose, but they don't have to lie because the facts really are against Monsanto. Apparently they *do* have to lie, since you misrepresent the findings. billo |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
Respectfully, this is a terrible thing to do. Please, always apply
glyphosate at the recommended strength. There are other chemicals one can use to paint stumps rather than the foliage sprouts that will kill a tree just fine. Dave "dstvns" wrote in message ... On 10 Aug 2003 05:42:47 -0700, ) wrote: Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack I dont know, but it's as expensive as platinum. A tiny bottle of extra concentrated 50% glyphosate is $70 locally. It is the only thing I know that will kill Norway maple trees. If you chop the tree at the base in springtime, you will have over a dozen 3-foot tall sprouts by fall. A "painted" application of concentrated roundup on the newly-cut stump is extremely effective (coming back to older stumps and painting is not as effective). Pulling a 6-inch stump out of the rocky ground is not an option. I hated the option of using chemicals, but I refused to have my backyard turned into a sanctuary for exotic invasives introduced to this continent and allowed to naturalize and wipe out all other trees and especially native undergrowth.. Dan nw NJ |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
Major Ursa wrote: (Bill Oliver) wrote in : Apparently they *do* have to lie, since you misrepresent the findings. Bill, do you believe that Monsanto is lying about this issue whilest knowing the true facts? Because if they do, they're taking a huge risk with the company. One day the truth will come out and they will be sued by thousands of ppl and institutions (like the Danish governemnt?) being guilty of damages by deception of the public, much like the tabacco- companies are, at present. AFAIK Monsanto is far too businesslike to take an enormous risk like that. Ursa.. No. Monsanto is not lying. The scientists who do the studies that show the safety of the product are not lying. The envirofundamentalists who misrepresent the findings and peddle hysteria are the ones who are lying whilst knowing the facts. billo |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
Major Ursa wrote: (Bill Oliver) wrote in : No. Monsanto is not lying. The scientists who do the studies that show the safety of the product are not lying. The envirofundamentalists who misrepresent the findings and peddle hysteria are the ones who are lying whilst knowing the facts. Allright, and what does paghat the ratgirl think about it? Ursa.. Read the thread. billo |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
do you believe that Monsanto is lying about this issue whilest knowing the true facts? Because if they do, they're taking a huge risk with the company. One day the truth will come out and they will be sued by thousands of ppl and institutions (like the Danish governemnt?) being guilty of damages by deception of the public, much like the tabacco- companies are, at present. AFAIK Monsanto is far too businesslike to take an enormous risk like that. Ursa.. Monsanto has been caught out lying so many times even in courts of law, there's just no question but that they are never a source of truth. Examples on the record: When Monsanto lied to the people of Sturgeon Missouri about the "safety" of chemical spills, they ended up losing the court case & paying over $16 million dollars. What did they lie about? Everything. A deadly chemical gets spilled, they sent in their "experts" (including Frank Dost) to conduct "tests" and "studies" so that they could "prove" the chemical spill couldn't possibly hurt anyone, & then they published as "science" fraudulant studies, & hired spin doctors to interpret the false science in simpler terms for a population they clearly regarded as gullible hicks. They were sued for this fraud & lost because it was discovered their "expert" assessment of the chemical spill dangers was incorrect on the following counts: 1. Lung cancer deaths should have been reported 143% higher than Monsanto claimed. 2. Genitourinary cancer deaths, 108% higher than Monsanto claimed. 3. Bladder cancer death rate, 809% higher than Monsanto claimed. 4. Lymphatic cancer death rate, 92% higher than Monsanto claimed. 5. Death from heart disease, 37% higher than Monsanto claimed. Sworn testimony during the trial proceedings, which had been moved to Illinois, showed that for a period of 30 years Monsanto Chemical Company manipulated, falsified & concealed study results on deaths & cancers associated with their chemical products. If they'd lie for 30 years about that, how long will they also lie about RoundUp? Another 30 years? Forty? Forever? As long as they exist, no doubt. As for business risk, Monsanto's entire future hinges on the INCREASING marketability of RoundUp in tandem with glyphosate-resistant crops no one but themselves can provide. From their point of view they are "far too businesslike" to ever tell the truth, since the goal is to increase sales of a product that shouldn't be sold at all. -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 ,
paghat wrote: Monsanto has been caught out lying so many times even in courts of law, there's just no question but that they are never a source of truth. Examples on the record: When Monsanto lied to the people of Sturgeon Missouri about the "safety" of chemical spills, they ended up losing the court case & paying over $16 million dollars. What did they lie about? Everything. A deadly chemical gets spilled, they sent in their "experts" (including Frank Dost) to conduct "tests" and "studies" so that they could "prove" the chemical spill couldn't possibly hurt anyone, & then they published as "science" fraudulant studies, & hired spin doctors to interpret the false science in simpler terms for a population they clearly regarded as gullible hicks. As opposed, of course, to the hired guns put on by the plaintiffs. You know that your scientific case is lost when you resort to quoting torts as your basis for "truth." The bottom line is that class action torts are not a test for truth in any sense of the word. Junk science is much more often introduced by plaintiffs than defendants in torts, and the courts are incapable of telling the difference. In federal courts, the admissibility of "scientific testimony" rests on the whim of the judge. While the judges are supposed to use certain criteria (called Daubert criteria for federal cases), most judges are largely illiterate when it comes those criteria. One recent study showed, for instance, that only 6% of judges understood the concept of "falsifiability," only 4% understood what "error rate" meant, and only 71% knew what "peer review" meant. (Gatowski, et al. "Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a Post-Daubert World." Law and Human Behavior, Vol 25, 433-458, 2001). As I have noted, what gets in as "scientific testimony" has little to do with science (Oliver, WR, "Truth and Beauty in Forensic Medicine." ACM SIGGRAPH Special Session "Truth Before Beauty: Guiding Principles for Scientific and Medical Visualization." 2003). When it comes to scientific arguments, arguing that something is "understated" by X% because of a *tort finding* is ludicrous. It's like malpractice suits in medicine and the actual presence of negligent care -- there is no relation. Most malpractice suits are made in the absense of negligent care (e.g. most suits are baseless, regardless of the finding), and most people who receive negligent care do not sue. Put a sick kid on the stand and somebody will be putting out money -- regardless of the merits of the case, and regardless of whether it's a malpractice suit or suit against a corporation. And, as far as the *science* goes, Monsanto is not lying about RoundUp. The studies paghat dismisses are not Monsanto studies, and they are published in peer-reviewed journals. billo |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
On 12 Aug 2003 14:11:48 GMT, Major Ursa wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in : Apparently they *do* have to lie, since you misrepresent the findings. Bill, do you believe that Monsanto is lying about this issue whilest knowing the true facts? Because if they do, they're taking a huge risk with the company. One day the truth will come out and they will be sued by thousands of ppl and institutions (like the Danish governemnt?) being guilty of damages by deception of the public, much like the tabacco- companies are, at present. AFAIK Monsanto is far too businesslike to take an enormous risk like that. Ursa.. Apparently you have not kept up. Monsanto is on an endless loop of lawsuits being posed upon them, for any number of reasons. |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article , Major Ursa wrote: (Bill Oliver) wrote in : Apparently they *do* have to lie, since you misrepresent the findings. Bill, do you believe that Monsanto is lying about this issue whilest knowing the true facts? Because if they do, they're taking a huge risk with the company. One day the truth will come out and they will be sued by thousands of ppl and institutions (like the Danish governemnt?) being guilty of damages by deception of the public, much like the tabacco- companies are, at present. AFAIK Monsanto is far too businesslike to take an enormous risk like that. Ursa.. No. Monsanto is not lying. The scientists who do the studies that show the safety of the product are not lying. The envirofundamentalists who misrepresent the findings and peddle hysteria are the ones who are lying whilst knowing the facts. billo Now you're just being silly. Monsanto practices spin control with a highly paied PR department. They falsify data. They have been caught lying repeatedly even to Congress, and under oath in coruts of law. Examples: 1) Their extraordinary cover-up with falsified data after they poisoned the people of Sturgeon Missouri 2) Being fined & forced by the NY Attorney General to stop telling the whopper you repeated earlier in this thread that RoundUp is safe as table salt, and forced to remove from the label the lies that RoundUp was "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly." Though fined & forced to take it off the label, they do keep retelling these lies off-label. 3) Though caught lying by the NY Attorney General in 1996, Monsanto did not chagne their ways, and was again fined in 1998 for claiming in an advertising campaign (contrary to what they were forced to admit on their label) that RoundUp was safe to use around water. The only way these kinds of whoppers can be regarded as accidental & unknowing is if you assume Monsanto lacks even rudimentary knowledge of science. 4) EPA's outraged charges against Monsanto for providing falsified data on the safety of dioxin contamination in their products. 5) Dr Ray Suskind's research for Monsanto which was found they routinely misrepresented data for Monsanto, followed by Monsanto's routine claim that they never imagined any scientist they gave a shitload of money to would actually misrepresent findings in order to get the results Monsanto paid for. 6) Deniability is one of Monsanto's trademarks. In 1994, EPA published information on the falsified Monsanto-funded studies on RoundUp, but once again Monsanto claimed they couldn't possibly have known that by paying Craven Labs for specific findings, with renewed funding guaranteed if the findings suited Monsanto, then the findings they required would be fraudulant. Three Craven Labs employees ended up felony charges, sentenced up to five years in prison, with a large number of employees pleading guilty to lesser charges. "Coincidentally" when Monsanto hired another lab to re-do the research, the new lab obediently came to the exact same conclusions as had been falsified. It's all about not getting caught. 7) Deniability doesn't always work since much of the falsified data comes from Monsanto's own labs & is not just paid for from others. Monsanto's in-house "resaerch" falsified data for artificial sweeteners aspartame & neotame. FDA toxicologists, Drs. Adrian Gross & Jaqueline Verrett, first discovered the intentionally falsified data. 8) And how short can memory be. Both Monsanto and Dow lied for YEARS about Agent Orange, and were again caught falsifying supportive data. In one study alone. Yeah, yeh, that was twenty & fifty years ago, but as late as 2002 at a symposium in Hanoi, Monsanto flacks turned up to again wheedle out of responsibility. Monsanto's most famously revealed (of scores) of lies about Agent Orange was when they sent their scientists into the Nitro West Virginia plant to assess health risks to workers. To get the required results, they removed from their study five outright deaths, denied the presence of unusual cancers that were present in the worker population, & in numerous other ways faked data which Monsanto then used to prove Agent Orange was totally safe. In 1979 one of the key researchers, an outraged Bill Gaffey, sued investigative journalists for defamation of character, & lost. A year later, under oath to Congress, he finally admitted Monsanto hired him specifically to falsify data. Despite admitting under oath in 1980 that he lied for Monsanto, the data was nevertheless published as if authentic in 1983, so ended up in court in 1984: 11) In the lawsuit against Monsanto in 1984, Judith Zack made further admissions under oath of being hired by Monsanto to fake data favorable to Agent Orange and to whitewash the effects of dioxins. Oh hell, there's TONS more on Agent Orange. From the 1950s through the 1990s, it was their RoundUp of the era. The same lying techniques used for decades to favor Agent Orange are today being adapted to support RoundUp. Since RoundUp contains dioxin contaminants, Monsanto is still using falsified Agent Orange data, supplemented by new falsifications, to prove the levels of dioxin in RoundUp are harmless (i.e., see #4 above). 9) Lies of omission. Monsanto has never, and will never, conduct or fund any research on RoudUp-caused deaths. Hospital data shows it to be the #3 most dangerous herbicide or pesticide in terms of actual incidents. Yet Monsanto repeatedly cites its own data alleging safety, a fundamental lie they are committed to retelling as often as they can. 10) EPA findings in 1998 were that on RoundUp labels, Monsanto was still using "false & misleading claims." Now I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in assuming statements that are intentionally "false & misleading" are indeed lies. 11) A 1991 document from EPA, "Impact of Falsified Monsanto Human Studies on Dioxin Regulations by EPA & Other Agencies" confirms that the lying chemical companies do gain by lying, because chemicals that should be regulated end up unregulated on the basis of being lied to by Monsanto and Dow. 12) Monsanto after years of lying about bovine growth hormones not making it into the food chain was caught out in the big lie. Robert Cohen testified in 1999 how the lie went: "90% of Bovine growth hormone is removed by pasteurization at 160 degrees for thirty minutes." This is a lie on two levels. First, milk is pasteurized for FIFTEEN SECONDS, not thirty minutes, so the idea that thirty minutes of pasteurization would fix all but 10% of the problem was a red herring. Second, Monsanto's experiments with lengthy pasteurizing had in reality failed to destroy even 20% of the bovine growth hormone, fully 81% of the hormone remained. The FDA should never have okayed this hormone but they did, because so many FDA operatives take advantage of the "revolving door policy" & leave the FDA for high-paying jobs at Monsanto or its numerous subsidiaries. Plus Cohen discovered that it took only 12 members of congress to sink a bill that had the support of 181 congressmen to not allow milk contaminated with bovine growth hormone to be sold to the public. Those 12 men who stopped the bill were called the Dairy Livestock & Poultry Committee. They had all received PAC money from dairy interests & four accepted monies direct from Monsanto. So the method is first, lie. If that fails, buy off Congress. 13) Suppression of truth-tellers. Monsanto sues whistleblowers, but rewards anyone who supports their views. A secret internal memo was leaked to Gene Watch regarding Monsanto's methods of propogandizing the public by controlling what the public is permitted to find out. The full text of this amazing memo can be found at genewatch.org -- it is an outline for controling or misleading government agencies & the public. Monsanto would, for instance, do whatever it could to control who could attend international symposia on gene modified crops; would promote the views of agreeable scientists pretending to do independent research; would buy off government officials in developing countries; would fight through lobbyists for their continuing right to concoct misleading labels; would do what they could to damage or restrict the careers of independent researchers apt to publish data unfavorable to gene modified crops; would provide "experts" to poison control centers around the world to help them understand nothing Monsanto sells is harmful, under the premise that regional legislators rely on information from poison control centers when fashioning laws to protect the public; & would personally train the technicians for lab work at no cost to the independent labs. 14) Anniston, an impoverished rural town in Alabama populated by disempowered blacks, is one of the hotspots for cancer in America, because of illegal massive dumping of PCBs into their local environment. For 40 years Monsanto and Solutia lied about the intentional dumping & paid millions in court costs to keep from having to settle with the people of Alabama before 2001, when at long last they admitted to guilt, but changed their tactic to argue (successfully, alas) that they shouldn't be forced to pay medical costs for illnesses that take a couple decades to show up. So justice has never been done the people of Anniston. 15) EPA investigator William Sanjour found that Monsanto were chronic liars. The examples he cited included A) Paid for falsified studies then knowingly used the false data that "proved" there was no cancer risk from exposure to dioxins; B) falsified data & sent PR men and attorneys to Sturgeon Missouri to lie face-to-face to spill victims; C) Monsanto lied to plant workers about dangerous exposures that occurred in their chlorophenol plant; D) Monsanto knowingly dumped 30-40 pounds of dioxins per day into the Mississippi throughout the 1970s, lied about it, then lied again when the dioxins were found to have made their way into the food chain; E) Monsanto lied in meetings with EPA about dioxin contaminants in & around their plants; F) Monsanto lied in meetings with OSHA about contaminants in their plants; F) Lied to EPA about the feasibility of studying dioxins at all, to excuse their intentional lack of creditable data, but turned out they had already prepared some falsified data which they were afraid to share since they were being too heavily scrutinized at that moment & figured they'd get caught. The result of Sanjour's findings was that a "full field criminal investigation" should be undertaken against Monsanto because "a potential conspiracy between Monsanto & its officers & employees, exists or has existed to defraud the US EPA, in violation of 18 USC 371. The means of the conspiracy appears to be by (1) providing misleading information to the EPA; (2) intentional failure by Monsanto to fully disclose all pertinent TSCA [Toxic Substances Control Act] related information to the EPA; (3) false statements in notices and reports to EPA; (4) the use of allegedly fraudulent research to erroneously convince the EPA, and the scientific community." After this, some heavy-duty intense lobbying of Congress too place, Congress intervened to shut down EPA's criminal enforcement investigation of Monsanto, & were permitted instead to undertake a two year investigation of whistleblowers. So Monsanto knows: Lying works. There's much, much, much more. "Monsanto" is virtually a synonym for "Dishonesty" and "Liars." Why Billo would tell such whoppers to the contrary is hard to fathom, except that everything he has posted can be found in Monsanto instructions to employees, including the instruction to cloud the issues whenever possible on the internet (which their own PR firm, the Bivings Group, admitted). -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 , Major Ursa
wrote: (paghat) wrote in : As for business risk, Monsanto's entire future hinges on the INCREASING marketability of RoundUp in tandem with glyphosate-resistant crops no one but themselves can provide. From their point of view they are "far too businesslike" to ever tell the truth, since the goal is to increase sales of a product that shouldn't be sold at all. So, what you're saying is that they try to keep up the sales so they are big enough later on to pay for the claims. Or to pay their attorneys so that they never have to pay the claims. Even when they settle out of court, they rarely pay off the settlements. So the real point is that they are so heavily invested in RoundUp they can't let go of it no matter how bad it is, they must use every trick in the book to keep it legal. It directly impacts the nature of the crop seed they're also producing. By providing glyphosate-tolerant grains that grow up to be sterile crops, they trap famers into an eternal cycle of always having to buy new seed, plus they can sell them increasing tons of glyphosate to slather all around the crops. Monsanto will make billions & billions off this selling toxins to use on crops that are genetically modified to be tolerant of toxins. This is already far outpacing what they're making by feeding us harmful bovine growth hormones in milk, as they can't actually control the flow of the milk the way they can control seed crops by altering them to never produce fertile seeds. They could have all their products banned & still be a super-giant so long as they can keep glyphosate legal. So they can afford a few million for the attorneys when billions are the reward. I find it hard to believe that if MS _knows_ that this stuff is as dangerous as you claim it to be that they would go on and make these false statements. So, since they keep doing it, they do not know for sure it is that dangerous. And if they don't _know it, how can _you be so sure. Certainly when the lies add up to thirty years worth & the evidence that they are lying is finally too great & definitive for them to lie any longer, their usual excuse is "we really didn't know." But that assumes there are no actual scientists in the company. They have plenty of scientists. So they know. -paggers Btw, I'm certainly not a friend of MS, far from it, and I disaprove strongly of their business practice of forcing gentech on the rest of the world, but if we can not prove a case as 'clear' as this one, then who is to blame for the consequences? I think MS is a technocrats business plan, but that is just one part of our society. If ppl disagree massively, and the case is as clear as you say, than surely it must me easy to stop them. Ursa.. -- "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 , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article , paghat wrote: Monsanto has been caught out lying so many times even in courts of law, there's just no question but that they are never a source of truth. Examples on the record: When Monsanto lied to the people of Sturgeon Missouri about the "safety" of chemical spills, they ended up losing the court case & paying over $16 million dollars. What did they lie about? Everything. A deadly chemical gets spilled, they sent in their "experts" (including Frank Dost) to conduct "tests" and "studies" so that they could "prove" the chemical spill couldn't possibly hurt anyone, & then they published as "science" fraudulant studies, & hired spin doctors to interpret the false science in simpler terms for a population they clearly regarded as gullible hicks. As opposed, of course, to the hired guns put on by the plaintiffs. You know that your scientific case is lost when you resort to quoting torts as your basis for "truth." The bottom line is that class action torts are not a test for truth in any sense of the word. Junk science is much more often introduced by plaintiffs than defendants in torts, and the courts are incapable of telling the difference. Yes, yes, independent peer reviewed science is not as good as Monsanto's famously fabricated "science," & testimony under oath is not as good as testimony from Monsanto PR flacks. I get ya. Idle curiosity, you're not the same William Oliver who has chaired Monsanto love-fest symposia through the American Chemical Society, inviting primarily Monsanto and DuPont researchers as speakers, persistently giving recognition dinners & awards to Monsanto workers & retirees, gives out chemistry awards funded by Monsanto, & "Fund"amentally kisses Monsanto's butt in order to get them to write out more checks for non-independent research? I don't really think that's you, as I've never regarded you as that sneaky & have enjoyed so many of your posts for, what, three or for years?, but did want to be sure that in this case you're honestly misguided rather than willfully & as a matter of professional courtesy repeating by rote so many Monsanto whoppers right down their "safe as salt" cliche & their idea that testimony under oath is not as reliable as their PR people, that people concerned about the environment are not as truthful as people profiting by selling toxins, & any science not paid for or conducted by Monsanto can't possibly be correct but their press releases are the real truth. -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 ,
paghat wrote: In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: Yes, yes, independent peer reviewed science is not as good as Monsanto's famously fabricated "science," & testimony under oath is not as good as testimony from Monsanto PR flacks. I get ya. Except, of course, that independent peer reveiwed science demonstrated no danger of RoundUp at reasonable doses. Idle curiosity, you're not the same William Oliver who has chaired Monsanto love-fest symposia through the American Chemical Society, inviting primarily Monsanto and DuPont researchers as speakers, persistently giving recognition dinners & awards to Monsanto workers & retirees, gives out chemistry awards funded by Monsanto, & "Fund"amentally kisses Monsanto's butt in order to get them to write out more checks for non-independent research? Oh, please. No, if such a person exists at all. billo |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
paghat wrote: In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: Now you're just being silly. Monsanto practices spin control with a highly paied PR department. They falsify data. They have been caught lying repeatedly even to Congress, and under oath in coruts of law. Examples: [lots of stuff having nothing to do with RoundUp] Whatever. I'm not interested in your fixation on Monsanto, or playing games about them. My point is, and remains, about RoundUp. The bottom line is that independent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show a danger in RoundUp. All your railings about Monsanto don't change that. As far as RoundUp is concerned, they are not lying, and you have not shown that they are. Dredging up accusations from two decades ago doesn't change that simple fact. billo |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article , paghat wrote: In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: Now you're just being silly. Monsanto practices spin control with a highly paied PR department. They falsify data. They have been caught lying repeatedly even to Congress, and under oath in coruts of law. Examples: [lots of stuff having nothing to do with RoundUp] "Monsanto has lied, misrepresented facts, poisoned people & the earth, & put profit before its workers, consumers, farmers, children & communities time and again." -Sarah Wright, Selling Food, Health, Hope: The Real Story Behind Monsanto, 2003 Whatever. I'm not interested in your fixation on Monsanto, or playing games about them. My point is, and remains, about RoundUp. The bottom line is that independent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show a danger in RoundUp. All your railings about Monsanto don't change that. The bottom line is among the independent peer-reviewed studies MANY either prove outright harmfulness while others more conservatively call for further studies to see if the indications of harmfulness can be given further evidence. While the vast majority of positive assessments are generated by Monsanto in-house, funded by Monsanto, designed to find positive elements without looking at harmful elements at all, & even then rarely peer-reviewed. As far as RoundUp is concerned, they are not lying, and you have not shown that they are. Dredging up accusations from two decades ago doesn't change that simple fact billo Funny that stuff happening as recently as 2002 and 2003 is, to you, two decades ago.A fifty year history of lying I did document; the earliest in the 1950s, much more in the 1960s, more still in the 1980s and 1990s, it's still going on now. Lying is an ongoing habit that has never wavered, & their leaed memo outlining their propoganda mission & methods shows that it is in fact their intent to keep lying. A record like that & you continue not to "care" that you're lionizing liars & repeating like a robot dupe Monsanto's press releases. Their own scientists have attested to the lies UNDER OATH in courts & to Congress -- ah, but you've already stated that you think testimony under oath is not as good as a public relations press release from Monsanto. EPA investigators have point-blank called them liars on many issues, no waffling about it, EPA investigators documented Monsanto persistently lying to EPA. OSHA called them liars, no waffling about it there either, just called them liars who fabricate data & get in the way of on-site investigations, then lie to their workers rather than encourage workers to take precautions in the deadly environment of Monsanto plants. Monsanto is synonymous with lying, that part cannot rationally be denied, so get rational. And the only puzzle here is why you'd write such lies as you did just now above, pretending RoundUp is safe or that 2002 was twenty years ago. The "best take" on your above commentary is you might be willing to admit (or at least not deny, and certainly not care) that yeah, yeah, sure, they lied for the entire history of their existence about agent orange, about genetic engineering of crops, about bovine growth hormone -- but you're dead set on the idea that they couldn't possibly be lying about RoundUp. Very twisted. You want more Monsanto lies to not care about? They lied to Percy Schmeiser about the percentage of GM in a canola crop, & when they were discovered to have lied & some farmers made a big stink about it, Monsanto hired thuggish private detectives to pose as Canadian Mounties and threaten the farmers. Not 20 years ago, but 1998. Then in court in 2000 they further lied under oath, & their own employee Morris Hofman later admitted to the lies & his own role in fabricating evidence. Their lies about dioxin contaminants in RoundUp continue to this day. Though they started lying to the sick and dying residents of Anniston two decades ago -- which to you doesn't matter because it was two decades ago -- they were still lying about it in 2001 when secret in-house documents were leaked to the Washington Post, & right now in 2003 they're still fighting to not pay the settlement after all. Monsanto lied to JAMA about Celebrex, misrepresenting from their in-house fake study that "proved" their product was safer than two other arthritis medications, but when the actual data was leaked to JAMA, the editor said, "We were flabberghasted." Because the fact was the data untwinked proved Celebrex had no safety advantages whatsoever -- none -- but to tell the truth wouldn't increase their sales percentage. No, this not 20 years ago, it was in 2001. Pharmacia, Searle, & Upjohn are all part of Monsanto; they were after an increasing sahre of the ten billion dollars per year generated by arthritis analgesics, & lying is second nature to them, so they lied. Though caught in this lie, right now, in 2003, Celebrex is marketed as safer less likely to cause ulcers & liver disease than other products, a known lie. This year they repeated AGAIN a lie that began in 2001, about how safe RoundUp is to dump all over central America to get rid of coca crops. Funny thing is, even if their stats on RoundUp had been true, which of course they're not true, what they actually sent to the government to dump on Columbian citizens was not the RoundUp formula they allege to be safe. Rather, they used trumped up stats for 3% glyphosate formulas, & applied these already dubious stats to a special glyphosate formula that was over 100 times more toxic than what is legal in the Untied States -- that's what was dumped on Columbians as "safe." This was proven to be dumped ON PEOPLE. When in 2001 a Congressman went to Columbia to check on some of this himself, a fly-over accidentally soaked with the toxin, on camera. Further lies for 2002 and 2003 lies have already been found out, but expect many more to be reported in 2004, as more mount up each year. Greed & dishonesty IS what Monsanto is all about. -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?
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:05 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote: Respectfully, this is a terrible thing to do. Please, always apply glyphosate at the recommended strength. There are other chemicals one can use to paint stumps rather than the foliage sprouts that will kill a tree just fine. Roundup at the normal levels is ineffective. I tried it and it was like water, instead of 20 sprouts there would still be 3 or 4. In woods with hudreds of stumps re-application every 2 to 3 weeks is a massive waste of time. Dan |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
paghat wrote: In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: The bottom line is that independent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show a danger in RoundUp. All your railings about Monsanto don't change that. The bottom line is among the independent peer-reviewed studies MANY either prove outright harmfulness while others more conservatively call for further studies to see if the indications of harmfulness can be given further evidence. Nope. So far you have not provided a single such article. The one article you claimed showed harmfulness was noted by the authors *not* to show such harmfulness. The article you quoted about sister chromatid exchange admitted within the article that the findings were equivocal. In fact, the peer-reviewed studies show just the opposite. The better-controlled and more rigorous the study is, the less likely it is to show any effect. Those that have shown *equivocal* effects admit that they have no power. Funny that stuff happening as recently as 2002 and 2003 is, to you, two decades ago.A fifty year history of lying I did document; the earliest in the 1950s, much more in the 1960s, more still in the 1980s and 1990s, it's still going on now. [blah blah blah] Yes, yes. We all know you hate Monsanto. The question at hand, however, is whether or not RoundUp us harmful. The overwhelming evidence is that it is not. The peer-reviewed studies indicate it is not. And all the sidebar bullshit about how much you hate Monsanto doesn't change that. billo |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:44:08 -0400, paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: In article , paghat wrote: Monsanto has been caught out lying so many times even in courts of law, there's just no question but that they are never a source of truth. Examples on the record: When Monsanto lied to the people of Sturgeon Missouri about the "safety" of chemical spills, they ended up losing the court case & paying over $16 million dollars. What did they lie about? Everything. A deadly chemical gets spilled, they sent in their "experts" (including Frank Dost) to conduct "tests" and "studies" so that they could "prove" the chemical spill couldn't possibly hurt anyone, & then they published as "science" fraudulant studies, & hired spin doctors to interpret the false science in simpler terms for a population they clearly regarded as gullible hicks. As opposed, of course, to the hired guns put on by the plaintiffs. You know that your scientific case is lost when you resort to quoting torts as your basis for "truth." The bottom line is that class action torts are not a test for truth in any sense of the word. Junk science is much more often introduced by plaintiffs than defendants in torts, and the courts are incapable of telling the difference. Yes, yes, independent peer reviewed science is not as good as Monsanto's famously fabricated "science," & testimony under oath is not as good as testimony from Monsanto PR flacks. I get ya. I suppose you only believe fake green science from the likes of Needleman, Gould, Epstein, or Landrigan. And what about that big green PR machine that calls itself Greenpeace? They just keep repeating the same lies till people like you start to believe them. Idle curiosity, you're not the same William Oliver who has chaired Monsanto love-fest symposia through the American Chemical Society, inviting primarily Monsanto and DuPont researchers as speakers, persistently giving recognition dinners & awards to Monsanto workers & retirees, gives out chemistry awards funded by Monsanto, & "Fund"amentally kisses Monsanto's butt in order to get them to write out more checks for non-independent research? I don't really think that's you, as I've never regarded you as that sneaky & have enjoyed so many of your posts for, what, three or for years?, but did want to be sure that in this case you're honestly misguided rather than willfully & as a matter of professional courtesy repeating by rote so many Monsanto whoppers right down their "safe as salt" cliche & their idea that testimony under oath is not as reliable as their PR people, that people concerned about the environment are not as truthful as people profiting by selling toxins, & any science not paid for or conducted by Monsanto can't possibly be correct but their press releases are the real truth. -paghat the ratgirl |
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article ,
Major Ursa wrote: Bill, maybe you're right that the fear-and-doubt strategy of the opponents is dishonest and not based on facts. But is it not Monsanto's own fault that we doubt everything they say; is this not the punishment for irresponsible behaviour in the past that I meant? However, none of the peer-reviewed articles I noted are from Monsanto. I am not relying on what Monsanto claims. Thus, whether or not Monsanto has a habit of lying is irrelevant to the pertinent scientific literature, which fails to show a danger of RoundUp. Somehow the capitalist system has to allow for a check on this kind of behavior. And wouldn't it be easy enough for them to admit to their mistakes in the past and start talking to the ppl? Whatever social theory one wants to promulgate has nothing to do with the fact that RoundUp is not a danger. billo |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter