Mindfully.org note:
Roundup Unready just barely touches on the problems with Roundup.
Its target genetically engineered crops are commingling with weedy
relatives, thus creating super weeds. This is indeed a major problem for
commercial farmers around the world. In his article on Jan. 14, 2003, Andrew
Pollack wrote that Roundup-tolerant crops are now found in "Delaware,
Maryland, California, western Tennessee and at the edges of the Corn Belt in
Ohio and Indiana." Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser says superweeds
are ubiquitous throughout Canada.
But I'd like to broaden the scope of discussion here by including
the human and animal health effects of Roundup. It is both a carcinogen
(non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) and an endocrine disruptor (inhibits
steroidogenesis). The testing that revealed those two points looked at
glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, by itself. The complete
formulation is even more toxic.

One of the premises for Roundup and genetically engineered crops was that
they would reduce the use of toxic pesticides. And Roundup was billed as
being "as safe as table salt," until the Attorney General of the State of NY
won a suit against Monsanto for such lies.
Some farmers have had to use as much as 6 times the recommended
amount of Roundup to come close to killing some of those super weeds. To
sidestep the lost efficacy, Monsanto is mixing the good 'ol standard
pesticides into Roundup that it was supposed to safely replace as well as
tweaking the concentration of glyphosate in the mix. The result is that more
toxic chemicals are used in spite of the "official" reports of lowered
quantities.
The Roundup story is also political, but that can wait for another
day.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



NY Times Editorial/Op-Ed 19feb03

One of the most pervasive chemicals in modern agriculture is a herbicide
called glyphosate, which is better known by its trade name, Roundup. When it
was first introduced in 1974, by Monsanto, no one could have predicted its
current ubiquity or the way it would change farming. Roundup was safe,
effective and relatively benign, environmentally speaking. It became one of
the essential tools that made no-till farming - a conservation practice in
which farmers spray weeds rather than plowing the ground - increasingly
popular. But what really made Roundup pervasive was the development of
genetically modified crops, especially soybeans, cotton and corn, that could
tolerate having Roundup sprayed directly on them. The weeds died but these
crops, designated Roundup Ready, thrived. Seventy-five percent of the
soybean crop planted in this country last year was Roundup Ready, as was 65
percent of the cotton and 10 percent of the corn. On soybeans alone last
year, farmers sprayed about 33 million pounds of glyphosate.

But nature, in turn, has been developing some Roundup Ready plants of her
own, weeds that can tolerate being sprayed with Roundup. Two weeds,
mare's-tail and water hemp, have already begun to show resistance, and
others will certainly follow. This is simply natural adaptation at work.

No one is saying that Roundup will lose its overall effectiveness any time
soon. But while Monsanto executives and scientists are doing their best to
protect the herbicide, nature is also throwing all her resources at
defeating it. In a very real sense, nature has been given an enormous
advantage by the sheer ubiquity of Roundup, just as some bacteria are given
an edge by the ubiquity of agricultural antibiotics. The logic of industrial
farming is to use your best tools until they're worthless, and to hasten
their worthlessness by using them as much as you can.

This is precisely why there has been so much opposition to marketing a
variety of corn that includes a BT gene, which creates a toxin that kills an
insect called the corn-borer. BT is a safe, natural and effective weapon for
gardeners and farmers, and to lessen its effectiveness by overusing it, like
Roundup, would be a terrible waste. Industrial agriculture is always
searching for a silver bullet, forgetting that eventually a silver bullet
misfires.

In article bsS2b.6922$n94.6018@fed1read04,
Just another fan wrote:


But I'd like to broaden the scope of discussion here by including
the human and animal health effects of Roundup. It is both a carcinogen
(non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) and an endocrine disruptor (inhibits
steroidogenesis). The testing that revealed those two points looked at
glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, by itself. The complete
formulation is even more toxic.

In fact, this is a lie. The study that is pushed by the ecofundamentalist
hysterics actually notes that Roundup does *not* cause non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma. For some reason the hysterics repeat the findings from an
early, incomplete preliminary study, but somehow magically forget to
note the follow-up study by the *same* authors that concludes that
the association falls out in multivariate analysis. In other words
the authors of the article quoted here come to the opposite conclusion
than that claimed here.


billo

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...

In fact, this is a lie. The study that is pushed by the ecofundamentalist
hysterics actually notes that Roundup does *not* cause non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma. For some reason the hysterics repeat the findings from an
early, incomplete preliminary study, but somehow magically forget to
note the follow-up study by the *same* authors that concludes that
the association falls out in multivariate analysis. In other words
the authors of the article quoted here come to the opposite conclusion
than that claimed here.

Sounds like this guy is a wacko eco nut or was riffed by Monsanto. I'm not
a fan of big government but this stuff had to be cleared under FIFRA by the
EPA.
Frank

and you really, really trust the EPA to be totally independent and looking out for
the consumers ala Ralph Nader (not that I have any use for him after the last
election). Listen, nearly every single politician is in the pocket of corporations,
and they appoint the people who staff the gov'mnt agencies. The FDA is blatantly in
the corporations camp, just look at how they handled rBGH. Ingrid

"Frank Logullo" wrote:
Sounds like this guy is a wacko eco nut or was riffed by Monsanto. I'm not
a fan of big government but this stuff had to be cleared under FIFRA by the
EPA.
Frank




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

So if the government says its OK, we can dump thousands of tons of it onto our
crops? They also said that DDT was completely safe. Just because it doesn't
cause cancer doesn't mean that it is safe. You don't mention the possibility
of endocrine disruption.

Bill Oliver wrote:

In article bsS2b.6922$n94.6018@fed1read04,
Just another fan wrote:


But I'd like to broaden the scope of discussion here by including
the human and animal health effects of Roundup. It is both a carcinogen
(non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) and an endocrine disruptor (inhibits
steroidogenesis). The testing that revealed those two points looked at
glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, by itself. The complete
formulation is even more toxic.

In fact, this is a lie. The study that is pushed by the ecofundamentalist
hysterics actually notes that Roundup does *not* cause non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma. For some reason the hysterics repeat the findings from an
early, incomplete preliminary study, but somehow magically forget to
note the follow-up study by the *same* authors that concludes that
the association falls out in multivariate analysis. In other words
the authors of the article quoted here come to the opposite conclusion
than that claimed here.

billo

Frank Logullo wrote:

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...

In fact, this is a lie. The study that is pushed by the ecofundamentalist
hysterics actually notes that Roundup does *not* cause non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma. For some reason the hysterics repeat the findings from an
early, incomplete preliminary study, but somehow magically forget to
note the follow-up study by the *same* authors that concludes that
the association falls out in multivariate analysis. In other words
the authors of the article quoted here come to the opposite conclusion
than that claimed here.

Sounds like this guy is a wacko eco nut or was riffed by Monsanto. I'm not
a fan of big government but this stuff had to be cleared under FIFRA by the
EPA.
Frank

Initially, so did a lot of other, nasty stuff that has since been removed from
sale to the public. FIFRA and the EPA are not panacaeas for the proliferation of
pesticides - only our best attempt to try to regulate and monitor the spread and
effect of potentially toxic chemicals. Not that I am a huge fan of chemical
pesticides (as most regulars here know) but this "report" is defnitely not an
accurate assessment of the effects of glyphosate. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma has been
linked (tentatively) only to organphosphates, of which substances
glyphosate/RoundUp is not a member.

pam - gardengal

In article ,
Stephen Sassman wrote:
So if the government says its OK, we can dump thousands of tons of it onto our
crops? They also said that DDT was completely safe. Just because it doesn't
cause cancer doesn't mean that it is safe. You don't mention the possibility
of endocrine disruption.


So, if the authors of the article state that there is not an
association between Roundup and non-Hodgkins lymphoma under
multivariate analysis, you should not claim that they say
there is one.

billo

I should not, and I did not. Perhaps you are confusing my post with something that
someone else has posted. My point was that just because this chemical does not
cause this specific kind of cancer does not mean that it doesn't cause other
cancers or have some detrimental affect on the endocrine system. It is wrong to say
that a chemical is safe or not safe unless you take many factors into account
(acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, environmental fate, endocrine
disruption, etc.). Even if thorough research has been conducted, there is the
chance that some unexpected problem will rear its ugly head 20 or 30 years down the
road (remember DDT).

Bill Oliver wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Sassman wrote:
So if the government says its OK, we can dump thousands of tons of it onto our
crops? They also said that DDT was completely safe. Just because it doesn't
cause cancer doesn't mean that it is safe. You don't mention the possibility
of endocrine disruption.

So, if the authors of the article state that there is not an
association between Roundup and non-Hodgkins lymphoma under
multivariate analysis, you should not claim that they say
there is one.

billo

In article , grdngal48
@comcast.net says...
Non-Hodgkins lymphoma has been
linked (tentatively) only to organphosphates, of which substances
glyphosate/RoundUp is not a member.


Glyphosate is considered an organophosphate..that is
where they make the stretch.
--

http://home.comcast.net/~larflu/owl1.jpg

Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!

wrote in message
...
and you really, really trust the EPA to be totally independent and looking
out for
the consumers ala Ralph Nader (not that I have any use for him after the
last
election). Listen, nearly every single politician is in the pocket of
corporations,
and they appoint the people who staff the gov'mnt agencies. The FDA is
blatantly in
the corporations camp, just look at how they handled rBGH. Ingrid


I'm not familiar with rBGH but it has been my experience that unlike
politicians government scientists are honest people.
I would add Nader to the politicians list
Frank

In article ,
Stephen Sassman wrote:
I should not, and I did not. Perhaps you are confusing my post with something that
someone else has posted. My point was that just because this chemical does not
cause this specific kind of cancer does not mean that it doesn't cause other
cancers or have some detrimental affect on the endocrine system.


Or not. You can speculate that it causes you to grow bunny ears
and squeal like a pig if you want. Just note that it is pure
speculation and that you are making it all up. There is no
scientific evidence that Roundup is dangerous to humans
when used as directed. There has been an entire thread
devoted to this.

If you have a scientific article that claims to show that
Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed, trot
it out. Otherwise, I'll believe your bunny ears when I
see them.

billo

You tell em billbo...Yeah! after all what could some analytical
chemist know about detrimental effects...end sarcasm


On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:55:10 -0500, Stephen Sassman
wrote:

I should not, and I did not. Perhaps you are confusing my post with something that
someone else has posted. My point was that just because this chemical does not
cause this specific kind of cancer does not mean that it doesn't cause other
cancers or have some detrimental affect on the endocrine system. It is wrong to say
that a chemical is safe or not safe unless you take many factors into account
(acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, environmental fate, endocrine
disruption, etc.). Even if thorough research has been conducted, there is the
chance that some unexpected problem will rear its ugly head 20 or 30 years down the
road (remember DDT).

Bill Oliver wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Sassman wrote:
So if the government says its OK, we can dump thousands of tons of it onto our
crops? They also said that DDT was completely safe. Just because it doesn't
cause cancer doesn't mean that it is safe. You don't mention the possibility
of endocrine disruption.

So, if the authors of the article state that there is not an
association between Roundup and non-Hodgkins lymphoma under
multivariate analysis, you should not claim that they say
there is one.

billo

In article ,
says...
You tell em billbo...Yeah! after all what could some analytical
chemist know about detrimental effects...end sarcasm

And the operative word in that statement would be "could".
--
Mark

The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.

Triple Z is spam control.

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski newsgroup wrote:
You tell em billbo...Yeah! after all what could some analytical
chemist know about detrimental effects...end sarcasm


You're turning into quite the little ankle-biter, aren't
you, Tom. First you cyberstalk, then you try to use
sock puppets and anonymity, and now you follow me around
from thread to thread.

OK, Tom, my challenge stands.

One single scientific article in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to
humans when used as directed.

One. Just one.

billo

Title: An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on
the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population
Authors: Tye E. Arbuckle,1 Zhiqiu Lin,2 and Leslie S. Mery3
Author's Affiliation: 1Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health,
Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
2Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa,
Ontario Canada; 3Cancer Bureau, Population and Public Health Branch, Health
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


Journal: Environ Health Perspect 109:851-857 (2001).

Abstract:
"The toxicity of pesticides on human reproduction is largely
unknown--particularly how mixtures of pesticide products might affect fetal
toxicity. The Ontario Farm Family Health Study collected data by
questionnaire on the identity and timing of pesticide use on the farm,
lifestyle factors, and a complete reproductive history from the farm
operator and eligible couples living on the farm. A total of 2,110 women
provided information on 3,936 pregnancies, including 395 spontaneous
abortions. To explore critical windows of exposure and target sites for
toxicity, we examined exposures separately for preconception (3 months
before and up to month of conception) and postconception (first trimester)
windows and for early ( 12 weeks) and late (12-19 weeks) spontaneous
abortions. We observed moderate increases in risk of early abortions for
preconception exposures to phenoxy acetic acid herbicides [odds ratio (OR) =
1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-2.1], triazines (OR = 1.4; 95% CI,
1.0-2.0), and any herbicide (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9). For late abortions,
preconception exposure to glyphosate (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9),
thiocarbamates (OR = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), and the miscellaneous class of
pesticides (OR = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) was associated with elevated risks.
Postconception exposures were generally associated with late spontaneous
abortions. Older maternal age ( 34 years of age) was the strongest risk
factor for spontaneous abortions, and we observed several interactions
between pesticides in the older age group using Classification and
Regression Tree analysis. This study shows that timing of exposure and
restricting analyses to more homogeneous endpoints are important in
characterizing the reproductive toxicity of pesticides."



--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/