Nine out of 10 urine samples from people in Malta contained traces of
the weed killer glyphosate, laboratory tests carried out by Friends of
the Earth Malta show.

The results in Malta are mirrored in results across Europe – with 45 per
cent of samples from the 10 volunteers in each of the18 countries found
to contain traces of the chemical.

All volunteers who gave samples live in urban areas, and none had
handled or used glyphosate products in the run up to the tests. This is
the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the
presence of the weed killer in humans.

Because of the small sample, lifestyle conditions will not form any type
of conclusion.

Glyphosate is one of the most widely-used weed killers in the world,
used by farmers, local government and gardeners, as well as being
sprayed extensively on some genetically modified crops imported into
Europe for use as animal feed.

The biggest producer is Monsanto which sells it under the brand name
“Roundup”. Despite its widespread use, its presence in food or water is
rarely monitored by governments.

Martin Galea De Giovanni from Friends of the Earth Malta said:

“Most people will be worried to discover that there is weed killer in
their bodies and will want to know why it is there and what effects it
is having. These results suggest that we are being exposed to glyphosate
in our everyday lives, yet we don’t know where it is coming from, how
widespread it is in the environment, or what it is doing to our bodies.

“This is the most widely used weed killer in Europe and it is surprising
that public authorities rarely test our food or water for it. Now that
Friends of the Earth Malta has discovered that it is widespread in
people’s bodies, it is asking the Maltese Government to immediately
step-up their monitoring to make sure we are not being put at risk.”

The latest National Statistics Office figures for herbicide use (2007)
show a possible increase in glyphosate usage in Malta (as compared to
2005). The high rates obtained from the Maltese sample demands an even
more serious investigation into the source of these herbicides, FoE said.

Fourteen glyphosate-resistant genetically modified crops are currently
waiting for approval for cultivation in the European Union. Some
estimates suggest that if given the go-ahead, glyphosate use could
increase by as much as 800 per cent.

See
https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/bundn...in_analyse.pdf

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:24:30 +0100, David Hill
wrote:


Nine out of 10 urine samples from people in Malta contained traces of
the weed killer glyphosate, laboratory tests carried out by Friends of
the Earth Malta show.

The results in Malta are mirrored in results across Europe – with 45 per
cent of samples from the 10 volunteers in each of the18 countries found
to contain traces of the chemical.

90% in Malta,
45% elsewhere? What sort of mirror are they using?

Where does the water on Malta come from?
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/ground...ity/Malta.html




All volunteers who gave samples live in urban areas, and none had
handled or used glyphosate products in the run up to the tests. This is
the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the
presence of the weed killer in humans.

Because of the small sample, lifestyle conditions will not form any type
of conclusion.

Glyphosate is one of the most widely-used weed killers in the world,
used by farmers, local government and gardeners, as well as being
sprayed extensively on some genetically modified crops imported into
Europe for use as animal feed.

The biggest producer is Monsanto which sells it under the brand name
“Roundup”. Despite its widespread use, its presence in food or water is
rarely monitored by governments.

Martin Galea De Giovanni from Friends of the Earth Malta said:

“Most people will be worried to discover that there is weed killer in
their bodies and will want to know why it is there and what effects it
is having. These results suggest that we are being exposed to glyphosate
in our everyday lives, yet we don’t know where it is coming from, how
widespread it is in the environment, or what it is doing to our bodies.

“This is the most widely used weed killer in Europe and it is surprising
that public authorities rarely test our food or water for it. Now that
Friends of the Earth Malta has discovered that it is widespread in
people’s bodies, it is asking the Maltese Government to immediately
step-up their monitoring to make sure we are not being put at risk.”

The latest National Statistics Office figures for herbicide use (2007)
show a possible increase in glyphosate usage in Malta (as compared to
2005). The high rates obtained from the Maltese sample demands an even
more serious investigation into the source of these herbicides, FoE said.

Fourteen glyphosate-resistant genetically modified crops are currently
waiting for approval for cultivation in the European Union. Some
estimates suggest that if given the go-ahead, glyphosate use could
increase by as much as 800 per cent.

See
https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/bundn...in_analyse.pdf
--
http://www.voucherfreebies.co.uk

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:44:57 +0100, mogga wrote:

90% in Malta,
45% elsewhere? What sort of mirror are they using?

A sample space of 10 is too small to be statistically significant. Still
it's interesting in an anecdotal kind of way, and I'd hope it might spur
someone to do a real study.

The mayor of our village was just disciplined for using glyphosate to
kill some weeds and grass in front of the cemetery and in the village
square. Apparently it's no longer authorised, you're meant to do it with
a blow torch.



--
Gardening in Lower Normandy

On 13/06/2013 10:53, Emery Davis wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:44:57 +0100, mogga wrote:

90% in Malta,
45% elsewhere? What sort of mirror are they using?

The analysis appears to be good down to around LOQ 100ppt and they have
detected levels around 1ppb in a fair proportion of people. I would
hazard a guess that most of them have self exposed at that level. That
is they have used glyphosate and not washed their hands afterwards.

Why didn't the lab also test drinking water samples? I would be very
wary of reading too much into it without first having confirmed that
there isn't a systematic high bias introduced by the messy chemistry of
real urine samples. FOE would have us all starving and living in caves!

Modern analytical chemistry has become so good that these days we can
detected traces of anything in almost everything. There is for example
usually about 2ppb of Uranium in everything you eat. WHO presently sets
the safe limit for Uranium in drinking water at 15ppb.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_...nium290605.pdf

(skip to last section for summary results and recommendations)

A sample space of 10 is too small to be statistically significant. Still
it's interesting in an anecdotal kind of way, and I'd hope it might spur
someone to do a real study.

The mayor of our village was just disciplined for using glyphosate to
kill some weeds and grass in front of the cemetery and in the village
square. Apparently it's no longer authorised, you're meant to do it with
a blow torch.

That is just silly. Glyphosate is far less environmentally damaging than
the blow torch which will cause the production of dioxins in any plant
material that is actually burnt by the flame.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:24:30 +0100, David Hill
wrote:


Nine out of 10 urine samples from people in Malta contained traces of
the weed killer glyphosate, laboratory tests carried out by Friends of
the Earth Malta show.

The results in Malta are mirrored in results across Europe – with 45 per
cent of samples from the 10 volunteers in each of the18 countries found
to contain traces of the chemical.

Do you really believe that 10 volunteers is a valid sample size?

That reads as 10*18=180 volunteers.


Because of the small sample, lifestyle conditions will not form any type
of conclusion.

Blindingly obvious. The study is ********.

Not quite. It is sufficient to try to get funding for a larger study.
(Assuming of course that there was no significant bias when selecting
the volunteers).

No point in being concerned, yet, unless you are a Daily Wail reader.

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:33:06 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

The mayor of our village was just disciplined for using glyphosate to
kill some weeds and grass in front of the cemetery and in the village
square. Apparently it's no longer authorised, you're meant to do it
with a blow torch.

That is just silly. Glyphosate is far less environmentally damaging than
the blow torch which will cause the production of dioxins in any plant
material that is actually burnt by the flame.

Yes, we got a chuckle out of it. The blow torch is unlikely to do much
against most of the pernicious weeds (couch, ground elder, nettles) that
grow around there anyway.



--
Gardening in Lower Normandy

On 13/06/2013 10:44, mogga wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:24:30 +0100, David Hill
wrote:


Nine out of 10 urine samples from people in Malta contained traces of
the weed killer glyphosate, laboratory tests carried out by Friends of
the Earth Malta show.

The results in Malta are mirrored in results across Europe – with 45 per
cent of samples from the 10 volunteers in each of the18 countries found
to contain traces of the chemical.

90% in Malta,
45% elsewhere? What sort of mirror are they using?

Where does the water on Malta come from?
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/ground...ity/Malta.html

This may help you
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...c9 157e85.jpg
And the survey says that the glyposate is ingested from food.

On 13/06/2013 11:35, Tom Gardner wrote:
Martin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:24:30 +0100, David Hill
wrote:


Nine out of 10 urine samples from people in Malta contained traces of
the weed killer glyphosate, laboratory tests carried out by Friends of
the Earth Malta show.

The results in Malta are mirrored in results across Europe – with 45 per
cent of samples from the 10 volunteers in each of the18 countries found
to contain traces of the chemical.

Do you really believe that 10 volunteers is a valid sample size?

That reads as 10*18=180 volunteers.


Because of the small sample, lifestyle conditions will not form any type
of conclusion.

Blindingly obvious. The study is ********.

Not quite. It is sufficient to try to get funding for a larger study.
(Assuming of course that there was no significant bias when selecting
the volunteers).

No point in being concerned, yet, unless you are a Daily Wail reader.


That Expresses my attitude as well.

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:27 +0100, Tom Gardner
wrote:

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:24:30 +0100, David Hill
wrote:


Nine out of 10 urine samples from people in Malta contained traces of
the weed killer glyphosate, laboratory tests carried out by Friends of
the Earth Malta show.

The results in Malta are mirrored in results across Europe – with 45 per
cent of samples from the 10 volunteers in each of the18 countries found
to contain traces of the chemical.

Do you really believe that 10 volunteers is a valid sample size?

That reads as 10*18=180 volunteers.

In 18 countries with a population of 300 million. You find that
significant.

180 is potentially *far* more significant than 10.

The 300 million is, as I'm sure you are aware, a red herring.

You don't use volunteers for such tests, you pick people randomly and
you pick a sufficient number to make the result representative of the
population and statistically significant.

Very little can be read into the word "volunteer", especially
since the report is written by non-native speakers of English.

It would, of course, be unethical if they had been "coerced"
into taking part

And see my parenthetical statement below, of course.


Not quite. It is sufficient to try to get funding for a larger study.

Nobody with any sense would take any notice of this so called study.

People should take the right amount of notice, no more, no less.


Nobody in his right mind would fund a Friend of the Earth Study.

Close to an ad hominem attack.


(Assuming of course that there was no significant bias when selecting
the volunteers).

How can you make such an assumption?

What makes you think I am assuming anything about bias?


No point in being concerned, yet, unless you are a Daily Wail reader.

I find the whole thing is typical Friends of the Earth nonsense.

Close to an ad hominem attack.

Well, their heart is often in the right place, even if their
thinking is wooly headed.

Despite your attitude, I suspect we actually agree on
the substantive issues.

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:42:22 +0100, Tom Gardner
wrote:

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:27 +0100, Tom Gardner
wrote:

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:24:30 +0100, David Hill
wrote:


Nine out of 10 urine samples from people in Malta contained traces of
the weed killer glyphosate, laboratory tests carried out by Friends of
the Earth Malta show.

The results in Malta are mirrored in results across Europe – with 45 per
cent of samples from the 10 volunteers in each of the18 countries found
to contain traces of the chemical.

Do you really believe that 10 volunteers is a valid sample size?

That reads as 10*18=180 volunteers.

In 18 countries with a population of 300 million. You find that
significant.

180 is potentially *far* more significant than 10.

In a population of 300 million?

Go and learn a bit of statistics

Sure you can divide 180 by 300 million, but the result of
that division is meaningless in this context.

If I was being rude I would suggest that you would benefit
from understanding statistical significance is more subtle
than a simple division.


The 300 million is, as I'm sure you are aware, a red herring.

Ah, I see you don't understand that it is a red herring.


Very little can be read into the word "volunteer", especially
since the report is written by non-native speakers of English.

Maltese speak English often as a first language.

So what? The analysis and report are by Germans, in Bremen!

And I can't be bothered to reply to the rest of your posting.

Very little can be read into the word "volunteer", especially
since the report is written by non-native speakers of English.

Maltese speak English often as a first language.


If people had bothered to read the final link you would have seen that
the study was done in Germany

See
https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/bundn...in_analyse.pdf


But it's makes you look much better to rubbish things without reading
properly.
If Glyphosate is so safe why do they say NOT to spray seed crops
intended for human consumption?
Just remember they said that Thalidomide was safe and they said the same
about agent orange which when instructing American forces about it they
actually drank the stuff.

On 2013-06-13 18:26:02 +0100, David Hill said:


If people had bothered to read the final link you would have seen that
the study was done in Germany

See
https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/bundn...in_analyse.pdf


But it's makes you look much better to rubbish things without reading properly.
If Glyphosate is so safe why do they say NOT to spray seed crops
intended for human consumption?
Just remember they said that Thalidomide was safe and they said the
same about agent orange which when instructing American forces about it
they actually drank the stuff.

It does no harm to err on the side of caution. None of this 'stuff' is
supposed to nourish the human body, after all. The scientists
rubbishing such findings are no better than those they rubbish, imo. An
awful lot is unproven either way.

--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

They're quoting proportions, and by implication saying that the proportion is significantly different from zero. Whether you can tell that the proportion quoted is indeed significantly different from zero depends on the margin of error of that proportion. That can be worked out mathematically and depends on the proportion itself and on the sample size (ie the 10 or the 180). The population size doesn't come into it at all.

It something I think we understand instinctively. If, for example, I buy a particular brand of something, and find it less than satisfactory in some way, it doesn't take many further purchases for me to decide to move permanently to a different brand. I don't stop and think "but this is a tiny sample compared to all the products of this brand that are sitting out on the shelves at the moment".

All I've said above does of course imply that the sample has been chosen in a way to be representative of the population as a whole.

On 13/06/2013 18:26, David Hill wrote:

Very little can be read into the word "volunteer", especially
since the report is written by non-native speakers of English.

Maltese speak English often as a first language.


If people had bothered to read the final link you would have seen that
the study was done in Germany

See
https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/bundn...in_analyse.pdf


But it's makes you look much better to rubbish things without reading
properly.
If Glyphosate is so safe why do they say NOT to spray seed crops
intended for human consumption?

It is a reasonable precaution for minimum inputs and having checked they
don't say that at all. They do say not to spray off crops that will be
used as seeds the following year. There has been some concern about
traces of glyphosate in wheat flour. Glyphosate on wheat crops is of
questionable benefit unless weeds are well out of control. HGCA have
left their info sheet on the wrong side of a paywall so here it is:

http://www.hgca.com/publications/doc...et02_final.pdf

The active ingredient of glyphosate is roughly speaking about as toxic
as caffeine - the principal component of coffee. The surfactants are
more dangerous but you would need to consume a lot to do any damage.

A few really thick American gardeners once managed to do this by eating
their lunch dripping with industrial strength concentrate.

Just remember they said that Thalidomide was safe and they said the same
about agent orange which when instructing American forces about it they
actually drank the stuff.

Thalidomide has made a remarkable comeback as an important drug for some
difficult to treat conditions with the very obvious proviso that it must
not be given to pregnant women.

http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine....ure_15_10.html

The impurities in 245-T and 24-D are nasty dioxins but the pure
compounds are relatively safe with LD50 in the 0.5g/kg range. Paraquat
is right at the other extreme LD50 reckoned to be about 0.00003g/kg.

These days we have taken to erring on the side of paranoia. The recent
advice given to pregnant women to avoid all contact with "chemicals" is
calculated to create panic among the worried well and allow snake oil
salesmen to rip them off with more "chemical free" dodgy products.

The Daily Wail and it's redtop scare story ilk have a lot to answer for.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin wrote:


On 13/06/2013 18:26, David Hill wrote:

Very little can be read into the word "volunteer", especially
since the report is written by non-native speakers of English.

Maltese speak English often as a first language.


If people had bothered to read the final link you would have seen that
the study was done in Germany

See
https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/bundn...in_analyse.pdf


But it's makes you look much better to rubbish things without reading
properly.

I did read it properly.
If you had read it properly you would have seen that the paper
addresses the analyses and results and not how the samples were
obtained or whether the number of samples and method of collection
are statistically significant.

Thanks for continuing to include the relevant part of the
previous messages. From that it can be seen that your points
aren't particularly relevant to the preceding points.


I do know that the Dutch government regularly samples ground water for
pesticide residues and that they have found glyphosate residues in
sufficient quantities to justify a future ban on sales of glyphosate
to private users, but not to commercial growers. Maybe somebody can
explain the logic in that?

That has nothing to do with the original and subsequent points.

I suggest that the answer to this new question might
be found by "following the money". But that's a different
discussion.