Re: What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?

Page 1 of 10  
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."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@my-deja.com" 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:01:44 -0400, Chris Owens

What I really need to know is its effect on ground water.
Jack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:45:16 GMT, "Stephen M. Henning"

It has been banned in Denmark because of its effect on ground H2O. That's what prompted the question.
Jack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:24:53 -0400, brojack wrote:

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
paghat wrote:

They do? Hey, Everybody! I'm running for Congress!! Well, ok. I'm *walking* for Congress. It's kinda hot outside... Well, ok. I'm not actually walking. I'm gonna sit here and let Congress come to me. But I'm still accepting money. It's the Patriotic thing to do... And probably Religous, too. Since money is Evil. So, I'll collect all that Evil Money and put in in a safe unevil place. Like a Bank. That way, it's locked up and can't hurt anyone... OH! And since it's evil, I promise to spend it on purely frivolous things so that it won't hurt anything that really matters... 'cause that's the kind of guy I am. So REMEMBER... VOTE GILRICK for Congress. The Frivolous Spender Candidate. After all, it's YOUR money I'm wasting. Shouldn't it be wasted wisely?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
paghat wrote:

Why bother? They shot themselves in the foot just about everyday....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
brojack wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net
Visit my Rhododendron and Azalea web pages at:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

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.

Litigation is not science. Political agendas are not a substitute for real science.

This is, of course, circular. Anybody who writes an article that shows the safety of Roundup is dismissed as a "Monsanto propagandist."
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[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.

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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I actually paraphrased it from a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal.

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.

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.

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.

Which is not what I stated, of course. And the study you quote does not support your position.

No, I paraphrased from the peer-reviewed article I cited.

The lymphoma connection was refuted by the authors you cite. It was was never *established* in any peer-reviewed research.

Apparently they *do* have to lie, since you misrepresent the findings.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in

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..
--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ mailto: snipped-for-privacy@iname.com \ *-*-* *
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.