Re: What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?

Page 2 of 10  
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in

Allright, and what does paghat the ratgirl think about it?
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

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

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.

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13 Aug 2003 02:28:51 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Please, since it's so non-toxic, have a nice cool drink of it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I noted, when you don't have science behind your claims, you attack the person. It's the ecofundamentalist way.
The *science* does not back up the claims of toxicity made by the hysterics. Of course one would not "have a nice cool drink of it." That is not how it is properly used. As properly used, the science shows no ill effect.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13 Aug 2003 16:16:29 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Yeahbut, please, have a nice tall glass of it, anyway. Save your other blather for use elsewhere. Your "science" is not correct. It's head in the sand, science.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, yes. "Head in the sand science" meaning, of course, science that disagrees with your ecofundamentalist irrationality.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13 Aug 2003 21:16:52 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Hardly ecofundamentalist. Hardly ANYfundamentalist. Quite the contrary. However, I've seen the reports. I have no doubt I could pull up as much and more than what paghat pulled up. I'm rather certain you would still have your own version of what you blame others of having, attacking the person, not the findings. I suppose calling anything I say "ecofundamentalist irrationality" is a compliment? Hmmm. Damn. I'm doing it all wrong.
Don't forget it is Monsanto who is one of the largest producers of Round Up Ready Soy on the planet. Some pretty serious shit you're cheerleading for. I hope you really know what you're saying you know, but it sounds as if you don't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, you cannot. And that's rather the point. All you have is posturing. I have posted abstracts from peer-reviewed journals that show that RoundUp is no danger when used as directed.
Since it would be *so* easy for you to provide a scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal that shows that RoundUp is a danger when used as directed, please feel free to trot it out.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill,
I admire your tenacity with regard to this thread. I've learned a lot and I'd like to thank you for taking the time to debate (really debate, instead of the ad hominem attacks you are experiencing in replies) the issue.
Dave
wrote:

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

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

Ah, yes. When you don't have the facts, try attacking the writer and covering with bullshit.
What lie is that? Certainly not that you cannot provide a single peer-reviewed article that claims that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. None of the peer-reviewed articles you cite makes that claim. If Roundup is so easily shown to be dangerous when used as directed, you should have no problem providing *one single peer-reviewed article* that claims to show it.
You cannot. And cutting-and-pasting a list of articles that do *not* show it doesn't do the trick.
Sorry, but religious fanaticism is unattractive -- even with ecofundamentalists.
Please, provide a single peer-reviewed article that claims that Roundup is toxic when used as directed. If Roundup is as dangerous as you claim, that should be *easy.*
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) "Nature-Hating Republican Liar" wrote in message
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biotech supporters have said that roundup is more environmentally friendly and less toxic. Dr. Joe Cummins located these two articles to show that this claim is not correct.
Title: Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ('Roundup'): a review of 93 cases.
Authors: Talbot AR; Shiaw MH; Huang JS; Yang SF; Goo TS; Wang SH; Chen CL; Sanford TR Address: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Source Hum Exp Toxicol
Abstract: Between 1 January 1980, and 30 September 1989, 93 cases of exposure to herbicides containing glyphosphate and surfactant ('Roundup') were treated at Changhua Christian Hospital. The average amount of the 41% solution of glyphosate herbicide ingested by non-survivors was 184 +/- 70 ml (range 85-200 ml), but much larger amounts (500 ml) were reported to have been ingested by some patients and only resulted in mild to moderate symptomatology. Accidental exposure was asymptomatic after dermal contact with spray (six cases), while mild oral discomfort occurred after accidental ingestion (13 cases). Intentional ingestion (80 cases) resulted in erosion of the gastrointestinal tract (66%), seen as sore throat (43%), dysphagia (31%), and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (8%). Other organs were affected less often (non-specific leucocytosis 65%, lung 23%, liver 19%, cardiovascular 18%, kidney 14%, and CNS 12%). There were seven deaths, all of which occurred within hours of ingestion, two before the patient arrived at the hospital. Deaths following ingestion of 'Roundup' alone were due to a syndrome that involved hypotension, unresponsive to intravenous fluids or vasopressor drugs, and sometimes pulmonary oedema, in the presence of normal central venous pressure.
MESH Headings Adolescence*; Adult*; Age Factors*; Aged*; Aged, 80 and over*; Cardiovascular Diseases*; Case Report; Central Nervous System Diseases*; Child*; Child, Preschool*; Female; Glycine*; Herbicides*; Human; Infant*; Kidney Diseases*; Leukocytosis*; Liver Diseases*; Lung Diseases*; Male; Middle Age*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORML SPECIAL REPORT, November 12, 1996
DEA Herbicide Under Fire From Hawaii Residents
Locals Complain Of Nausea, Other Ailments Due To Aerial Spraying
Residents of the island of Hawaii are complaining of flu-like symptoms such as nausea, headaches, and fatigue and many are pointing fingers at the federal government and state law enforcement. For nearly a decade, Drug Enforcement Agency-coordinated marijuana eradication efforts have targeted the island of Hawaii, often spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide from low-flying helicopters over suspected marijuana patches. Recently, however, some residents are claiming that the pesticide, a chemical weed-killer similar to "Round Up," is killing wildlife and making some citizens sick.
"You can actually taste it in your mouth," said Roger Christie of the Hawaii Hemp Council, who alleges that the pesticide is occasionally mixed with additives. Christie reports that gusts of wind disperse the pesticide to outlying communities, where it collects in rainwater catchments. Rooftop catchments are a common source of residents' drinking water. Christie is convinced that the spraying is directly linked to recently reported environmental and health problems.
"In the last two weeks, hundreds of people have come to me with their complaints and said that's why I'm feeling this way too," said Ka'u resident Susan Smith in an interview with KGMB-TV earlier this month. "[Law enforcement] are flying over my house every other day. ... It's like a war zone out here."
According to local area physician, Patricia Bailey, MD, Christie and Smith's claims are not without substance. Bailey has collected incident reports from some 40 persons, aged 9 months to 84 years, who claim that they have been affected by the spray. She cites generalized symptoms of eye and respiratory tract irritation. She further notes that about 75 percent of respondents suffered from diarrhea.
Affidavits attained by NORML report frequent complaints from residents of flu-like symptoms such as nausea and headaches, sometimes lasting for more than a week after the spraying. Others complain of experiencing fatigue, irritability, soar joints and throats, and frequent itchiness and burning of the eyes. In one of the most severe reported cases, an Ocean View resident complained of experiencing prolonged numbness in her arms. "The numbness was the most prominent and frightening [symptom,]" she explained. "[It] felt uncomfortable to wear my watch [so] I took it off and carried it. I kept rubbing my arms, trying to warm them and get blood back circulating." The resident described the experience as "unnerving."
"There is a statistical significance to the complaints," said Dr. Bailey. "I think [this] is serious now."
Studies on the potential dangers of glyphosate to both humans and the environment are mixed. According the 1986 federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), laboratory and greenhouse studies performed mostly by the manufacturer (The Monsanto Company) indicated that glyphosate was only a moderately toxic herbicide that posed little danger to the environment.
However, Noah Berry, vice president of EcoLaw Institute Inc., an Oklahoma organization that works to strengthen environmental laws, has examined the safety of glyphosate and concludes that the chemical "can do a lot of damage to our bio-diversity."3 In addition, a 1991 report by the Radian Corporation concludes that human exposure to glyphosate can cause "irritation of the skin, gastrointestinal tract and respiratory tract, convulsions and coma."
Lenny Terlip of the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) told NORML that claims of glyphosate harming the environment and endangering the health of residents were "erroneous." He denied reports that the herbicide was mixed with any additives and said that the sprayings were not being conducted near houses or residential areas. He further added that the helicopter-mounted spray-guns have "pin-point accuracy," a claim rebuked by a review of some of the available scientific literature.
According to the Journal of Pesticide Reform, "In general, movement of a pesticide through unwanted drift is unavoidable; drift of glyphosate is no exception." The article emphasized, however, that glyphosate drift is a "particularly significant problem ... [because] damage is likely to be much more extensive and more persistent than with many other herbicides."7 Two studies conducted in Canada measured glyphosate residues more than 650 feet away from target areas following helicopter applications to forest sites and a third study from California found glyphosate over 2,600 feet away following aerial application.9 By her own estimations, Smith judges that high wind gusts on the island of Hawaii can carry glyphosate residue even farther.
"Why do we have to wait [until] five years from now [for an answer?]" asked Smith. "Why do we have to wait ... till they tell us, okay, it's toxic and now it's outlawed?"
Recently, Smith gathered angry residents to an informal town meeting where they voiced their grievances with elected officials and state agency representatives, signed health impact affidavits, and met with news media. She and other area residents agreed to file a formal complaint with the DLNR.
Photographs on display at the meeting documented orange-sprayed foliage in forests and yards as well as dead bird carcasses. Many residents elaborated on the symptoms of their illnesses. Glenn Sahara, a spokesman for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture who attended the meeting, attempted to deny that the spraying played any role. Instead, he stated that the animal deaths might be due to heart failure caused by the noise of low-flying helicopters. Many residents remained unconvinced. "We are being poisoned," claimed one elderly gentleman. "It's the children I am thinking of. Stop the aerial spraying!"
This is an example of "law enforcement run amuck," claimed environmental activist and resident Jerry Rothstein. Rothstein has studied the original EIS and tells NORML that residents may file a lawsuit against both state and federal agencies for failure to comply with regulations mandated by the 1986 report. EIS rules require that law enforcement, "Take all reasonable steps to notify everyone, including residents, before spraying."
For the time being, Rothstein is encouraging residents to participate in the updating of the scheduled 1996 EIS supplement. Public comments on this notice were requested in the August 13, 1996 issue of the Federal Register and public hearings will be held before a final version is drafted.
"From the response of the Ka'u community, th[ese] latest aerial herbicide attack[s] appear to be among the worst yet," noted Rothstein. He said that in the past, law enforcement has attempted to dismiss complaints by alleging that they were only from marijuana growers attempting to protect their crops. These latest rounds of complaints, however, are too widespread to ignore, he said.
Currently, only one other state, South Dakota, engages in aerial herbicide spraying.1 Swindell, Bill. "State Will Dump Pesticide on Pot." Tulsa World News: June 11, 1996.
REFERENCES 2. Cox, Caroline. "Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects." J. of Pest. Rfm.: Vol. 15, Winter 1995. 3. Bishop, Hunter. "Herbicide causing illness?" Hilo Tribune-Herald: October 24, 1996. 4. NTP Chemical Repository. Radian Corporation: August 29, 1991. 5. Nivia, Elsa and Gips, Judith. "Drug Control and Herbicide Spraying in Columbia." Global Pesticide Campaigner, February 1993. 6. Cox, Caroline. "Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects." J. of Pest. Rfm: Vol. 15, Winter 1995. 7. Freedman, B. "Controversy over the use of herbicides in forestry, with particular reference to glyphosate usage." J. Envir. Sci. Hlth.: Vol: C8(2), 1990-1991. 8. Cox, Caroline. "Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects." J. of Pest. Rfm: Vol. 15, Winter 1995. 9. Ibid. 10. Personal conversation with Jerry Rothstein
OnSite: 13 NOV 96 copyright 1996, 1997 NORML
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sigh. See my other replies to you. My challenge stands.
Please provide a single peer-reviewed published scientific journal article that purports to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
You cannot, and all the advocacy press you want to post doesn't change that.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) "Nature-hating republican liar" wrote in message (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Nature-hating republican liar: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=roundup+toxicity
http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/glyphosa.html
Questioning the "safe" herbicide.
Written by: Karen Thomas, October 1999
A longer look at some side-effects of glyphosate formulations.
Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, it will kill any plant it comes in contact with. It is registered for use on many food and non-food crops as well as non-crop areas where total vegetation control is desired. The most common uses include control of broadleaf weeds and grasses in: hay/pasture, soybeans, field corn, ornamentals, lawns, turf, forest plantings, greenhouses and rights-of-way.
The website of the National Registration Authority (NRA) of Australia reveals 161 products registered for use in Australia containing glyphosate. The most widely used glyphosate-based products (and the ones with the most data available) are those manufactured by the U.S.-based multinational corporation, Monsanto, which markets ninety different glyphosate-based herbicides. Monsanto manufactures 22 of the 161 glyphosate products registered for use in Australia. These are sold by the macho tradenames Roundup, Squadron, Ricochet, Ranger, Harpoon, Saddle, Honcho, Rustler, Defender and Torch.
While the "active" ingredient in these products is glyphosate other ingredients are also present, but thanks to corporate protection laws on the labelling of "inert ingredients" their identities are largely unknown. These other ingredients have been shown to have synergistic effects with glyphosate, resulting in more toxic properties than any of the ingredients exhibit alone. (Many herbicides need a surfactant, or "wetting agent", as part of the formulation to prevent run-off from leaves with waxy or hairy surfaces. Such additives generally enable much lower concentrations to be used in the spraying tank.)
One popular Monsanto glyphosate-based product is Roundup. When Roundup first entered the market, people wanted to believe the claims of "low toxicity" and "environmental friendliness". Having suffered through the emergence of toxicity evidence on other chemicals (such as DDT, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D) that had also been originally thought to be "safe", it was no wonder that people were anxious to believe that a safer alternative existed. However no matter the amount of marketing (or the marketing budget) a herbicide is still a herbicide. And even a herbicide that is less toxic than other herbicides is still a herbicide. As such it is designed, intended and applied precisely to kill living plants.
For Roundup the claims of "low toxicity" and "environmental friendliness" come from years of product testing, just ask the manufacturer. In an American Chemical Society Monograph, Monsanto has promoted Roundup as "virtually non-toxic to animals, birds, fish and most bacteria", "essentially no residual soil activity, even when applied at high rates" and "extensive use since 1974 has not induced the proliferation of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes".
Over the years, each of these claims has come into question.
Non-toxic to animals? In order to understand the questions, it is necessary to first understand how the herbicide works. Unfortunately, this is not as easy as it sounds. It is generally accepted that glyphosate works by inhibiting three amino acids that are essential for plant growth. The absence of these amino acids then inhibits a key enzyme, EPSP synthase, and two other enzymes involved in the production of the three amino acids. According to the manufacturer, the enzymes are present in higher plants and microorganisms but not in animals.
Research has revealed some disturbing anomalies to the generally accepted mode of action. Glyphosate has been shown to reduce the activity of an enzyme in sugar cane which is not connected to the three amino acids. When formulated as Roundup, it has been shown to affect enzymes found in mammals such as rats where it decreased the activity of two detoxification enzymes in the liver and intestine.
Studies as old as 1981 and as new as last month (September 1999) bring into question the non-toxicity claims. It seems quite intuitive that a material designed to kill plants is harmful to living organisms. Acute effects from accidental exposure to Roundup include burning eyes, blurred vision, blisters, rapid heartbeat, chest pains, nausea just to name a few. Recently two Swedish oncologists released a study linking Roundup to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer.
Non-toxic to aquatic life? In 1995 questions about its toxicity to aquatic life were raised. A study commissioned by the Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and conducted by Dr. Joseph Bidwell of the Curtin Exotoxicology Program concluded that Roundup 360 can be acutely toxic to adult frogs and tadpoles at the recommended application rates (1.8 to 5.4 kg/ha). Roundup 360 was more toxic to frogs and tadpoles than technical grade glyphosate. The surfactant in Roundup, and not glyphosate itself, was assumed to have caused the increase in toxicity. The study recommended that the Roundup product label contain advice on the potential hazard in wetlands.
Why Frogs?
Aquatic animals generally
have highly permeable skins compared to land animals water and dissolved salts can move quite freely in and out; and respire through exposed gills, where dissolved oxygen moves directly from the water to the bloodstream. Normally, they have a mucous coating which restricts this osmosis as well as providing a mechanical protection against abrasion. However, the wetting agents in many glyphosate formulations break down this mucus, as well as attacking the delicate gill membranes, thus allowing the glyphosate and other poisons and pathogens to enter the system.
The emphasis on frogs arises from their visibility or audibility. While only the tadpoles have gills, the adult frogs are still vulnerable to damage on the skin, which can leave them dangerously exposed to UV from the sun, in addition to poisoning from other pollutants.
Based on this study, the DEP and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) recommended that the NRA perform tests on the surfactants used in the formulations. In a June 1996 report, the NRA stated that the "aquatic toxicity of currently registered glyphosate formulations is undesirably high and is mainly due to surfactants in the formulations". Based on this review, the use of these products were restricted to dry drains and channels and dry margins of dams, lakes and streams. Amendments were made to the labels to avoid aquatic contamination.
Monsanto and other manufacturers of glyphosate-based products now offer "frog-friendly" versions; Monsanto's is named Roundup Biactive. (However, at the time of this writing October 1999 customer service representatives at Dawsons and Waldeck were not familiar with the Biactive product or any frog-unfriendliness associated with the glyphosate products.) These supposedly frog-friendly versions have an "acceptable" margin of safety for aquatic environments as determined by the NRA. However based on past performance, all safety claims must be questioned.
No Residual Soil Activity? The U.S. EPA has called glyphosate "extremely persistent under typical application conditions". In the 1997 American Chemical Society Monograph of Glyphosate written by Monsanto scientists, half-lives of glyphosate range from 3 days to 22.8 years depending on the soil type and microbial activity. Another study estimates the half-life of glyphosate to be 3 to 134 days. Whatever the strict definition of "no residual soil activity", studies (even by the manufacturer itself) suggest long half-lives and therefore long lives of chemical activity.
No Resistance? Then in 1996, the report that Monsanto and farmers hoped they would never hear. An Australian researcher reported that ryegrass on at least two properties in Victoria as well as on one in New South Wales had developed a resistance to Roundup and tolerated five times the recommended field application rate. This research came after years of claims that resistance to Roundup was "highly unlikely".
False Advertising? So why aren't herbicide manufacturers liable for false claims? In one U.S. state, they are. In 1997, Monsanto negotiated an agreement with the New York State Attorney General to alter its Roundup ads to delete claims that the herbicide is "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly", and to stop equating U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registration of pesticides with a safety assurance. These changes were in response to five years of complaints by the New York State Attorney General of false and misleading advertising. The company paid $50,000 toward the state's legal expenses in the case. The Netherlands also questioned the "biodegradable" claim and it is no longer allowed to be used for Roundup in that country.
When asked to believe what the manufacturers claim, keep in mind that two of the labs Monsanto hired to test the herbicide have been convicted of falsifying data to the U.S. EPA. These results have been reportedly replaced by the results of valid tests but, of course, the original tests were assured to be valid as well.
Users of Herbicides? Based on the information available at the moment, here are a few tips for whacking weeds with the environment in mind.
Accept them all weeds are not necessarily pests and may provide a home for other insects and diseases that may otherwise harm the non-weeds in the garden.
Opt for the old-fashioned technique of weeding by hand (guaranteed to lower stress levels too).
Hot water applications are available for home and commercial use (alternately, boil your own).
Some local manufacturers offer 100% glyphosate formulations, so it is only the toxicity of glyphosate that is of some concern, not any unknown surfactant or other "inert" ingredient.
If you employ a gardening service, make sure they are using only the products that you approve for your safety and that of your family and pets.
Provide information about glyphosate and Roundup toxicity to your local Council. Perhaps hot water weed eradication systems will do the job. At the very least confirm that what they are using is "safe for frogs".
Most importantly, with any chemical pesticide, respect its toxicity. It is a non-natural chemical designed to kill living things. As such, it should be used SPARINGLY and in STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH LABEL INSTRUCTIONS. Do not be unknowingly fooled by marketing.
References Bidwell, Joseph R. and Gorrie, John R. "Acute Toxicity of a herbicide to Selected Frog Species", Curtin Ecotoxicology Program, Curtin University of Technology, Bently WA, June 1995.
Cox, Caroline, "Herbicide Factsheet: Glyphosate (Roundup)", Journal of Pesticide Reform, Fall 1998, Vol. 18, No. 3.
Estok, D. et al, "Effects Of The Herbicides 2,4-D, Glyphosate, Hexazinone, and Triclopyr on the Growth of Three Species of Ectomycorrhizal Fungi" Bulletin Of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v.42, 1989, p.835-839.
Franz, John; Mao, Michael Sikorski, James "Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide", Monsanto, ACS (American Chemical Society) Monograph 189, 1997.
National Registration Authority, "Glyphosate Special Review", Canberra, Australia, June 1996.
Prescott, Gayle, "Roundup The Truth Hurts!" EcoEcho, Summer 1995, pp. 32-33.
Lennart H. and Erikson, Mikael "A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Expousre to Pesticides", CANCER, March 15, 1999, Vol. 85, No. 6, p. 1353-1360.
Van den Bosch, Robert, "The Pesticide Conspiracy", University of California Berkeley, 1978.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Please see my other replies to you. My challenge stands.
Please provide a single peer-reviewed scientific journal article that purports to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
You cannot.
And it really burns you that you can't, doesn't it :-)
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

Whatever social theory one wants to promulgate has nothing to do with the fact that RoundUp is not a danger.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You actually cited very little, but what you did cite, from an abstract cut & pasted from the web, by Elaine Dallegrave et al, indicted herbicides & pesticides including glyphosate -- your point is you didn't find peer-reviewed independent science credible when they used large doses, & you pretended there were no studies not about large doses didn't exist.
Then then you cut & paste another abstract from the web by Williams/Kroes/Munro who did research with Monsanto funding implicitly to prove safety rather than assess risk. Ian Munro, a notoriouis Monsanto flack from way back, officially represents Monsanto interests at symposia. Munro has promoted bogus data even after it was revealed to be falsified in favor of several Monsanto products & is one of the "top ten" liars for the company, but when revealed as promoting frauds in 1993, he claimed he didn't know the research he relied on was faulty. "I know nothing, NOTHING" seems always to be the fall-back position of YOUR favorite scientists. Well, I'm willing to believe Ian this time, because I do believe he knows very little about the diverse topics he jumps around on like a dillatante, depending on what Monsanto needs in the given month, so this time he's promoting genetic engineering, next time glyphosate, before that he worked for tobacco interests when they were still claiming they could prove smoking is harmless. Good lord Billo, who you lionize!
I looked for better citations in all your posts -- they were few & poor -- the criteria being INDEPENDENT research (not Monsanto-paid for) in peer reviewed journals. You cited Monsanto research & now claim you didn't cite Monsanto resarch -- I keep hating to think of you as a liar rather than a dupe, so I'll assume you know so little of what you speak that you really could cite even the most notorious Monsanto toxocoligists & say with a straight face they're not Monsanto. I'll admit some independent research in their favor does exists (truly independent research often waffles with uncertainty -- only when Monsanto does it or pays for it do they get certain). But you someone hit on only the worst Monsanto flunkies. If you'd done a less agregiously bad job & found the tepidly favorable research instead of the gung-ho Monsanto research.
So you've really provided nothing but Monsanto propoganda and the only "peer reviewed" material you've cited that is not Monsanto-related disagrees with you. And the issue isn't that I hate Monsanto -- I hate that they kill people sure -- but that you find nothing whatsoever wrong with the company even in light of their known fabrications of data, even lying quite recently to JAMA, that it doesn't bother you their history with Agent Orange which they are indeed repeating today with glyphosate. It's easy to dislike killers -- the weird thing, the actually sociopathic thing, is your clear & powerful need to give 'em love.
Nice you're at least willing to admit Monsanto notoriously lies about everything, but how you can see that as "irrelevant to the pertinent science" when they even lied to JAMA to get falsified data into print where it could improve sales -- when EPA authors have said the persistant lying by Monsanto face-to-face with EPA and in published falsified data that has affected public policy in Monsanto's favor even when it is against the interests of public health --- well, if you're not a dupe, and you are indeed lying, I guess I can see that that does fit into your philosophy that lying is "irrelevant."
-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

And you, I see, cite nothing in this screed.

blah blah blah.
When you can't argue the science, argue the people. Forget about this peer-reviewed articles in peer-reviewed journal stuff; everybody who disagrees with you is a "Monsanto flack."
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I consider the science. I don't criticize the sister chromatid exchange study because the author is a "wild eyed environmental fascist" or somesuch. I criticize it on the basis of the science. *You* on the other hand, dismiss scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals by attacking the authors.

No, I make the distinction between courtroom testimony and peer-reviewed science. The courtroom is theater. Conflating the two is a mistake.

On the contrary. Of the two articles you showed that "proved" the danger of RoundUp, in one the authors themselves stated that the association disappeared under multivariate analysis and in the other the authors admitted that their findings were inconclusive because of the high dosage and cytotoxic effect. If the *authors* of the article agree with me, who am I to complain?

No. I said that I was not relying on Monsanto claims, but instead on scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Because I am not relying on Monsanto's claims, whatever they say is irrelevant to my conclusion.

And here it is. You are such a big fan of scientific research in peer-reviewed journals -- unless, of course, that scientific research in peer-reviewed journals disagrees with your presumption. In that case, you can't argue the science, so you attack the authors. Classic.
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.