Roundup Deemed Dangerous/ Poison Ivy Revisited

Page 1 of 3  

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/roundup.cfm
"Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most toxic herbicides, and is the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. Products containing glyphosate also contain other compounds, which can be toxic. Glyphosate is technically extremely difficult to measure in environmental samples, which means that data is often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment, and existent data may not be reliable. (Greenpeace Report - Not ready for Roundup: Glyphosate Fact Sheet, greenpeace.org - April 1997)
Glyphosate is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage. (Special Report: what you need to know about pest control, Natural Health Magazine, May/June 2001)"
" Monsanos advertising campaigns have convinced many people that Roundup is safe, but the facts just dont support this. Independent scientific studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms, beneficial insects, birds and mammals, plus it destroys the vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter. Although Monsanto claims that Roundup breaks down into harmless substances, it has been found to be extremely persistent, with residue absorbed by subsequent crops over a year after application. Roundup shows adverse effects in all standard categories of toxicological testing, including medium-term toxicity, long-term toxicity, genetic damage, effects on reproduction, and carcinogenicity."
Thanks,
Bertie Brink Life is a sexually transmitted disease. R. D. Laing http://www.setdefault.com/ : http://www.csmonitor.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yeah right, go look up the MSDS and compare to caffeine. Glyphosphate is one tenth as toxic as caffeine.

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


Doncha just love fear mongering?
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~Kss4ig:6
Authors:
Williams GM Kroes R Munro IC
Author Address: Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla 10595, USA.
Source: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000, Apr; 31(2 Pt 1):117-65. [Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.]
Abstract:
Reviews on the safety of glyphosate and Roundup herbicide that have been conducted by several regulatory agencies and scientific institutions worldwide have concluded that there is no indication of any human health concern. Nevertheless, questions regarding their safety are periodically raised. This review was undertaken to produce a current and comprehensive safety evaluation and risk assessment for humans. It includes assessments of glyphosate, its major breakdown product [aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)], its Roundup formulations, and the predominant surfactant [polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA)] used in Roundup formulations worldwide. The studies evaluated in this review included those performed for regulatory purposes as well as published research reports. 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. Margins-of-exposure for chronic risk were calculated for each compound by dividing the lowest applicable NOAEL by worst-case estimates of chronic exposure. 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.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It\'s not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Read this again:
"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."
Would you like to know why this is nonsense? You'd have to have been reading things like this since the mid-1970s to understand. Interested?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Well, that is a meaningless response. I use such chemicals as rarely as possible, but nonetheless, I have little confidence in greenpeace as an arbiter of safety for garden chemicals. Were it up to them, we would all be grouching around in the mud living off earthworms. Really. An I used to give them money.
Try explaining yourself, not merely casting doubt on [purported] research. I personally would like to know if there is a real reason not ot buy roundup, or just a greenpeace reason
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Greenpeace has nothing to do with this. I'm talking about history.
Ever since I began following these issues, both sides of the chemical debate have used animal testing to prove their points. When environmental groups say they see carcinogenic effects in rats, the chemical manufacturers claim that because rats react differently than humans, these tests are not valid. Then, the opposite happens. When chemical companies claim they find no ill effects in animal tests, environmental groups say the tests are meaningless for the same reasons the chemical companies say it.
There is NO way to test properly for human health problems, because you (and nobody you know) would willingly agree to be dosed with pesticides as part of an experiment. They cannot be tested in the same way as pharmaceuticals. Therefore, you cannot assume they are safe or unsafe based on real evidence. You choose based on what's convenient for you personally.
To add to the confusion, several scientists have pointed out that even if you could get human volunteers, there'd be no way to determine what OTHER toxins they were exposed to, via drinking water, food, occupational exposure, etc. So, no controlled study is possible.
Take your pick. If you're among the meat heads who think a lawn that's 3% weeds is the end of the world, use the chemicals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Well, if the scientific method is invalid, then I might as well start smokin' Camel non filters. * light puff ack *
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BUT, Camel non filters have been tested on live human beings for years, now they died an early death.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Controlled studies do account for such factors. It's simple science.

Use roundup on lawns, and you have no lawn.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

You're right. They do account for such factors. But, they need to know what the factors are. When it comes to determining what we breathe, drink and eat, that is virtually impossible. Telling a researcher you eat 4 apples a week is not enough. You need to know where they came from, what was sprayed on them, and the quality of the water used to irrigate the orchards. What's in the water used to make the beer, liquor or juice drinks you consume? Unknown. What's in the fish you eat? Unknown. What's sprayed on the beans used to make your coffee, beans which originate in countries where there are even less controls than here with regard to chemical use? Unknown.
In addition to all this, I seem to recall reading that testing agricultural chemicals (formally) on humans is now illegal in this country, although you and I are involuntary lab rats.
Roll the dice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

You account for such things as well as you can, and use a big enough sample so they average out. It's been done for years.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Formal human tests of pesticide exposure have been very rare, for obvious reasons. You'll find a few, but nothing statistically significant when compared with the total size of the market.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry. I'm just refering to the method, not this particular test.
Testing something like this on humans is, of course, rare. Tests on animals can model effects on humans if properly done.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

There is no agreement on how much can be extrapolated from animal tests. The chemical companies say the similarities are either valid, or not, depending on convenience.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is similarly no agreement that Armstrong landed on the moon.
For the most part, animal tests are extremely good, especially when you have tests with multiple species.

So we ignore the chemical companies. Simple. They're not the only people/organizations doing studies on chemicals.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It\'s not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK then.

The problem is that some of the testing is funded by the manufacturers. And, very often, when there *is* independent research, the only places you hear about it is from organizations which, according to quite a few morons, are staffed by leftover hippies. You really can't win in such an environment. I mean, what if Greenpeace is right about some of this stuff? Just...what if? Is it smart to ignore everything they say because a central brain (Rush Limbaugh, etc) told you to? (And, I don't specifically mean YOU - I mean people who look at the world this way).
Let's see...who else is on the "can't be trusted" list? Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy.....it's endless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're assuming that there's only chemical companies and leftover hippy organizations.
Look at the toxnet site again. _Hundreds_ of studies w.r.t. glysophate published in referreed journals, with the studies funded/performed by universities, governments (not necessarily US) and other agencies.
Note the term "referreed journals". It means that the study has been reviewed by the author's scientific peers and found to be not only scientifically sound, but often also _reasonably_ impartial.
_Those_ are the studies to pay attention to.
Not some half-baked advocacy organization who selects/misrepresents/exaggerates the situation based on studies they're reluctant to name.
Greenpeace sez that Glysophate is one of the most toxic herbicides. That's not "spin", that's an outright lie, pure and simple.[+]
Because, in fact, glysophate is one of the most highly tested/retested chemicals in the world, and while it's hardly 100% non-toxic (nothing is), it's vastly less toxic than virtually anything else, "green", "chemical" or otherwise.

In those cases that Greenpeace is right, there'll be _reputable_ agencies agreeing with them.
As such, if Greenpeace says so, _long_ before you believe it, you need to see if anybody else does.
And not the Sea Shepards for example.

Then someone else trustworthy will be saying the same thing.

No it ain't smart to do that. Having Rush Limbaugh tell me not to listen to Greenpeace would have the opposite effect. So I don't listen to Limbaugh.

I trust the Sierra Club enough to report objective facts accurately, but before I take their conclusions at face value, I'll look elsewhere or judge myself based on what Sierra Club publishes. They're honest, mean well, and do good research, but I don't always agree with their conclusions/proposed actions.
In other words, just like any other reputable organization.
I don't know Nature Conservancy enough to comment.
The Sea Shepards on the other hand, are, ..., well, perhaps libel laws suggest I should keep my mouth _firmly_ shut.
SRVS (an environmental group in Southern Ontario) can certainly be trusted. But, that's cheating, my SO and I were on their board of directors ;-)
[+] Unless you're into serious language warping - as in "best" is included in "one of the worst".
Apparently in some recent sporting event, an American team was reported as "Placing second! Wahoo! Yah!". Didn't bother mentioning who placed first, didn't bother mentioning that there were only two teams playing, and didn't bother mentioning that the American team was disqualified...
Well, yeah, they were second. Of two. And were DQ'd at that. That's some serious spin.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It\'s not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I only had to read who did the OP's study to know where the body of the text would go. Gee, whodathunk that that outfit woulf find problems with it.
As for testing on rats, etc: Those who find the problems, I will bet, are using it in doses way over real world application. I have seen a lot of reports over the years where 'substance x is cancer causing when tested on rats' Then you read the report and find that Yep, it causes cancer but probably would have killed them from obesity at the rates they were fed it. I put no trust at all in studies done by outfits with an ax to grind.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about outfits that need certain results in order for their product to get to market and make a profit? Do you trust them?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:38:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

I have heard "study" defined as "carefully assembling the data that verifies the desired result" ... or words to that effect. Anyone who ever wrote "views" in a database is familiar with the process. You just keep fine tuning the parameters of your query until the right number comes out,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.