"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)"
" Monsano?s advertising campaigns have convinced many people that Roundup is safe, but the facts just don?t 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
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.
"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?
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
"plus it destroys the vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter." Wow, to think I thought it was a non-selective plant killer, I didn't know it destroys vegetation.
Vanilla extract contains alcohol, which can be toxic. Dose?
Lovely. More info needed. Dragons are extremely difficult to photograph in downtown Newark, NJ.
The eminent scientific journal?
I should hope it would!
Although Monsanto claims that
How many adverse effects? What rate? What is the margin of error?
This kind of reporting goes against what you are trying to do. Present
us with verifiable facts, figures, doses, and so forth, or you simply add to the vast bulk of logic fallacies and numerology that is the global environmental movement today.
slip hazard on floors and espically if frozen, electrical shock hazard when water and electric mix, drownd hazard and it doesnt take much. shall i go on?
water is dangerous. perhaps it should be banned too:)
Ah yes, dihydrogen monoxide, that ubiquitous chemical.
Don't forget that its gaseous form may cause severe burns, its solid form may freeze exposed flesh and cause frostbite, it is found in every municipal water supply and aquifer in industrialized countries as well as the developing world, and no treatment plant can successfully eliminate 100% of it. Although used in many industrial processes and found in large quantities in automotive and powerplant exhaust, it is actually added intentionally to the soft drinks at fast food restaurants, regardless of health concerns.
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.
I believe this came up because the DEA was spraying large parts of the Andes undiscriminately in an effort to kill coca plants and in the concentrations they were spraying it was actually killing off large populations of native plants and animals. There was also a similar issue with people using this to prepare recently burned "rain forest" land for agriculture (like the Brazil "ethanol" farms) This really does not apply much to the amounts a typical homeowner would be spraying.At the price they charge here nobody is going to be using a whole lot of it. Like all chemicals, the danger really starts when you stop following the directions.
Okay, first clue agricultural workers. Ask your self if you have been working in the fields with the stuff for the last month. Ask yourself whether you will be in the fields with the stuff all the next month. The cases that appear to have indicated a higher tendency to cancer are from people with long term exposure at high concentration. Google "medical studies glyphosate" a spend some time reading the various articles. Read critically and especially in context of who was being studied. Then form your own opinion.
Did they say in what concentration and to whom. From Natural Health Magazine. Oh, than that must be a reliable unbiased source without any agenda.
Careful of "independent studies". Can be as simple as the an author who tried it in his backyard, and saw an earthworm die in the area at some point.
If I was working with it daily over long periods I would be concerned. Show some good sense when working a couple times with it Gary Dyrkacz snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+
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.
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.
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,
HomeOwnersHub website 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.