Talk:Glyphosate

This stuff is so sketchy. How much damage can Monsanto do before we question it's right to exist? TitaniumDreads 07:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed the statement about 'endocrine disruption' and provided a link to the health concerns section of the Roundup article (it provides much more information). --203.206.52.93 8 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

Endocrine disruptor?

The endocrine disruption topic isn't one that should have been removed from this article, however, it is still an unresolved issue. Invitro studies have shown glyphosate to cause abnormal steroid production in cell lines, but whole organism studies have thus far failed to find evidence of endocrine disruption. However, since endocrine disruption can happen by so many pathways, it may not be surprising to understand that if there was an abnormal affect, it may be difficult to detect over an entire organism. On the other hand, in-vitro studies often exaggerate circumstances to the point where an abnormal affect can be found that wouldn't actually exist in an actual organism. The topic requires more research before glyphosate can be said to be definately an endocrine distuptor, or definately not. However, the information about the research should remain, because it is still important for people to know that it is being studied.

For now, the information should stay, and because it is a matter of dispute (not here on wikipedia, but in the scientific community at large), make sure that all your claims on the matter are cited, to prevent this from turning into an edit war. Thanks!! Phidauex 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"peer reviewed" citation is not appropriate description

Under the External Links section of this entry, the "Peer-reviewed, up-to-date info on the toxicology of glyphosate" is not an accurate description -- although it may be the author's description (Ms. Cox). The item linked to this is actually a propaganda item authored by an employee of NCAP -- NCAP is the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, an anti-pesticide organization. The item itself was published in the Journal of Pesticide Reform, which is NOT a peer-reviewed publication, but a "journal" describing the positions of the NCAP organization. The JPR is not abstracted by any scientific abstracting service, include Chemical Abstracts, CABA, PUBMED, etc. Scientific libraries do not recognize this as a scientific publication. To call this information in this format "peer-reviewed" is incorrect and blatantly false, as no "peers" have reviewed and agreed with Ms. Cox interpretation of this assortment of studies.

I suggest that this linked item be re-evaluated for its suitability for this Wikipedia entry. If "the other side" needs to be represented, include a link to the NCAP website, so the reader knows the source of the material, just as the reader of the US EPA and EU reviews knows the source. NCAP website: http://www.pesticide.org/

Moved lines on toxicity out of first paragraph

I rearranged the environmental section, by moving the comments about toxicity (EPA class, etc) to the section on fauna toxicity.The first paragraph has been written about glyphosate's herbicidal effects on plants (presumably, plants that were not intended for destruction upon spraying). Looking at the entry on EPA toxicity classes, it seems that their definition of toxicity has to do with poisoning people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.74.80.240 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

citations needed

This is obviously now a contensious article. Funny how glyphosate was fine until GM crops came along and it became fashionable to bash it. Anyway, since it is controversial it is not acceptable to quote a source that itself does not quote a source for its claims. For example the greenpeace article at [1] which has the claim "In California, glyphosate is the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. " and is presumable the source of the claim to same effect in this article does not provide a source for this claim. The greenpeace article has a list of sources at the end but they do not reference which source belongs to which claim. Therefore, we are unable to check the veracity of the claim made in the Greenpeace article. Hence, my additions of the citation needed tags to this article.

contentious???

TTguy has consistently removed anything at all looking bad concerning roundup or glyphosate as it is "unreferenced"...in fact everything he has ever removed from this article was actually referenced on the page...he even tried to remove the entire paragraph on toxicity once before...i added monsanto references and even sentences declaring roundup formulations not so bad and explanations for high levels of poisoning incidents such as "of course as its used so much"...yet he went back thru to selectively remove only the references & sentences i added that arnt clearly pro-glyphosate...anyways as i have added reference to monsantos web page...the page of those that wish to sell as much of this product as possible...(and that is their right and its why i linked to their home page on this section)(we have a right to hear why their product is great and not harmful)...and i put in sentences citing them that they didnt reference at all on their home page...i can surely add a link as well to greenpeace...which is considered one of the few sources of information on issues such as this that might have a different view other than the actual seller of the product...the page is only contentious when people like ttguy remove everything except for the description from the seller of the product...then it becomes contentious...yet as i said...its actions such as these cover-ups that make glyphosate seem worse than it actually is...glyphosate was never looked at as "fine" by everyone...its clearly not so harmful as an organochlorine...yet people raise their standards from time to time...and monsanto has even adjusted its formulations to adjust to those higher standards...this has nothing to do with being "fashionable" or GM...in fact, i that have tried to balance this section out, am myself pro-GE tech when its responsible and there is a vocal critical lobby questioning some of GE techs various products...this has everything to do with the actions of this biochemical and its formulations...his explanation that "altho a reference was cited"...and even this had references it sited in its own article...yet doesnt attach to each sentence a reference number???...is pathetic...

A proper article will cite a reference to back up each claim not a list of "sources" at the end. This is called scholarship. And Wikipedia believes in scholarship.Ttguy 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

yet what makes it really pathetic is that ttguy doesnt go around hopping thru wikipedia looking for uncited sentences...he just removes everything critical he can get away with on a few pesticide pages and the GM pages...and this in fact does harm to these industries as people start to get distrustful and suspicious when all critical comment is wiped clean...anyways my own take on glyphosate and its newest formulations...is that they are indeed an advanced herbicide...relatively non-toxic compared to many...yet it seems the EDC potential/reproductive effects is what looks like it needs some research to determine better its level of harm vrs its agricultural benefit...if one makes the decision to use an herbicide and that one needs them in ones particular agricultural situation...Benjiwolf 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all I did not remove sections - I tagged them as citations needed.

I put back the citations needed tags. If you think you have references to justify the claims I have tagged then replace the citations needed tags with references to primary literature to back up the claims. Not references to a greenpeace article which may or may not have any evidence to back up its claims. Like I said above - the greenpeace article is not properly referenced and it is not possible to verify its claims unless you read every reference they quote. If you are prepared to do that and then provide the actual primary reference to back up the claims on the Glyphosate article then do so. Ttguy 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

your reasoning is invalid...u just have a gripe against greenpeace...they are just as valid a source of info as monsanto...we would have to tear down almost all the info on wikipedia if we went with ur thinking...greenpeace is a valid source..an accepted registered international organization and not some whacky extreme site...they are a valid reference even if they dont have any scientific links on their pages...the fact that they do makes it even more referencable...greenpeace is a valid source...if u disagree with a info of theirs then put ur own info showing the opposite...take ur monsanto lobby elsewhere...ive added pro-monsato statements and their own links...again i state u are pathetic to try and block other info besides theirs being on the page...and ur adding of "shes a vivisectionist" to a scientists page shows ur hypocrisy i think...half the scientists out there have carried out experiments on ants or worms or even mice...and u know what... oh no!!! im a vivisectionist too then i suppose ttguy!!!...Benjiwolf 19:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" If a greenpeace article does not have a source for their claims then their claims are not verifiable. You could perhaps write something like "Greenpeace believes XYZ" and link to the greenpeace site which makes the claims. Under this scenario we coud verify that greenpeace is making the claim. But you can not write "glyphosate is the third most likely pesticide/herbicide formulation to cause incidents" because we can't check where this claim comes from and what it actually means. What is an incident for example? As it stands such claims are meaningless. As to the mysterious lancet article that no one seems to be able to provide a refernence for: - the 9 deaths from glyphosate - were they from environmental exposure or are they from suicide attempts? It makes a big difference to the dangerousness of the herbicide.

I don't have particular beef with greenpeace as a source. However, in this instance they are not a soure of facts because they don't supply any detail to where their claims come from.

It is you that has referenced Monsanto as a source. I have not made any claims that Monsanto any more or less a valid source of info as Greenpeace. However, if you read some of Monsanto's information you might actually find references to articles in the published scientific literature to back up their claims. Because in order to get a pesticide or a GM crop registered they have to have research to back them up.

I don't think I have added any references except updated the JPR reference that you keep deleting. All I am asking is that you or someone supply some reference where the claims made against glyphosate can be verified.Ttguy 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Benjiwolf - If you look at the policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability you will note "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." So on this basis I will give you a few more days to supply the references needed to back up the Glyphosate claims and then I will be removing the unsourced claims.Ttguy 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did a search at http://www.thelancet.com and only two articles refer to the word Glyphosate. One was http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605715580/fulltext Volume 357, “Plan Colombia”—parallels drawn with Vietnam war by Kelly Morris which is an article about glyphosate being used in colombia to kill cocaine crops. The other is "GM food debate" by Ewen S, Pusztai A Vol. 354, Issue 9191, 13 November 1999, Pages 1726-1727. The full text for this 2 pager is not available. But this article is obviously not a primary source about glyphosate poisoning in Japan. So I am going to go ahead and delete the Japan deaths claim from the article as the claimed source for the claim does not exist. Ttguy 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

you need to look around the lancet docs from the 80s if u wish to say it doesnt exist...i doubt theyr even on the internet ttguy...u need to look in the lancet journals themselves not some internet search...and u just said they dont even give the articles contents even for 1999 articles so its rather worthless ur internet search...go to the university...Benjiwolf 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

just went to the reference listed next to the "toxicty" section..they in fact dont only refer to the lancet...they even gave us the specific one and page...stop wasting peoples time ttguy with making people double & triple reference everywhere...read through the references from now on ttguy...you go to pages and remove things without even bothering to read through the references themselves...im now going to grab several more scientific articles that trash this product as im getting tired of ur actions on this page...you know full well there is lots of info out their that can make this product look bad...its not anymore going to be a brief example such as the lancet letter...its going to be many of these stories of posionings...(and im sure we can find an example of a child dieing from this product or from swallowing monsanto herbicides to put on this page)...u have been removing material to unbalance this page that is clearly referenced and are wasting peoples time...before i made an effort to make some pro-monsanto statements and include their documents...that policy of mine is ending as i am fighting against a lobbiest editor (you!)...so im going to have to head to one side to lobby against you now...Benjiwolf 10:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf, thanks for supplying a reference to the Lancet article. At least I think it was you. Anyway the apparent reference is "The Lancet (Feb 6 1988, pg 299)". I just used Pubmed to check the reference [2]. There are 3 articles on that page of The Lancet in that year - using this search "1988[Publication Date] AND lancet[Journal] AND 229[Pagination]"

The articles are as follows:

1: Gallinaro P. Soft egg shells--carpal tunnel syndrome or sign of pollution? Lancet. 1988 Jul 23;2(8604):229-30.

2: Donnelly PK, Edmunds ME, O'Reilly K. Renal transplantation in sickle cell disease.Lancet. 1988 Jul 23;2(8604):229.

3: Guslandi M. Related Articles, Cimetidine plus cisapride for reflux oesophagitis.Lancet. 1988 Jul 23;2(8604):229.

None are about glyphosate deaths in Japan. Also note that this page of the lancet is July not Feburary. So this reference is bogus. You talk about me wasting peoples time. I am again going to delete the deaths in Japan sentance.Ttguy 20:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am back to eat my words. Another search on Pubmed [3] but for the text "polyoxyethyleneamine" does infact pull up Lancet. 1988 Feb 6;1(8580):299 Sawada Y, Nagai Y, Ueyama M, Yamamoto I. "Probable toxicity of surface-active agent in commercial herbicide containing glyphosate". I have no idea why my previous search "1988[Publication Date] AND lancet[Journal] AND 229[Pagination]" did not find this article. I appologise. I would like to point out that the beyond pesticides fact sheet that cites this article does so in the Inert ingredients section - so this is an article about the toxicity of "polyoxyethyleneamine" (POEA) an not about the toxicity of Glyphosate. This is the Glyphosate Wiki article. There is a roundup article and perhaps the two should be merged. But back to the question in hand ...

Unfortunately the Sawada et al Lancet arcticle does not have an online abstract available. This is a shame because I want to know if the deaths in Japan are from environmental exposure or ingestion of the concentrated roundup product. Pubmed did offer up a related article on Glyphosate poisioning which does have an on line abstract. Toxicol Rev. 2004;23(3):159-67. Bradberry SM, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA. from National Poisons Information Service (Birmingham Centre) and West Midlands Poisons Unit, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK.[4]

From reading this abstract we learn that the serious health effects quoted by some are due to deliberate ingestion of the roundup concentrate.

"Accidental ingestion of glyphosate formulations is generally associated with only mild, transient, gastrointestinal features."

"Most reported cases have followed the deliberate ingestion of the concentrated formulation of Roundup "

"There is a reasonable correlation between the amount ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death."

" Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. "

Bottom line on this is that I would suggest that is is not fair to open up a discussion about the toxicity of a hebicide by mentioning the fact that if you deliberate drink the concentrate that is poisionous. Is it relevant to the discussion on drain cleaner for example that it will kill you if you drink it? Ingestion of too much Dihydrogen monoxide will kill you too.

I intend to make an appropriate editTtguy 21:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

it is I that am soon going to report you for disruptive editing on several pages. I dont use the word pathetic at all towards u personaly yet i am refering to your editing practices which i feel are vandalism & in bad faith. The bottom line is that to be a scientist means to be a sceptic. That means being just as sceptical about the info from a products manufacturer as one is about a greenpeace article. Now we know that greenpeace has little motivation to engage in difficult fights or to raise an air of caution against extraordinarily powerful & wealthy companies unless they sincerely believe in their position and it is backed up with detailed scientific information. On the other hand a company has intense financial motivation when providing its information. Therefore it is good to remain sceptical of greenpeace on a scientific basis as one would be sceptical of any scientist in the spirit of science. The scepticism a good scientist held for the company however would naturally run far deeper. Therefore as you believe the company line totally on these issues and only edit away information not adhereing to it i regard your edits as "pathetic" and not in a scientific spirit. It is not a personal insult. I think your a decent guy. Yet you clearly seem to be a businessman and not a scientist. There is nothing wrong with being a businessman. I just think your editing is way off balance and therefore pathetic and in bad faith with things like hypocritical smears such as: "this scientist is a vivisectionist" onto pages. My definition of a "pathetic" edit is one such as this. A scientist wouldnt smear another in this way...only a businessman lobbiest would...in anycase i dont need to state any reason for removing your edits anymore...i have already stated that you consistently remove cited referenced material...this lancet study is a good example...it was already referenced you just didnt read the references and blanked as you didnt like it, then after i put in another reference right next to the sentence you removed again...anyways after looking over your editing patterns i need no reason to remove your edits anymore...some may still be acceptable and good edits and i will not remove them...yet many are just wasting peoples time and are vandalism...Benjiwolf 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf your acusation that I am removing references is baseless. I removed the links from the section heading Toxicity and put those links inside the text next to the claims that they seem to support. I have not deteleted any reference. For example The Lancet article reference was moved to the end of the Toxicity section where I talk about how drinking glyphosate concentrates can kill you. My edits are to make this section NPOV. Your constant reversions without any attempt to come to compromise are against wikipedia policy. I expect you to eventually pay the price for this. Ttguy 20:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf what is your justification for deleting this section? which has citations and is NPOV.

In California doctors report illnesses potentially related to pesticides to the Californian Envionmental Protection Agencies Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program. Statistics from this program indicate that Glyphosate related incidents are one of the highest reported . The Californian EPA however point out that when assessing the toxicity of pesticides call volumne is not a good measure since it does not take into account the number of people exposed and the severity of symptoms assocated with each incident . Of the 515 pesticide related hospitalizations recorded by the program over a 13 year period, none are attributed to glyhposate . In the 40 years to 1988 Cholinesterase inhibitors and methyl bromide were most often involved in the more serious occupational systemic pesticide poisonings .

and replacing it with "[glyphosate] is the third most likely pesticide/herbicide formulation to cause incidents." which is POV, misrepresents the situation and cites no sources.Ttguy 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

well first of all several references on the page mention this 3rd most common stat...i then saw another figure and qualified to top ten with 3rd and 8th reported...you now report 1st in one year it seems...anyways there is not yet a link right next to that sentence, but it is referrred to in many of the linked articles...everything on this page is cross linked to many documents...and i will further link and cross link to original studies to fend off ur blankings...yet please go ahead and tag it with the appropriate references...i myself added in that the high rate of these incidences are in part as of the high rate of its use...anything used so frequently is bound to have more incidents...anyways add ur own qualifiers...if they were removed it was accidental when reverting ur constant disruptive blankings...ur constant blankings have forced me to stop wasting my time trying to sort thru ur edits...if u begin a policy of discussing removal of things then youll find ur material additions are never lost when i try and sort thru ur edits...as to me "paying" the price...get real...Benjiwolf 15:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

you know what??? & "make it disappear"

when i look over that greenpeace document i find it often even superior in quality to this page as it stands currently...their introduction is much better with more relevant information...they make no excessive claims...they state clearly glyphosate itself is not very toxic to mammals or birds, and even explain why...(when we can find other more recent sources that state glyphosate may actually be toxic to mammalian reproduction) greenpeace even states that it is its action on other things like fish and the natural flora etc. that is in question... and they state that surfactants in many but not all glyphosate formulations are what usually cause the severe incidents...as you know what??? greenpeace knows all about lobbiests like ttguy...they know if they arnt very cautious that their credibilty will slip even with a single mistake as lobbiests ruthlessly exploit them...ttguy i think u qualify for a job with monsanto...theyd love you...they dont like people like me that aim to include greenpeace documents alongside the monsanto documents i include...they want it unbalanced...and if there is an incidence of a poisoning they want it blacked out...instead of standing up and acknowledging things like that so it doesnt happen so often and/or the products are adjusted to prevent such things, instead its tactics like this that just try and "make it disappear"...Benjiwolf 10:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

and now its tough to make it disappear

after a quick search yielding Carolines recent document thoroughly referenced in the manner TTguy demands (that is not however needed for inclusions to wikipedia)...yet is needed to beat back Ttguy and now force him to bring in his own studies...go ahead TTguy...theres all sorts of Monsanto funded studies...yet mainly just of pure glyphosate and so not giving us accurate info on glyphosate product toxicity...most everything on the toxicty section is also now referenced to her document as well, so you cant so easily throw it all out anymore (your argument that documents for inclusion to wikipedia had to be referenced in this specific manner is invalid however)...i can include a BBC article with no references in it even as they are a valid source and internationally recognized even...just like greenpeace (and dont you now wish it was just the cautious 10 year old greenpeace doc i refered to)...(yet i dont now have to head to an admin to prove this arguement now that ur referencing demands are invalid)...& i would have spent my own time including monsanto studies and docs...yet its ur job now Ttguy...ive done enough of that...if u wish to play lobbiest and just remove the other sides statements ur going to find this neutral editor leaving u all the work for that sides lobbying and document inclusion...if u shift to a neutral position i will return to including monsanto info & refs...anyways...have fun reading thru carolines heavily refd doc and all her nice nifty charts and graphs!!!...i will!...its far more thorough than the greenpeace doc...and not so hesitant (shes a scientist, however, and greenpeace is more worried about backlash from the anti-enviro lobby, she can be firm while they must be weak)...i now want to learn more of this chemical and its formulations after your heavy persistent lobbying for all critical review to be blanked from the page...(u seem to be more persistant than glyphosate even)...Benjiwolf 19:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

There are clearly content issues to be resolved here, but there are also some clear formatting issues. For example this Glyphosate has an EPA Toxicity Class of IV (practically nontoxic) [5]. was changed to this Glyphosate is classed as a moderately toxic herbicide and in EPA toxicity class 2. The former is preferable because it contains links to both information on the EPA (who I'd previously never heard of) and to the Toxicity Class thing (which I'd also never heard of). Secondly, from Toxicity Class, it appears the the correct formatting is Roman rather than Arabic numbering, and finally, the former also provides a source.

With respect to referencing, it would also be helpful to use Wikipedia's footnoting system. Having a footnote containing this information Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N, Seralini GE. (2005) Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase, Environmental Health Perspectives, 113 (6): 716-720. PMID 15929894 is preferable to an in-text citation (Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 113, No.6, 716-720) for the same article.

It is also some concern that many references are links to websites of not clearly verifiable nature. For these reasons, I have reverted the article to my version. I am more than happy to have negative evidence about this product presented (and there is plenty of it). However, it needs to be well-referenced, and presented in an NPOV way.

Finally, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that a separate articles exist to discuss Roundup and Monsanto.--Limegreen 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Further in terms of neutrality and accuracy, a sentence such as EPA however clearly admits in exposures above its limits (which it currently sets at 0.7 parts per million in water) could be improved by a) replacing "admits" with "states" (makes it sound less like a conspiracy). Further, the rate is not for "exposure", but for "drinking water". Presumably the dermal concentration would be higher. Finally, in a contextual sense, there are other commonly used herbicides and pesticides that have far lower acceptable levels [6]. --Limegreen 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

you cant remove the information such as the EPAs findings of fraud...while there are some links to sites such as greenpeace...they are legitimate links...all facts on the page can also be found in caroline coxs scientific review (in a 26 year old scientific journal...if monsanto can put out all the info from their studies, even after some of their scientists have been found guilty of fraud...then so can an alternative source of info for their products)...facts such as the EU bases its conclusions on monsanto studies can be easily noted by examining some of the references on this page such as the EUs own document...i will adjust some wording here and there...yet most everything on this page is factual information...if you see something that is not factual please discuss on talk page and we'll take a look...just as monsanto is a legitimate organisation...so are many of the action groups...yet i have not based any facts on this page from action groups...i sometimes cite them so the reader has a chance to see that there are indeed some action groups and can see what they say...Benjiwolf 08:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

the thing about the national medal of technology?...there was no citation and just what is this???...i left it and added the fact tag and stated the president it was given to him by as we would assume a "national medal" is handed over by a president or something yes???...yet if no one can cite this i will evetually remove it alltogether...for now i say that it is possible he received some such medal so im leaving it...Benjiwolf 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

as to american EPA rating it is currently at III and i have adjusted to the roman numeral format...Benjiwolf 08:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, feel free to add anything about fraud that you want. Just reference it from a good source in a tidy fashion and that's certainly worth mentioning. I've never heard of the National Medal of Technology. I assume it's some US-thing...

On the referencing thing, you've just changed it to III, and then provided no source? You had one initially with 2, I've found one with IV. Is III an average of 2 dodgy sources?

As for Caroline Cox, I'd much rather your reference her publications in a journal that she's not editor of. Another editor (see further up this talk page) has some (seemingly valid) concerns about the Journal of Pesticide Reform.

Finally, please see my above concerns and suggestions relating to footnoting and internal links within wikipedia. Also, please capitalise where appropriate. --Limegreen 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

as to american EPA rating it is currently at III and i have adjusted to the roman numeral format...you can find this here[7]with her references on the second page here[8] in what is clearly a scientific document, well referenced, and in a 26 year old journal the "Journal of Pesticide Reform"

...and also on the EPAs own pages...while cooperative extensions many times have valid facts...it seems several sources besides them have have been somewhat confused with the actual rating...stating from 2 to 4...it is at 3 actually after i have looked over things...i did not set it at 2 someone else had...i reinstated it from 4 knowing that wasnt true...and also you have to acknowledge the fact that anything needing to be registered by the EPA as a pesticide or herbicide is by very nature a poison and toxic...its just a question of how toxic..it takes about 200ml or a little less than a cup of glyphosate product to kill you...if you dont believe me and want to say "its practically non-toxic" then i propose this...i drink a cup of milk...you drink a cup of roundup...then we compare notes...OK???...(milk is "practically non-toxic" except for those with lactose intolerance and allegies and such)...(glyphosate products are not practically non-toxic...in fact the new york state attorney general sued monsanto for trying to say this type of thing claiming it was "safer than table salt")...dont make the same mistake limegreen

...many people have used these products to commit suicide even...anyways limegreen, i put on this page many things including several monsanto links which no one had done...and i have made several statements sympathetic to them such as these products are a "clear and vast improvement over organochlorines" which many might argue with actually saying they arnt really a clear and vast improvement, and i have kept any references and material which you added and i went forth with your idea to break up the discussion some seperating things out...yet mammalian reserach must stay with the human section...its the main source used to determine human info as this product is a poison and u cant go around dosing people with it for research purposes...yet go ahead...drink a cup...lets see...please sign several statements beforehand tho and make out a will, and i accept no liabiliy from your experiment...Benjiwolf 08:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

anyways honestly please dont drink any roundup or glyphosate limegreen...your a decent editor and its nice to have you around...dont even drink one drop...Benjiwolf 09:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

and please continue to discuss & edit this article as it needs a another reasonable editor...TTguy has mainly just removed anything anyone has put on this page even though it has been referenced...you have actually added information and references which is what the article needs...Benjiwolf 09:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

as to the journal of pesticide reform...well they havnt been indicted and sent to prison have they???...monsanto paid scientists have and so in the interest of NPOV i think its good the article mentions just exactly how and why many of its ratings in the EPA and such have been decided and whos info that is based on... and that when doing a literature review one is just going to see: monsanto studies...i have included monsanto studies and links...and i have included the document from the journal of pesticide reform...if i was going to start blanking things i think id start with the side that had scientist/felons on the payroll...the journal of pesticide reform has to be very careful limegreen as monsanto and its multi-billion dollar empire will sue the heck out of them if their not...they probably have already tried...somehow they have stayed alive for 26 years so that tells u something...Benjiwolf 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

after i looked over the document from the journal of pesticide reform, and also saw its referencing style which included many monsanto studies...ive determined they are a valid source of information besides just company studies and company funded studies...they dont have the funding monsanto does so cant hire a hundred people to churn out studies, yet its pretty much the best a shoe-string budget opposition can muster...anyways what caroline did was basically just review studies in other journals and monsanto studies...its a counter presentation to the way monsanto might present things to those such as the EPA or EU regulatory bodies...Benjiwolf 09:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! I certainly wouldn't drink glyphosate, and if I wanted to buy some, I'd probably not buy Roundup on principle. However, what I think is lacking (about from some referencing quibbles) is a lack of perspective. Yes, drinking glyphosate is worse than milk, but it's probably only a little worse than everyone's favourite toxic liquid (ethanol!). It's a lot safer than the average herbicide (and especially the most toxic). There are people complaining of respiratory problems with the organic herbicide (made from pine trees) used in my city. Which I guess leaves us with either steam (but you can get nasty scalds with that) or manual weeding. I note that in your edits your've removed the source I had for DDT being more toxic, and replaced it with a citation needed tag. As for the toxicity class, I'd rather see it on the EPA website. I note that the reference for class III is 1993, and I'd assume with the research conducted since then it may have been re-visited.--Limegreen 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thinking of referencing, you really need a source for this statement "Inhalation of glyphosate products is regarded as far more toxic than ingestion.". This statement (while true) "If a mammal (including a human) ingests enough glyphosate-product it will die" is also rather extreme. After all, if you drink too much water you will also die (as neatly shown by a radio station contest recently [9]). Ditto milk (although presumably via its water content), bleach, vodka... --Limegreen 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

on biochemical action

what is that refernece CAS??? do we have some author names or something..."CAS" is not a valid reference...i will remove in a day or so unless someone clarifies just what they meant...Benjiwolf 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

CAS is at the end of the reference Hietanen, E., K. Linnainmaa, and H. Vainio. 1983. Effects of phenoxy herbicides and glyphosate on the hepatic and intestinal biotransformation activities in the rat. Acta Pharma. et Toxicol. 53:103-112.)CAS: 1071-83-6, and is short for Chemical Abstracts Service, working like PMID for PubMed, but for a different system.--Limegreen 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ecologically harmful crutches

that is indeed what that side reports...the sentence starts with "it has been reported"...and that is one of the basic arguments of that side...that farmers are becoming dependent on an ecologically harmful crutch...we can state that sides position...in fact it should be expanded yet you can click onto that sides document so its just a paraphrase...maybe ill expand it sometime...and i think i might just say a brief word or two from personal experience...i have worked for big agro firms to distribute their products...and i have worked for farmers that dont use their products...a dutch immigrant farmer to the states that had the most successful community supported ag farm in new york state (where many customers sign on for a set amount of produce at the start of the year so the farmer has an idea of how much to grow)...this farmer the weed problem he inherited when he first got to the land were tough...(from a previously chemically farmed area) yet after several years of using methods passed down to him, and he developed quickly after a few seasons, he was able to mainly defeat his weed problem...he used mainly just mechanical cultivation with the tractors...& he used huge long sheets of black plastic mulch for the curcurbits...everything else was mechanical cultivation or cheap or free labor for stuff like just planted carrots...after hitting the weeds hard the fist few seasons and observing things, hitting them at the right time, and various other techniques, it became little problem and also a few minor weeds just make little difference...some even say a few weeds here and there can even increase yields...anyways the fact is farmers have forgotten how they used to deal with the weed problem...they now are totally dependant on a few companies to solve it for them...there has been a serious brain drain in the farming profession and many farmers just rely on what the ag firm tells them to do...yet mechanical cultivation has its problems too...and as to pesticides...well the season i worked for the guy there just werent many serious problems that would drastically affect anything...there were some cucumber beetles that hit hard that year...yet as the farmer had 25 different crops of things it didnt matter that some of the brassicas were hit hard...he had so many other things growing that it just wasnt an issue that seriously impacted his profits even if the brassicas had been totally devestated...its called the way people used to farm less than 100 years ago...its called crop diversification...it doesnt have to be so diverse as he had, to be successful either...just a few different types of crops and a good rotation and ur there...somethings are tougher than others...i worked for an organic apple farm once and they said the apples were a tough one...the strawberries were simpler in regards pests...yet it took them 15 years to develop the methods to solve totally their apple pest/disease problems as they started from scratch knowing nothing about it...people forgot what to do...there is a knowledge gap now after the chemical dependence...chemicals may have their use...yet are best reserved for emergencies...they are overused and their effectiveness for emergencies is now greatly reduced as of that...and what is really interesting me is how fast organic ag has returned to knowledge of how to farm without chems...research like paul stamets the fungi specialist in washington that show simple inncoulations of certain beneficials can double or triple yields is where the future of ag is at...organic agriculture combined with GE tech will be the future of agriculture...chemicals will be reserved for emergencies...and roundup-ready type GE tech (just continueing chem dependence) is going the way of the dodo...yet as i said theres way too much food in this world...people are seriously obese...and the farmers have been screwed as yields may have increased a tad for a while till the soil was ruined yet the prices of their crops just went down...and they were all forced out of business except the largest that could stay alive thru economies of scale...they were forced into their chem dependence...its not their fault...Benjiwolf 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an article on Glyphosate not the phylosphy of farming. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of various farming methodologies go and start a page for it or edit an existing oneTtguy 01:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

anyways that side can have their argument stated in paraphrased form

the other side would of course disagree, and even if u got them to agree they would say...well its too late...all these farmers dont have a clue how to farm without chems...and i myself would state itd be dangerous for all the farmers to abandon their chems overnight...they dont know what to do without them and their soil is hurting...and the big ag firms just didnt understand all these issues back at the turn of the century when they developed this stuff...people didnt realize how toxic some of this stuff was...when they finally did, greed prevailed, and we saw falsified studies and subtle manipulation of data...yet the real crime...the real current crime is domestic gardeners using the chems..the farmers have excuses...the domestic gardners in heavily populated areas have no excuse...anyways it a legitmate critique that side has, it is a highly public critique, many many books have been written concerning this issue...and a paraphrased sentence about it in the article stays...and...the fact is...some of the agro firms will listen to that argument and adjust their product lines so their products arnt controversial anymore...neither side enjoys fighting the other...someday a resolution will be found...Benjiwolf 13:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Roundup Article

I see that a lot of the text on this page is repeated verbatim at Roundup. There seem a couple of obvious options. 1. Roundup could redirect to glyphosate (usually the case for off-patent products). 2. Roundup, and in particular its association with Roundup Ready crops, is semi-distinct from glyphosate, so it could continue to exist with its own twist, but needs to have the overlap minimised. And another thing, this page is still a trainwreck. Please, Benjiwolf, while I have some issues with some of the content you've added, by far the biggest reversion temptation at the moment is the style of your edits. You're still using emotive language, still not capitalising, still not footnoting, and still not linking through to other articles. It's just a huge and not very readable blob of text. --Limegreen 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I read this article early in January and tried to edit it a little. Since then, it's become uglier and uglier. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, not a one-man band for green points of view, no matter how legitimate. 129.74.80.240 04:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC) jKay