Talk:Jacobaea vulgaris

Plants Unassessed

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

hi MPF,

My source for teh scottish origin was http://www.crescentbloom.com/Plants/Specimen/SE/Senecio%20jacobaea.htm which generally I found a reliable source.

What source do you have for removing it? TeunSpaans 19:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I tend to agree that it does sound unlikely. TeunSpaans 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Height of Tansy Ragwort

I changed the maximum height of Tansy Ragwort to 2 meters. I am the manager of a noxious weed control program on the west coast of Canada and we commonly find plants growing to 2+ meters in height.

I can support this also for the UK. I am the Research manager for Ragwort-UK ltd and have frequently recorded plants over 2m tall growing in fertile land with good water supply. These are not rare strains of ragwort, any plant can reach these proportions if given the right conditions. These giants typically have ca 12 major stems originating from the crown and the total seed production has been estimated to be in excess of 2 million seeds for the whole plant.

DerekSmith

I have removed the following paragraph.

Since 1996, the population of Ragwort in the UK has substantially increased due to Wolf-Sheep Predation Dynamics and 1988 success of Ragwort's only major predator, the Cinnabar Moth. + - The population of ragwort has continued to grow since the early nineties and is now becoming a problem for animals. Ragwort is highly toxic to animals. Usually horses are able to discriminate the ragwort, see Poisonous effects. Horses have eaten it in hay, or ironically after it has been cut down after trying to protect the horses.

There is someone who is trying to promote the idea that the cinnabar moth has undergone a population crash in the UK and that consequently a plague of ragwort has ensued as it supports the sale of the moths as a biological control. It has got repeated many times as a result of a marketing campaign. However, as any competent British entomologist ( insect specialist) will tell you, this is not so. The moth has remained common and whilst in common with most British moths a decline in numbers can be shown statistically there is no known correlation with any increase generally in the ragwort population.

Ragwort has not increased either. There is no plague. The remainder of the paragraph simply repeats information that is better covered elsewhere in the article, therefore I deleted it.

Neilj

Neilj, you have a contradiction. In one sentence you state that there is no decline in Cinnabar numbers, yet in the next sentence you state that the Cinnabar along with all other British moths is in in decline. Your contradiction destroys the validity of your argument.

You then go on to state that ragwort is not on the increase, yet you offer no proof of your opinion. I on the other hand have factual audit data which I am prepared to provide to the Wikepedia admins to prove that ragwort is significantly on the increase in land where its presence is not being managed.

DerekSmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekSmith (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many red links!

Self-explanatory. Bibliomaniac15 00:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed a link ragwortfacts, cause that link is have to many unproven suggestions, ans the website forget to look at the primary literature where th WHO report points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falka (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other changes introduced by that last group of edits sound very POV and tend to promote the individual's business more than I think is acceptable. I also notice Googling around that a commercial website run by the same editor contains the same statement that Neilj removed from the article before as a central marketing theme. I am relatively new to this editing business as I think as we have some obviously expert naturalists (looking at the names) that I will leave it to you people to handle for now but we need some better sources for one or two things in the article particularly toxicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyGlanville (talk • contribs) 13:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I removed the worst statements about the PAs and poisoning, and will take a better look at it to explain how the PAs work. I had a closer look at the website I removed and I saw a lot of speculations with no scientific evidence. Maybe somebody can put the old version back? Falka 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Falka[reply]

I must disagree with the edits by Falka. You removed 'highly' toxic. The who stated that 15ppb/kg/day caused VOD -- a generally fatal condition from 15ppb/kg/day is regarded as highly toxic. You removed the advice that horses will eat live seadling ragwort despite the fact that there is documented evidence that this occurs whenever seedling ragwort is present in equine grazing -- horses cannot taste seedling ragwort and graze it with the grass. If you wish to remove this then please offer proof that this is not the case to counter the documented proof that it is. Yes Ragwort-Uk is a commercial operation but the url you deleted is to an information only site and makes no sales claims at all. Furthermore the site makes statements based heavily on the WHO document EHC80 already cited. Finally, you claim that there is no increase in ragwort distribution. Please publish your data to prove this. Ragwort-UK do annual surveys and have data to support the claims that ragwort continues to claim more land each year and increase its density each year in areas that are not under rigorous ragwort control management. The WHO make clear warning of the dangers of allowing PA rich plants to proliferate. Ragwort proliferation is an issue of public safety and the onus of disproving the WHO position is upon you to disprove their position which is clearly stated in EHC 80

There remain further errors in the section on toxity. I will correct these in line with the facts published by the WHO in EHC80

DerekSmith Research Manager Ragwort-UK Ltd —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekSmith (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falka 14:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Derek Smit I have to disagree with you, the website I removed is not objective. I miss scientific evidence about that skin absorption you suggest on that website. Maybe you can proof that with scientifical literature. It is not nescesary to scare people. Then you point to eating seedlings. All the scientific literature describes when horses eat fresh ragwort it is rare or they are forced to eat it cause they are starving. ( European Food Safety Authority. 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain on a request from the European Commission related to Pyrrolizidine alkaloids as undesirable substances in animal feed. The EFSA Journal 447: 1-51. Cosyns, E. 2004. Ungulate seed dispersal. Aspects of endozoochory in a semi-natural landscape. Institute of Nature Conservation, Brussels). And a lot more literature.But although every bite of Ragwort may cause liver cells to die, this doesn’t mean that eating a bite of Ragwort once in a while has a lasting effect on an animal’s health. This is because, up to a certain extent, healthy liver cells take over the function of damaged liver cells You can compare it more or less with drinking a glass of beer once in a while. Drinking alcohol kills liver cells, but if you don’t regularly drink large amounts of alcohol, it won’t have a lasting impact on your health. Look at this webpage there are many sources and explanation. http://www.ragwort.jakobskruiskruid.com/Myths%20and%20Facts/Ragwort%20poisoning%20How%20does%20it%20work.html If you really understand how PAs work you have to know that. Yes it is true PAs are poisonous to human, but you forget to point at the primary literature of the WHO report that tells about the circumstances and how it can happen. In the meanwhile there is a law in Europe about herbal medication and PAs. Ragwort is not a hazard for public safety in Europe. European Food Safety Authority. 2007. Then you claim that ragwort is cultivated by Ragwort-UK Ltd.[reply]

Falka, thank you for trying to understand this situation and explaining to me your understanding and giving me the source of that understanding. Sadly, both you and your quoted source are in complete disagreement with the findings of the dozen or so Professors and Doctors who undertook a full review of literature and data from around the world in the preparation of the report "Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids" Environmental Health Criteria 80 1988 -- ISBN 92 4 154280 2 This report was commisioned by the World Health Organisation, The United Nations Environment Programme and the International Labour Organisation. I hope that you would agree that a document promoted by the WHO carries far greater credibility than the website you have proposed we believe, particularly when the information contained on that site is so at odds with the data presented in the WHO report.

The WHO report is 345 pages of concentrated scientific information, (with the exception of a few pages of Summary and Recommendations written for understanding by non chemists/medical professional). It is obvious from your comments that you have either not taken the somewhat significant amount of time necessary to read this reference work or you have not understood what you have read. This to a degree is understandable as to digest this work requires a significant contribution of time and at least a moderate grounding in chemistry and biological reactions.

You state that you "miss scientific evidence about that skin absorption you suggest on that website". Yes you clearly did. If you care to read section 4 METABOLISM, sub section 4.1.1 Absorption -- you will see that a number of studies are reported and that skin absorption is demonstrated. On the basis of this evidence, for our Operational Risk Assessment for employees working with ragwort, we have been advised by the Health & Safety Executive to take all parts of the ragwort plant to be hazardous and to treat skin adsorption and inhalation as major occupational safety issues along with accidental ingestion.

Another aspect of your reply which indicates that you have not read or perhaps more importantly, not understood the EHC 80 report is your (and the authors of jakobskruiskruid website) fictional perception of the mode of action of PAs. PAs are not toxic !! PAs are enzymatically converted into pyrrolic derivatives which are highly reactive and hepatotoxic. Could I suggest that you read carefully section 4 for the facts as the WHO states them.

One important distinction which you should easily note is that ragwort poisoning is not in any way like the damage caused to the liver by drinking of alcohol. The pyrrolic derivatives are persistent and cause repeated and continuous destruction of hepatocytes. A single ingestion can lead to continued liver destruction and eventually lead to death 18 to 24 months after the ingestion. Please read this document (EHC 80). You may not like what you read but it is important that you do not support and regurgitate misinformation when health and lives are at risk, particularly when the facts have been carefully validated and published by the WHO for your education.

DerekSmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekSmith (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falka 06:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Derek Smith I still disagree with you. Maybe maybe you didn t read the references I gave you before, it is really recent and written by the scientific panel of the EU. This report goes a lot more information about health hazards for animals and people. They studied a lot of literature, even the sources from the WHO report. We know that Pas are not toxic in their N Oxide, we explain that on the website also. The website is written and advised by specialists. I know the WHO report very well,and that is why I disagree with you You point to 4 METABOLISM, sub section 4.1.1 Absorption. In that section the WHO report refers to Brauchli J., J. Luthy, U. Zweifel & C. Schlatter. 1982. Pyrrolizidine alkaloids from Symphytum officinale L. and their percutaneous absorption in rats. Experientia (Basel) 38: 1085-1087. We studied these primary papers. These scientists state that toxicological research on rats has proved that the pyrrolizidine alkaloids from the roots of comfrey (Symphytum officinale, Borganinaceae) can be absorbed through the skin. However, the amount of absorbed pyrrolizidine alkaloids appears to be much lower than when they where administered orally. The amount of pyrrolizidine alkaloids found in the urine of the rats was 20 to 50 times less than was measured when it was given orally. As long as the plant has not been eaten the pyrrolizidine alkaloids are in a N-oxide form and are not poisonous. When the plant is eaten they are transformed, mostly in the small intestine, into free alkaloids that are poisonous and that will damage the liver. The treatise of Brauchli and colleagues (1984) states that pyrrolizidine alkaloids that are absorbed through the skin are rarely, if ever, transformed into free alkaloids. Through our research about the sources of the reports on the danger of touching ragwort, we conclude that there is no substantial evidence that there is a health risk for people. The amount of pyrrolizidine alkaloids that might be absorbed through the skin is very low and there is no proof that these alkaloids are being changed into a toxic form. Then the WHO report section 5.1.1 Metabolic basis of toxicity Direct application of these alkaloids to the skin does not cause local toxic effects (Schoental et al., 1954), nor do cytotoxic effects occur at sites of injection.[reply]

About the reactive pyrroles You state A single ingestion can lead to continued liver destruction and eventually lead to death 18 to 24 months after the ingestion. It is true Pas can have a cumulative effect, according to the literature, a diet consisting of 1-2% Ragwort can be lethal in time ( Molyneux et al, Goeger et al) The more recent link I gave you before Tells about ingestion PAs are eliminated very rapidly. In a study conducted by Williams et al. (2002), the elimination half-life for riddelliine in rats and mice was 4.2 and about 3 hours, respectively. Riddelliine-Noxide was eliminated more slowly, with half-life’s ranging from 7 to 12 hours in rats (male versus female) and 15 to 29 hours in mice (male versus female). In a study, conducted by Eastman et al. (1982) on the kinetics of senecionine and seneciphylline in lactating mice, 89h% and 84 % of the administered doses of senecionine and seneciphylline were eliminated 16 hours after their administration. The main route of elimination is via the urine, mainly in the form of the parent alkaloid and a small amount in the form of the corresponding N-oxide. A smaller fraction is eliminated in the bile. The bile contains mostly reactive pyrroles and their associated products (Estep et al., 1991). A small portion of senecionine and seneciphylline was found to be eliminated via the respiratory tract (McLean, 1970; Eastman, 1982; Estep et al., 1991) Pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs) represent a large group of chemically diverse plant metabolites that share essentially the four necine bases platynecine, retronecine, heliotridine and otonecine. Most of the naturally occurring PAs are esters or N-oxides of these necine bases and more than 6000 plants have been identified as potential sources of PAs,

And about the liver some interesting stuff to read there is some about the time and doses from eating, it is not one bite and when animals stop ingesting it is possible to recover. Czaja, M. 1998. Liver growth and repair. Chapman en Hall London. ISBN 0412 71260 Craig, A. M., E. G. Pearson, C. Meyer & J. A. Schmitz. 1991. Serum liver enzyme and histopathologic changes in calves with chronic and chronic-delayed Senecio jacobaea toxicosis. Am. J. Vet. Res. 52: 1969-1978 Gardner, D. R., M. S. Thorne, R. J. Molyneux, J. A. Pfister & A. A. Seawrigh. 2006. Pyrrolizidine alkaloids in Senecio madagascariensis from Australia and Hawaii and assessment of possible livestock poisoning. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 34: 736-744 Lessard, P., W. D. Wilson, H. J. Olander, Q. R. Rogers, & V. E. Mendel. 1986. Clinicopathologic study of horses surviving pyrrolizidine alkaloid (Senecio vulgaris) toxicosis. Am. J. Vet. Res. 47: 1776-1780. Molyneux R. J., Johnson, A. E.& L. D. Stuart. 1988. Delayed manifestation of Senecio-induced pyrrolizidine alkaloidosis in cattle: case reports. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 30: 201-205. Goeger, D. E., P. R. Cheeke, J. A. Schmitz & D. R. Buhler. 1982. Toxicity of tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) to goats. Am. J. Vet. Res. 43: 252-254. De Lanux-Van Gorder, V. 2000. Tansy ragwort poisoning in a horse in southern Ontario. Can. Vet. J. 41: 409-410. Enough for now I think.

Falca, before I respond to your considerable response, could I please confirm that I have read the correct reference which you say was written by the scientific panel for the EU. The link I followed in your text led me to a site called ragwort.jakobskruiskruid.com and claims to have been authored by By: Esther Hegt and Pieter B. Pelser (Miami University - Botany department, Oxford, Ohio, USA)

Are you claiming that these authors are the scientific panel for the EU? or have I read the wrong site?

DerekSmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekSmith (talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falka 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Derek Smith I think you mix things. The site I mentioned is written by experts. Indeed Esther Hegt( that is me) and Pieter Pelser and there are a lot of other advisors to. Each webpage give a list of referense of the studied literature. All the names of the experts are called on that website under the page authors and advisors. The scienitific panel of the EU report is written by other scientists, (I some know personally from advices they gave me) is this one ( European Food Safety Authority. 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain on a request from the European Commission related to Pyrrolizidine alkaloids as undesirable substances in animal feed. The EFSA Journal 447[reply]