Talk:Glyphosate

human toxicity

• "Acute toxicity is dose-related; Skin exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation, and photocontact dermatitis has been occasionally reported. These effects are probably due to the preservative benzisothiazolin-3-one. Severe skin burns are very rare.[114] Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, or tingling and irritation in the throat. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis. Superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate.[114] Death has been reported after deliberate overdose.[114][115] Ingestion of Roundup ranging from 85 to 200 ml (of 41% solution) has resulted in death within hours of ingestion, although it has also been ingested in quantities as large as 500 ml with only mild or moderate symptoms.[116] A reasonable correlation is seen between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of more than 85 ml of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults."

I came to this article after accidental skin exposure. Impressed with the level of relevant helpful detail provided!

Article could be improved with details about safe handling of typical formulations. The infobox is helpful:

• GHS precautionary statements

P273, P280, P305+351+338, P310, P501

But too cryptic for the typical reader. It would be better for the codes above to be fully unpacked into actual words, such as:

• P280: Wear protective gloves/protective clothing/eye protection/face protection.

-71.174.180.38 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Safety must be seen in the context of the Human-gut biota symbiant.

The following needs careful consideration and the insights it provides should be incorporated into the main Wikipedia on Glyphosate

From: The Interplay Between Environmental Chemical Exposures and Obesity: Proceedings of a Workshop. Page 109

Young asked a question about the presence of small amounts of glyphosate—the pesticide sold as Round Up—in foods, particularly corn and high-fructose corn syrup. A paper published by Shehata and colleagues (Shehata et al., 2013) reported that many pathogenic gut bacteria are resistant to glyphosate, whereas many beneficial bacteria are susceptible to it. Could the presence of glyphosate in corn syrup be a confounding variable in the results showing a link between fructose and metabolic dysfunction? Goldman answered that she has not seen any studies addressing the issue, but that it is a reasonable question to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.194.197 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Citations

So, a study that found a minimum inhibitory concentration of 0.5 mg/mL at the lowest? When levels in food are at parts per million and lower, further diluted when eaten? No. Even if that weren't the case, this fails WP:MEDRS. --tronvillain (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Considering Glyphosate's safety merely in the context of how it affects the Human gut biota is woefully inadequate. Herbicides like RoundUp are known to have a serious negative effect on bee hive survivability, and as such on foods produced by all plants that need bee fertilization in their life cycle. This applies both to crops grown for human consumption and for all other flora of which parts are consumed by wild living creatures.

Residue levels in food products

It is already well known that glyphosate persists in soils. Recent tests by Ecowatch might be a bit emotional, but the levels in processed foods are indeed "higher" than expected, meaning higher than in some other foods when considering they are formulated from other ingredients. These tests sponsored by Eco-watch were not field tests, but tests conducted on packaged food products from the shelves. Since the consumer most often doesn't eat carrots directly from the field, or the vegetables are formulated into consumer products, it not just a question of agricultural techniques but also of food safety. The National Pesticide Information center does not have any regulatory oversight and only refers to field tests rather than tests on food products directly, which is usually the domain of the FDA. (Osterluzei (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC))

The tests were actually funded by US Right To Know rather than Ecowatch. Full report here. Where did you read that these were higher than expected? Looking at the values, the highest was in Cheerios at around 1 ppm. This is very much in line with the maximum levels found in UK wheat - see refs in Crop_desiccation#Glyphosate - but still way below the MRL of 20 ppm. We could do with more details on the residues found in food in comparison to MRLs, but it would be preferable to get this from academic sources rather than activist organisations. SmartSE (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Ecowatch is not the organisation having the tests done, the article implied that they were higher than expected with regard to ADI. I clearly stated in my contribution that the levels were below the U.S. limits for common food products and therefore not alarming. Nevertheless, they have tested above 1 ppm as you also wrote, and the Code of Federal Regulation limit (MRL) here is 0.5 ppm for the grain itself, hence the concern is not so far-fetched (difficult what a limit for Cheerios would be, and again the differences in ADI values have concerned consumers). I believe tests conducted by licensed labs such as Anresco (full lab results here: anresco_reports_food_testing_2016.pdf) can have value even for academics, but you are right maybe another more objective paper on such consumer product tests would be favorable. I just don't agree with the interpretation "environmental fate"; once those levels show up in food products, they are considered food contaminants. (Osterluzei (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC))

We're veering towards original research here, but the second ref you cited gives the MRL for grain as 30 ppm, so 1 ppm is much lower. We need to look for better sources which discuss permissible MRLs and the amount found in foodstuffs because they must be out there. It is very poor that we don't have info on the MRLs or ADIs. There is discussion of ADIs in this review but there might be better ones available. I agree that environmental fate isn't the best place for it, but it didn't seem sensible to leave just one sentence in a section of it's own. SmartSE (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glyphosate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402204619/http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx to http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904235825/http://www.mlmp.org:80/Results/Findings/Pleasants_and_Oberhauser_2012_milkweed_loss_in_ag_fields.pdf to http://www.mlmp.org/results/findings/pleasants_and_oberhauser_2012_milkweed_loss_in_ag_fields.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)