Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Focus

After some cleanup of WP:FRINGE stuff from the initial page creation and copying content from glyphosate, it looks like some of the problems are popping up that were cautioned against in previous talk page discussions. Right now, the glyphosate alone content isn't included here, though it becomes undue to not include it since glyphosate is relatively non-toxic. That's looking like a fair case that this type of split causes more problems than solves (though I'm honestly not sure what we're attempting to solve right now).

However, the larger problem I'm seeing with WP:DUE is that we're making a whole separate article to rather lengthily say that glyphosate has such low toxicity, that highly concentrated detergents are more toxic (which we know aren't supposed to be consumed in concentrated form or poured in fish tanks). It can get misleading with that in mind simply saying something like POAE is more toxic than glyphosate. Then we have the issue that a lot of this is really just high-dose POAE toxicity content, not due to the mixture itself. Basically, I'm not seeing a concise focus on anything here so far towards the actual formulations rather than individual components except to say there's really not much of a biological effect in real-life scenarios. Honestly, the more I tried to make the focus on the formulations, I'm getting even less convinced that a split is worthwhile. It doesn't look like the regulatory stuff is out of the ordinary either compared to other EU pesticides so far, so that seems like a better fit over at glyphosate without really giving any additional notability to mixtures per se.

Considering the previous content at glyphosate has been relatively stable, I'm not sure if there's much else that would be added here, but that's why I'm looking for comments here. Otherwise, we might just be dealing with a redundant WP:CFORK that's better left at the parent article. I'm willing to give some time to stress test this and be convinced, but nothing has really passed muster for that so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to undo this section. It's too technical for this article, and you've once again removed most of the content that is relevant for this article which is not acceptable. This should go in the main glyphosate article. Please don't copy content from that article here, one reason I created it was because that article is too technical. There seems to be consensus for that, and the content that is going to be split out should be discussed before it is copied to replace the content in this article. This really is not acceptable. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Seraphim System: Can you please define what "is relevant for this article"? The vast majority of sources discuss glyphosate rather than formulations which is why the decision was made to merge Roundup and glyphosate several years ago. Kingofaces43 evidently spent a long time examining the sources when making those edits and justified each one in the edit summaries, it is lazy of you to revert saying that they are undiscussed (since when has that been a reason to revert?) and the removals of unsourced content were justifed. SmartSE (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This article also covers agricultural and regulatory history like the history of Roundup Ready Crops, which keeps being removed from the article while it is still being developed. Editors have requested that content about branding history and the EU regulatory history be expanded which is what I am working on. It seems the issue is more about whether this article should move to some other title - but there was also support for this title on the glyphosate talk page. I don't think the removals have been properly justified and I don't think this article should stress chemistrysince that is already covered in the other article - other editors may have other interests besides chemistry and deleting their content or pushing it to the bottom of the article and front loading the article with technical content is not acceptable. As far as I can tell this is basically editing against consensus at the moment. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For those that did want a split, the idea was that the content specific to formulations would be moved or at least copied here. A lot of your content violated WP:DUE like citing a Seralini study even though that content had been hashed out over at glyphosate already, which is why I mentioned the problem with WP:POVFORK. Either way, I already told you on your talk page the expectations of 1RR in this topic, and you cannot be trying to edit war your content back in without gaining consensus for it (i.e., basically following WP:BRD. This is mainspace now, not a sandbox. That content is all appropriate for WP:MEDRS sources, though I do agree it can be made simpler by trimming down some of the claims of toxicity and focusing more on the sources saying such studies have been done, but aren't ecologically relevant. It's a bit more difficult to craft that concise of language, so that's a secondary concern to getting the focus of a potential article settled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think WP:MEDRS applies to most of the content in this article. For example, John Vandermeer is a recognized scholar whose work is highly cited and this book in particular is a secondary source (an academic book). I don't think a "Pesticide Registration Manual" from the EPA is a better source then an academic book. Some of the content that was added didn't have any supporting citations. - even if WP:MEDRS did apply, which I don't think it does to most of the content in this article, it is also clear that edits are more likely to gain consensus if laypersons can actually understand them and I think that's an important goal for this article. If you have a conduct issue you should post it to AE, since I think your blanking massive amounts of content without discussion is also a conduct issue.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Vandermeer - why cite a book on acroecology which cites a single study on roundup when there are numerous reviews available on toxicity to aquatic animals already cited in Glyphosate#Aquatic_fauna_2? SmartSE (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I chose this one because it was an academic secondary source, not a primary study, but it was simple enough to write without too many technical details, which I think should be in a separate article. It's not unusual to have one general article and one that focuses on more technical details.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok thanks, but how is that distinct from the history of glyphosate? The regulatory history is no different for formulations versus the active ingredient - the decision Gandydancer is referring to is already covered in Glyphosate#European_Union but was not about formulations. For roundup ready crops, as Kingofaces mentioned in an edit summary, these are not specific to Roundup and are more relevant to be discussed in the glyphosate article, as it is the active, not the formulation, that the crops are resistant to. Given that this is a topic about chemistry, I am really scratching my head at why you think it shouldn't discuss this - this is what makes the formulations distinct after all. How could the edits have been better justified? Did you examine the sources and see whether what KoA had said about them made sense? I'm not sure how you are judging consensus, but right here and now, it was your edit that is against consensus. SmartSE (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No, they are not legally the same thing. The regulatory history is much longer then what is covered in the Glyphosate article and I think the full details would overburden that article. This is not only a topic about chemistry and we already have a thorough article about chemistry. I'm not really interested in working on a highly technical chemistry article which is why I started a new article. I don't think reverting massive undiscussed removals of sourced information is against consensus. The purpose of a new article is not for one editor to unilaterally copy content here - some of the content may need to be merged, but since this is a controversial topic the partial merger should be discussed. It certainly shouldn't be copied and pasted over the existing content in the article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

SmartSE, it is the 2017 info that I believe needs more coverage. For several months I have been working on the Trump Administration related articles and it is my belief that we must not drift into thinking that previously held rules of what is and what is not ethical are no longer applicable. Some current administration practices are not ethical - they are not "normal". In the same way, to copy/paste information written by Monsanto into a decision is not ethical or "normal". Core ethics should not change, IMO. I work on a wide variety of articles and based on my work on other articles, I believe that the 2017 decisions requires broader reporting here on WP, even if that means that Monsanto's behaviors have been justified. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: More coverage on what? Which aspects are missing from the glyphosate article and why do they belong here and not there? Please list sources. (And let's leave politics and what we've been up to for somewhere else please). SmartSE (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, as I said I do not have time to refresh my knowledge in depth re Monsanto's RoundUp right now. I am in the habit of friendly exchange on the talk page which may not suit all editors. I will strike my last edit. Gandydancer (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: I hope I don't come across as unfriendly, that's certainly not my intention, just that I think it helps to stay on topic. SmartSE (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The merger was already discussed quite often back at glyphosate, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, especially those who wanted the split in the first place. Please also keep in mind it doesn't matter what you personally want to work on. Previous talk discussions were very clear that anything really WP:DUE about formulations was primarily based in chemistry and MEDRS related content (including laws and regulations that follow). Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I am going to request that you provide links to consensus discussions you mention from now on, because you have referred to discussions on another article several times now at this article without providing links to those discussions and I have no idea what you are talking about because I've never worked on that article. And I'm not saying it matters what I personally want to work on. What I am saying it that per WP:TECH-CONTENT articles about chemical compounds are explicitly mentioned as particularly technical articles, where that is ok. But this article is not about a chemical compound, it is interdisciplinary. Of course it is going to include some content covered by MEDRS, but it includes other history and law content as well. Of course, the circumstances of each individual article would have to be considered individually - it's hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all rule for Chemistry/Legal sources, but in this case some of these sources were used incorrectly. They are primarily legal findings - they can only be taken as statements about the specific regulations they mention. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, why do you think legal content follows MEDRS? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Competence is required in the science of the subject for dealing with laws related to that science. At this point, the claim about scientific agencies and findings being primarily law sources isn't going to get any traction or change anything on this talk page or article content either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The specific content you added to this article seriously misrepresented the conclusion of primary assessments that were prepared as part of a regulatory renewal process. Compounding that error by implying that other editors lack competence, without any evidence, is imo heading into personal attacks/misconduct and I think you should strike it.17:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop with the escalating for no reason and WP:FOC. That's just compounding the size of this talk page without getting anything done, so you might want to take a breather if you're turning responses to your questions into personal attacks somehow. I simply answered your question about law following the science. When the laws are created, competence in the science is needed to do that. That's why MEDRS intersects into most of those laws related to regulation because it's based in medical science. Regulatory bodies are often scientific bodies. I'd also suggest you be more clear on what this supposed misrepresentation is. The merged content was generally agreed upon already at the glyphosate article by editors other than myself, so the comment seems rather out of place. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, it is based on medical reports, but MEDRS doesn't apply to law sources. Law sources have their own citation system (not always Bluebook), and whether formally or informally the hierarchy of authorities is critical to using them correctly. There's no way legal content could be covered by MEDRS, so I don't really understand what you're getting at with this. These types of legal assessments should not be used as medical sources anyway - I'm surprised they would even fulfill the MEDRS requirements. Usually the findings are referenced in the reviews that are typically used for Medical content. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Give WP:MEDSCI a read. Government agencies that deal in regulation also deal in scientific assessment in many cases. It looks like this is going on a tangent from the content though, so again, what was misrepresented? Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, scientific journals are a much better source for medical content then primary legal documents like [this report which have to follow legal citation rules for whether they are authoritative/superseded.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to focused on specific content anymore, but what you just linked is an appropriate scientific review per MEDRS. Those are the kinds of sources we look for from scientific agencies, and in some cases, they are carry more weight than individual review articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That is the source that was misrepresented in the article. It's discussed elsewhere on the talk page. I posted this link so you could review it for yourself and figure out what the mistake was, but it doesn't seem to have helped. At this point, I think this discussion is concluded. I think it would be a good idea to archive it since it has grown very long and move on.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Seeing that no actual misrepresentation of the source has been brought up about it after repeated requests, it sounds like we've reached WP:CON that that particular piece of content it was sourced to was fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It is explained in detail directly below. Do you agree that this would be a misrepresentation of the source? "A 2002 review by the European Union reached the same conclusion." (as the 2000 Williams report discussed below). The EU review does not reach any conclusion about RoundUp. This was only for Glyphosate's approval in 2002. Only active substances are approved on the EU-level. The forumulations are reviewed at the member state level. That is what it says, not "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans". This misrepresentation of the source is not minor. This content should also be removed from the glyphosate article. It falls far short of our basic standards.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The source explicitly mentions plant protection products rather than just glyphosate. It doesn't matter that member states need to do their own approval, etc. The agency still made a declaration about safety of the product. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You can read a simplified explanation here [1]. ("the safety evaluation of every pesticide (also referred to as Plant Protection Products PPPs) formulation is done at a later stage by individual Member States"). The recommendation of the final decision is currently to ban formulations with POEA I believe this was a good faith mistake, but please let this one go. They did not make any declaration about the safety of any product, only the active ingredient glyphosate. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That would violate WP:OR. If you have personal conviction that what the source said was somehow against the law or the scope of its jurisdiction, you'll need sources to directly say that. As it stands, the source directly mentions not just glyphosate, but glyphosate containing products. It doesn't matter if member states have their next step approval process here, the agency still made its statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What the source says is "This conclusion is however subject to compliance with the particular requirements in section 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the report, as well as to the implementation of the provisions of Article 4(1) and the uniform principles laid down in Annex VI of Directive 91/414/EEC, for each glyphosate containing plant protection product..." - unfortunately Directive 91/414/EEC was repealed in 2009. Do you think we could update the sources? Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Some comments:

• It may just be better to move the content about Roundup Ready Crops to Roundup Ready Crops. I'll put it in a sandbox for now.

• To answer the question from Smartse How could the edits have been better justified? Did you examine the sources and see whether what KoA had said about them made sense? Yes I did, for example [2] This was removed as primary. It's not a primary law source, but it thoroughly cites the legal primary sources, and instead of removing the content the citation could have been changed to cite those sources directly. Primary sources are allowed (and authoritative) for law content.
• Some of the studies that were added are review reports only for the active ingredient glyphosate. For example the report titled Review report for the active substance glyphosate.
• If there are concerns about DUE, balancing content can be added, it doesn't justify replacing sourced content with unsourced content. For example this was added without a source Surfactants are used in herbicide formulations as wetting agents, to maximize coverage and aid penetration of the herbicide(s) through plant leaves. As agricultural spray adjuvants, surfactants may be mixed into commercial formulations, such as Roundup, or they may be purchased separately and mixed on-site (tank mix). to replace similar content that was already sourced to the Scientific American. The citation for this the identities of which are considered trade secrets doesn't verify the content. I don't know if the URL is wrong, but editors should not just replace well-sourced content with copied and pasted content that clearly hasn't been carefully checked for citation integrity and other problems.
• For a large edit with this many problems I think any editor would be justified in rolling in back so the changes could be discussed.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Well it is indeed a primary source. More pertinent though is that this is the norm in EU. Not saying that it shouldn't be included, but there must be better sources secondary sources for that information.
  • A cursory glance at that report shows that despite the title, it contains information about formulations e.g. The overall conclusion from the evaluation is that it may be expected that plant protection productscontaining glyphosate will fulfil the safety requirements...
  • That content was copied from Glyphosate#Glyphosate-based_formulations so it's a merge. True it should have a source, but this is hardly a controversial statement and WP:V requires that sources exist, not that they are cited. To anyone familiar with pesticides this is WP:BLUESKY.
  • It wasn't a single edit - it was many different edits and that it was I said it was lazy of you to revert all of them, throwing the baby out with the bath water. SmartSE (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A "cursory glance" is not going to be helpful here. What it says is: "The overall conclusion from the evaluation is that it may be expected that plant protection products containing glyphosate will fulfil the safety requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC. This conclusion however is subject to compliance with...for each glyphosate containing plant protection product for which Member states will grant review or authorization" - this is a legal conclusion. The content in the article says: "A 2000 review concluded that 'under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans'. A 2002 review by the European Union reached the same conclusion." - I would say this is a misrepresentation. Based on this, I think the content in the glyphosate article should first be thoroughly source checked and reviewed, before it is merged it into other articles (and certainly the merger should not be performed unilaterally). Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

At this point, it looks like this is the current status quo (minus the first paragraph of Regulation) with both mine and Seraphim's edits being removed. Arbs were very clear that as part of 1RR, new edits someone makes that were removed should not be reverted back in as a way of getting around 1RR and instead need to gain consensus (also why I won't be reverting my edits back in tomorrow).

The second part were my new edits, which also need to gain consensus since they were reverted. That being said, I have to agree with Smartse that the blanket revert of my very pointed edit summaries was not very helpful (nor was restoring fringe content) towards improving the page, nor am I seeing anything substantial yet that addressed most of the removed content on this talk page.

For your second bullet, we generally avoid primary journal articles because they are limited in scope in the the content they review in their intro. In this case, the number for formulations in Estonia wasn't really DUE. The remainder the the paragraph was redundant with the second one, not to mention that the general regulation scheme is not really specific to glyphosate as mentioned above. For the third, some of those are again required per DUE and do mention formulations as well. With a bit more than a cursory glance at the title or text, you'll see that it discusses plant protection products containing glyphosate rather than just the active ingredient. For the fourth, we don't do WP:GEVAL, especially in science related topics, but your comment about the lead to Glyphosate#Glyphosate-based_formulations doesn't really fit with DUE. That was rather basic content that was already agreed upon though, so if sourcing was a concern, one only needed to tag it and it could have been solved easily. As for the Scientific American, you've been made aware many times now that those Seralini studies are WP:FRINGE, and the Scientific American is not MEDRS with respect to that study. With all the sources out there, no one should be considering that or trying to reinsert it. On the last bullet, multiple edit summaries were given aside from the merge, but any rollback should have only gone to [this edit] since we're all respecting 1RR here. It's better not to unilaterally blanket revert, but deal with specific problems instead in edits so they can be discussed as I did in edit summaries. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know who Seralini is. WP:MEDRS said the Scientific American was an ok source, as long as everything with quoted and attributed which it is, so that's why I used it. I would have preferred using the EfSA assessment directly since its preferred under MOS:LAW but I wasn't sure it was be allowed under WP:MEDRS. I don't know that I have ever rolled back a regular editor before, but I think the justification I provided on this talk page for it when asked by Smartse is sufficient. The problems range from cites that don't check out, replacing "phosphate ester neutralized POEA" with POEA (which most sources don't seem to be using interchangeably), to almost verbatim close paraphrasing I had assumed this was careless but good faith copy + pasting on your part without a thorough review/source check. I'm not sure what you think I did wrong here by reverting this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Seralini affair for an example, who is a generally a well known fringe scientist in this subject. Also, WP:MEDPOP is what you were likely reading about the Scientific American. It's only good for lay discussion of a broad topic, but not for citing primary research. We need reviews, etc. for that. For this subject, that article is kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel (kind of like citing Andrew Wakefield in vaccine science). As to the revert on my new edits, I already said that many of these things would have been solved by a source needed tag or questions individually on the talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will add the content about Seralini to the background history section and remove this, I did not know the paper had been retracted. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Content that needs a citation before being restored

These citations did not verify the content they were cited for, or if I made a mistake please help by adding a quote or a new citation so it can be restored to the article:

• The content about "trade secrets" - Trade secret seems like blue sky, but is an IP term (kind of like "patent") and definitely needs a supporting citation.
• Polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) is a surfactant used in the original Roundup formulation and was commonly used in 2015. - it says "this study" but I'm not able to find the study? Is there a direct link?
• "Since POEA is more toxic to fish and amphibians than glyphosate alone, POEA is not allowed in aquatic formulations." - Three citations are given but I was only able to find that POEA is not used in aquatic formulations in Langland (which says its "not used", it doesn't say "not allowed"). Similar content is repeated in multiple sections. Langeland doesn't cite a source for this so I don't think we can use it. I'll keep looking for a source for "not allowed" since this seems to be a labeling issue.
• "The half-life of POEA (21–42 days) is longer than that for glyphosate (7–14 days) in aquatic environments." - this is cited to Mesnage. I wasn't sure about using Mesnage as a source - can editors comment further?

On the first bullet, the trade secret phrase only needed to be deleted from the sentence or changed to proprietary. On the second, the study isn't needed for anything, but is directly linked there. The USGS summary is the better source in this case. On the third, Langland specifically states POEA is not registered for application to aquatic sites. Langland is also an extension publication with a literature cited section. These are papers put out by extension faculty for agronomic information, pesticide use, regulatory compliance, etc. On the fourth, is was agreed upon at glyphosate that Mesnage wasn't reliable for anything but a simple uncontroversial statement like that. I've seen other sources talking about it though, so it's probably better to replace it somewhere down the road. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No, Langland says Monsanto did not register Roundup with POEA, the source does not say it's not allowed. The USGS link that is given doesn't verify the content in the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Those two phrasings are the same thing. That gets into basic pesticide law where you need to register for specific uses to be a legal use (i.e., the label is the law). If it's not registered and labeled for something, it's not allowed. As for the USGS, it doesn't need to verify anything. Not all reliable sources cite other sources, and government scientific agencies making basic statements like this are far from a concern. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The USGS doesn't need to verify anything? Yes, it does, it needs to verify the content it is cited for in the article. The two phrasings are not the same thing. In this case, I would prefer a reliable source for this. Langland is not an authoritative RS for legal content and the fact that it is not cited is a problem.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to ask - is there a date for the Langland paper? The key part is "none of the many glyphosate-containing products currently registered for aquatic use contain POEA". This isn't really usable without a date for the paper though. I'm also not sure how Langland knows this because it doesn't seem to be publicly available information (and no citation is provided). However, I did finally find a source that the label "Toxic to fish" is legally binding on the user, which is from this Virginia Tech extension specialist, so I guess the two sources together will be fine. I don't think this is the same as saying "All formulations labeled Toxic to fish are so labeled because they contain POEA" - I looked around and I can't find any actual confirmation of this, only that they are labeled and following the labels are a legal requirement. So maybe the Virginia source will be better.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like any legitimate issues with using Langeland and USGS as is have already been addressed based on your comments, so there is consensus so far to use them as such. First, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with very basic pesticide law terminology needed to work with sources in this field or even the types of scholarly sources out there. At this point, you'll need to get up to speed with that on your own time rather than using article talk page space for that as I've done due diligence on my part so far.

Extension publications by professors are educational material put out for farmers and the general public about agronomic and legal use of pesticides. No one is going to be able to seriously claim scholarly sources discussing pesticide law are not reliable, so there's no reason to spend more time on that. Also, you don't need to know how Langland knows as it's not relevant to anything on this talk page discussion. That's not how WP:V works for authoritative scholarly sources with your added personal requirement. We don't engage in peer-review of scholarly sources saying X needs a citation. If you have a problem with the date listed in the publication, then you need to find a source that shows the statement is out of date. The source is very clear that POAE formulations are not registered or labeled for aquatic use, and the pesticide labels are pretty clear on the related setbacks, buffers, etc. if you want personal followup. As for your toxicity to fish comments, that's right in the source. For USGS, when reputable scientific/government organizations make a statement as part of a summary, we simply WP:ASSERT that, especially for something as uncontroversial as this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

What is wrong with the alternate source I found? I'm not going to keep responding to unsubstantiated personal attacks. I disagree with you, but unsubstantiated accusations of CIR don't belong on the talk page. I haven't made any, and I have assumed good faith by attempting to discuss this and improve the content you wanted to add, but I don't expect further back and forth will be productive. (The USGS source has nothing to do with toxicity to fish btw and neither does the content it was cited for in the article.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I never said there was anything wrong. I had just gotten done telling you extension sources are good lay sources directed at farmers, etc. Again, please slow down as you're really misreading a lot of things here. Yes, I did say you were unfamiliar with some of the basic terminology here as that's becoming a problem affecting content discussion. I never cited WP:CIR, and that level of user discussion really more appropriate for user talk page discussion anyways. Either way, it looks like the issues you brought up with the sources have either been adequately addressed or not really something that's an issue. I understand you don't agree with that, but WP:CON moves ahead when the concerns are adequately addressed.

As for the USGS, no one was ever using it for fish toxicity information, so I'm not sure where that comment is coming from. It's just sourced to saying POAE was commonly used with the original Roundup formulation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Technical content that needs explanation

Can any of this be worded using less technical language? If not, maybe it should be excluded.

• "This review concluded, "...for terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted for potentially exposed non-target organisms"." - does "potentially exposed non-target organisms" mean humans?
• "Different versions of Roundup have included different percentages of POEA. A 1997 US government report said that Roundup is 15% POEA while Roundup Pro is 14.5%." - is this accurate? The source says Roundup Pro contains a phosphate ester of POEA? Are these the same thing?
• "Some researchers have suggested the toxicity effects of pesticides on amphibians may be different from those of other aquatic fauna because of their lifestyle; amphibians may be more susceptible to the toxic effects of pesticides because they often prefer to breed in shallow, lentic, or ephemeral pools. These habitats do not necessarily constitute formal water-bodies and can contain higher concentrations of pesticide compared to larger water-bodies. - this is supported by Mann, but what are formal water bodies? Also, can an editor check and see if the paraphrase is too close?

That's all for now. Some of this content looks like it is ok for inclusion with updated citations, but my preference would be to find the citations or update the links before restoring the content. Some of this I'm not sure about like the phosphate ester thing and would appreciate editors who know more about chemistry can comment.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

On the first, this is what the authors say, so I'm not seeing where the issue is. Ecotoxicology usually deals with non-humans just due to the number of species, but they do list mammals in general. This doesn't really seem to matter unless someone want to put it in the human toxicity section though. On the second, the source doesn't give it significant mention, and polyethoxylated tallow amine already mentions it is a range of chemicals. On the third, the previous sentence already explains that. Puddles, temporarily flooded areas after heavy rain, etc. More paraphrasing would be fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that the articles have to be written so laypersons can understand them, especially general or interdisciplinary articles like this one.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Either way, that's the statement the authors make, so we reflect that. The authors don't make a distinction about including or excluding humans, so we won't either. Non-target organism is a fairly ubiquitous term used for the general public. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-target organism is not a fairly ubiquitous term used for the general public. If you can't paraphrase it, you should not be arguing that we include it in the article. The article is not a collection of quotes from scientific studies or reviews, and it is detrimental to the article. The prose should be written in our own words as much as possible.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This is again basic terminology in the subject that's well beyond complicated WP:JARGON. Target organism is about as straightforward as you can get as well as organisms that are not targeted. Your concern was if humans were included in that, and that question was addressed as no mattering for this specific use. The authors could have qualified non-target mammals, non-target birds, etc., but they chose organisms in general. That's not for us a to criticize. You're not proposing adding it to the human section, so it looks like we've addressed the issues on this one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not planning to add it to any section. This is not about whether or not its basic terminology in the subject, this response is patronizing and unhelpful. Our readers are not expected to have subject matter expertise. You added it to the article but you can't explain what it means or what the source is about. This content also should have been updated before it was added. 2000 is ancient for MEDRS. Please don't do this again. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The issues you've brought up either have been addressed or aren't relevant. I already told you that non-target means organisms that are not the target weed, and that should be intuitive for any reader.. It doesn't matter if it includes humans or not for that content, nor are they explicltly named, so that doesn't need to be a point of discussion. The WP:BURDEN is on you if you want something specific to humans in content. As for the date, there's nothing wrong with the source unless the information is out of date, so please be more careful about how WP:MEDDATE for human health is actually used. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The burden is on you because you are the one who wants to add the content. What I asked was very simple - how can we paraphrase this in our own words? You have written three replies and none of them included the paraphrase I asked requested. Using partial quotes this way is completely inappropriate, if adding a quote it should at least be the full quote. What MEDDATE says is and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written. - have you done that? Since this is contradicted by other content in the article published later, I don't think you have. I'm not going to continue responding. It doesn't seem like you really reviewed this content carefully before adding it to the article. Once more, please don't do it again. I don't have anything more to say about this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to add human-specific content, so there is no burden with your human question. As for paraphrasing, that's not what has been said in this discussion at all by you so far, so please be more careful on keeping discussion coherent. You were entirely focused on the word non-target organism so far. That piece was quoted because is was a definitive statement by the review. There's not really a strong need to change it since it's going to be about the same length anyways. However, terrestrial use of Roundup has minimal acute and chronic risks for potential non-target organisms. would get rid of the quotes though. Not exactly something that should need talk page discussion though if not having a quote is the hangup. Considering the remainder of your concerns have been properly addressed, are there any other issues with this? Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I struckthrough the above comment - I was able to confirm this in a 2018 review that confirms the oral acute toxicity is low. My confusion came from the article content which says it has been lethal at 85 to 200 ml and in come cases has has mild effects at 500ml. This seems to be contradictory, but looking more closely it doesn't give any indication of the body weights like other sources I've seen - this is cited to the review of 93 cases. Maybe that sentence should be removed since the paragraph doesn't make much sense right now. We already have a 2004 and 2018 source that discusses this, plus the content from Bradberry we discussed below, I don't think this quote from 2000 is needed.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

MEDRS question

• A 2000 review concluded that "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans". - is this review relies at least in part on a WHO determination from 1994 - this has since changed to "probably carcinogenic". Does this source still pass WP:MEDRS? Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The WHO itself doesn't consider glyphosate carcinogenic, and while we usually don't go by what a regulatory body cites for assessing MEDRS, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the cites in the source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Working This was in 2000, I checked MEDRS and I see that under WP:MEDDATE this should now be moved into a history section and the content should be updated - this is true for the other article also, it might be a good idea to start a discussion there. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not really how MEDDATE works. If a study is older, we look to see if the literature has significantly changed and remove the source if it needs to be. That isn't really the case here since the conclusions are the same. It's showing how that has been the case for awhile relevant to health rather than general history, so isn't really something for moving out since this use is what the WP:SPIRIT of MEDDATE has been used for. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. I'm following what the MEDRS policy says, not some obscure essay.Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like that links to the wrong place. This is the correct link to the spirit of a policy/guideline to follow (just search for spirit in the lead as opposed to focusing on the title). You'll have to browse through the MEDRS talk page if you want more info on the nuances of MEDDATE since it comes up fairly often, but the intent/spirit even written in that guideline is don't rely the sources if they are superseded. Nothing has been superseded here yet on this one. You're welcome to look for more up to date sources to replace it, but there's no reason against inclusion with MEDDATE in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Its still good practice to update, especially since there are disputed studies currently. One is this [3] and the older reviews should probably be replaced. Keeping the encyclopedia up to date doesn't need wikilawyering to justify it, though accusing other editors of wikilawyering is usually frowned upon isn't it? Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that's enough trying to blatantly misrepresent editors when I told you that was not the case. Please strike that personal attack. As for the source, that's specific to cancer. Editors objected to all the stuff in the declaration of interest back at the glyphosate page, so it wasn't used at the time. Either way, it's not really affecting this source discussion at hand. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless you have some evidence to support what you just said re trying to blatantly misrepresent editors you need to strike that comment. If you do have evidence, you should explain further on my talk page (or AE, it's up to you), this isn't the right place for it.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply further to that since it would violate WP:TPNO, but instead just struck it per WP:NPA (and my initial reply portion). I blatantly told you to focus not on the title, but what it says about the spirit of a guideline, etc. I'd prefer to hat it so as not to modify other's comments even though it's technically allowed here, but there was content discussion tangled in it. Feel free to delete the text I struck from both our posts as well as this one and your reply above, but I'm not going to unilaterally do that without an ok. Kingofaces43 (talk) Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You also shouldn't modify others comments. I know what WP:WIKILAWYERING says and imo, citing it in this situation is pretty much indefensible. Arguing about the the nuances of MEDDATE while citing WP:WIKILAWYERING is a discussion worth hatting. I will do that now.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's been some side conversation, but the main point is that MEDDATE doesn't preclude using this source, especially since there hasn't been a shift. Saying there isn't a significant risk to humans is a pretty definitive detail. Reviews still point this out as an important source[4], so we'll continue to use it. Generally when there's a history of scientists making a specific conclusion, we reflect that in a particular toxicology, etc. section. This is also the content that editors have been wanting to split out into this article whenever a split was proposed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't need it. This source should be removed from the other article also. It is superseded - please actually read the sources before dragging this out on the talk page. It says POEA does not have the potential to have adverse health effects in humans. Potential acute exposure is not a health concern. We have multiple sources from 2004 and later that say "low toxicity" but also lethality is possible. So, no, we are not going to continue using it. MEDDATE says editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written.. Had you done that due diligence, we could have saved a lot of time here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Either way, nothing has been particularly superseded here, so we need to be really careful about mistakenly saying it is. Pretty much anything can be lethal in high doses, even dihyrdogen monoxide. POEA is basically a detergent, so the context with all those sources is that POEA isn't going to cause those things unless you're pretty much dealing with a deliberate poisoning or something extremely out of the ordinary. That is where WP:DUE comes in to play and not making it seem like the sources as contradicting each other. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that, but it has been superseded - what the EFSA and basically every other reliable source say about this is they do not "have sufficient information", "no data are available". More importantly the EFSA specifically said "risk assessment cannot be performed" [5]. That is very different from "no potential" for adverse health effects and EFSA is certainly not UNDUE. I strongly object to restoring this source. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That particular source was saying they didn't have access to some original data. That's very different than what you are trying to say. Please do be careful about how you read into sources as we've discussed before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That particular source is discussing a lot of things - for example they say they can not verify the 2009 EPA assessment. They say no Chronic toxicity data are available. Why don't we just follow what this source says? I don't think see why a controversial source with problems like this [6] would be preferable to a far more authoritative and recent source. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we post this to RS/n? Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think RSN would be useful as there's no doubt it's a reliable source. As you said, that particular review didn't have the data to validate the EPA assessment, which is why they didn't look at it at the time. That's very different than saying no such data exists. It's not saying chronic toxicity data is needed. Again, please be careful about how you are using medical sources. What's happened in this section are a number of extremely common mistakes for those new to toxicology fields such as your confusion over low toxicity but still possible to cause death and no substantial health risks to humans. Please slow down and don't jump to conclusions about sources. There's a point where such things need to be ignored on talk pages per WP:OR. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful how you are using law sources. This source is not only dated, it is approaching obsolete. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Removal of sourced content (again)

"Not specific to formulations" is not a justification to remove basic background content - the link to FIFRA should be restored. [7] Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing there was related to formulations or even other content really. It was fairly out of place, which is why it was removed. While FIFRA is important in the general topic, content here needs to be largely specific to formulations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I moved the other content to the more general article, but one sentence linking to the main regulatory law should not have been removed, it's basic background information. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Way back at the beginning of this talk page, myself and others have been trying to keep a consistent concise scope to this article that was intended as a split. Regulation indeed comes into play, but this isn't a regulation article. The remaining paragraph is already fairly self-explanatory in its prose, so there isn't really a need to have that additional information. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This is well within the scope of the article, and I'm planning to restore it unless there are other objections within the next few days.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything to the directly within scope content. What kind of edit are you proposing exactly? Do keep in mind that you are expected to gain consensus for edits at this point, but if what you just said is your preferred approach, there should be no problem with me restoring my previous edits too. I don't think that's going to be happening though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It is critical background information. The paragraph makes absolutely no sense without it. It was an incredibly detrimental removal. The problems with your edits have been discussed in detail on this page. Unless you are willing to address those problems, like the close paraphrasing, which I am still waiting for to expand the aquatic toxicity section, those edits can't be restored. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, the current sentence makes perfect sense without it. It already gives all the context needed without unneeded exposition. As for the content unrelated to this section, it has already been addressed, so I'm not sure why you keep claiming that. I've addressed potential concerns you've had in this very large talk page quite frequently, so please watch the tone. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this your answer to a "Roundup" article?

Hi, please forgive me if this answer appears elsewhere. I wanted to know whether this page, created while I was in the middle of replying to KoA43 at the Glyphosate talk page about the reason Roundup should have its page reinstated - the two are not synonymous as they have been treated since 2012 when "Roundup" was deleted.

I agree that "Glyphosate based herbicides" deserves its own page as well, though it's not clear why this page was created in apparent haste during my 1.5 hours of editing here on 15 August 2018.

Do you believe Roundup should not have its own page? petrarchan47คุก 18:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with previous discussion about the deletion of the RoundUp article. I've asked for links to the discussion. I wasn't able to find them because the links provided on the talk page linked to Talk:Roundup to a DAB page. I chose this title because I think it's a better title since it allows to discuss Rodeo and other formulations and editors expressed concerns about a POVFORK. It doesn't preclude creation of other articles, but it seems like there are longstanding disputes on this article that I'm not involved with. (And I don't really want get involved with, especially without seeing the previous discussions). Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page? What led to that decision? It appears to me that there is off-WP communication - OR - that you took it upon yourself to create this page literally in the midst of my editing in order to end the discussion. WP is based on community discussion, yet you cut us all off at the knee and disallowed our input. I find the timing too suspicious to ignore. Please explain. petrarchan47คุก 19:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: As I just said on the Gyphosate talk page, I support the creation of both articles. I don't want to comment more because I don't know the history of the dispute, but I have my doubts about whether the reasoning for the merger was sound, as RoundUp is certainly a notable topic and creation of an article on that topic should not be restricted in anyway. However, my understanding is that split implies a lot of content will be removed from the article, so the only think that needs consensus would be the removal of content from that article. I don't have the power to end the discussion at that talk page, but I also don't see any policy based reason why creating a RoundUp article would need the permission of involved editors - however this might depend on the merger history, and as I have said several times, I have not been able to locate the previous discussion.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The most recent discussion of substance on whether or not Roundup should have a separate article was Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_13#Glyphosate_is_not_synonymous_with_RoundUp;_RoundUp_deserves_and_needs_its_own_page. I can see where Seraphim System was coming from in wanting to avoid the messy history of the separation, merge, and multiple discussions scattered over numerous archived talk pages, but as we are seeing, many of the challenges that the Roundup article ran into will be raised again even with the different title and broader focus.Dialectric (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to keep this article NPOV. I mostly created the new article because I think new article development is positive and that everything does not need to be added to one article. I agree with User:Dialectric and User:Aircorn's comments at that page - a RoundUp article is possible, but it runs of the risk of turning into a POVFORK. I think part of the bumpy start was that I added an article from Scientific American that discussed Seralini's work, and that caused some panic. It has since been removed, so I do hope things calm down. I do have reservations about some of the arguments on the talk page. For example, WP:BLPPRIMARY is an important policy when working with Court documents - many of the expert witnesses named in these documents are not public figures, and my preference would be to leave their names out, unless they have featured prominently in secondary sources. I actually agree with Kingofaces43 comments on the talk page that these documents should not be taken out of the context of the case. The concern is that it should not be presented as MEDRS content, which I agree with. I hope that answers some of the questions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that Seraphim System needed anyone's permission to create this page, and I am glad that he created it. I think that the assertions about off-site communication and suspicious timing are unjustified, and are unacceptable in the context of the Discretionary Sanctions that apply to this talk page. If this continues, I will take the matter to WP:AE. As I have previously said at Talk:Glyphosate, I oppose the creation of a separate page on RoundUp, because it would become a POV-fork. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I too am fine with the creation of this article and think Seraphim is doing an admirable job getting it together and working with other editors. It was never going to be easy to write a neutral article on this topic, which was part of the reason I wasn't interested in creating it myself. As for a separate round-up article, I share the POV fork concerns, but I don't think that is a reason in itself to oppose its creation. Lots of things here risk being POV forks and it is just something that has to be dealt with. As far as being an encyclopaedic topic goes it is as worthy, if not more so, than a lot of other stuff we have articles on. Personally I think the best solution is to develop this article first and then decide if a further split is warranted. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

In short, Roundup is less likely to get it's own page than this current one is. Even at this page, we have problems I cautioned about earlier where you really can't talk about glyphosate formulations without the due weight included at glyphosate, and I'm still trying to stress test all that to see if it can actually work out while staying on point. It's just not a very functional split. That being said, Roundup is even worse in that regard because it's notability pretty much entirely revolves around being an herbicide with glyphosate as an active ingredient. All the stuff about POEA, etc. (a lot of which is WP:FRINGE), doesn't really change that because it's just a standard surfactant with relatively low toxicity (only about 3 times more than glyphosate's already extremely low toxicity) unless you live in water. Fish don't handle soap very well. In that case, formulations (not just Roundup) aren't allowed to use it if it's a formulation for aquatic use. The progression really isn't going to go as far as Roundup even if this article makes it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW there is currently an appeal to Jimbo regarding this here. While I personally don't think it needs responding to yet (seems to be getting attention form regulars at that place) it does allude to motivations of editors of this page so you should be aware of it. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not a regular, but I commented there. (And there is zero likelihood that Jimbo will make a unilateral decision about page content.) But having lived through the ArbCom GMO case and the subsequent community RfC, I think that the worst thing that could possibly happen would be if the GMO topic area were to flare up as a result of the recent news, after having been blessedly peaceful for a few years. I'm going to have damn near to zero tolerance for any editor who resumes the old shibboleth about "shills". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced content

Please do not remove reliably sourced content as in this diff [8] with the edit summary "very poor sourcing". Should we ask at RS/n whether Bloomberg News is a reliable source? Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, we don’t use newspaper type sources to contradict the weight given by reviews, especially on matters of scientific consensus. You will need to undo that revert. No one can claim that giving the review summary is undue, and calling it POV directly goes against WP:FRINGE. You also reinserted already removed text when you knew there wasn’t consensus for it in that manner. Again, please remember the expectations of 1RR here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's about the lawsuits, the sources are fine. The review summary was not removed, only the content that is UNDUE for this article. Even though the consensus is about glyphosate I've left it in because it is part of the background of the lawsuit. I will add some more about it, but the reviews are not the best source for this, especially if they are not about formulations. We are not writing OR to disprove the verdict. I will add some additional balancing content that is appropriate. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been loosely following the discussions between the two of you on this talk page, and I feel a little bad about not having gotten more engaged with it myself, but I think that both of you are doing a good job of talking through your disagreements, and I appreciate that, thanks. I'm finding it difficult to keep following what, exactly, are the edit decisions where you are disagreeing, because it looks like there are so many decisions going on at this page. But I'd like to be helpful if I can, as a sort of third opinion, on the points where it seems to be just the two of you. If there is something where you can boil it down to something like: which is better diff 1 or diff 2, I'd be happy to give my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish. The short of it is all pretty much in this diff. My edits were based on MEDRS appropriate sources, while Seraphim removed that in order to use newspaper type sources (directly violating MEDRS) by removing mention of the various agencies saying it wasn't a carcinogen, etc. that the source directly pointed out. Mention of California wasn't included because the source was focused on national and international agencies, and I don't think we can really keep mention of random state agency with weight in mind at least in that part of the particular paragraph. It's also getting into undue weight territory for the lawsuit when all of that is removed like we have in the current version. That gets compounded when we basically now have a tit-for-tat version of Monsanto saying others say it isn't carcinogenic instead of presenting the independent statements sourced to actual MEDRS sources rather than reducing the source quality.

Basically, we need a concise piece on the consensus statement with giving undue weight to "but X found this" like we currently have. My version more or less does that by saying there is consensus, listing the important agencies the source mentions, and pointing out the criticism of the noteworthy WP:FRINGE viewpoint of the IARC. If we're going to have mention of carcinogenicity, that general framework is going to be needed in some fashion to comply with policy on this. Normally, if someone replaces MEDRS content with poorer sourcing like that, such edits are undone pretty quickly without controversy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't support removing content because it is not MEDRS content. Legal content needs to be covered as well, that is not a valid justification for removal. I will move the stuff about California to the main glyphosate article, since it is mostly about glyphosate, and not related to the RoundUp litigation. IARC is only included because the sources state that it preceded the litigation. The other content was added by you to "balance" that and I've included the Agency designations, even though I don't think they need to be added here at all because they are not about the formulations or the RoundUp litigation. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

For a single diff, there's a lot of individual parts within it, which is a good example of why I'm having a hard time keeping track of everything. First of all, I think that it is important to discuss scientific information and legal information separately: the wording should not give the false impression that the recent jury verdict is the most current determination of toxicity. So both the Johnson verdict and the carcinogenicity evaluations need to be in separate paragraphs, but they both also need to be included. Similarly, the 300 lawsuits are not part of the WHO etc. information. Second, after looking it over, I think the California state part is undue weight in this context, and should either be left out or dealt with someplace else. It's a tough call as to how to describe the IARC. I don't think we can leave it out, but it shouldn't get a lot of space in relation to the majority viewpoint. I think mentioning it briefly and pointing out the criticism is reasonable. About some of the terminology of KofA's comment here, I disagree that the IARC is WP:FRINGE; rather, it is a minority viewpoint. About WP:MEDRS, we should always use MEDRS-compliant sources for statements about whether something is or is not carcinogenic, but such sources are not needed for describing regulatory determinations. Finally, I guess there are decisions to be made about what should be on this page and what should be at Glyphosate, although I'm not sure what to say about the paragraphs in that diff in that regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the California content. The only reason IARC is mentioned is because its a factor in the In Re Products Liability Litigation (based on what RS say). We can't argue that plaintiff's arguments in a legal case are WP:FRINGE based on MEDRS. We have sources like this [9] for now, though we will keep updating as better sources become available. The IARC assessment and the EPA assessment are being argued as part of the multidistrict litigation. I agree that the legal and science discussions need to be organized into separate sections.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it needs a bit more of a timeline, I originally added the first sentence[10] on the left side of the diff about the consensus, separated the paragraphs[11]and the other removed edits[12] are Seraphim's additions to it after I said I was going to add more from the review the next day (indicating we had higher quality sourcing than the newspaper sources they later tried to add in).

On the paragraph part, that was why I separated them (technically undoing that violated 1RR last night, but I'm trying to focus on content right now). Brief mention of the legal stuff is needed, so the first paragraph in my diff gives us a minimum for now on Johnson. We're getting into the weeds with other stuff for the most part on that paragraph. For the IARC, I agree with including it with appropriate criticism from the review. Being against the consensus can make that FRINGE with that context, but FRINGE isn't really important for this conversation except for if it's about degree of undue coverage of the IARC. The only thing in your comment I really disagree with is that regulatory determinations are not MEDRS. If it's a determination that a product is safe, carcinogenic, etc. from a science-based regulatory agency, that falls under MEDRS in terms of pointing out what the WP:DUE agency assessments are. If we were talking about a non-science based agency, than I would agree with your statement.

That being said, my edits were set up with the idea of keeping things really concise since more of the exposition going on after that diff is more suited for glyphosate. It seems like a few of your comments are in line with my original edit, but do you see areas where something in that overall text might need to be changed before going forward with anything? Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Glyphosate specific determinations really need to be discussed here, unless there are sources that demonstrate they are relevant to the RoundUp litigation. This really has nothing to do with formulations and is only lengthening the discussion of cases with OR - the discussion of particular cases should not be overly detailed in this article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the Monsanto quote per this discussion. I don't think the way the last paragraph is worded now is SYNTH, but it could be tweaked a bit more, especially as the content is updated. I think too much detail about the IARC is outside the scope of this article, though the APVMA criticisms probably should be added to the main article - it doesn't seem they are covered there. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, and I think we are making good progress. KofA asked if I thought anything else needs to be fixed before moving on, so I made this edit: [13], in which I corrected everything that I felt needed correction – so after that, no I don't have any concerns. Here is what I did. A lot of it was just adding some blue links, correcting typo-like errors (such as "$289 million dollars"), and making stylistic changes to sentence structure without changing the meaning. I changed Johnson's job from gardener to groundskeeper; please check if I'm right about that. The biggest substantive change I made was that I put the paragraph about carcinogenicity before instead of after the paragraph about the lawsuit, and I moved the part about the MDL to the same paragraph that the Johnson case is in. That way, the scientific and legal parts are completely separated, which I think we all agree on. (I'm not sure if the MDL location is the best approach in terms of chronological order.) I changed the IARC part to be more like KofA's earlier version. In addition, I made some wording changes for WP:NPOV: "despite widespread opposition", "The jury's verdict only addressed".

To answer some of your questions, where KofA asks about MEDRS and regulatory material, I was unclear in what I said before. If "it's (not) carcinogenic": always MEDRS. If "the agency determined that it's not carcinogenic": always MEDRS. But if: "the agency restricted its use": no need for MEDRS. That's all that I meant. I agree with S S (I hope I'm abbreviating user names OK, if not, please tell me) that stuff that is glyphosate-specific could be moved to the glyphosate page, but I haven't thought through what that would be. And I also agree that discussion of cases could be shortened, and perhaps we could say less about the Enlist Duo legal stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish's edits seem to have resolved some of the confusion for now re organization. Some of the language still needs minor tweaking, but nothing substantive. I am probably going to add more content about Enlist Duo and possibly pull it into a separate section. Actually, I will do that now, it's a bit out of place in the background section. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I moved some of this background content into sections so the content can continue to be expanded. The background section is starting to get overburdened with jumbled up content about scientific assessments, regulatory history and legal cases - but I don't think removing content editors want to expand is the right way to improve on that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag

With editing here seeming to be going pretty smoothly now, I wonder if editors agree that we can remove the NPOV template at the top of the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There are still quite a few outstanding issues discussed throughout this page that result in NPOV problems from the initial merger (attempt) along with a few more recent edits. I'm on limited sporadic time right now, but I'll see what I can do to address or summarize that early this week. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fine to remove. No one is coming to a page with discretionary sanctions because of a tag anyway. Also the issues seem to be sloppiness instead of POV. 2601:644:8502:1FB0:D96D:DC44:B6D0:BFDA (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the article has POV problems right now and the tag was never really justified or explained. I think it was added because of Seralini, but that was resolved fairly quickly. This tag should probably be removed unless a justification can be given for it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that KofA still has some concerns, let's keep the tag for the time being. However, I ask that KofA either address the problems that still concern him or explain that these are problems that require ongoing templating because they are not amenable to easy fixes, reasonably soon. Please consider that the template can still be removed when there are problems that can be fixed and editors are cooperating with the fixes. The justification for retaining the tag would be if editors are unable to agree on the appropriate POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of the original problems that resulted in the tag came from the attempted merge and WP:WEIGHT of material not included. I'll see what I can do tomorrow or Wednesday though when I have more time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting back on this. I wanted to make sure to synthesize everything that's been going on so far with both these edits and the relevant talk page discussion so it's a little easier to keep track of. A lot of this has to do with content that was removed after the initial merge attempt. The content at glyphosate was fairly WP:DUE, but the removal of selective content caused some major problems. I'll list out the key things:

1. The first issue had to do with human toxicity. Content was removed that basically made the remainder undue saying POEA was more toxic than glyphosate, but entirely removed the context that it's still low overall toxicity (i.e., being more toxic than glyphosate, which is called practically non-toxic, is unduly vague). Some other statements were removed on overall toxicity. Williams 2000 cited here is one of the more seminal papers that still gets cited a lot today. It basically sets the stage that if the label is being followed (don't spray over water with terrestrial formulations, POEA not allowed for aquatic use, etc. there aren't major toxicity concerns). No reason has been given for its removal in talk yet though, but I've added more reviews citing it and it's general conclusion. The followup source was associated with this comment string on talk. In short, the EU source more or less says the same thing as Williams. That gives a little history that we've established over at the main article since we don't want to make it seem like all this on toxicity is brand new knowledge. This version takes care of my NPOV concerns for that section, though I might look into expending the POEA toxicity discussion a little bit more.
2. Next is the aquatic section, where a ton of content was originally removed. That has been discussed here mostly revolving the Langeland extension source. No reason was given for the rest of the removal as far as I'm aware, so I have to agree with other editors that it was extremely odd what it was blanket removed. In addition to restoring the content, I added a few additional refs in this edit, and that version should be fine in terms of NPOV.
3. I also added back content about carcinogenicity that was removed without any problems being up on the talk page. We have the consensus statement, but the review text it still fairly important for describing it at the review level rather than just government organization. I had to remove the first sentence though since it was redundant with the second paragraph, and more or less buried the lead on the consensus statement.
4. I also added content in the main toxicity section. Some conversation went on Talk:Glyphosate-based_herbicides#Technical_content_that_needs_explanation here about non-target organisms and the sources, but I just used a newer review that explicitly states both human and environmental effects are minimal.[14][15]

That does it for the main NPOV stuff. I'm also going to try to tweak the lead a bit on toxicity, but that's still a work in progress. At this point, I'm fine removing the tag if the general issues I took care of in those edits remain alleviated.

The only remaining issue for me (independent of the tag) is that a lot of appropriate weight depends on the lack of toxicity of glyphosate alone, which is in another article right now. That was my main reason for being against a split. Maybe it's fixable without merging this article back, but I have to think about that more as the content here settles in first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

1. There has been a long discussion about why Williams was removed. It conclusion regarding RoundUp has been contradicted by later assessments that say "insufficient evidence" with respect to the formulations. There is UNDUE weight placed on Williams' statement about the safety of RoundUp in the version being edit warred into the article and the misrepresentation about the superseded 2002 regulatory review from the EU was also restored. This 2002 assessment can only go in the history section, and it may be overly detailed even for that section. It is also not acceptable to say a review reaches the same conclusion as another paper when it doesn't say "we are confirming the conclusion of the 2000 Williams review" or something like that like the 2008 Duke review does - but Duke only repeats Williams as an authority w/r to glyphosate, and the part of the Williams' conlcusions that pertain to glyphosate, not the formulations. Same with Tarazona.
2. One of the reasons given for removal of the aquatic section was close to verbatim paraphrasing, which I've removed. I haven't source checked the rest of the content, so hopefully it doesn't suffer from the same problem.
3. I removed the content about carcinogenity - this is not supposed to be a POV fork from glyphosate or an alternate version of glyphosate. Regarding the weight arguments, I think the content in this article is sufficient to discuss the carcinogenicity of the active ingredient. The consensus is that glyphosate is considered safe, not the formulations. The only thing that is POV would be attempting to add "false balance" to distort how reliable sources discuss the formulations.

Most of this has already been discussed at length on this talk page. This content should not have been restored to justify an unneeded NPOV tag.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of information that I will need some time to process, but I'm disappointed that so much of the page was changed back and forth without more talk page discussion first. My opening post in this talk section was about whether we really still need the template, but it was not an invitation for significantly shifting the page balance without prior discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, as I mention below, a lot of this had already been discussed on the talk page and reached a point where the concerns with them were either addressed or not really a problem. It is a lot, but that was part of the problem with dealing with the large reverts. A lot of the tone in the article related to NPOV didn't have consensus, but simply didn't show in edits because I wasn't reverting them every day. Once some of the issues below are handled, the NPOV issues should be resolved. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, much of it has been discussed at length and your concerns either addressed or ignored per WP:OR and WP:CON.

On Williams, there has been relatively little discussion that I already linked to. Your comments were violating WP:OR quite a bit in that conversation related to the EU source, so seeing no other issues being brought up, I went ahead with the edit since nothing was being misrepresented. I know you don't want it, but you haven't been giving any WP:CON based reasons for that, so you need to respect that consensus. Beyond that, I added new references still citing Williams as relatively unchanged re: toxicity in what you removed without any cautions about changes in their conclusions [16] That removal is also violating MEDRS as well as NPOV, so since no legitimate problems have been brought up there, that content can be restored. You also need to remember for better or worse that researchers will often refer to the active ingredient name when talking about formulations in general. You really need sources saying the formulations are not safe if you want to claim such as paradigm shift. We can always work ahead from the initial merge on how to deal with how older sources are still cited in the literature, but blanket reverting it is going to violate NPOV at this point.

On the aquatics, you briefly mentioned that content and I said it would be fine to paraphrase it. That's it. I quite frankly missed it on review, in part because you were focusing on other content in that discussion, but keep in mind it's easy for legitimate things to get buried when there are so many non-legitimate issues being brought up on the talk page. Had you not of reverted it, I could have paraphrased it a bit more after a talk message, so again, please be more mindful of doing these blanket reverts.

On carcinogenicity, calling the removal of [17] a POV fork is in direct violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, not to mention you restored content of yours that was originally removed. That revert will need to be undone even regardless of the NPOV issues it introduces. You can't edit war in your preferred version and claim edit warring on others trying to deal with that. You also removed the whole paragraph talking about reviews on carcinogenicity claiming it wasn't about formulations with the content specifically said it was it was about formulations. Other sources not explicitly using the word formulation were looking at exposure to those formulated products under the broad banner of glyphosate (i.e., real-world use where you aren't exposed to just the active ingredient). That is why the consensus has been to include that at glyphosate, so we can't create FORK content without gaining consensus for such removals.

As for the lead, that was recently created and not something that should have been restored when contested. Either way, it violated WP:WEIGHT. I'm not seeing any reasoning given for removing the improvement of that either. Are there countries where POEA is allowed in aquatic formulations? All the sources we have so far say no and that such surfactants are not needed in aquatic use. Otherwise, the low human health risk statement is needed as well as the tempered statements about aquatic issues, and there was no reason for removing that. If assigning that due weight is a problem, we can always just remove that entire paragraph since it should not have been restored back in the first place. That's better than what's left out now, but not really ideal. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above response I am starting to think we may be dealing with more of a conduct issue then a content dispute based on statements like You also need to remember for better or worse that researchers will often refer to the active ingredient name when talking about formulations in general. - this seems to be an acknowledgement that the editor is aware that the content he is adding is not supported by the sources Also the statement your concerns either addressed or ignored per WP:OR and WP:CON. I know you don't want it, but you haven't been giving any WP:CON based reasons for that, so you need to respect that consensus. when there is no consensus for his edits is usually considered a conduct issue. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Also calling this restored content of your [18] - this content was copied here from the main article on glyphosate. The selective copying from that article to this one while removing other content also copied form the article and the unsupported claims that the sources are talking about formulations in general when they aren't, and the demand that editors add sources to disprove unsupported claims that are being added like Are there countries where POEA is allowed in aquatic formulations? may be outside the scope of a content dispute. I'll wait to see what how other editors feel about this, but I don't think these arguments support an NPOV tag on the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is contradicting yourself. You gave being US-centric as reasoning for removing the lead content on POEA not being approved for aquatic use, and now you're saying it's outside the scope of this content dispute. The talk page is already getting long with this kind of stuff, so I am waiting for others to reply, but there is a point that we need to crack down on due weight issues in order to remove the tag. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if there are countries that allow POEA in aquatic formulations - there may be. I also made the mistake of not specifying this when I copied it into the lede from the US regulations section. This was actually removed by Tryptofish as UNDUE here [19] which I didn't contest. I thought the UNDUE justification was because it placed UNDUE weight on the US regulations, but I can't say for sure because Tryptofish's removal of this content from the lede was accepted without further discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, please WP:FOC rather than aspersions. The reminder about active ingredient vs. formulation is a real-world thing that you need to take account for when reading scholarly sources on this. The end result of that for the claim you are making Seraphim is that you need sources specifically stating the source the paper cites is no longer correct on something. In this case, the sources do take time to discuss formulations, so we can't take them out of context by saying they contradict Williams. Duke for instance talks about glyphosate being safe when the instructions/label if followed, which is referencing the formulations by default.

As for the reminder on WP:CON, reasons for removing content need to be grounded in policy when discussion occurs. When those concerns are either addressed or contradict policy, we move on and don't consider those points part of the consensus. This has just been stating how talk discussions have formed up to this point as part of normal content discussion. I know you've been running into troubles with some of the technical content here, but please dial back the tone a bit to focus on content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It's only casting aspersions if there is no supporting evidence. (like, for example, making accusations of 1RR violations without presenting evidence, as you've done above). Duke and Tarazona are separate from the carcinogenicity edit, which was added to the section about the carcinogenicity of the active ingredient. However, other balancing content copied from the article was removed in the same edit. That is generally considered non-neutral editing. The 2002 report is not discussing RoundUp at all, and neither are the other sources. The statement you are attempting to use Williams for is very specific. You can not justify the edit by saying things like I know you've been running into troubles with some of the technical content here and The reminder about active ingredient vs. formulation is a real-world thing that you need to take account for when reading scholarly sources on this. That would make you the source, which is a big no-no on articles like this. The reason I am bringing this up here is that I don't think these are valid arguments to leave the tag in place, which is the subject of this discussion section.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that either one of you is "in the wrong" here, as far as the content, but I really would like it if you both would stop discussing one another, and both stop trying to get WP:The last word. It's getting way past tl;dr. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Getting back to this, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. I had a few concerns I had jotted down a few weeks ago I went over again, but some of the lead changes as well as minor changes and discussion this week either make them now minor or addressed enough in current content that they're not a major concern. There's a bit that could potentially be fleshed out in more up to date reviews I'm reading through, but the current content at least doesn't have major WP:DUE issues when reading through them, just potential clarifications, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag, much appreciated. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Scientific American source

Is there any reason we are using a Seralini source from 2009 before the unfortunateness of his science was found out. Unless someone can explain why we are using it I plan on removing it.2601:644:8502:1FB0:98B0:9FF:6871:182A (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no Seralini source being used in the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you not read the sources you are using? The Scientific American source (you know from the title of this section) is based off an interview of Seralini.73.71.132.33 (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not based off an interview with Seralini, and the content it sources in this article is basic and not covered by MEDRS. The Scientific American is not a fringe source by Wikipedia's standards, and neither is the content it sources in the article. Edit summaries like this [20] are not acceptable especially when your "fix" is grammatically incorrect. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

So didn't read the source then I guess. Try CNTL-F on the source and let me know what jumps out at you. If it is such basic information you should not have an issue finding a better source then, good we are agreed. So you are saying they only used the herbicide in 2012 and California? Seems unlikely but OK. 2601:644:8502:1FB0:98B0:9FF:6871:182A (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The Scientific American source is fine. If you have a problem with it the right place is RS/n. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It obviously is not fine but as long as you don't add it back we are fine. 2601:644:8502:1FB0:D96D:DC44:B6D0:BFDA (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I consulted several other sources and there were some problems with the permeability issue. I'm still following up on it, but I'm not planning to restore the SA article at this time. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sentences need subjects

The subject of a lot of the content of this article is all over the place. It goes from glysophosphate to glysophosphate formulas to inert additives to who knows what. If everyone could make an effort to keep sentence subjects clear I think we would go a long way to making this a strong article. 2601:644:8502:1FB0:D96D:DC44:B6D0:BFDA (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Contested edits

I disagree with the following edits, but given 1RR, I'm taking this to talk:

• [21]. This isn't about promoting companies, but rather providing information about the composition of the herbicide formulations. A big part of the reason for separating this page from Glyphosate is that this page would cover all the ingredients as opposed to just the active compound.
• [22]. Readers still associate "RoundUp" with "Monsanto", so it's perfectly reasonable to explain the acquisition instead of asking readers to figure it out. (On the other hand, I'm fine with [23], because it's readily understood.)
• [24]. Again, this is not about promoting companies. It's providing specifics for the statement that Bayer is not the only maker of glyphosate-based herbicides.

I'd also suggest to the IP editor that you dial back on the sarcasm. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you on the last two bullets, but the first one had already been giving me some pause. There are always tons of formulations for each active ingredient, so that listing seemed to get into the weeds a bit. I'd have to do some searching for the original(running out of time for the day), but I'm pretty sure that sentence used to just be a statement that POEA ranged from X - Y% of the mixture in some products. That got around getting into the weeds of listing all the trade names. That and the source was just giving a handful of examples rather than saying the formulations were particularly of note, even for 1997. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the first bullet, I added that to include the content about RoundUp Pro that was added during the merger, specifically phosphate ester neutralized ethoxylated tallow amine. Sources are pretty clear that is not the same as the MON 0818 POEA in RoundUp. This wasn't clear in the original edit (POEA ranged from X - Y% of the mixture in some products). We can find some other way to include this. Listing glyphosate concentrations for different formulations may open the door on bloat. I've since found similar listings for many more formulations. It might be better as a list or table then prose content.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Monsanto no longer produces anything since they have been bought out. I am fine with adding something accurate to acknowledge the historical record but we should not add false content which is why I removed it. What the formulations were 20 odd years ago without any evidence that they remained with that formulation the entire time is not useful information. I tried but could not verify if those values were a snapshot in time or whether they were moving targets. Either way I would only add the percentage of active ingredients if we find that information. For your third point then find a source that shows these other companies are notable producers and don't use a press release which was even titled press release. I take your point about the sarcasm, sort of.2601:644:8502:1FB0:6C65:39C9:16F4:1D3C (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've done this: [25]. I've replaced the press release with the original work that the press release was about, and made some other wording changes. I think that this resolves the second and third bullet points. About the inert ingredients, I didn't do anything, and I think it would be a good idea to find a source that would allow us to succinctly list the most commonly-used inert ingredients without doing any WP:SYNTH, but without bothering with the product names or the percent contents – just something like "According to the USDA, some commonly-used ingredients are related organic acids of glyphosate, isopropylamine, POEA, phosphate ester neutralized ethoxylated tallow amine, and water." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I hate to give space to a paid market research site but I guess for the content it is used for it is fine. I wouldn't use it for a whole lot else though. I added a date and changed owned to acquired. As they integrated into an existing structure no one really owns it anymore because it doesn't exist. Also they dad to spin off some parts but I don't think that is a necessary level of detail. 73.71.132.33 (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That was a good improvement, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Contested edits 2

Can one of you Seraphim or King just make a RFC for the version you would like. It seems that you two will not come to a compromise. I can't follow Seraphim's reasoning but perhaps if they are forced to argue for their changes it will make more sense. Otherwise judging by how the discourse is heading we will be at AE shortly.73.71.132.33 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Williams would have to go to RS/n, not RfC. An RfC for a sourcing issue, especially one that involves both MEDRS and MOSLAW is not a good idea. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm stepping back to let other editors comment at this point. If there are still problems after that, that would at least help formulate an RfC question. I do agree that it's probably the better way to go if we can get something a bit more focused to ask, but an RfC is hopefully only slightly premature at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is a solid question for an RfC, but right now it seems to be "Is Williams a reliable source per MEDRS?" or "Does Williams need attribution per MEDRS" or "Is the 2002 EU assessment reliable for the statement it is used for in the article" and all of these would be better suited for RS/n, except maybe the last one which is more a case of the source failing verification. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to need some time to do this (so don't anybody hold your breath), but I'm going to try to figure out what each of the points of disagreement is, and then I'll try to present two versions side-by-side on this talk page for comparison. KofA and SS, please understand at this point that neither one of you is likely to change the other's mind, so it would be best to give other editors enough time to be able to provide informed opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: The SERA source can be used for the low-oral toxicity it is in both SERA1997 (before Williams) and SERA2003. I see no need to add Williams as well, since the current issues are suficient to call the the bias of this source into question, and for our purposes as an encylopedia, we have more authoritative sources available for the content. Based on the discussion of this Williams (2000) paper in this NPR report [26]:

Monsanto executive William Heydens proposed that the company "ghost-write" one paper. In an email, Heydens wrote that "we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak." Heydens wrote that this is how Monsanto had "handled" an earlier paper on glyphosate's safety. That earlier paper, published in 2000, acknowledges Monsanto's help in assembling the data, but does not list any Monsanto employees as co-authors.

I think we are way past WP:DONTSHOUTBIAS on this, and I'm not sure why editors are pushing so hard for inclusion of this particular source when multiple non-controversial and more authoritative sources exist for this content. If we're not able to reach a consensus on this talk page, I think this definitely needs to be brought to the community's attention. Sorry for adding another comment to the debate with so much going on already, but this issue has not been clearly raised because I did not want to make a bias argument for exclusion under MEDRS unless I had a strong reliable source to support it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Was the paper retracted? Were the findings called out in a journal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8502:1FB0:425:EC0:F0C6:A96B (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Lede

Can KoA please explain why he removed this from the lede: "It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation." and replaced it with "POEA can be toxic at high concentrations, but is considered only "slightly" toxic and not a significant risk to human health when used with glyphosate." Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

To better reflect the weight of sources primarily and the relevant human content. The slightly toxic and not significant health risk content comes from the same material that deals with POEA only being about as toxic as vitamin A or less than aspirin. Overall, the combined toxicity is low even though researchers discuss relative differences in toxicity, so we need to be really careful about leaving out that context. which creates an easily misleading statement due to vagueness.

As for the sentence removed, that is somewhat contradictory in weight to other content that POEA isn't synergistic with glyphosate. In cases without synergism, you just talk about the toxicity of individual components. The difficulty in research is designing experiments that control for effects of surfactant and active ingredient (many meta-analyses only have data for the formulation itself). We need to be careful about confounding that with making health statements seem more vague that intended by sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The sentence that was removed doesn't say anything about POEA being synergistic, and it doesn't seem to be "contradictory in weight" - it's a SERA study for the US Forestry service. You'd have to present the balancing sources to make that argument, but given the authoritativeness of this source, I think removal is a tough sell. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to try to make it easier for editors to see exactly what the difference is. Insofar as I can tell, there is one version of the lead that is on the page as I make this edit: [27], that looks the same as what was there before KofA's edits today. I'm going to call that "Version A". Then there is the alternative version written today by KofA but reverted: [28], which I'll call "Version B". Unless I'm missing something (am I?), they only differ in the second paragraph, so here are those two paragraphs side-by-side:

Version A The acute toxicity for mammals is low, but human deaths have been reported from deliberate ingestion of RoundUp. It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation. Glyphosate formulations that include the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) are more toxic than other formulations, especially for aquatic species.

Version B Glyphosate acute toxicity for mammals is low, but human deaths have been reported from deliberate ingestion of concentrated RoundUp. Polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), a surfactant in some terrestrial formulations, has relatively higher toxicity than glyphosate. POEA can be toxic at high concentrations, but is considered only "slightly" toxic and not a significant risk to human health when used with glyphosate. POEA is not approved for aquatic formulations due to toxicity to aquatic organisms.

My gut reaction after a quick look is that I like the way that Version B puts the word "Glyphosate" in place of "The" at the beginning, because it makes things clearer in terms of glyphosate versus the other ingredients. Offhand, I think the rest of it is more succinct and to the point in Version A, but I'll also take a closer look in terms of what the two of you have said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I also like the word "concentrated" in the first sentence of Version B, because that's more precise.

It seems to me that the sentence "It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation." in Version A is a good one, and I cannot see the rationale for removing it. Before going on to the rest, can anyone explain why that sentence should be removed? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I explained it a bit above, but it's a two-parter. The first is that version A is really getting into how it's difficult to design experiments specifically for finding out effects due to surfactant or active ingredient or that easily available data tends to be just on formulations (depending on study type). That is more of a research detail for the body rather than lead material, and needs a lot more fleshing out in the body before we can use that in proper context. There's a lot of commentary on improper study design related to that line, but that's higher hanging fruit better left for another day. The second is that studies that do account for this in some fashion or address formulations directly say the formulations are safe for human use (third paragraph of Rolando as an example). Version A on this leaves a more open ended impression, and using the health statements in B while removing the version A text removes the potential confusion for readers. Not to mention it gets more to the point for the lead, whereas a little more exposition in A is ok in the body. In short, I'd hold off on the version A text you ask about until we can develop content in the body on it at a later time when the main content is more settled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we can still work on this discussion now. I'm not buying your explanation for removing that sentence (and please remember, I am only asking about that sentence now). Everything that you describe here is still a matter of it being difficult to determine the exact effects of surfactants on toxicity. We are writing for the general public, so I'm not seeing anything wrong with the lead making it clear that this page is not going to say definitively that product X is more or less toxic than product Y. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, just focusing on the sentence, the tl;dr is we don't have the body content to easily include it yet with due weight in mind, and it competes with the health statements to a degree by creating uncertainty as a standalone.

A way around that is to make sure the take-home message basically says it's tough to properly research the specific effects of the surfactants in formulations, but researchers that look at the total effect of the formulations don't consider them to be a significant risk. Does that clarify at least what I was getting at above? I think it's easier to deal with research difficulties after other content, but if what I said makes sense, I can propose a hybrid sentence later today when I get back to a computer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

OK then, how about something like: It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation, but most surfactants appear to add little to the toxicity.? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a fair summary and is supported by the SERA2003 source. Maybe change the end of sentence to include "acute toxicity in humans"? Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If the first sentence of the paragraph spells out "acute toxicity", then perhaps we don't need to repeat it in this sentence, and "overall" gets at the idea of the potential contribution of the surfactants to toxicity of the entire product. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first part is good, but the second part gets a little trickier, which is why I wanted to think about it a little bit. My rough version is It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation, but the formulations as a whole are widely considered to not be a significant risk towards human health. (maybe sourced in part to Rolando). We can talk about the POEA specific discussion after this, but this sentence would feed into what I have on version B just fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, you are drawing a distinction between what the surfactants contribute to overall toxicity, versus the overall toxicity itself. And you are saying that the contribution of the surfactants is not really provided by sources, so it's better to just talk about overall toxicity being low. But the first sentence begins with: "Glyphosate acute toxicity for mammals is low..." That's glyphosate by itself, so why not change that to "Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides have low acute toxicity in mammals, but..." Then for the second sentence, we can either end it at "... to the overall toxicity of of each formulation", or use the language about what most surfactants contribute if the sourcing supports it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

To make what I just said clearer, I'm suggesting starting with Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides have low acute toxicity in mammals, but human deaths have been reported from deliberate ingestion of concentrated RoundUp. It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation. And then go on to whatever we decide about POEA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Can low acute toxicity in mammals be change to something less technical. "can cause skin irritation and burns with accidental contact and respitory issues if inhaled. Delibeat ingestion of concentrated roundup has lead to human death". Obviously it could be better written I just think the less technical way can be more informative.2601:644:8502:1FB0:425:EC0:F0C6:A96B (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Having that kind of a list of bad things (skin irritation and so on) makes it sound very dangerous, which I don't think is consistent with the sources. Saying acute toxicity with a blue link seems to me to be about the reading level that we are aiming for. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Too be honest I am not even sure what you are trying to say with "low acute toxicity". Are you trying to say that users are unlikely to have a reaction if used according to the label, unlikely to have any reaction if accidentally come into contact or that the reaction will be mild if you come into contact. If you want to use low or high you need to explain better. Also skin irritation is pretty mild where I come from.2601:644:8502:1FB0:425:EC0:F0C6:A96B (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

What do other editors think? Also, please feedback on my suggestion above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can get around using acute toxicity. The use of "low acute oral toxicity" is supported by reliable sources. The issue of skin burns can't replace this. We can add something about it later, but it is too many different issues at once for right now. I think Trypofish's last suggestion for this sentence is a good one and improved on some of the ambiguity of the first proposal. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

More or less. I can get behind the general framework of your proposal. The one thing is that it dials back the language saying they are not a significant risk towards human health as opposed to just low acute toxicity. I'm fine having both as Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides have low acute toxicity in mammals and are not a significant risk towards human health, but human deaths . . ., though the significant risk language can cover both acute as well as chronic, carcinogenicity, etc. if we want to condense it too. That isn't really too technical at all for a chemicals and health topic. We can always go back and update the difficulty text after updating the body, but this version addresses my main weight concerns with bringing it up to the degree that I won't oppose it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, and I agree with everything that each of you said. And I'm glad to get back on track. Taking it together, I'm thinking that the part before we get to POEA could be: Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides have low acute toxicity in mammals. They likewise do not appear to pose a significant risk to human health, although human deaths have been reported from deliberate ingestion of concentrated RoundUp. It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation. If we agree on that (perhaps with tweaks), then we can go on and discuss what would come next about POEA. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

How about "They likewise do not appear to pose a significant risk to human health as long as the product labels are followed exactly, but human deaths have been reported from deliberate ingestion of concentrated RoundUp"? This would lead into the next part about POEA. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I'm looking to keep the wording from getting too lengthy, so perhaps "as long as the product labels are followed exactly" → "during normal use"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works better also Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That works for me too, but can we strike appear? That can inadvertently get into WP:WEASEL territory. The sources are pretty firm in their language too, so I think we should be fine removing it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just about to log out, so I'm glad I looked here first. I think we've settled that (for the time being), so in my next edit I'll set things up for discussing POEA.--Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

As I was writing this, I realized that it bothered me to say "do not pose a significant risk". Although I get it that "do not appear to pose" is weaselly and not really what the sources say, it still strikes me as too absolute to say in WP's voice – the biological sciences don't work that way. So I'm tentatively modifying it to "have been shown not to pose". I'm writing it that way below, but if anyone objects we can change that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I just want to double-check whether editors are OK with what I did with "have been shown not to pose". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note: "have been shown not to pose" → "have not been shown to pose", from discussion in subsection below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

POEA

So here are what I will call Version A2 and Version B2, both starting with the revised language that we just agreed upon:

Version A2 Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides have low acute toxicity in mammals. They likewise have not been shown to pose a significant risk to human health during normal use, although human deaths have been reported from deliberate ingestion of concentrated RoundUp. It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation. Glyphosate formulations that include the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) are more toxic than other formulations, especially for aquatic species.

Version B2 Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides have low acute toxicity in mammals. They likewise have not been shown to pose a significant risk to human health during normal use, although human deaths have been reported from deliberate ingestion of concentrated RoundUp. It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation. Polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), a surfactant in some terrestrial formulations, has relatively higher toxicity than glyphosate. POEA can be toxic at high concentrations, but is considered only "slightly" toxic and not a significant risk to human health when used with glyphosate. POEA is not approved for aquatic formulations due to toxicity to aquatic organisms.

So now we should look at the differences in the latter part about POEA. In my opinion, a good thing about Version B2 is that it is more precise in differentiating between the individual toxicities of POEA and glyphosate, and in making it clear that POEA is used only in terrestrial products but is not approved for aquatic ones. But what I don't like about B2 is that it is too verbose and too detailed. I'd like to see a way of saying it that is as accurate as B2 but approximately as succinct as A2. Off the top of my head: Addition of the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) confers sufficient toxicity to aquatic organisms that it is approved only for terrestrial use. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not used in the US and Europe, but in Europe it is banned in terrestrial formulations also. We also don't know about other countries like Russia or China. More importantly, we don't have any sources for those countries. So the way it is written is not currently supported by reliable sources, and we would have to mention that it is banned completely in the EU - which would make it more wordy, not less. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We can just add generally in front of not approved to take care of that. The sources we do have don’t seem to indicate there are major differences to point out when they make broader statements. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that due weight requires a bit more on details. There are common fringe arguments that the formulations are highly toxic because of POEA (groundshifting some fringe critics call), so we can’t really leave POEA toxicity hanging with this version. The version B text should be our default, but I’m all for making it more concise if we can. If have an idea to shorten it a little, but I’ll type that out in a couple hours when I’m back at an actual computer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, how about Polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), a surfactant in some terrestrial formulations, has higher relative toxicity than glyphosate, but is considered only "slightly" toxic and not a significant risk to human health when used with glyphosate. POEA is generally not approved for aquatic formulations due to toxicity to aquatic organisms. I trimmed that down a little bit, but it's already trimmed down from where sources talk about aspirin, vitamin A, etc. that can be summed up by slightly toxic. While I want to be concise, this is also a tricky subject where we want to be clear for readers when dealing with discussion of synergism and differences in toxicity.

Not to double back, but the part I removed about high concentrations was meant to echo the previous sentence about concentrated RoundUp. An idea I just had that would make the sentence I removed entirely unneeded would be to wikilink The dose makes the poison to concentrated RoundUp in the previous sentence. That would give Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides have low acute toxicity in mammals. They likewise have been shown not to pose a significant risk to human health during normal use, although human deaths have been reported from deliberate ingestion of concentrated RoundUp. It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation. Polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), a surfactant in some terrestrial formulations, has higher relative toxicity than glyphosate, but is considered only "slightly" toxic and not a significant risk to human health when used with glyphosate. POEA is generally not approved for aquatic formulations due to toxicity to aquatic organisms. Any thoughts on this as an updated version B?

Either way, I'm still in the camp that removing the difficulty sentence would make things more concise without really changing any meaning (with it being more in nuance territory in the context of the overall safety of formulations), but I'm not going to push that right now since accuracy is more my primary concern before we make it more concise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Definitely A2, it's more concise and all the content is supported by reliable sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that formulations using POEA are not used at all in the EU, and are used only in terrestrial formulations in the US? For something that we are potentially including in the lead, I'm wondering whether it really requires such weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Yes POEA is completely banned in formulations at the EU-level. In the US, it is not approved for aquatic uses. We don't have any sources currently for other countries. I thought your previous version removing it as UNDUE was an improvement as this is more regulatory content and should not be combined with the toxicity stuff. I prefer the version with "Glyphosate formulations that include the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) are more toxic than other formulations, especially for aquatic species" because it avoids all that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we need to keep it WP:KISS, but I also think KofA is correct that we need to make it clear that it's only slightly toxic and no more. Just saying that it's "more toxic than other[s]" makes it sound more toxic than it really is. (This is hard.) How about: Glyphosate formulations using the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) have low toxicity to humans, but are generally not approved for aquatic use due to their toxicity to aquatic organisms.? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can say "Generally" when there are major countries we don't have any sources for like China or Russia, and we can't characterize it as generally when it is US-specific. Looking back over it I also hadn't noticed this change: They likewise have been shown not to pose a significant risk to human health during normal use, - this wording can't be used either because it is also not supported by sources or the article content. It should be changed to "They have not been shown to pose a significant health risk to human health during normal use". These are not the same thing - again it seems that the EU consensus is being ignored and there is UNDUE weight on the EPA content.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(1) About "generally": I agree with you. I don't think we can cover every country in the lead (as opposed to the main text) but I'm fine with, instead: Glyphosate formulations using the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) have low toxicity to humans, but are not approved for aquatic use in the US due to their toxicity to aquatic organisms.

(2) About health risk: I asked about this just above the section break for POEA. I wasn't sure myself about "have been shown not to" versus "have not been shown to", which is why I asked, but I agree with you here too, so I'm going to change it above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That works for me and I think (without having the sources open in front of me) is supported by what I have read in the reliable sources that have discussed POEA toxicity in humans. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We already have plenty of sourcing on the lack of health risks while not contradicting the EU, so Tryptofish’s have not been shown to language was fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The main point in the generally language is that POEA is not used where it is more of a risk, and I haven’t seen major sources saying it is used aquatically elsewhere. I’m fine with your new language for now, but it wouldn’t take much to make that generally pretty solid in the future.

On how much we focus on POEA, sources do point out POEA a fair bit, so that is an area we need to flesh out a little at least. It’s a problem of real world undue weight or even fringe where a lot of focus has been put on POEA (making it WP:DUE), but a lot of that focus shows it’s not a major problem in the grand scheme of things. I think this sort of problem came up in the GMO RfC a bit too.

For your new text, I think we still need to have the not a significant risk language (fine with not shown to be, etc.). That’s a key statement in source after source, so that seems to be a point that needs to be driven home. Often times, such statements are made because the public doesn’t understand the dose makes the poison that I wikilinked in my last draft, so you usually need an accompanying clarification to catch the people basically saying, “But it’s still toxic.” This is indeed hard. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Amid all the other stuff to keep track of, I completely forgot about the link to dose makes the poison, but I agree with it entirely. I'm not sure, from what you said, whether you are OK with "have low toxicity to humans", or whether you are in favor of saying "not a significant risk" a second time, in that sentence as well as in the second sentence of the paragraph. I don't like the idea of saying it twice like that, on the grounds that it is bad writing style, and just not necessary. I think, tentatively, that we have consensus for the following:

Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides have low acute toxicity in mammals. They likewise have not been shown to pose a significant risk to human health during normal use, although human deaths have been reported from deliberate ingestion of concentrated RoundUp. It is difficult to determine how much surfactants contribute to the overall toxicity of each formulation. Glyphosate formulations using the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) have low toxicity to humans, but are not approved for aquatic use in the US due to their toxicity to aquatic organisms.

OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You’re right, the double not significant risk doesn’t look good now that you point it out. I can be content with this overall version. The only slight clarification would be to phrase it like “POEA, used in some glyphosate formulations, has low toxicity. . .” It’s a little ambiguous in your version whether the formulation or POEA is the focus there. I’m good to go otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused now. I had thought that in some of your comments above the section break, you were making the case that researchers tend to describe health risks in terms of the formulations instead of the ingredients. I do understand the difference between toxicity and health risk, but I think the focus of the sentence should be on herbicides that contain glyphosate and POEA, rather than on POEA as an individual chemical. I think that "Glyphosate formulations using the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) have low..." is not unclear about the focus: it's explicitly about the formulations. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this version is fine for now, based on the content we already have in the article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully I can clarify. Basically, we already mention the overall safety of formulations and glyphosate in the first two sentences as you describe, so the next step is to talk about notable surfactants like POEA. We've had researchers saying that both the formulations are safe (a more common occurrence as I commented on earlier) as is included in the first two sentences, but also specifically that POEA has low human toxicity in some sources, so that was the intent of my modification. I thought that was more clear in previous conversation, so sorry if it seems like I went on a tangent. My line of thinking with the change was that it was less redundant since we already called out general formulation toxicity and safety once already, but the approach you're looking at increases the specificity that POEA formulations are safe. I can go with either approach, so if you don't think the latter is too redundant, then I'm fine as is. If what I'm pointing out makes sense, then my change might make more sense. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the redundancy. We can change the last sentence to Glyphosate formulations using the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) are not approved for aquatic use in the US due to their toxicity to aquatic organisms. It might be better to deal with the EU stuff separately after the article content has been expanded.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I think that SS's suggestion is a good way to handle it, in that it's a good idea to keep the lead short and simple, while leaving it to the main text to get into the, um, weeds (sorry, I couldn't resist that one). I'm going to implement that now (and of course it can be further edited as we go along). More broadly, I feel like the approach to discussion that we used here has worked rather well, and I would be happy to help use it for other content issues going forward. Also, I hope that we can soon remove the POV tag at the top of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

We're close on the tag. I have to re-review the sources of the toxicity section before making some tweaks there, so I'll see what I can do there early this week. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a justification to leave the tag in place. Nothing you have posted shows any POV problem with the article, only that there is some content you want to change.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

PS. As I add it to the page, I realize that the revised last sentence leaves open whether POEA is toxic at all in a terrestrial setting, possibly implying that it is too toxic to use anywhere, so I took the liberty of modifying it slightly to Glyphosate formulations for land use containing the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) are not approved for aquatic use in the US due to their toxicity to aquatic organisms. Thus: "using" → "for land use containing". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems a bit redundant since we already specify not approved for aquatic use. There isn't really something called a "glyphosate formulations for land use" - "aquatic use" is one type of "use site" that formulations with POEA are not approved for. For different types of terrestrial uses like residential, park, roads, crops, noncrops, etc. the use instructions may vary from state to state.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that "land use" needs to mean anything beyond the dictionary meaning of the words. We could change "land" to "terrestrial", but I think that, as writing style, it would be better not to. I really don't think that we should try to force too much baggage onto one sentence in the lead. What I do think matters is making sure that "not approved for aquatic use" is not the same thing as "unsafe to use anywhere". These are glyphosate-POEA formulations that have some approved uses on land, but not in the water. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll admit I have a slight preference for terrestrial use, I'm also perfectly fine with land use. You're going to have forumulations that are just for aquatic use and some only for use on land, so we're making enough of a plain distinction with this version. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"Aquatic use" is a term used in the labels, that is why the sources discuss it. There's a difference between keeping the lede concise and dumbing it down inappropriately. We can't make up new words for technical terms. We can't change "freedom of assembly" to "freedom to meet as a group in one place". This is much the same thing. None of the sources we've used say anything about "land use". Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to regret that I said "I feel like the approach to discussion that we used here has worked rather well, and I would be happy to help use it for other content issues going forward." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way - we could say In the United States, Glyphosate formulations containing POEA are approved for terrestrial uses, but are not approved for aquatic uses due to their toxicity to aquatic organisms. They have been completely banned in the EU since 2016." - however we should not be adding anything undue (based on how the subject is discussed in reliable sources) to imply anything about whether it is "safe" or "unsafe" in any kind of use. Obviously different regulatory agencies have reached their own conclusions about this and all we can do is make sure we cover that per NPOV (because the EU agencies are about equal in terms of due weight with the EPA).Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Look, this isn't as big a problem as you are making it out to be. Nothing in my edit says anything about safe or unsafe, and nothing prevents adding more detail in the main text. All I did was add the three words "for land use" to describe the formulations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The way it is written now has made Glyphosate formulations for land use containing the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) the subject of the sentence. That's not a minor change in terms of prose - it completely changes the emphasis of the sentence and this is after we reached consensus on a different wording. I'm not thrilled about the change but it's fine until more work is done on the aquatic toxicity and other relevant sections of the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I made this edit: [29], and you thanked me for it, so hopefully that resolves it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Broader issues about lead

The issue I have in version A is that it does not center what exactly the herbicide is "toxic" too. In the absence of framing it will be assumed to be toxic to humans and I am not sure that is what we are going for here. Also "more" and "less" are not as informative as low or high. No one cares if one is more toxic than another, what they care about is if one is actually dangerous. My other issue is that we do not seem to explain why it is difficult to find the toxicity levels of the different formulations. In the absence of an explanation it makes it seem that the issue is either inherent or nefarious. Version B is too technical. I believe what we are trying to get across is that for land animals accidental ingestion from "blowback" is relatively safe but that it can be used to kill yourself if you drink it. I overall think this work in the lead is premature though. IF we were to flesh out the body with more informative prose and less technical writing the lead can take care of itself.2601:644:8502:1FB0:425:EC0:F0C6:A96B (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that you are raising too many issues there to deal with all at once. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm taking this into its own subsection. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding this revert [30] it is partially supported only by the 2012 source which says "formulated products containing POEA, such as Roundup, may be even more toxic". But the article content was written based on the 2004 source which is discussing surfactants generally - "Although surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations...". The second issue is that the 2004 source says "there is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternate surfactants" - this is not a problem with the version I restored, because the content in the article is not discussing the relative toxicity of different formulations, so I think the change to can increase the relative acute toxicity of the formulation is less accurate. It might be better to add the quote to the citations when making "tweaks" like this in the future. I will do that now. (Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're mixing up concepts here. The sentence in question is talking about relative toxicity of each ingredient to each other and potential interactions between them. It isn't talking about differences with other formulations in either version. It's not looking like there was any particular problem with my edit based on these comments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I am mixing anything up. I understand what you were trying to say, but the way it was worded in the edit made it more confusing, especially for readers who are not familiar with the source material. The source also says "probably" - we can't change that just because you say "can" is more accurate. Anyway, I think the original version was fine but I added the direct quotes from the article in the interests of avoiding a long debate about this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please remember that this is significantly changing previously agreed upon language and is introducing unneeded quotation when a much more plain language version was already present. That will need to be undone. It's concerning you call the phrase that I added relative to redundant. I can wait for other editors to chime in if they see any legitimate problems with my tweak though, but I can also add in The surfactants in glyphosate formulations generally do not increase the toxicity of glyphosate itself towards humans, but the combined formulation toxicity can be higher than glyphosate alone due to higher relative toxicity of the surfactant. That should take care of any future confounding over synergism, additive effect, etc., and the following sentence continues the train of thought. Otherwise, better to go back to the status quo for how simple of a tweak it was intended to be. It's also completely silly to make the revert about can vs. probably. That was just a more concise term and had nothing to do about the accuracy comment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is it concerning? The content that you changed was an accurate paraphrase of the content in the cited source. It covered synergism. This "tweak" was not supported by the source. Changing probably to can is not just a more concise term, it changes the meaning of the source.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope the two of you realize the extent to which you both are reverting to the kind of discussions-without-resolution that have been happening before. I've taken some time to look at the sources, and I'll try again here to break down the issues.

Over the past day or so, there have basically been four versions of the content. The first was as of this version: [31], before the recent changes was made, which I'll call Version 1. The second was the change by KofA as of this version: [32], which I'll call Version 2.

Version 1 The acute oral toxicity for mammals is low, but death has been reported after deliberate overdose. The surfactants in glyphosate formulations generally do not increase the toxicity of glyphosate itself towards humans, but probably do increase the acute toxicity of the formulation.

Version 2 The acute oral toxicity for mammals is low, but death has been reported after deliberate overdose of concentrated formulations. The surfactants in glyphosate formulations generally do not increase the toxicity of glyphosate itself towards humans, but can increase the relative acute toxicity of the formulation.

Version 3 is after SS's revert: [33], and Version 4 is after SS's subsequent edits: [34], which is close to what is on the page now.

Version 3 The acute oral toxicity for mammals is low, but death has been reported after deliberate overdose of concentrated formulations. The surfactants in glyphosate formulations generally do not increase the toxicity of glyphosate itself towards humans, but probably do increase the acute toxicity of the formulation.

Version 4 The acute oral toxicity for mammals is low, but death has been reported after deliberate overdose of concentrated formulations. According to a 2004 review "surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations" but "the weight of evidence is against surfactants potentiating the toxicity of glyphosate".

I'll go straight to my own opinion, and then after that I'll explain why. Bottom line: I think that Version 2 is the best, and we should either (a) go with Version 2, or (b) modify Version 2 by: The surfactants in glyphosate formulations generally do not increase the toxicity of glyphosate itself towards humans, but can increase the relative acute toxicity of the formulation.

I looked at two sources. The first is Bradberry [35], where I read the abstract. They say: It is difficult to separate the toxicity of glyphosate from that of the formulation as a whole or to determine the contribution of surfactants to overall toxicity. Experimental studies suggest that the toxicity of the surfactant, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), is greater than the toxicity of glyphosate alone and commercial formulations alone. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternative surfactants. Although surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations, the weight of evidence is against surfactants potentiating the toxicity of glyphosate. That contains a lot to parse, but they are basically saying that, complexities of the isolated toxicities of the individual chemicals set aside, glyphosate preparations containing POEA appear not to be more toxic than those with other surfactants, in the sense that they have not been shown to be so, but there appears to be some increase in toxicity of glyphosate plus surfactant preparations relative to glyphosate preparations with no surfactant.

The other source is SERA dated 2003 [36]. I focused on the Executive Summary and the Human Health Risk Assessment sections, looking for where they talked about POEA and toxicity. (I was struck by their statement on p. xvi that Glyphosate with the POEA surfactant is about as irritating as standard dish washing detergents, all purpose cleaners, and baby shampoos.) Anyway, on p. 3-3 they say While surfactants are typically classified as "inert" ingredients in herbicides, these compounds are not toxicologically inert and some surfactants may be more toxic than the herbicides with which they are used. Although surfactants may play a substantial role in the interpretation of a large number of suicides and attempted suicides involving the ingestion of glyphosate formulations, primarily Roundup, the acute mammalian toxicity of different glyphosate formulations do not appear to differ substantially. This is in contrast to the available data on the toxicity of various formulations to aquatic species, as detailed in the ecological risk assessment. So: surfactants add significant toxicity to aquatic organisms, but for acute mammalian toxicity, they can add some toxicity but not enough to make for meaningful differences between one formulation and another. On p. 3-7, talking about deliberate ingestion of concentrated products, the POEA surfactant used in glyphosate formulations (e.g., various formulations of Roundup) is a factor, and probably the dominant factor, in some of the effects seen in humans in cases of the suicidal ingestion of glyphosate formulations. On p. 3-21: Thus, in repeated dosing, the NOAEL for glyphosate of 1000 mg/kg/day was substantially higher than the NOAEL for either POEA (15 mg/kg/day) or neutralized POEA (50 mg/kg/day). That's in a lab, with giving very big doses to rats; a higher NOAEL means less toxic. Same page: Although there is evidence that POEA is more toxic than glyphosate to aquatic species (Section 4), the acute oral toxicity of Roundup (glyphosate and surfactant, LD50 in rats of 5400 mg/kg) is almost the same as that of glyphosate (LD50 in rats of 5,600 mg/kg). Meaning: for rats, the acute toxicity of glyphosate plus POEA, and that of glyphosate alone, are about the same. Taking all of that together: yes, POEA can add some measurable toxicity to glyphosate, but ultimately the change in toxicity for real-world human exposure isn't a particularly big change. And that's quite consistent with Bradberry.

OK then, so here is why I like Version 2. First, it's more precise to say "concentrated", as opposed to Version 1. More centrally, if we say "probably do", that makes it sound like people are probably in more danger when the herbicide contains POEA. And that does not reflect the sources. If we say POEA "can increase", that correctly reports that it can add more toxicity but it does not mean that "POEA: you're in more danger". In other words, in a lab setting it's possible to measure an increase in acute toxicity due to POEA, so that's what it can do, but that lab result does not translate into a measurable difference in what happens to people when herbicides are used in real life. And I don't think that the quotes in Version 4 do much to make things any clearer, and they do sort of sound like they contradict each other.

Now I also recommend deleting "generally do not increase the toxicity of glyphosate itself towards humans, but", because I think it's too technical and confusing for general readers. (It doesn't make glyphosate more toxic but it makes herbicides containing glyphosate more toxic – one has to be a chemist or toxicologist to make sense of that. Readers are unlikely to care about the mechanism of additivity or synergism.) If we just say The surfactants in glyphosate formulations can increase the relative acute toxicity of the formulation we're saying what matters: yes, they can cause more toxicity in a relative comparison – but we don't need to belabor the technical aspects.

I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I prefer Tryptofish 's suggestion to the lengthier versions, as long as the SERA source is cited. My comments were based on the sources that were actually cited when the edits were made.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit I'm disappointed that a rather simple change became suddenly controversial. Your summary and version 2 more or less gets across what I was working towards, so I'm good with that. Your sentence POEA can add some measurable toxicity to glyphosate, but ultimately the change in toxicity for real-world human exposure isn't a particularly big change. is more or less the take home message we want when reading this sentence and the rest of the paragraph. I don't have a super strong preference on dose makes the poison or Dose–response relationship, though the latter would need some text addition.

The problem with removing the text related to synergism is that it addresses a noteworthy fringe claim that POEA makes glyphosate much more toxic. Obviously we don't want to bend over backwards addressing it, but keeping it to a one-liner helps a lot. We've talked about it before in the lead, but here we can have a little more detail beyond just overall safety of the formulation and try to take the details up just one step in detail (ideally not more than that). It's a problem trying to distill synergism, etc. for encyclopedic text, which is why even though I proposed a lengthier more explicit version above, I much prefer the shorter version 2 way of clarifying it. It's a "happy" medium of sorts balancing a few different things. If there's a better way of summarizing what you said about technically increasing formulation toxicity in the lab, but not really having much of a real-world effect, I'm all for replacing the "generally does not increase the toxicity" language with something better. There's a lot of potential moving parts here as you definitely dug into in your analysis, so that's why I was mostly focusing the slight changes in version 2. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it looks like everyone was fine with version 2, I've gone ahead and reinserted it. We can move forward from there as a starting point for whether we want to alter the brief comment on lack of synergism, but I'm fine as is if no one else feels strongly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether everyone was fine with the longer form of Version 2, but we will see. Speaking only for myself, I'm OK with it, although I'm not convinced that the synergism thing will be accessible to readers. My only other issue is with the blue link to The dose makes the poison, because we already have the exact same link in the lead section. I changed it back to Dose–response relationship (count it as my revert for the day), but I also made the other link a hatnote to the section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I would have changed the blue link if you asked since I wasn't super picky on which as I mentioned above (I did add a little text at the dose-response article). I wasn't sure on what was preferred, so no big deal there for now.

As for the longer form, I wasn't entirely sure if people were referring to my lengthier version I proposed before you posted the four previous versions, but if it's in reference to the phrase in version 2 addressing synergism, it seems like the current version is a baseline to work forward on for refining if anyone feels strongly. I'm OK with it since it gives appropriate weight while not getting too far into the weeds of jargon that such text easily could. If we're going to remove it, we'll need some sort of more concise replacement text to get a similar idea across. As I've said before though, I think we're at a happy medium to at least have a stable version. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

When I've referred to a version, I mean the ones I numbered in the four boxes above, not anything earlier or later than that. And the shorter version of Version 2 is the one I discussed with SS just above, leaving out the synergy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely not fine with Version 2, I supported Tryptofish's proposed change. I don't know how I could have made it clearer that I object to Version 2.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I figured I would just wait to hear from you, but that was certainly clear to me. So I just shortened it (which I do not consider to be a revert, in case anyone is thinking that way). If KofA would like to include some explanation of the synergy issue, let's do that in a separate sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not even sure it belongs in the acute toxicity section. The FRINGE synergy stuff KoA is worried about is not about acute oral toxicity. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, just a procedural point since you may have lost track of it in the shuffling content, but this content is the rough status quo that has been removed a time or two without consensus gained for removing it after a bit of talk page discussion, so that needs to remain at this point until we get consensus on something else. I'm all for swapping it out if we get something nailed down though, but it's a bit early for removal. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I've said already I'm mostly fine with keeping that text as-is as it balances most of the concerns brought up in discussion pretty well. What are editors suggesting as an improvement though? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not my understanding of the procedural issue, but I'm just trying my hardest to keep a lid on the arguments here. I think there was a pretty thorough discussion of why it would be good to shorten that sentence, and you kind of ignored it when you implemented the longer form of V2. SS said very clearly that they accepted my overall analysis and supported the shorter version that I proposed. Anyway, I don't want to argue about this, but I have no objection to what is on the page now, and I have no objection if you want to add a separate sentence or two that explains the synergy issue more clearly. So my suggestion for improvement is that you cover the synergy in a new sentence or two, not in the existing sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Generally, when someone removes text and that removal is undone, we don't go removing it again unless there is consensus for it in terms of 1RR procedure here.

Either way, I'm a bit confused now. Originally, we were talking about not doing something much more involved for the synergy stuff because it gets to be too much detail, and the removed phrase was in the "just right" territory for the body. Are you suggesting we shift more in the former direction a little now? As for the previous conversation on it, I was doing the opposite of ignoring it, but addressing why we wanted to address the synergism stuff in that sentence concisely. In part, the sentence is including components of individual toxicity and combined toxicity. We didn't have any sort of consensus to exclude the phrase though. If you can clarify what you're thinking for direction, I can look at potential new sentence ideas, but we might be better off just sticking with the status quo for that phrase too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The status quo would be version 1, before the changes you made that resulted in the compromise version. I think we should keep the current compromise version, I don't think the nuances of the longer sentence are going to be obvious to a reader without substantial background knowledge. That is why I supported the current version. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Everyone has agreed on the changes to the first sentence and second half of the second sentence in version 1, so we wouldn't go back to version 1 entirely. That only leaves the bit about not increasing the toxicity of glyphosate as the remaining status quo since that's the only thing under dispute. Either way, I want to be sure of what Tryptofish's intent with my previous question, so that could be moot too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think version 2 is worse then version 1, but I think the shortened version is preferable to the original version 1. I don't really want to keep dragging this out but I'm very worried you are going to revert again and claim that I agreed to the changes., so I want to make sure there is no continued misunderstanding about this. There is currently no support for your proposal to reinstate your preferred version. Tryptofish has floated the possibility of adding this in a separate sentence.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

KofA, the short version is that I see it the same way as SS here. To go into more detail, I don't know if there was earlier discussion about not having anything longer about synergy, because it must have happened before I got closely involved. I don't have a problem with omitting synergy entirely. I also don't have a problem with covering it. We could do it under acute toxicity, or under long-term effects, or even part and part. I don't care about that either. If we add a single, well-constructed sentence, that would be much clearer than the within-sentence phrase that I removed. The one thing I do care about here is that it needs to be clear to readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead an added a separate sentence[37], so hopefully that moves things towards being resolved. If that change needs to be undone, we'll need to go back to this version. I'm content with what we have right now for satisfying NPOV, but we could add more language that the formulations are not a significant risk to mirror the introductory paragraph of the Toxicity section to be more concrete if needed. Does this move towards what you were thinking without getting too technical? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit further, but yes, it looks good to me. Thanks. I'm satisfied with it, the way it is now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Tryptofish was supporting version 2 overall, but also considering if it should be shortened. You said you were fine with their suggestions, so I assumed you were fine with version 2 while looking at further refining the interaction content in this discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this section needs anything about synergy. The disputed studies about synergy were about long-term effects, I don't think the article should be bloated to "disprove" something that is not a major issue with respect to acute toxicity. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here considering I've never claimed this was just for long-term effects. These claims come up on multiple fronts, including acute toxicity, but more importantly, MEDRS sources make a specific point of talking about this with respect to acute toxicity. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sribanditmongkol

While making this edit [38] to resolve KoA's concerns about accuracy, I noticed that the 2012 Sribanditmongkol is a single case report. Does this source pass MEDRS? Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It fails MEDRS for the sentence where it was placed. But I moved it, and it's fine for saying that "there have been reports of...". I think it was just in the wrong place. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there Roundup in your breakfast cereal?

What can we do with this?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather have a better source than People's Pharmacy. Can we go back to the actual scientific studies? And we really need to have a WP:MEDRS secondary source to evaluate whether or not the amounts that are in the food are meaningful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

At best, this would go on the Environmental Working Group's page as part of the their many controversies related to non-scientific "reports". What I've seen so far in sources really wouldn't warrant mention here or most other articles in terms of MEDRS though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I was really just pointing out the topic. I wouldn't even know how to find the proper sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This would belong in the main article really, but here are some potential sources. It doesn't look as if there are any good reviews, but at least IMO, this content wouldn't come under MEDRS if we are just reporting the encountered residues and relating them to MRLs/ADIs, and not making any statements as to whether they are safe or not.

• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02652030119594
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02652030412331282385
• https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-015-0052-7
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ps.775
• https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf025908i
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463911002379
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967300001035 (mainly of use for finding more primary research)
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0265203031000109477
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-016-7425-3
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ps.2128
• http://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/cropguidecerealsdec06.pdf
• http://cereals.ahdb.org.uk/media/308647/pr464-final-project-report.pdf

SmartSE (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Surfactants - today's edit uses a 14 year old review to claim safety

This edit is concerning. We need to use the latest scientific findings, not dig up ones from 2004. What was the purpose in making this edit today?

This is a 2016 review PMC 4947579

• 'Glyphosate can display endocrine-disrupting activity (80, 82), affect human erythrocytes in vitro (83), and promote carcinogenicity in mouse skin (84). Furthermore, it is considered to cause extreme disruption in shikimate pathway, which is a pathway found in plants and bacteria as well as in human gut bacteria. This disruption may affect the supply of human organism with essential amino acids (85). Commercial glyphosate formulations are considered to be more toxic than the active substance alone (80, 83, 86, 87). Glyphosate-based herbicides, such as the well-known “Roundup,” can cause DNA damages and act as endocrine disruptors in human cell lines (60) and in rat testicular cells (88), cause damages to cultured human cutaneous cells (89), and promote cell death in the testicular cells of experimental animals (88, 90). There is evidence also for their possible ability to affect cytoskeleton and intracellular transport' (91).

And this from The Intercept with new insights gleaned from the Roundup Cancer Trial discovery phase:

• 'Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence, including one study published in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers'.

For the encyclopedia it is best to use more recent data. petrarchan47คุก 00:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't dig it up, it was added by KoA (who copied it from the main Glyphosate article). However, the conclusion that acute oral toxicity for mammals is low is repeated in the 2018 review, which I added, so I did not challenge the 2004 Bradberry source because I was able to confirm that it has not been superseded.. The review quoted above, however, seems to be discussing something different: Therefore, the determination of “safe” levels of exposure to single pesticides may underestimate the real health effects, ignoring also the chronic exposure to multiple chemical substances. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I do think it would be a good idea to replace older sources with newer ones. We need to be thoughtful, however, about the kind of context that I discussed above in #Revert, in terms of animal toxicology relative to human risk: I'm not sure that anything in the scientific consensus has really changed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This is why I'm ok for now at least on focusing on these older sources that newer reviews just tend to cite as (look at this 2000 summary for more details). I've been actively looking for new sources, but most of them aren't really saying anything different as you're saying. It might just be a matter of adding newer references to what we already have without changing content much if at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I've been getting the impression that with all the back-and-forth changes, there might be some cites that have ended up after the wrong sentences, so it would be worth taking a close look at all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this change made today and the use of updated (WP:MEDRS compliant) sources, have you (or others active on this thread) done a literature search for updated material before continuing to utilize this 14 year old study?

A review of WP:MEDDATE may be in order. petrarchan47คุก 07:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that editors in the discussion above have already indicated a receptiveness to finding and using new sources. There was nothing final about the source choice for the edit in the diff you cite, so I think that providing us with a more recent source would be welcome. It simply needs to be a MEDRS-reliable source that is directly about the material in that sentence, and it has to be cited accurately. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for my lack of clarity. I did not mean to ask if editors were receptive to updated material. I am asking whether a search for new material was done or not, prior to these recent edits. petrarchan47คุก 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I just did a quick search. I found two recent sources that look to me to be relevant: [39] and [40]. There is also this: [41], but it's by Seralini. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Those first two, however, are primary sources. I did some more searching, and when I searched PubMed for "POEA" and set it to "review", I only got the Bradberry and Williams reviews, nothing more recent. But looking for "herbicide surfactants" and "review", I got these, which are I think the best out there for this purpose: [42] and [43], as well as one about aquatic applications: [44]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Tarazona: "In fact, the UN and EU guidance recommends carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies to be conducted on individual chemicals, limiting testing of mixtures/formulations to cases where synergistic effects are expected (United Nations 2015)." - I think if we are going to mention synergy, it would have to be in the carcinogenicity section, not acute oral toxicity, and we should follow the most up to date source which seems to be Tarazona (2017).Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Mention of synergy for carcinogenicity is not the same for acute toxicity, so I don’t see why you bring up acute toxicity. Someone could mention it for carcinogenicity in addition if they want to craft something obviously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure SS is referring to the sentence added in the "Acute toxicity#Human" section. I just modified that sentence to make it more specific: [45]. But if surfactants are different with respect to their non-acute effects on carcinogenicity, then the "Carcinogenicity of active ingredient" section should be expanded beyond the active ingredient, and it should be covered there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please update this page re surfactants

Sera 2011 *:

Many glyphosate formulations include surfactants, and the toxicity of these surfactants is of equal or greater concern to the risk assessment than is the toxicity of technical grade glyphosate ... surfactants appear to be agents of concern

We also have PUBMED 24434723 (2014)

These results confirm that G formulations have adjuvants working together with the active ingredient and causing toxic effects that are not seen with acid glyphosate

And PMC 5756058 (2018)

G being tested alone in chronic regulatory experiments to establish the ADI (RfD in USA) appears inappropriate, in light of these results. As a matter of fact, synergistic toxic effects undoubtedly occur

And PUBMED 24999230 (2014)

In conclusion, our results demonstrated that the addition of adjuvant to glyphosate formulation increase the toxicity of the mixture in cell culture. Furthermore, cell culture exposed to agrochemical mixture showed an increased ROS production and antioxidant defenses

Even after being shown the updated Sera 2011 language, KoA43 has reinserted the following using a source from 2004:

Surfactants generally do not cause synergistic effects that increase the toxicity of glyphosate within a formulation.

I would encourage editors to look at WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHERE before continuing to edit in this topic area. petrarchan47คุก 19:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)