Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Cited glyphosate source differs from current article content

In Wikipedia's current article it states that a Swedish study shows that the half-life of glyphosate is up to 3 years. This is incorrect, the actual article found here:

tracks the glyphosate metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid as existing this long, but not glyphosate itself. Lenschulwitz (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2009 (PST)

Can someone add this with a cite?

Hey, came across something interesting and thought it should be added to the page, i could not figure out how to add a footnoted citation


its on pages 15 and 16

In terms of pounds of active ingredient, glyphosate accounted for approximately 25% of the total 399 million pounds of herbicide active ingredients applied to United States crops in the year 2002. In 1992, glyphosate comprised less than 3.5% of the total amount sprayed.

thank ye —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge completed

I've completed the merge from Roundup. I've tried to keep all information from the old page without really evaluating it for its merit. I summarized the effect on plant diseases by citing a new 2007 review instead of importing Roundup's half-dozen primary articles. I removed a couple references on negative health effects because they were in Spanish and thus difficult to evaluate. Otherwise no information should be gone. II | (t - c) 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't discussed in the RoundUp page. I disagree with the merge since Roundup is a formulation that contains Glyphosate.[1] I'm reverting the merge.--Nutriveg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC).
As you can see from the #Merge discussion above, there's a strong consensus against that. There's been a merge tag up on both pages for a long while. Anyway, I don't much care if you add Roundup-specific stuff to the Roundup page, but we need a central page for discussing glyphosate and the various formulations of it, and that is this page. Note that main difference with Roundup is that it has various different surfactant which may cause different and potentially worse effects on aquatic organisms and such. That's not really worth another page and is discussed clearly here, but if you want to create the page on that, you can try. All other concerns with Roundup seem to be actually about glyphosate. II | (t - c) 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That discussion was dead, and died with a partial merge consensus
"So, shall we merge the chemical and glyophosate-specific information to glyophosate, and leave Roundup for the brand name? --Rifleman 82"
"I think that is a good solution. (Roundup should also contain the majority of the controversy story). And then try to keep it that way"
The most recent comment (April 1) previous to your merge was against it
If the tag is the problem I may remove it later.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Responded at Talk:Roundup#Merge_to_glyphosate, where you posted the same question. Or should we keep doing our discussion in two places? Can't you see how irritating this redundancy is? II | (t - c) 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Merge There is too much reduncancy between the pages. Roundup should redirect to Glyphosate. The claim that "there is a distinction made in the scientific literature between studying the effects and benefits/harm of Roundup as a whole product, vs. Glyphosate as a chemical" is misleading. It is true that studies need to examine the total formulation of any herbicide and not only its active ingredient. But if you are going to have a whole article for every herbicide formulation of a given active ingredient you are going to have a very large amount of duplication indeed. Why does the Roundup brand and formulation get its own article but no other brand get its own? Why isn't there are Zero weeding wand page? It is far more sensible to group the articles on particular herbicides based on their active ingredients. People opposing this merge need to write up a Brunning Glyphosate 360 Weedkill article to report the effects of the formulation of glyphosate that I found in my shed just now. Ttguy (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Cross-posting? It's so fun you come up only to edit Roundup and Genetically modified food controversies articles pushing a Monsanto POV.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation 46 Could Use a Citation

This source just says what wikipedia says, it doesn't give any details on the study, or provide a link to the study. U.S. EPA ReRegistration Decision Fact Sheet for Glyphosate (EPA-738-F-93-011) 1993. Here's the pdf: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

EPA as a Reliable Source

Why does this article put so much emphasis on what the EPA says? They're more of a threat to the environment than it's protector. Corporations, like Monsanto, pay millions in "campaign contributions" (legal bribes) to get the politicians who control the EPA to produce the results they desire. Any real scientist would never trust such a biased organization.

Don't take my word for it:

Wikipedia claims to be neutral and unbiased and yet what it considers "reliable sources" are often the most biased sources you could imagine. You can't trust corporate funded research, that's been proven over and over again. Have people forgotten what science was founded upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The EPA also publishes their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals on a regular basis. It's not like it's just a sock-puppet for big chemical corporations, and just because they're a regulatory agency doesn't make unreliable. Plus, their publications are usually supported with independent, peer-reviewed scientific literature. They're a credible source - they just shouldn't be the only source. MMagdalene722talk to me 13:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't meant as an attack, but an editorial does not count as a reliable source either. I can't comment either way about the EPA being reliable, or not, but using an editorial as proof of something being unreliable doesn't seem reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yield Drag?

The reference for this claim is 10 years old. I know from personal experience that this claim is untrue now. I do not work for a seed company and am not trying to promote my own agenda, just trying to improve the accuracy. If a more recent article can't be found, then this claim should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Some things haven't been studied in ten+ years but still stand. If the results have been found to be untrue, then there are surely new studies to argue that--but it's not acceptable to remove referenced material, especially when it's in a peer-reviewed journal, just because it's old and you have an intuition that it has been proven wrong. If the only thing that is known about a subject is from an old study, and no new studies have challenged the results from the old one, then it's reasonable to assume the results may still hold. If you want to clarify, a good way is to bring attention to the fact that the study is old in the text...i.e. saying: "A 1991 study found that...". What would be best would be to find new studies either supporting the old study or supporting your new intuition--but in the absence of this, you could also find remarks in some other article that support that this hasn't been studied more recently, and is considered unknown/uncertain. These are all ways to improve the article, just deleting the text does seem to come across as promoting an agenda. Cazort (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Glyphosate is used to kill much more than just weeds, as the lead statement stated, so that has been corrected to show that it kills plants that have not be genetically modified to be resistant to Glysphosate. Simply stating "weeds" is very misleading. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As previously stated I disagree. Glyphosate can kill much more than just weeds but it is mostly used to kill weeds. Stating otherwise would unbalance its purpose. That's as well reflected by the article text. Your statement is also wrong where Glyphosate is also ineffective against some non "genetically modified" plants and is also used previously of culture of non "genetically modified" plants that there's no intention to kill.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The term "weeds" is subjective and imprecise. The word 'mostly' is a weasel word, and the lead statement is incorrect without it and would violate WP:AWW with it. Any homeowner spraying it on their lawn to rid it of 'weeds' would find that he killed everything they sprayed, so the WP audience must be taken into consideration. Simply stating 'weeds' only captures the perspective of an agricultural business that incorporates Roundup-Ready farming. What is needed here is a NPOV. --Skyemoor (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"The term "weeds" is subjective and imprecise". My Weed Science lecturer would disaggree. A weed is a plant in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because a gardner might spray a whole garden with Glyphosate and find that it kills more than his weeds does not mean that Glyphosate is not used to kill weeds. It kills weeds when used as directed. Drano cleans drains when used as directed. But it will also kill people if they drink it. It does not mean that Drano is not a drain cleaner. Glyphosate is used by people to kill plants that are in the wrong place at the wrong time - ergo it is used to kill weeds. " Simply stating 'weeds' only captures the perspective of an agricultural business that incorporates Roundup-Ready farming" - This total B.S. - I use glyphosate in my garden to kill weeds and I am not useing RR farming. Farmers used Roundup to kill weeds for decades before round up ready crops were available. This is such a dumb argument I can hardly believe it.
The "intended to kill plants that are not genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate" lead is demonstably false since the invention of glyposate predates the invention of GM crops by - I would guess - 20 years or so. Ttguy (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
My Weed Science lecturer would disaggree. Then your weed science lecturer should join this thread, as others cannot speak for him. It is a fact that Glyphosate will kill any plant that is not genetically modified to resist it, with the exception of 'naturally' emerging resistant plants. Attempting to use Drano as a metaphor does not provide supporting rationale.
This is such a dumb argument I can hardly believe it. Such communication is in violation of WP Etiquette Guidelines (WP:ETIQ). It would be advisable for you to refrain from such language in the future. --Skyemoor (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Add reference

The page is shown as protected, so I can't add this reference. The endocrine disrupter section mentions glyphosate's been part of the (USA's) EPA's endocrine disrupter screening program. Here's the address for the reference: Carltzau (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note at the end of that list: "Because this list of chemicals was selected on the basis of exposure potential only, it should neither be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors nor characterized as such." Physchim62 (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Please add interwiki zh:草甘膦, thanks. --Choij (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Glyphosate is responsible for an epidemic of cancer and birth defects

Glyphosate causes cancer, and the article doesn't even mention it. I'm going to link to the information here since I'm not allowed to edit the article, and I hope some admin will end the "protection" of this article, but if not, at least the information can be found here.

Visit the following links:

The study in Argentina is not the only research concluding that the number one selling herbicide may be harmful to human health. Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor at the University of Caen and specialist in molecular biology, led a study that concluded the herbicides in the Round Up Ready package causes cells to die in human embryos.

"Even in doses diluted a thousand times, the herbicide could cause malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers," said Dr. Seralini in an interview with Dario Aranda published in Página/12. Round Up Ready is currently marketed in more than 120 nations. Latin American nations Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay are the region's fastest growing markets.

Also take a look at the village in which 6% of inhabitants have cancer now:

In a small town bordering soy farms in the province of Cordoba, the Mothers of Ituzaingo group was formed in response to sudden increases in the local cancer rate. Ituzaingo has 5,000 residents—in 2001 they reported more than 200 cases of cancer and by 2009 that number has jumped to 300. This is 41 times the national average. (I conducted this calculation: the national average or percentage is 0.145 of the population diagnosed with cancer—in this town 6% of the population has cancer.) They have fought for regulations against fumigating soy crops in residential areas and a ban of agrochemicals.

Counteraction (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting your personal cause. Physchim62 (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

that blister on the foot pic in the article . . .

Uh - I've directly handled undiluted glyphosate and never had a blister that looked anything as suggested by the picture.

Either the person affected was already sensitive to chemical exposure of any sort (ie allergies) or some other chemical additive could have triggered that dramatic of a skin reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

more info on plan colombia fumigation controversy

the article could use more mention of the controversy surrounding glyphosphate fumigations in colombia (regarding widely-documented devastating effects on the environment, not to mention studies that have shown glyphosphate can cause tumors (see the documentary titled "plan colombia")). see this article on narco news: (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleterious effects and a new electron microscopic organism

Shouldn't we have some mention here of the appearance of a heretofore unknown electron microscopic organism that appears associated with RoundUp ready crops? See the following letters from Dr. Huber:

Researcher: Roundup or Roundup-Ready Crops May Be Causing Animal Miscarriages and Infertility

One of the nation’s senior scientists alerted the federal government to a newly discovered organism that may have the potential to cause infertility and spontaneous abortion in farm animals, raising significant concerns about human health.

Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, believes the appearance and prevalence of the unnamed organism may be related to the nation’s over reliance on the weed killer known as Roundup and/or to something about the genetically engineered Roundup-Ready crops. In a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the professor called on the federal government to immediately stop deregulation of roundup ready crops, particularly roundup ready alfalfa. Below is the full text of the letter. FARFA received an electronic copy of the letter from Dr. Huber and we have spoken with him directly to confirm its authenticity.

The letter was intended as to alert the government about preliminary research results that indicate serious problems. As Dr. Huber himself clearly states, *more research is needed.*

Dr. Huber wrote a second letter, in March, to European officials, explaining the issue in more depth. __________________________________ January 16, 2011

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn--suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does. For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:

  • Unique Physical Properties*

This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.

  • Pathogen Location and Concentration*

It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.

  • Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease*

The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income, sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss' wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).

  • Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure*

Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.

The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.

For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

  • Recommendations*

In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.

I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.


COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber Emeritus Professor, Purdue University APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)


Letter from Dr. Huber to European Commission March 2011 This cover letter is provided to explain the reasoning and concerns that were conveyed in a letter which I sent to Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack on January 17, 2011 (Attachment 1).

The letter was not intended for public distribution; however, the letter was "leaked" and subsequently posted on the internet from which it soon became public knowledge world-wide. Once it was widely distributed, I gave permission for subsequent postings in order to keep it consistent. My busy meeting and travel schedule has delayed getting further information on this matter out publicly to the many individuals who have requested it. The scientific data on this newly recognized organism is being prepared for formal publication.

I wrote the letter to Secretary Vilsack for a very simple reason: we are experiencing a large number of problems in production agriculture in the U.S. that appear to be intensified and sometimes directly related to genetically engineered (GMO) crops, and/or the products they were engineered to tolerate - especially those related to glyphosate (the active chemical in Roundup® herbicide and generic versions of this herbicide). We have witnessed a deterioration in the plant health of corn, soybean, wheat and other crops recently with unexplained epidemics of sudden death syndrome of soybean (SDS), Goss' wilt of corn, and take-all of small grain crops the last two years. At the same time, there has been an increasing frequency of previously unexplained animal (cattle, pig, horse, poultry) infertility and spontaneous abortions. These situations are threatening the economic viability of both crop and animal producers.

Incidence of high infertility and spontaneous abortions in the various animal species is becoming more common. Often, all previously known causes of these conditions can be ruled out as factors for these particular farm operations (Attachment 2). Detailed examination for the newly recognized organism has shown its presence in all of the cases examined to date. Koch's postulates have been completed for animals to verify the cause/effect relationship with this newly culturable organism. A search for the source of animal infections revealed a high population of this newly discovered electron microscopic sized organism in soybean meal and corn products. The organism appears compatible, and probably synergistic, with other microorganisms such as Fusarium solani fsp. glycines, the cause of SDS of soybeans and also with gram positive bacteria. The organism also is in a very high population in Goss' wilt infected corn caused by the gram positive bacterium Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis.

Although most corn hybrids have been genetically resistant to Goss' wilt, preliminary research in 2010 demonstrated that the application of glyphosate herbicide or the surfactant from glyphosate formulations nullified this resistance and rendered them fully susceptible to this pathogen (Figure 1). This disease was commonly observed in many Midwestern U.S. fields planted to RR corn in 2009 and 2010, while adjacent non-GMO corn had very light to no infections in spite of the high inoculum present in no-till crop residues (Figure 2). The increased Goss' wilt in 2010 was a major contributor to the estimated almost one billion bushels of corn 'lost' last year (based on USDA August estimated yields and actually harvested crop reported by USDA in January) in spite of generally good harvest conditions.

Increased severity of plant diseases after glyphosate is applied (Fig. 3) is well documented and, although rarely cited, the increased disease susceptibility is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate (Johal and Rahe,1988, 1990; Johal and Huber, 2009; Schafer et al, 2009, 2010). The loss of disease resistance in Roundup Ready® sugar beets when glyphosate was applied prompted researchers at the USDA sugar beet laboratory to include a precautionary statement in their paper, e.g. "Precautions need to be taken when certain soil-borne diseases are present if weed management for sugar beet is to include post-emergence glyphosate treatments" (Larson et al, 2006).

The loss of genetic resistance in Roundup Ready® corn hybrids to Goss' wilt (Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis) (Figs. 1, 2), synergistic relationship of the newly recognized electron microscopic organism causing infertility and abortions in animals with gram+ bacteria, and high populations of the new EM organism in RR corn leaves and silage creates a concern for the deregulation of Roundup Ready® alfalfa which is productive in many areas only because of its genetic resistance to bacterial wilt caused by Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. insidiosum. This disease could make alfalfa unprofitable for production and, if the EM organism is associated with it in alfalfa as it is in corn, also unsafe for animal feed and their products such as milk for human consumption. The loss of alfalfa, the United State's most valuable forage crop and fourth most economically important crop, could strike a mortal blow to struggling dairy and beef operations. The necessary research has not been done in these areas.

Extensive research has shown that this potent tool for weed management, glyphosate, is also a strong immobilizer (chelator) of essential plant nutrients to impair nutrient uptake, translocation, and physiological efficiency at only a fraction of the labeled herbicidal rate (Eker et al, 2006; Ozturk et al, 2008; Cakmak et al, 2009; Zobiole et al, 2010; Jolly et al., 2004). Glyphosate is a powerful biocide to harm beneficial soil organisms important for nutrient recycling, N-fixation, nutrient availability, and natural disease control (Kremer & Means, 2009; Zobiole et al, 2010, 2010) with a resultant increase in diseases of corn (Fig. 2), soybeans (Fig. 3), wheat and other crops. The close relationship between mineral nutrition and disease severity is well documented (Datnoff et al, 2007). These activities can have deleterious effects on plant nutrition, disease susceptibility, and nutritional quality of the crop produced.

Deleterious effects of GM crops also are vividly demonstrated in reports from livestock producers in the U.S. Although some of these reports are anecdotal because of limited analytical techniques to verify the cause, some producers have been able to resume economical operations by changing feed sources to non-GMO crops. Replicated independent research is needed in this area, especially in light of the serious toxicological concerns raised recently that show potential human and animal toxicity from very low levels of residual glyphosate in food/feed that are many times lower than permitted in U.S. food and feed products (Seralini et al., 2011). The recent Indian Supreme Court's independent analysis and Ruling that GMO eggplant posed a significant health risk to humans needs further evaluation in the U.S. (AgroNews, 2011).

I feel I would be totally irresponsible to ignore my own research and the vast amount of published research now available that support the concerns we are seeing in production agriculture, without bringing it to the attention of the Secretary of Agriculture with a request for him to initiate the much needed independent research. Many producers can't wait an additional 3-10 years for someone to find the funds and neutral environment to conduct such critical research (Attachment 3).

Based on the scientific evidence currently accumulating, I do not believe it is in the best interests of the agricultural producer or consuming public for regulatory agencies to approve more GMO crops, particularly Roundup Ready® alfalfa and sugar beets, until independent research can establish their productivity when predisposed to potentially severe diseases, the irrelevance of the new EM organism, and their nutritional equivalency. In my letter, I asked the Secretary to allocate the necessary resources to do this, and requested that he exercise the utmost caution in deregulating these crops until such findings resolve the concerns expressed in the letter, if they do.

Don M. Huber

  • References cited*

AgroNews. 2011. India: Signs of food toxicity in GE eggplant. 2011-1-18. [2] Nib, 24 January 111. Bellaloui, N., reddy, K.N., Zablotowicz, R.M., Abbas, H.K., and Abel, C.A. 2009. Effects of glyphosate application on seed iron and root ferric (III) reductase in soybean cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57:9569-9574. Bott, S., Tesfamariam, T., Kania, A., Eman, B., Aslan, N., Roemheld, V., and Neumann, G. 2011, Phytotoxicity of glyphosate soil residues re-mobilise4d by phosphate fertilization. Plant Soil 315:2-11. DOI 10, 1007/s11104-010-06989-3. Cakmak, I., Yazici, A., Tutus, Y., Ozturk, L. 2009. Glyphosate reduced seed and leaf concentrations of calcium, magnesium, manganese, and iron in non-glyphosate resistant soybean. European J. Agron. 31:114-119. Datnoff, L.E., elmer, W.H., and Huber, D.M. 2007. Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease. APS Press, St. Paul, Mn. 278. 278 pages. Eker, S., Ozturk, L., Yazici, A., Erenoglu, B., Roemheld, V., and Cakmak, I. 2006. Foliar-applied glyphosate substantially reduced uptake and transport of iron and manganese in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54:100019-10025. Fernandez, M.R., Zentner, R.P., Basnyat, P., Gehl, D., Selles, F., and Huber, D.M. 2009. Glyphosate associations with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian Prairies. European J. Agon. 31:133-143. Johal, G.R. and Rahe, J.E. 1984. Effect of soilborne paltn-pathogenic fungi on the herbicidal action of glyphosate on bean seedlings. Phytopathology 74:950-955. Johal, G.R. and Rahe, J.E. 1990. Role of phytoalexins in the suppression of resistance of Phaseolus vulgaris to Colletotrichum lindemuthianum by glyphosate. Canad. J. Plant Pathol. 12:225-235. Johal, G.R. and Huber, D.M. 2009. Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants. European J. Agron. 31:144-152. Kremer, R.J. and Means, N.E. 2009. Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop interactions with rhizosphere microorganisms. European J. Agron. 31:153-161. Larsen, R.L., Hill, A.L., Fenwick, A., Kniss, A.R., Hanson, L.E., and Miller, S.D. 2006. Influence of glyphosate on Rhizoctonia and Fusarium root rot in sugar beet. Pest Manag. Sci. 62:1182-1192. Ozturk, L., Yazici, A., Eker, S., gokmen, O., roemheld, V., and Cakmak, I. 2008. Glyphosate inhibition of ferric reductase activity in iron deficient sunflower roots. New Phytol. 177:899-906. Schafer, J.R., Westhoven, A.M., Kruger, G.R., Davis, V.M., Hallett, S.G., and Johnson, W.G. 2009. Effect of growth media on common lambsquarter and giant ragweed biotypes response to glyphosate. Proc. Northcentral Weed Sci. Soc. 64:102. Schafer, J.R., Hallett, S.G., and jophnson, W.G. 2010. Role of soil-borne fungi in the response of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) biotypes to glyphosate. Proc. Northcentral Weed Sci. Soc. 65:. Seralini, G-E., Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., de Vendomois, J.S., Cellier, D. 2011. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements. Environ. Sci. Europe 23:10-20. Tesfamariam, T., Bott, S., Cakmak, I., Roemheld, V., and Neumann, G. 2009. Glyphosate in the rhizosphere - role of waiting times and different glyphosate binding forms in soils for phytoxicity to non-target plants. European J. Agron. 31:126-132. Yamada, T., Kremer, R.J., Camargo e Castro, P.R., and Wood, B.W. 2009. Glyphosate interactions with physiology, nutrition, and diseases of plants: Threat to agricultural sustainability? European J. Agron. 31:111-113. Zobiole, L.H.S., Oliveira, R.S.Jr., Huber, D.M., Constantin, J., Castro, C., Oliveira, F.A., Oliveira, A. Jr. 2010. Glyphosate reduces shoot concentrations of mineral nutrients in glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Plant Soil 328:57-69. Zobiole, L.H.S., Oliveira, R.S. Jr., Kremer, R.J., Constantin, J., Yamada, T., Castro, C., Oliveiro, F.A., and Oliveira, A. Jr. 2010. Effect of glyposate on symbiotic N2 fixation and nickel concentration in glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Applied Soil Ecol. 44:176-180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waksmf (talkcontribs) 03:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of primary sources in "Effects" section

"More recent research suggests glyphosate induces a variety of functional abnormalities in 
fetuses and pregnant rats.[48] Also in recent mammalian research, glyphosate has been found to
interfere with an enzyme involved testosterone production in mouse cell culture[49] and to
interfere with an estrogen biosynthesis enzyme in cultures of human placental cells.[50]"

AFAIK Wikipedia articles shouldn't use primary sources, but even if they're allowed a review should carry more weight than a few selected "newer" articles. Cell cultures are a tricky terrain anyway as one doesn't know if their behavior translates to in vivo effects, which, by the way, is already mentioned in that chapter. I suggest you either rewrite that paragraph or delete it. (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. I don't think HuffPo is a very good source, at least not good enough to be used in the article intro when there are scientific reviews you already know about as you use them in the article body.

Resistance paragraph needs sourcing and citations.

The quotation about glyphosate increasing total chemical application is only supported in a single one of the cited sources, and then only in a non-peer-reviewed article by a Dr. Benbrook. Moreover citation 89 says that total chemical application has been reduced by glyphosate use, quotes a peer-reviewed article by the National Research Council, and Dr Benbrook is quoted as not disputing the reduced chemical usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Solubility: clarifcation needed

The "Chemistry" section states (without citation): "Glyphosate is soluble in water to 12 g/L at room temperature". ("Room temperature" is unspecified here but per Room temperature#Scientific use 20°C is close enough). The Infobox states (with citation) "Solubility in water: 1.01 g/100 mL (20 °C)". This is 10.1g/L; significantly different from 12g/L. Then we have the "Use" section which states "Products are supplied most commonly in formulations of 120, 240, 360, 480 and 680 g active ingredient per litre", a wildly different value, unless either "active ingredient" means something that's not specified, or perhaps this should read "tens of mg" rather than "g" per litre (a 50%-ish solution of something with a solubility of 12g/L would be 6g/L, not 600g/L) (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to merge this article with Roundup article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to proceed with the merge.

This article and the Roundup article cover pretty much the same thing. To the extent that there are issues specific to Roundup they can be covered in a section in this article. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you consider the discussions at /Archive 1#Merge and #Merge completed?
IMO the goal is to avoid unnecessary duplication by focusing on the chemical in this article and the product in the other. --Leyo 07:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for referencing that history! I did not see it. That was all three-four years ago, and the content has crept back together. The separation doesn't work. It also off balance -- I am unaware of articles on other formulations, and especially with the entrance of Chinese companies to the market and the dramatically increased use in the Asian market in the past three years, Roundup is no longer the top brand worldwide - although it is in the US. (cite: and So now in 2012 it makes even more sense to merge them. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with these justifications for the merge. – monolemma t – 06:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. American editors tend to edit the glyphosate article using Roundup as a synonym, which it is not. Merging the Roundup and glyphosate artices would discourage this. Roundup is certainly sold in Europe, but I think Bayer are the biggest player here. --Ef80 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, the notice will have been posted a month tomorrow. I will do the merge tomorrow. My first time, so I hope it goes well! 22:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

merge is done, further cleanup surely needed

OK the main work is done. i worked carefully through the instructions provided by wiki. hopefully i did nothing wrong. cleanup is surely needed, which i will work on over the next week or so... help is more than welcome! i hope i did nothing contoversial. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't really merge any content about Roundup as a product, you just redirected the article. That's a backdoor deletion, not a merge. I'm reverting, since there is a great deal of original material about the product Roundup, not the chemical. I just went further back in the history here, and was only looking at Roundup before. Steven Walling • talk 23:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank goodness you changed your mind. I spent all day on this, in a good faith effort. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

false advertising, New york state


Today I replaced ref in this section which is not credible (it is an html version of a supposed agreement between NY State and Monsanto. No telling if that agreement was ever signed. replaced with report of interaction in NY Times.

The agreement is on, here
and also on huffington post

Anybody who works with contracts will tell you that versions of contracts that are not signed are irrelevant.. many drafts are made before anything is signed. There is no way to know if the particular document at that link was ever agreed on by both sides or whether it was ever signed, or where it came from. So it is not a reliable source.

I went looking for a reliable source on this. There is also a news piece from the pesticide action network (that was not cited in the article) that is archived in several activist websites... not reliable:

I googled, I searched the New York State attorney general's office, I searched Monsanto's website, and Monsanto's SEC filings. Nothing. Finally I found a paragraph in a New York Times article that reported on the interaction, so I used that, quoting the article. Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Health effect

Hi Dear Editors! I've got some articles about health effect of Glyphosate, You may can use it. Hi, Bokorember (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Bokorember (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Thio is another study by the Seralini team in France, whose studies have been controversial. There is already a section on their studies in the Genetically modified food controversies - info is being added there.Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Picking up the the earlier posting, the article seems indeed to neglect a variety of health issues that are associated with glyphosate (and do not depend on research from the seralini team but stem from other sources). See for instance:

--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

images added by WriterHound

Writerhound today added two images emphasized in vitro findings of toxicity. I reverted this additions. First of all, the text sufficiently describes these studies and makes clear their authors' (and others) concerns about effects on health. The text also makes clear that regulators have approved the use of glyphosate as an herbidce, around the world, and also indicates that these studies do not reflect real world use of the the herbicide. The addition of these two images, with their captions, adds undue weight to one side of that debate. Therefore they are POV and don't belong.Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The chembox at the top of the article speaks for itself that there is no debate that the substance is highly toxic. Therefore you are the one editing for POV.WriterHound (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi WriterHound thank you for talking! Yes, glyphosate is an herbicide. It is toxic, and you are not supposed to drink it. The label says when workers spray it in a field, they should leave the field for 4 hours. This was well established before the studies were done, that you wanted to add images to draw attention to.Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I was just trying to illustrate the text according to what it contained. Articles with images are a lot more fun to read than just plain text.WriterHound (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't find the images unduly POV or prejudicial, but their relevance is questionable since they are more or less just a visualization of the word "chromosome". NillaGoon (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Advantages of Use

Could we have some examples of the advantages of using Glyphosate. This article is biased and from reading it you would ask why anyone would use glyphosate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Horizontal gene transfer to resistant weeds

I would like to question this deletion, from here and Roundup Ready soybean:

In 2005, the gene responsible for glyphosate resistance was found in the weed charlock[1] and has since been discovered in several other weeds.[2] By 2012 resistant weeds had spread to 49% of U.S. farms, up from 34% in 2011.[3]
  1. ^ "GM crops created superweed, say scientists" The Guardian, 24 July 2005
  2. ^ "Gene Flow, Invasiveness, and Ecological Impact of Genetically Modified Crops" Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 24 June 2009
  3. ^ "Nearly Half of All US Farms Now Have Superweeds" Mother Jones February 6, 2013

I'm not sure I've understood the edit summaries correctly, and even if I have, there are some substantial questions remaining (e.g., even if Mother Jones is not a reliable source, is there any reason to question the numbers it links to? The weeds with the resistance gene aren't resistant to soybeans, granted, but they are resistant to RoundUp....) So I'm hoping we can have a discussion about this. What are the specific objections to this text and these sources? Neo Poz (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for a discussion. Yes I apologize, my notes are a mess. I moved too fast.Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A) On the "gene transfer" stuff.

1) Why did you say this is about glyphosate? The guardian report actually mentions that the GM plants were resistant to "glufosinate-ammonium herbicide". The original source and the bbc source (discussed below) also make it clear that the GM plants were resistant to "Liberty" which is Glufosinate which is not glyphosate. I am embarrassed that in my initial response I didn't catch that - I had left text and the source in the article but now have deleted it. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this very detailed reply! I am so embarrassed, I have been confusing glufosinate with glyphosate for days now, with nobody outside Wikipedia catching the mistake. I owe you a great debt for catching it before it embarrassed me in front of a wider audience. Neo Poz (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

2) The Guardian article is a mess - it starts by talking about this gene transfer stuff, based on a study that is "posted on the investigators website" (which even Wikipedia would look at with a gimlet eye for being WP:SELFPUB as opposed to being published in a peer-reviewed journal), and then it tries, very sloppily, to back that up with a quote from another guy - Ben Johnson - about evolution of resistance - "Unlike the researchers I am not surprised by this. If you apply herbicide to plants which is lethal, eventually a resistant survivor will turn up." Gene transfer and evolution of resistance are completely different genetic events. This is dreck from the perspective of good science writing. That same guy, Ben Johnson, also is quoted as saying "You only need one event in several million. As soon as it has taken place the new plant has a huge selective advantage. That plant will multiply rapidly." However the more reliable and less inflammatory report on this in the bbc ( makes it clear that the original report had a cautionary note stating that it was not clear how fertile the hybrid would be, and indeed when the team went back the next year they found nothing.Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I see the issue now, and I too think that particular article is confusing. Neo Poz (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

3) If you really cared about this I wish you would have gone and found the original report and posted a link to it as well. It is no longer even available on the DEFRA website Which is something to think about - if this were really important, why would DEFRA not keep it up? The report was archived by the wayback machine Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much for finding that. I looked for at least 20 minutes last week with no luck. Neo Poz (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

4) quibbley point: If you look at their paper they do not prove that the resistant plants actually had the transgene - to do that they would need to sequence it. They do show that PCR products have two identical bands with a control provided by Bayer. One of the genes is the "bar gene" which is the one that is resistant to glufosinate or better here The other band is a control. For such an extraordinary claim that the DNA that lines up with bar gene from Bayer is indeed bar, I would look for them to sequence it, but they did not. Like I say, this is more quibble, it probably is bar. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

5) This all happened 7 and a half years ago. By now I would have hoped that the investigators would have published something in a peer reviewed journal and that others would have followed up on this work. It would be more useful with respect to Wikipedia's mission of reporting the consensus, to have that followup work discussed and cited. The Genetically modified food controversies page, which has a section on concerns about gene flow, would probably be the best place. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Let me do some more looking and asking around and then I will think of some small blurb to add to Genetically modified food controversies#Gene flow. Neo Poz (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

B) About the annals report. Why is this relevant to the weed killer chemical? The article is about gene flow of the resistance gene, which is not the chemical. As above, belongs in the Genetically modified food controversies page, which has a section on concerns about gene flow. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it does mention glyphosate resistance in plants (to the best of my faulty memory!) so it seems appropriate for the corresponding section here. I need to get it from where I had looked at it some weeks ago so I can quote specific excepts. Neo Poz (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

C) On the stratus report. This article already had content on prevalence of resistance - the NY Times and other reports dated from 2010. The numbers there are dramatically (!) out of line with the Stratus numbers. The NY Times reports 7-10M acres in 2010 - the Stratus report has 32.6M in 2010. This is a bit of a problem, right? The least you could do is insert this information where it belongs and at least acknowledge the contradiction in the numbers. Even better and really caring editing would involve figuring out whether there is some way that both numbers make sense as explained by a reliable source. I am OK with it, if you re-insert a statement from the Stratus report in the right place, and back it with Stratus (not MJ) and hope you provide other text to make sense of the numbers. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the real issue is with the growth rate rather than the absolute numbers, and I don't think it's too risky to assume that Stratus used the same methodology year to year, which may have involved different particular questions (e.g., they occur vs. they're interfering with crops) to explain the magnitude discrepancy. Neo Poz (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

D) WIth respect to my sloppy edit notes. I apologize again for not taking more time and not being more clear. There are a lot of sloppy drive by edits to this and other GM-related pages and I was too quick and sloppy in my edits in response. And again, I am grateful that you asked for a discussion and look forward to your reply. I signed my response point by point so you can reply within mine, if you like.Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much again. Wikipedia is the best place in the internet to discuss controversies, without a doubt. Neo Poz (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


Manufacturers include Dow AgroSciences; Du Pont; Cenex/Land O’Lakes, Helena, Platte,
Riverside/Terra, and Zeneca.[30]

It may not be mentioned in the reference, but Monsanto makes the several versions of the well known Roundup mentioned in the ¶ preceeding the one quoted in this Talk entry and seems to be a significant omission. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Monsanto has a subsection in that section, all to itself. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

registration, re-registration

content was recently added that "G lyphosate was grandfathered in then the EPA began regulating herbicides in 1972. It is currently under evaluation, to be completed by 2015, to determine if its use should be limited[1]"

edit comment said: " (talk)‎ . . (71,814 bytes) (+581)‎ . . (→‎Human: Been reading a lot about potential issues with Glyphosate, so I was shocked that Wikipedia failed to mention any of them. So I added a recent example & also noted that Glyphosate was grandfathered in when the EPA began regulating herbicides.) "

What the source provided actually says, is "The EPA is conducting a standard registration review of glyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate use should be limited."

I reverted this edit. does not understand the regulatory process. Here is the EPA page on glyphosate. Here is the EPA page on re-registration: Please note that it says "Registration Review -- Through the registration review program mandated by FQPA, EPA is reevaluating each registered pesticide at least every 15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration." This is the "standard reregistration" that the source used by mentions.

I am continually dismayed that people who do not understand what they are talking about, allow themselves to become "shocked" and start to self-righteously make declarations (and edits) that are just plain wrong. Ignorance+passion = hell on earth. think about it. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, please remember the Wikipedia guideline: "Be polite, and welcoming to new users." Perhaps you should THINK ABOUT IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that the user editing at is new? Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How Produced

Could we provide some information on how this substance is produced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Entropy article published in April 2013

Please do not add content based on the Entropy article about glyphosate to Wikipedia.

See discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_7#Review_of_Monsanto.27s_Roundup_herbicide

That discussion grew out of an effort to add content and the source to the Monsanto article - see discussion here: Talk:Monsanto#entropy_study.2Fbad_science.3F Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

2011: Illinois illegally seizes Bees Resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup; Kills remaining Queens

May I please have some comments on including recent news if possible. These sorts of corporate abuses are the reason for many of the editing irregularities seen on this article, and it should be documented thoroughly if true. Thank you. Beequisitive (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This all happened over a year ago. Why are you bringing this now? The prairie advocate article from last year is too incoherent to make sense of. In any case, the effect of glyphosate on honeybees has been extensively studies and glyphosate is "practically nontoxic" to honeybees, so I don't understand what "glyphosate-resistant honeybees" even are. I went looking for some reliable source of news about this but all I keep finding are crazy "men in black suits" sites riffing off the prairie news article. I just did a google search 10 pages in on "Terrence Ingram bees" and I didn't find one reliable source. I also searched on "Susan Kivikko" and (outside of the sites repeating this story) I found plenty to make her seem knowledgeable (and not a big fan of herbicide either I went back and tried to read the prairie advocate article series again and the article is too incoherent to make a lot of sense of. But I did come across this. "Ingram told the court that, “.... At least [Kivikko] did know that foulbrood only affects honeybees and that if there should be any of the virus in honey it would not affect people.”" So... this guy is supposed to be a big bee expert, but he calls American foulbrood a virus?? The article says he had a stroke a few years ago; maybe he was on top of his game at one point, but the state's argument that he had infected hives and did nothing about it, seems more and more plausible the more I look into this. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess the potential issue here is not any dubious "glyphosate resistance" but the (alleged) behaviour of Monsanto and (presumably corrupted) administrations doing its bidding. However even if true this would be a topic for the Monsanto article rather than this one. Moreover at least the first source doesn't look particularly reliable/usable to me. From information given there it is completely unclear whether Monsanto was involved at all (behind the scenes) and whether there is an actual scandal at all or just somewhat incoherent ramblings of an upset individual. In short with better sources it might be topic for Monsanto but it definitely does not belong into this article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hm. The "men in black suits" people love throwing Monsanto in there gratutitously. There is no reliable source for Monsanto's involvement that I could find either. This appears to be just [{WP:FRINGE]] stuff that doesn't belong in wikipedia at all, as far as I can tell. I would be very interested in what a reliable source had to say about this - I looked for about an hour and couldn't find anything. Jytdog (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 in vitro study

This is an in vitro study of the effects of glyphosate on human tissue. The only reason to discuss this publication in Wikipedia, is that it is related to possible health effects of glyphosate. Therefore, WP:MEDRS applies. If you read MEDRS, health information on Wikipedia needs to come from reliable, secondary or tertiary studies, so that the health information presented in Wikipedia provides reliable information for the public. This study is a "hot topic", with the associated 2009 paper cited by the last editor to add this coming from the Seralini group, with both papers focused on Monsanto's Roundup. MEDRS (which is entirely within Wikipedia policy, WP:PSTS states (I will quote here at some length- bold emphasis added):

Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. Synthesis of published material that advances a position is a form of original research and should be avoided in Wikipedia articles, which are not a venue for open research. Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field.

Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. For a short time afterwards, the findings will be so new that they will not be reflected in any review articles or other secondary sources. If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted. In other situations, such as randomized controlled trials, it may be helpful to temporarily cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published. When using a primary source, Wikipedia should not overstate the importance of the result or the conclusions. When in doubt, omit mention of the primary study (in accordance with recentism) because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them).

So we should not cite this study - we should wait until a reliable secondary or tertiary source picks it up. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

100% agree, thanks for writing this up. Would like to point out that in particular there are up-to-date secondary sources that have reviewed the primary literature and have found no causal link, see for example PMID 22683395. Per the guideline quoted above (found at WP:MEDREV) we should not be using individual in vitro study results in contradiction to what's found in reliable secondary sources. Zad68 18:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree somehwat. I'm not sure whether this entirely a WP:MEDRS issue just because human tissue was used. I mean without human tissue it would not be WP:MEDRS? Or is any biochemistry result automatically subject to WP:MEDRS? I don't think so, conclusion regarding (human) health and diseases are subject to WP:MEDRS but not biochemistry result as such. Another thing is that the study is only a primary source regarding it's own results, as far as the line "However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor." it functions as a secondary source rather reviewing/summarizing those other primary sources. All in all i think it is appropriate to include the study as long as it is done properly (using the secondary source fearures and sticking to exact result concerning biochemical properties without drawing conclusion regarding human health).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmhkmh - what do you think is the purpose of including content based on the source? thx Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
have to agree with Kmhkmh, guideline on such studies states: "Results of studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in sufficient context that readers can determine their reliability." It's a peer reviewed article published by a journal that conforms to WP:RS. Semitransgenic talk. 15:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The only reason to include this, is that people take this to be relevant to human health.Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
No it should be included for it suggested/suspected biochemical properties, that is in particular it's estrogen like feature, which or may possible influence human health as well, but which are of encyclopedic interest on their own since they can interfere with hormone cycles of any species. Chemical exposing an estrogen like behaviour are known to intefere with redoprodictive cycles and gender ratios of fish amphibia and reptiles. Note this is primarily an article about a chemical and its properties/effects rather than a human health article, so its various researched properties are of (encyclopedic) interest for their own sake completely indepedent of any potential health concerns.
As far as human health is concerned it could be used in its capacity as secondary source summarizing/reviewing other studies. However if they don't provide more detail than given in the abstract (which I somewhat suspect), then it would be rather weak secondary source as the review/summary of those other studies might very superficial or just name dropping to justify and/or contextualize their own research. If that is indeed the case it might not be appropriate to use it as secondary source in particular since better secondary sources are already available.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Every editor who has added content based on this source, added it to the human health section. That is why people think it matters. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what you expect me to respond to this. I'm not arguing for inappropriate use of the study or placement in a particular section nor did I defend particular edits by other people. I simply argued why and how the source can be used for this particle and why such a use is not a policy violation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I see no good reason not to include mention of this study in the article, the removal should be reverted. No objections to the urine study but unhappy to include this? seems a bit odd. Semitransgenic talk. 17:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You have not responded to my initial post above, would you please? Good point about the urine study. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Nothing to respond to. I agree with Kmhkmh's assessment of this matter, I disagree with yours. The article, in the context of relevant toxicological studies, is good. Semitransgenic talk. 20:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I have brought this source to WP:MEDRS talk, here. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC) (note - updated link.Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC))
What inside shall we gain from a discussion there? There is no (or at least not much of an) argument that this source should not be used for claim regarding human health, but it might be used chemical properties, i.e. topics which aren't really governed by WP:MEDRS and in that context a WP:MEDRS assessment is somewhat meaningless or rather not really helping as it is assessing something not really being in dispute.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:Kmhkmh, temporarily setting aside the objection to this as a primary source as per WP:MEDRS and WP:PSTS (as per my post above and Lesion's below), I am curious what specific content you would suggest be included based on this source, and where you would put it in the article, such that it does not read on human health at all. 23:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────People often claim that inclusion of primary sources is justified somehow because the content is not covered by MEDRS, and long arguments about the scope of MEDRS then ensue. Please remember that MEDRS is just the medical version of WP:RS (encyclopedia wide policy) which also strongly discourages primary sources. Oppose use of this source per arguments above. Wait for a secondary or tertiary source to establish notability of the findings. Lesion (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your point it well taken. However it is worthwhile to note, here that WP:RS does not exclude primary (scholarly) sources but just states a strong preference for secondary ones if available. Now do we have secondary sources on estrogen like behaviour of glyphosate? If the answer is yes they are to be preferred over source in question, if not however the use of this source might still be inline with guidelines and whether to use it or not is a question of editorial discretion. --Kmhkmh (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The title of the article we're talking about, PMID 23756170 is "Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors" and the second sentence of its abstract is "However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor." (emphasis added) There's no way of avoiding that the authors of this article intend to link their findings of glyphosate's effects to human health and that WP:MEDRS is the controlling guideline. Glyphosate and cancer is well-studied and we have secondary sources. We need to wait until a secondary source picks up this primary study before including. Zad68 03:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Again it depends what we source with it (a claim regarding cancer is different from a claim regarding estrogen like behaviour). Moreover as far as the second line you cite (However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor.) is concerned, the article acts actually as a secondary source. This is clearly researchers writing/reviewing results of other primary sources.
Also it doesn't really matter what the authors trying to link but what results they achieved rather. Moreover from the abstract you can't really tell, whether the cancer line is just contextualizing to justify their research or whether it is actually a real claim based on their research. Meaning we/somebody needs to look at the actual article rather than the abstract, which the person who uses it for the article content should do anyway.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
So you're talking about content that looks something along the lines of "One in vitro study found that glyphosate had estrogen-like activity that encouraged the growth of human ductal breast epithelial tumor cells"? The trouble with this line is that unless what's being said is relevant to human health it won't be noteworthy enough to bother pulling it from a primary source in the first place. If it's something unrelated to human health and isn't supported by a secondary source, what would make it noteworthy enough to dig it out of a primary study to include? If it's related to human health and so then might be noteworthy enough to include, WP:MEDRS governs and we're waiting for a secondary source to pick it up. There isn't enough daylight here between the two to justify inclusion. Zad68 04:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
And this is exactly where you are wrong, exhibiting estrogen like behaviour is noteable on its own completely independent of its its health effect on humans as it is affects other species as well. Artificial substances with estrogen like behaviour are a well known issue in general (see for instance Endocrine disruptor and the sourcing there as well btw.)--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
(fork developing with MEDRS talkpage) Zad is right. This paper has intrinsic implications for human health, that is how it is written and why people want to include it. By virtue of being in vitro, it is not suitable. When in doubt- do not include the primary source...not that there should be any doubt here, when the policy is so clear "Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies" ... "When in doubt, omit mention of the primary study (in accordance with recentism) because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources". Lesion (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but again this concerns people using it for sourcing human health implications. However people may use the paper for sourcing biochemical properties of Glyphosate only.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The notability guideline is using secondary sources for establishing an article topic, which is Glyphostate, that is already established. MEDRS doesn't necessarily discourage primary sources, but it does give strict guidelines for their inclusion. It is mistaken to wait for a secondary source to pick up a primary study. Lucy346 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is semantics. The guideline does strongly discourage primary sources. These policies are encyclopedia wide and they are in place for a reason. The policies have been subject to a form evolution since Wikipedia's birth, and they are generally the way they are for a reason: to facilitate the construction of a neutral, verifiable etc encyclopedia. Primary sources on Wikipedia invites utter chaos, where every researcher is allowed to cherry pick primary studies to present a non mainstream POV. We use secondary sources to establish both the notability of results in primary studies, and to decide how much weight they should be accorded. Wikipedia is not the place to be announcing scientific breakthroughs or controversial findings that have the potential to change the paradigm in a particular area of scientific understanding. Wikipedia has a delay, we wait for the secondary sources. I encourage you to work according to policy, otherwise your editing experience will be a constant, losing battle against consensus. In this specific example, I feel that MEDRS does apply because there are implications on human health, that is why the research was done, and that is why it was published, and that is why editors are wanting to place content based on the source. I'm sure that you yourself don't believe that it has zero implications for human health, you just want to use the source. This is an in vitro, primary source, and everything about it says not a suitable source for Wikipedia. Even if MEDRS does not apply (it does here), RS similarly discourages the use of this kind of source. Lesion (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this is not just semantics, but you're not really paying close attention to what is argued. Nobody (certainly not me) suggested to use primary sources to push POV, to contradict secondary sources or to push some fringe positions. Instead the following points where argued with regard to the Thai study:
  • a) You may use primary sources where secondary sources are lacking an/or where they don't contradict secondary sources or mainstream opinion. Hence you cannot use the publication to claim Glyphosate is likely to cause cancer (or human health problems) which so far are denied by secondary sources. But you may use to for claim regarding its estrogen like behaviour/endocrine disruptor properties, unless a secondary source explicitly denies such a property to exist.
  • b) The publication is only a primary source regarding its own (new experimental) results. It is not a primary source where it reviews other primary sources. Note that many sources are often a mix primary and secondary, secondary and tertiary or even all three. In such cases it is critical which part of the source is used to source what claim. So if the Thai publication states that several other publications/primary have concluded that there's a potential link between hormone related cancers and glyphosate, then it acts as a secondary source (!) and that part may be used! When it however claims its own experimental results suggest a link between glyphosate and and hormone related cancers, then it acts as primary source and it can't be used.
  • c) The mere discusson of biochemical properties (without conclusions about their human health impacts) is not subject to MEDRS.
--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

a. I don't feel this is an accurate representation of the general strong discouragement of the use of primary sources in MEDRS and RS b. No. If a source contains original research, then the source is primary. A literature review attached to the introduction of a primary source is not suitable source for Wikipedia. Such literature reviews tend to be biased and are presented in such a way so as to imply importance to the results section. Another classic example is a "case report and review of the literature". Not suitable sources, even if only sourcing content from the literature review part. c. This argument often crops up, and I can tell you that the result is always the same. MEDRS. Secondary sources please, very few exceptions for where a primary source is appropriate, and this is not one of them. Lesion (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright this is to the point now.
Regarding a): I guess regarding a) we simply disagree somewhat in our assessment, which is fine since this is not a clear cut case as far as the policy is concerned. I don't disagree that there is a strong discouragement from using primary sources. Nevertheless the policy explicitly allows the use of primary sources with caution/restrictions for very good reason. Since good WP articles in particular in the (natural) sciences use them all over. There are also plenty of archived discussion you can research for that. I see sourcing endocrine disruptor property with the Thai publication exactly in that area. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be used or needs to be used, but it is certainly not excluded via policy.
regarding b): Claiming any source containing a primary result is automatically "just" a primary is simply not true. This would turn textbooks and monographs into primary sources for containing a single "original" result.
In addition I like to point out, that reputability of a publication is often more important than it primary/secondary/tertiary status (see discussion archives of WP:RS).
Also As far as the estrogen like property is concerned, there are apparently secondary/teriary sources that could be used for that instead anyhow - for instance: [3], [4], [5]. However I also found this: [6].--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Guideline does not state primary sources cannot be used, it cautions against overemphasis, it's a peer reviewed study published by a reputable journal, appropriately weighted mention, in the correct context, is acceptable. Semitransgenic talk. 16:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Kmhkmh you have said several times that this could be used for some kind of "biochemical" content and so MEDRS does not apply. Above, I asked (temporarily setting aside the objection to this as primary source) if you could provide an example of the content you would generate from this source, that would not read on human health. Would you please provide an example here, of what content you would propose? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC) (note - edited my comment to include a crucial "not" - shown in italics. Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC))
I already said that above several times, it's property of being endocrine disruptor/exposing estrogen like properties.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I know very well that you said that several times, Kmhkmh! That is general. What I am asking, is exactly what content you would suggest adding to the article. The actual words. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha, however I can't deliver you that as I have no access to the study but just to its linked abstract. The abstract might be good enough to reasonably speculate what could be appropriately sourced with it, which is what I did above. But I'm not sourcing anything myself or even make text suggestion as long as i didn't have a chance to review the whole source. If some can provide me a copy of the whole publication, I'd be happy to review it and potentially make text suggestion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree that to move forward here we'd really need to see the actual suggested content change. I just can't see how this particular study can be used to produce content that accurately represents the source without at the same time attributing a human health consequence to the effects. I sorta-kinda see where you're going along the lines of stating that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor, but this source can't be used to make a general statement like that, all that could be said is that it's an endocrine disruptor that encouraged the growth of human ductal breast epithelial tumor cells, the only kinds of cells studied where this effect was demonstrated, and now we're squarely back in the ballpark of indicating a human health effect. Zad68 04:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

New Breast Cancer Study needs mention

This new study ( is going to drive visits to this page. It got me here, for one. I recommend someone add a few sentences to reflect the new study, noting that the study is new, and opinions about it therefore have not yet gelled. Rad314 (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That is study is already intensively discussion (see the sections further up and discussion on WP:MEDRS and related sites).--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Rad314, Wikipedia in general does not react to scientific publications in the biomedical space that get picked up in the news. WP:MEDREV specifically says: "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. For a short time afterwards, the findings will be so new that they will not be reflected in any review articles or other secondary sources. If the findings involve ... laboratory work with ... isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted. In other situations, such as randomized controlled trials, it may be helpful to temporarily cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published. When using a primary source, Wikipedia should not overstate the importance of the result or the conclusions. When in doubt, omit mention of the primary study (in accordance with recentism) because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them)." Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please disable Roundup redirect

Glyphosate is not the sole ingredient of Roundup. Research has found, according to the article, Peluso et al.[76] genetic damage was "not related to the active ingredient, but to another component of the herbicide mixture". Roundup, not glyphosate, has been found to lead to teratogenic effects in animals. Pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic apparently but then Roundup isn't pure glyphosate! This article as a redirect from Roundup is seriously misleading. Would someone scrap the redirect please. LookingGlass (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, User:LookingGlass. If you take your time and read the actual article, you will see that the article makes it clear that some of the additives used with glyphosate in the various commercial formulations (including Roundup) are indeed more toxic than glyphosate itself. There are also some Wikipedia articles on the additives themselves, but all this needs more work. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, I have to say, that I am sorry that whatever you read got you so worried. There was a recent paper published from some scientists in Thailand that discussed experiments that they did with Roundup on human cells - that is maybe what you heard about. This publication is what we call a "primary source." As an encyclopedia, we rely on secondary sources and tertiary sources for content, not primary ones. That is explained here: WP:PSTS. Also, for health-related matters, Wikipedia has a guideline ( here WP:MEDRS) that makes it even more clear that for heath-related matters - about which people can get really worried, as you seem to be -- that we do not react to every new primary source that is published, but instead, that Wikipedia relays the reliable medical consensus as described in secondary and tertiary sources. This all set up so that Wikipedia contains only reliable information. It means that Wikipedia is not "cutting edge" but that is because the cutting edge is all too often wrong or just too uncertain to draw strong conclusions from - especially in health related matters. Again, I am sorry that you are so worried. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
You glide serenely over the point I have made Jytdog, which was that as Roundup is not Glycophosphate, but merely contains glycophosphate, having the redirect to this article is nonsensical. I cannot see the relevance of the remainder of what you write to this so will not comment on those matters. LookingGlass (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi LookingGlass. I did directly address your point - the article makes clear that some commercial formulations of glyphosate have additives that are more toxic than glyphosate itself, and that Roundup is a formulation of glyphosate. I will add here -- After glyphosate went off patent in 2000, it became generic and now anybody can make it. Companies in China make up the largest percentage of glyphosate-based herbicides manufacturers so there are dozens of formulations to be discussed and lots of companies in the US and elsewhere make it too. So in order to provide Wikipedia's readers with a global, accurate description of how glyphosate is used and what the toxicities of the various formulations are, it makes sense to have one article. It doesn't make sense to spread those descriptions all over wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Note, we don't lump Coca Cola in with our article on cola (a product that is made by multiple companies, across the globe). Roundup it is a very specific formulation, that contains glyphosate, and is a product that Monsanto insists should be used with its Roundup Ready seed. This subject matter warrants its own article. Semitransgenic talk. 18:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Semi, generally for herbicides, the article is on the active ingredient, not the various formulations. See Glufosinate, Atrazine, dicamba, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and a bunch of others, see the list in the herbicide article. We do the same for drugs - the article is on the API not the branded formulation. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, this is an article on wikipedia, owned by the community the moment it was posted. It should respect that. Semitransgenic writes that "Roundup it is a very specific formulation, that contains glyphosate". Exactly, it is NOT glycophosphate but CONTAINS IT. Jytdog writes "Roundup is a formulation of glyphosate". No, it is not. Gycophosphate is a formulation. Roundup is a formulation THAT CONTAINS glycophosphate. BTW, the proportions, by weight, impact, volume etc of Roundup's various components, is also irrelevant. Wiki is not an intellectual playground for rolling out personal worldviews. It is a repository of information. It's aim is to be written by everyone not to become the intellectual playground of a few. Really this is simple. Roundup DOES NOT EQUAL glycophosphate. Roundup fits wiki notability. There is no reason for the redirect. If somone wants to write an article or stub on another herbicide then fine, if it fits notability guidelines, they can refer to this article for detail on gycophosphate. Unless someone can. come up with a COGENT rational the redirect logically should be removed. Currently it diverts readers away from the article they were seeking to this article insted, which seems to be repeated over and over only includes some information on Roundup. That is unacceptable. LookingGlass (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The "we" is the community of editors. What he is mentioning is standard practices on wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I read the two comments as one. As you will see, I made exactly the point you have made IRWolfie in several places. Anyway hopefully I've now managed to straighten things out (you got in as my last attempt was being uploaded)LookingGlass (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi LookingGlass, please be civil and please assume good faith - accusing me of bad intentions does not help us arrive at mutually acceptable content. Thanks. (and by the way, it is "glyphosate" not "glycophosphate". No big deal here, but knowing the name of what we are talking about is helpful.) Also, when I say "Roundup is a formulation of glyphosate" that is indeed accurate. Glyphosate is a specific chemical (picture of it, is in the article). This chemical is the "active ingredient" - the thing that actually kills the plant - and it is put into a formulation with other ingredients that add functionality. Please see the Formulation article. Same thing happens with drugs - when you buy "aspirin", each pill is not 100% aspirin (aka acetylsalicylic acid, the actual chemical, the active ingredient) - there is other stuff in that pill that helps keep the pill together, and helps the aspirin get where it needs to go. Bayer and other companies sell various formulations of aspirin that you can buy, depending on what you want the aspirin to do. "Formulations of aspirin" is how this is described. Just like one says "formulations of glyphosate". I hope that explanation is helpful to you. Finally, what content do you find repeated over in this article? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)