Talk:Roundup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Add John E. Franz

I believe Franz is credited with inventing, or first synthesizing Roundup. He should be acknowledged. Nantucketbob

[edit] Whoever added the following

"A Swedish survey-based study found a non-statistically significant association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, although this study did not provide a control for exposure to other pesticides and demonstrated no dose-response relationship"

Do you realize this sentence is essentially meaningless or worse it is potentially confusing. Essentially "non-statistically significant association" means no link. If no link why add information about a failed study? ThereIsNoSteve 02:10, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Another user added the reference to the study. I wasn't bold enough to delete the reference, so I clarified it. The same goes for the "genetic damage" study.

When editing don't be afraid to be bold. If you think an edit might be controversial, explain what you are doing and why on the talk page. Also, it would probably be helpful if you created a user name for yourself. ThereIsNoSteve 02:29, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'll be more bold. ThereIsNoSteve

[edit] Note to 192.55.20.36

192.55.20.36, thanks for your contributions to this article. One request: Please use the Show Preview button rather than the Save page button to review your edits onscreen. One change in the document history rather than twenty makes it much easier for the rest of us to follow your contributions. If you nonetheless end up making more than one edit, please describe your actions in the Summary field. Thanks. -- Viajero 10:37, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Safe as salt?

Regarding the line:

While glyphosate iteself is less toxic than table salt

Is this true or is this Monsanto marketingspeak? -- Viajero 10:47, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, ditch the salt line

I agree. This table salt comparison is extremely biasing. I was reading this article mentioning kidney and reproductive damage, but I couldn't find that mentioned here or any further source regarding kidney and reproductive damage. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/glyphosa.html

this article has been subject to heavy lobbying by monsanto, in fact they themselves were sued in New York state for using that line in their advertising, and while everyone seems gung-ho to use all monsantos own information on their own product for this page, it only has partial value, and now we even see they had scientists they paid being indicted for fraud and going to prison...83.78.187.33 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resistance to Roundup

I've noted that the article poison-ivy cites the fact that Roundup doesn't seem to affect poison ivy - how is this possible? I thought Roundup was wide-spectrum? -- Natalinasmpf 23:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Plants with waxy leaves, such as lily of the valley don't absorb roundup too well. Roundup enters the plant though the leaves, not the roots. BigE1977 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Many dicotyledons (buttercup, blackberry, hawthorn, gorse, broom) seem to have more resistance to glyphosate compared to grasses ( monocotyledons ). Has something to do with absorption. If you mix in a little urea, in my experience, it is far more effective and quick. They actively take it in. I use it mainly for a "cut & paste" method in natural re-vegetation work (a modified Bradley Method of Bush Regeneration ) in Tasmania (blackberry, gorse, hawthorn, rose briar, broom etc etc etc). This reduces the actual amount used (and subsequent bad effects of surfactants on amphibians etc) to the amount that can be soaked up by a cut stump (do it within 30 seconds of cutting). -- meika 20 Oct 2005

Resistance to glyphosate in on the rise in California's Central Valley. A few year ago the number of acres impacted was up to a couple hundred.

[edit] How to add a page with a similar name?

I was going to add a quick skeleton writeup of the Roundup Issue Tracker, but don't know how to do that .. they both 'deserve' the name "Roundup." How would you go about separating the two?

[edit] Several comments re: Roundup article

Several comments follow:

1. Most of the references listed in the text are not included at the bottom of the page.

2. The Roundup website in the External Links is only for marketing of residential use products -- there no useful information there other than advertising. However, on the corporate website, there is quite of bit of technical information about Roundup and glyphosate. This would be a good resource to include in the External Links: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/sci_tech/crop_chemicals/scipubs.asp

3. The statements "Glyphosate residues have been found in strawberries (Cessna & Cain, 1992), lettuce, carrots, barley (U.S. EPA, 1993), and fish (Wang et al., 1994, Folmar et al., 1979). Glyphosate residues persisted a long time after the glyphosate was used; for example, lettuce, carrots, and barley contained glyphosate residues at harvest when planted a year after treatment (U.S. EPA, 1993). " require some explanation. All of the cited studies were conducted to deliberately determine the effects of glyphosate on the plant or animal. For examle, it is not surprising that residues were found in strawberries that had been sprayed with Roundup -- the study was designed to study the translocation of glyphosate throughout the plant. The Wang and Folmar studies were laboratory studies to determine the toxicity to fish -- of course there will be residues in lab tests -- this doesn't indicate that residues are found in fish in the environment. In the lettuce, carrots, and barley study, radiolabeled glyphosate was applied to plants, and the radiolabeled carbon was tracked for a few years -- this is a study the EPA requires. The "residues" noted in the EPA report were the individual carbon atoms that had been metabolized by the plant and soil and then taken up by the next year's crop. The statement about "residues" is not scientifically accurate -- just check the EPA reference that is mentioned (but not included in the references).

4. While a researcher (not cited) has reported that the surfactant in Roundup (POEA) has been found to be toxic to tadpoles, the results aren't relevant since the tests were conducted at concentrations much higher than would be found in the environment, and were conducted to mimic an illegal (off-label) use. Monsanto has provided a scientific review of the article making the allegations (which is not cited, by the way); this review is included at the website in point 2 above.

[edit] Roundup Illnesses

I find it highly questionable that Roundup is the third-leading cause of pesticide illness in California. I would expect that restricted materials; products containing ingredients such as organophosphates, carbamates, methyl bromide or metam sodium; Category I (labeled "Danger") pesticides; insecticides would dominate. I have been involved in agricultural pest control in various capacities for about 15 years and have never heard of such a thing. Roundup is generally considered a very safe product. I believe the health risks in this article are much overstated. If motivated, I may check the CA EPA DPR website. They are the definitive source for illness data in California. Ozdog 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have authoritative proof from CA EPA DPR. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/pisp/2003spec_pest_type_illness.pdf I have deleted the reference from the article. Ozdog 13:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I thought that was bunk also, but I didn't have the technical background to back up my assumption. kenj0418 15:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

These types of statistics seem to be broadly used, i think part of it stems from the very high level of use of roundup compared to many more acutely toxic things, plus eye-related incidents i am assuming are what notch that figure up. 83.78.187.33 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Monsanto endeavoring to better understand the potential dangers of surfactants? If some surfactants - such as the one used in RoundUp - are thought to be environmentally hazardous, will Monsanto look for safer alternatives? I contacted Monsanto about an independant study that was done on frogs, using the surfactant in RoundUp, and they responded with a refutation of the findings and included additional marketing-type information on why RoundUp is safe.

--Papaver S 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] well it sort of goes like this

There is Monsanto info, and some of it is good, yet some of it is bad, and they have incidents of scientists heading to prison for fraud. It sort of goes like this, every once in a rare while someone manages to get some funding to do a study thats not monsanto backed, it maybe comes up with some info not so flattering of the product, monsanto slams the study in any way they can with their multi-billion dollar power. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they however are not right. Really all we can say is that this product was a good step up from DDT and agent orange and a step in the right direction towards lower toxicity to humans and mammals and their habitats and health, when someone needs to use a weed killing type of technology that is chemical based, so we can thank monsanto for their improvement...it is however, by no means the perfect product & technology...yet they have "bet the farm" on this product and their roundup ready GE tech so they are loathe to acknowledge any problems with the product...So the one thing we can be sure of is that if anyone has a study showing a problem with the product, Monsanto will have a half dozen saying they were false, maybe they are correct in denouncing the unflattering studies, maybe not, just depends, anyways there is no way the product is going to be banned, even if it shows conclusive harmful reproductive effect to humans under present conditions of use and environmental & water concentrations, and really the only thing that will be getting monsanto to design a new and further improved weed killing technology whether chemical based or not, is weed resistance to roundup which is occuring and will slowly continue to increase in occurence, or someone else designing a better even less toxic product and technology...thats what will force them to improve..also, just slightly, the increasing prevalence of organic/bio farms and demand from consumers for non-chemical produce and foodstuffs will force them to better their technologies to non-toxic forms, this demand is small though, and mainly only from certain percentages of the educated classes and varies according to region so has far less impact than will weed resistance & new competitor inventions 83.78.187.33 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ttguy

make good edits on the glyphosate page and we will bring them over here, we have no problem with that. Just dont vandalize this page Ttguy...if you have a problem with the page bring it to the talk section. With now detailed references for everything it is immune to your style of vandalism. You simply have to bring in fresh information and study results instead...there is plenty out there...we want an accurate comprehensive document, what this page really needs is more information on positives of roundup such as yield comparisons or information on soil conservation from using herbicides vrs. mechanical weed cultivation etc. 129.132.239.8 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend for Cleanup

This article gets very difficult to read towards the end and has multiple formatting issues. Anyone adverse to flagging it for cleanup? FienX 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

well i agree fully we need to transfer the multiple scientific journal references to reference tags in the reference section...its just a matter of someone taking the time...i suppose i will at some point...ive spent a lot of time on this...all anyone else does is complain complain about the references needing to be transfered instead of just doing it...yet in time i will...maybe ill try and make it a project for tomorrow, as to the section under microorganism resistance...well it reads simple to me...yet I'm rather handy with science stuff, despite that, i have tried to use lay language in this article in my edits, and i can easily see how it would be daunting to some this paragraph that someone else has been working on, but i think it should stay & here is why i think this:...it is a very minor part of the article, at the very end, yet people need to get a glimpse of what biotech is all about i think...so i am supportive of Ttguy having this scientific-technical description as people need to learn how to read thru this type of stuff, or else at least not be afraid when they see a paragraph or two in detailed microbiological scientific format, i agree many people would not understand it at all, so a summary sentence perhaps before, and then this technical paragraph, people need to at least be presented with what many in the biotech community can zip right thru with perfect understanding, i think it is important for people to see how others language is developing, its tough language yes, yet its just a paragraph, and i think anyone with a good modern college biology & chemistry class would understand its basics, someone not understanding can just skip it & it is indeed very short...83.78.144.13 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

and i think this brings an issue to my mind...it should be simpler to put in references on wikipedia, i should be able to just copy and paste the journals title & authors etc. from the article on another page to wikipedia and have not much else to do...i shouldnt have to retype it to wikipedia reference format...i should just be able to paste and not bother beyond this!...83.78.144.13 04:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what do you think Fienx?

i still have more to do, more reference adding and transfering, i added links for the words in the bioengineering section for terms people may not be familiar with, yet i think it is all basic terminology and can stay as is, i really think we need some more information about increased yields from monsanto in a section on historical documented benefits to farmers...plus Ttguy needs to bring in some more studies from monsanto that counter some of the studies showing possible harms so we have more from that side of the debate 83.78.144.13 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] premature births and miscarriages

well i saw that the rates were about 1½ times the rate for miscarriage, and about 2½ times the rate for pre-term birth...both with 95% or greater confidence, and this was actually exposure of just the male!...and the effect of glyphosate on his sperm could produce this effect on the later embryo...this wasnt even looking at female exposure to glyphosate...and it seems the critical time as the researchers see it is within 3 months before conception if the male is exposed it led to this effect...83.78.144.13 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where in the article you are reading but page 6, table 3 - "glyphosates states" 17 miscarriage cases, Adujusted odds ratio = 1.5 , 95% confidence interval 0.8 - 2.7.[1] Perhaps you don't know what a 95% confidence interval means. It is a statistical term which means that there is only a 5% chance that you could get an odds ratio of greater than 2.7 or less than 0.8 given that glyphosate has no effect. The fact that the odds ratio is only 1.5 - in the middle of the 95% CI means the result is not statistically significant and would not be used by any real scientist to decide anything. I am putting my comment about the lack of statistical significance in. In fact I should delete the whole claim about misscarriages all together because if something is of such low statitistical significance it can not be regarded as real at all. If you can point to the place in the article where the effect of glyphosate is statistictically significant then go ahead and do so and delete my commnent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 07:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

The scientists doing that study made no mention of your explanation Ttguy, they themselves did not say it was statistically insignificant, so your explanation is OR and your own opinion,

The scientists don't have to say it is not statisticically signfificant. The 95% Confidence interval says it. Any scientist can read and understand what a 95% CI is. If you don't know then perhaps you should stop playing where science is being done and sumarised.Ttguy 12:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

the rate for miscarriages was 1.5, the rate for premature births was 2.4, also, of the several chemicals studied glyphosate had a higher rate than most of them for pre-mature births, this is not to say there was 100% confidence in the results of that study, only 95%, so it is only very likely it has this effect.

So you really are as dumb as I thought Benjiwolf. 95% CI means the researchers are 95% sure that the Odds ratio would lie between 0.8 and 2.7 if Glyphosate had no effect - the null hypothesis. The measured odds ratio was only 1.5 - in the middle of the 95% CI and so not statistically significant.

Actually this is wrong. The reason why the results are not statistically significant is that the CI includes the Odds ratio of 1. The 95% CI means that we can be 95% sure that the true odds ratio lies between 0.8 and 2.7. So with the variablity in the data the true odds ratio could quite easily be 1 and thus not a difference at all. And this is the reason why the results are not statistically significant.Ttguy 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with them not being 100% sure about the result. Nothing to do with them being only 95% sure. Ttguy 12:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact in the last decade or so pre-mature births have skyrocketed in the US[2], up 13%, & pre-mature births are up 29% since 1981, perhpas Ttguy will once again come out with a fancy statistics argument to say it is "not statistically significant",

The whole paper you are banging on about uses "fancy statistics". I am afraid you can't have it both ways. If you try and use "fancy statistics to "prove" how bad glyphosate is then you have to live by the rules of statitistics. And when your answer falls right in the middle of a 95% CI you are up shit creek for "proof"Ttguy 12:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am wrong about this point where I say that because the found Odds ratio is in the middle of the CI means the results are not significant. The found odds ratio will always lie somewhere in the middle of the CI. The reason why the results are not statisistically signficant is that the CI includes the odds ratio of one.Ttguy 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

well i am going to download the whole study beyond the abstract and take a closer look......129.132.239.8 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What a novel idea. Perhaps you should have done this before calling me a liar.Ttguy 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(I'm not calling you a liar, yet I think I will now call you a "deceiver", in this case, as you continually just talk about the 1.5 rate for miscarriage, and not the 2.4 rate found for pre-mature birth the abstract did say it was not strongly associated with miscarriage which i read over too quickly and had been thinking it was strongly associated, its just associated, ...so we can say that in their particular model, it wasnt, as of the confines of their study, able to be declared strongly associated under a statistical argument based on the numbers of testees which were too few (at near 2000 i think) to yield statistical confidence, yet in fact it is associated with this reproductive effect, ...and i do agree that whatever this study came up with there need to be more studies to determine what is going on with glyphosate and miscarriage & pre-term birth...this study just looked at the effect on a males sperm to see if this would increase a womans rate of miscarriage or pre-term birth...and i dont really think it was an especially good study for this reason and several others...we need studies looking at the direct effects on the female as well...and the one i see looking at this does in fact note definite negative effects from glyphosate...anyways i'm going to rewrite that whole sentence, after looking at the study examining direct effects on the female & embryo...129.132.239.8 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

after looking at the study now in a little more detail I see your argument is somewhat deceiving Ttguy, in fact the entire study and every single result could be called "statistically insignificant"...in fact i could say we cant be statistically confident in any of their results, even their results showing no effects that they came up with!...does that mean the entire study is meaningless?...129.132.239.8 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does there study say they found no effect? That is the whole point of a null hypothesis and the idea you can not prove a negative. If they do a study and their Odds ratio lies in the middle of the 95% CI then their study does not prove there is an effect. It also does not prove there is not an effect either. You can calculate a statistic called the POWER of the experiment which would tell you how large the effect would have needed to be before it would show up as statitistically significant given the variability you have in your data. I don't believe the authors of this paper quote a power stat. So yes the whole study is in fact pretty meaningless because as you point out - no results were statistically signficant.

Ttguy 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

...what it means is they have found correlations and trends,

This study is the equivalent to tossing a coin 5 times and getting 3 heads and then concluding there is something funny with the coin.Ttguy 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

no, that is a ridiculous comparison, and highly misleading and deceiving, they studied near 2000 couples, they found clear associations between some chemicals and not others, for some reproductive effects and none for others, the study was simply too small at 2000 subjects for results showing only 2 to 3 times the rates for some things, to not say with 100% assurity that we will always see these exact results, and with a study sample of this size for these rates that there is some room for error...85.1.223.203 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

anyways more studies should be done to put absolute 100% certainty in these results...they would need vast population samples to give statistical confidence on odds ratios of just 1.5 or 2.4 times the risk of miscarriage or pre-term birth, and here is what they themselves say about the results: "The combination of engaging in pesticide activities and reported use of specific chemicals on the farm produced a number of more substantially elevated adjusted odds ratios for miscarriage."...they also say " Our results provide some indication that male farm activities may influence risk of preterm delivery, par-ticularly when occurring in combination with reported applications of specific chemicals on the farm. The pattern for miscarriage also suggested some potential effect of male activities combined with reported chemical use, although to a lesser extent than for preterm delivery." and although the following, like everything else, is statistically insignificant according to Ttguy, do we just write it off?: "We found virtually no evidence of associations with SGA births or altered sex ratio in the offspring". using Ttguys argument i could say well thats totally false what they found: that it didnt effect sex ratio...we also have to keep in mind that this was just studying the effect on male sperm and how this would effect reproductive issues for the female and embryo. The study tells us "For miscarriage, there is clear experimental evidence of a paternal effect (5), and the epidemiologic literature offers at least some replicated indications of an environmental contribution, most strongly for mercury and anesthetic gases (11). Preterm deb'very has not been assessed as a consequence of male exposures in experimental studies, and very limited epidemiologic research has been generated on this issue (12). Maternal characteristics, particularly reproductive and medical, are most strongly associated with preterm delivery"...so it seems that finding these trends and associations with pre-term births in the male using glyphosate within 3 months of conception suggests it could have more drastic effect directly on the female...anyways they have found trends and associations, they just dont have a large enough study population at 1900 couples interviewed and observed to give 100% certainties that these are the exact odds ratios and risks. Its trends and associations they found, perhaps the odds on something were not 2.4 for glyphosate and pre-term birth, perhaps they were slightly lower or actually slightly higher, perhaps its 2.6 or 2.2, perhaps its 5 or even 7!... or perhaps its way less and you have fewer pre-term births if the male actually uses glyphosate!, yet the further you move away from saying the odds ratio is 2.4 the less likely you are to be correct. So do we just say, well it is all statistically insignificant so its all total conjecture and speculation, even the common sense results they found that using protective equipment gives lower odds ratios?...

yet i can say touche Ttguy!...you have tripped me up finally in the case of this particular study, i can say an association, yet not a big enough statistical correlation to enable you not to say "its statistically insignificant" as there were too few study subjects at 1,900 or something, there is indeed a possibility that a male spraying glyphosate one time within 3 months of sleeping with his wife will not cause a greater rate of pre-mature birth or miscarriage, yet this study seems to suggest it will affect this rate, i should have read thru this particular study slowly, completely, and carefully, instead i made this last edit at 5 in the morning swiss time after staying up all night, relied on several other scientists characterizing this particular study with "an association between glyphosate and reproductive effects",

These wouldn't be Greenpeace,Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, ISIS, NGIN, Natural Law Party etc "scientists" would they? There is a lesson here. You seem to be learning...

(and i would agree with them still!),

Oops - I guess not. Nothing can shake the belief of the true believer Ttguy 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact the scientists who stated that have no links to these organizations that I'm aware of, (Ive never even heard of 3 of these 5 organizations), but not that that would somehow undermine their credibility anymore than is true for the many many scientists working for the manufacturer or paid by them. The only thing i "truly believe" Ttguy is that you are not a good faith editor, and only edit on the very limited set of issues of pesticides/herbicides and GM food, you are either a straight up paid lobbiest, or someone, from a plant biology perspective and not a human biology perspective, that has actually done harm to your positions by using the sorts of tactics you do such as erasing all critical comment and study results, I tried to encourage you, I said you had a few good edits, i encouraged you to branch out and give wikipedia more information about the land in which you live and have good first hand knowledge of for instance, Australia, yet you haven't really done that...85.1.223.203 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

and just rapidly skimmed thru it as I am rather tired of this edit war as my opinion on this substance was set a while ago,

Really. We couldn't tell by reading your stuff :-). Perhaps you should disqualify yourself from editing this page at all then since you have a self admited bias.Ttguy 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While you insist on breaking up my comments to try and twist words, I will say further my opinion was set after reading a large amount of scientific data and opinion, it was set towards a neutral position, part of which entails more studies need to be carried out, I have not said anything about the weight of benefits vrs. harms, I have not said this is an "evil" product designed maliciously by an "evil" company, in fact I have said they designed the product in good faith and it was a vast improvement for chemical herbicides, part of which says there is little evidence for carcinogenicity except for long term farm workers, part of which is there is reason for concern about its mammalian reproductive effects & particularly if you arent wishing for a reduction in birth rate, part of which is, it is lethaly toxic in small doses in the range of 100ml-200ml (ie. even a shot glass or two) and so therefore calling it "practically non-toxic" like milk or something is ridiculous, part of which is there has been fraud & false advertising carried out more than once in the interests of the manufacturer, (it only wasnt in their interests as the "scientists" got caught twice, who knows what others got away with?!), part of which is there need to be more studies carried out by an opposition trying to prove it is harmful instead of just many with methodologies trying to prove it isnt, yet none the less part of which is this page needs more positive data with regards yield increases and more studies representative of monsantos position, (and although I, and not you, in fact am the one who has linked multiple times to Monsanto pages and studies and created several sentences favorable to the product, I am not being paid by monsanto and their multi-billion dollar empire and I'm not going to further spend my time doing that after you and a couple editors have clearly established a one-sided pro-monsanto bias, including disruptive blanking of referenced material and other tactics harmful to the page and an NPOV, which I was forced to come and fight hard for mainly by leaning towards the oppositions side and providing data from hundreds of scientists that have found results not flattering of the product's "perfection", and incidently, while I feel those calling monsanto an "evil malicious" company have gone way too far, I lean much more towards some of their positions on the company after seeing your editing tactics)...85.1.223.203 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

& there are plenty of other studies out there that show concern over this product besides this one, anyways as I have said I have not made a statement on its benefits vrs its harms, as i have said it also depends on the nation, standards, monitoring, and protective measures there, and the situation to make a statement regarding this whether it is worth it, perhaps some country at some time point has a higher birth rate than it wants and is capable of handling, so wants more miscarriages, wants testosterone reduced, and wants a lower birth rate, yet wants this herbicide for its weed killing effects also!, and i could of course remove this little exchange where i have tripped up slightly, as you have resorted to personal insults and also vulgar profanity in this exchange!, which I might remind you is against wikipedia policy and not in line with an encylopedic tone, yet I'm not one for removing things and blanking, even when i happen to have looked foolish, and i could get you blocked maybe for this type of tone, yet while you have repeatedly tried to block good faith editors from editting i do not resort to such tactics when at least some of the edits have value even though the editor has gotten carried away on occasion, and whatever creek you come from, i say keep your opinions, & your nasty products out of the creeks near where i live and where my children might play!, you on the other hand consistently blank & remove anything not flattering of your lobbiest position and this chemical, with sometimes ridiculous excuses, and i wouldnt really have been drawn into this article if it wasnt for that, your very POV editing on this article, i knew full well there were a hundred commonly used chemicals out there far nastier than this one from the get go, yet I have indeed found in this edit war that the chemical was nastier than i expected, and it does seem that it could be proved, to statistical significance, that it has a negative effect on several areas of human reproduction including perhaps miscarriage & pre-mature births, the study just needs the proper methodology, and also i have found that some study results are questionable and biased towards the manufacturers position whether subtley in the methodology, or even with outright fraud, with even felony charges for some of the scientists, i reiterate my call for some more fully independent studies to be carried out before i could make a sure assessment whether its potential reproductive harms are severe enough to warrant alarm (some of which must be carried out by those in opposition to the monsanto scientists that carry out most of the studies, once i see 100 studies by herbicide/pesticide opponents next to the monsanto studies i could make a determination in a comparison)(at this point i could say to women wanting children, you should surely not smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, and you should probably stay away from glyphosate products, and drink water free of them, even water with just a few ppms of the stuff!, and maybe even you should keep your boyfriend or husband away from the stuff!)...85.0.218.125 22:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the severity of a possible negative effect on human reproduction is still unknown

and I'm not trying to say glyphosate is somehow responsible all by itself for this, the fact in the last decade or so pre-mature births have skyrocketed in the US[3], up 13%, & pre-mature births are up 29% since 1981...it is of course noteworthy that glyphosate use started around 1981 and got used more and more, yet I am willing to say it is likely that glyphosate, in combination with the cumulative effects of 100 or so other agricultural and industrial chemicals is responsible for a large portion of this dramatic increase, perhaps higher obesity rates have a part to play, alcohol use I'm not aware has risen though in this period, tobacco smoking has actually declined!, so something else is responsible for this dramatic rate of increase even while tobacco has been smoked less! What do you propose is responsible for it Ttguy?...of course there are many possible explanations to account for some of the increase, it could be narrowed down to just a couple chemicals that have all by themselves a dramatic effect, yet I lean towards the explanation that at least part or even the majority of this effect is as of the synergistic and combinatory effects of a wide array of chemicals & pollutants, including perhaps glyphosate which has increased in use during this period to very very wide-spread and heavy usage, this study with their significant results leads me think indeed perhaps glyphosate has at least a minor part in responsibility for this, at least for farmworkers and those living near conventional farms or whose water may be consistently polluted with glyphosate, as after all this study was even just looking at the effect of glyphosate on the males sperm up to 3 months before conception to achieve these effects and not even direct effects on the female or embryo...83.79.133.133 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

so i could tell a country that wants to reduce its birth rate, that glyphosate it seems could help in this endeavor, we just arnt totally sure yet, we need more studies, yet it does seem its a good choice if you want a chemical herbicide that also has the bonus of reducing birth rate and hampering somewhat human reproduction, yet isnt especially carcinogenic...85.0.218.125 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a proposal for Ttguy

anyways here is my proposal Ttguy!...we start dosing your two daughters with roundup for the next 30 years and take notes on the outcome!...are you game for a study of this nature?...of course whatever happens it wont be "statistically significant"...we both know that...if they miscarry repeatedly or have pre-term births its just not going to give us a "statistically significant" result...yet I am greatly interested in a study of this nature so we at least have anecdotal case study evidence...so are you game for the challenge?...I will think a moment and decide on a dosage regime...a lower one for one daughter, a higher one for the other...we need some human volunteers i think and you seem to think the stuff is practically non-toxic or some such thing so it should be like testing out a new medicine right???...so volunteer your two daughters for studies of roundup dosing Ttguy is my challenge to you!!!...lets hear your answer!...129.132.239.8 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

as scientific study results show..."we conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals"..."here we show that glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells within 18hr with concentrations lower than those found in agricultural use"..."our studies show that glyphosate acts as a disruptor of mammalian cytochrome P450 aromatase activity from concentrations 100 times lower than the recommended use in agriculture"..."the dilution of glyphosate in roundup may multiply its endocrine effect, roundup may thus be considered as a potential EDC"..."moreover at higher doses still below the classic agricultural dilutions, its toxicity on placental cells could induce some reproductive problems"...so lets see it Ttguy...lets see you volunteer your two daughters to do some tests...i volunteer mine as the control with absolutely no roundup dose!...let readers note these tests of course would not yield statistically significant results no matter what happened, if Ttguys daughters turned purple and puked blood out of every orifice that would not be statistically significant!...i would not be able to use a statistical argument to say this stuff can be nasty, i could not even be able to say there was a statistical association...i could only remark that "in anecdotal case studies with Ttguys daughters there were some untoward effects of being dosed with roundup...to say the least"..yet I'm not proposing a 100ml (a fluid ounce or two) a day dosage regime Ttguy...(the study would only last a day or two with that one)...I'm proposing something less than the clear toxic dose...so what do you say?...129.132.239.8 19:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tactics not in line with a good discussion

Well you totally avoided answering my challenge didnt you!!!...anyways I suggest you change your debating tactics in the future with other editors, including myself, to allow them to say what they wish in an unbroken format, and then respond with what you have to say in your own paragraph, I dont see your latest edit war tactic being an especially good faith tactic and it shows you feel the need to break apart anothers comments and arent confident enough to allow them their say, and then have your own say. You can attack bit by bit, point for point, in your own paragraph, yet this latest tactic I see little value in and encourage all other wikipedia editors when at all possible not to emulate this style of debate in a written format, let your opponent have their say, without interfering in their say with your own sentences laced thruout it! then go ahead and have your own say and expect the same treatment from your debate opponent, otherwise they are forced to respond back into it and this further complicates someone else following the chronological progression of the debate...this was not a good faith editing tactic on your part! (thats not even mentioning your profanities)...I again challenge you to provide the name of your University that turns out PHDs using such profane comments in an encyclopedia, and using such a debating style of inserting sentences thruout anothers paragraph!...yet as always I am not going to try and "block" you from editing as you have tried for me, or block you from having your say on wikipedia, I encourage you to continue editing, yet to adjust your tone and style!....( i have a mind to edit this back to extract your comments out of mine and put them in chronological order, yet I want readers to see that this tactic you have used is not a good faith tactic, and betrays a lack of confidence, and attempts to twist words of another and take everything out of context, to the point of even breaking up their individual sentences!)...85.1.223.203 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] now Ttguy tries to remove the entire article!!!

cant bear it? you couldn't remove all those fully referenced cited sentences and the hundreds of scientific study results. You always have removed anything talking unfriendly to this product, all critical comment, but finally someone comes along and references it fully! So now you try to just erase the whole article???...Its your finest effort Ttguy! Your finest example of trying to blank! I have said dozens of times to simply add more monsanto study results to this page, and too create a section on positive effects on yield!...yet you are terrified of study results that arent flattering of this product! The glyphosate page is currently a joke, and is cited for expansion even (and not by me!)...83.78.136.13 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever 83.78.136.13 says above, this article should not be merged IMHO with Glyphosate. Glyphosate is a unique chemical agent that may be used in many different ways, while Roundup is a branded product which is a combination of a number of chemicals. It is like merging/redirecting a branded bleach product into Chlorine. Furthermore it seems to be the case that the combination of chemicals in Roundup has a greater toxicity than Glyphosate alone, hence studies of Roundup are not applicable to Glyphosate (note this not the same the other way round) - the two need to be kept separate.

Finally please do not use WP:PROD or even WP:AFD for this type of discussion. Instead use the process laid out in WP:MERGE. Cheers Lethaniol 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - deletion I guess is not really the best option. I agree we need to have both a glyphosate and an roundup article. It just the roundup article is in a very poor shape. Full of Benjiwolfs soap boxing on Monsanto and attempting to accuse Monsanto of commiting massive fraud with their toxicology studies. In its current state it going to require a lot of work and we will be fighting Benjiwolf the entire way. I guess we will just have to put in the work. Ttguy 10:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do think that a merge should be considered. A lot of this text appears to have been cut&paste from between Roundup and glyphosate. Including some bits that have been much improved in glyphosate (e.g., the "chemistry" section, which is really just the awards the discoverer was given). Also, in terms of science, my impression is that the amount of research differentiating glyphosate formulations and Roundup is not high. The surfactants are certainly an issue, but I think a common issue. I think there is the possibility of this becoming a POV fork, and I think that a separate Roundup section in the glyphosate article is probably more appropriate. As an aside, I'd assume that the awards were given for the discovery of the properties of glyphosate, not the specific Roundup formulation? --Limegreen 03:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Limegreen's idea of a merge between glyphosate and Roundup (with a section in Glyphosate on roundup) might be a good idea. And I also think now might be good time to start working on it because very soon our disruptive friend Benjiwolf is going to be locked out. See User_talk:AuburnPilot#Block_on_Benjiwolf.

The above comment may not be completely in the Wiki spirit of colaborative editing by concensus. I dunno about you guys (Limegreen, Lethinol) but I don't find Benjiwolf acts too much in the spirit of colaboration or concensus so I don't feel too bad about trying to actually make some positive progress on these articles in his absence.Ttguy 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of a merge + Roundup section Lethaniol?Ttguy 22:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to merge before. There are pros and cons to it. The thing is however they are two different things. Glyphosate is a single chemical compound, and the couple of variations of it were marketted by different companies, now the compound is off patent of course and the GE engineered seeds resistant to glyphosate products are where the patents exist. Roundup is a complex mix of compounds, and was marketted exclusively by Monsanto. PS to limegreen, it was I that added the other awards for Franz myself, for those of you thinking I have some sort of POV, get real! As to Ttguys comments, the PCPHD, no, you have not at all tried to edit by consensus, and you have tried several times to simply block out the editor with content dispute over it, its an underhanded method you have been using, its why I have no respect whatsoever for you as a wikipedia editor. No respect whatsoever. Now to talk about your double standards, for example, take that line about "glyphosate is used by conservation groups". I added it to watch you in action, first it wasnt referenced at all, but you didnt do anything to remove it though, however lines not flattering of the product you remove instantly, even if they are referenced. I then put in the true refernence of that line, to monsantos page, however once again with your "supposed" high standards for referencing you have used in arguments before, as that monsanto page didnt specifically note where they got that line from, or reference it themselves, once again you should have removed it immediately according to your self described standards for referencing. In fact all your talk is a seriously heavy load of crap. In fact the document most scientifically referenced ever to come to the page was Caroline Cox's article, its actually the only link ever to have lived up to your standards of scientific referencing, it was thoroughly referenced in the style you desire, yet you simply removed the most thoroughly referenced link. You only apply your standards to material you don't want in the article. Just to watch you in action I myself placed some fact citation tags on some stuff in the glyphosate article not flattering of the product, that were already clearly established as being referenced however, and were clearly from linked pages, it was fun to see you remove them as uncited, when before they were indeed cited. Anyways as I have said, if you want to do some actual good to the roundup page you would simply add some material about yield increases, and add some more monsanto studies, instead your strategy is to commandeer the page to the glyphosate version so you can remove all study results not flattering of the product, and so you can remove the material about the multiple false advertising charges and the multiple occasions of scientific fraud including felony convictions 85.0.212.81 17:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "the way glyphosate works is known down to the atomic level"???

What utter rubbish! ...The chemical structure of glyphosate is known down to the atomic level Ttguy. Molecular biology can indeed characterize its basic structure. However its full mode of action is of course not fully known. How could it ever be, indeed if one really wants to push this argument? There are near infinite combinations of matter for glyphosate to act upon, we have a handful of studies on a miniscule few possible permutations of matter, like a couple mouse studies for example, etc etc. Even taking one permutation of matter, one specific strain of mouse say, even then the way it works and its definite accurate effects on the mouse strain is barely known and mostly educated conjecture. Even that single mouse strain itself is so complicated that it will take 1000s of years to figure everything out about its own workings and molecular intricasies. In fact it takes a hundred years or so for humankind to begin to get a primitive grasp on the mode of action and working of a novel compound on a range of species. At this point, (in the cases of "much studied" compounds), it has gone from educated conjecture to a primitive grasp of the actual workings. When it comes to the working on the human permutation of matter, the first few decades are mainly pure conjecture, with copious mistakes and oversights, then after a half century sometimes results from broad surveys and studies on a population start coming in so we start to get an idea of the actual effects of the thing. If the way glyphosate works was fully known we wouldnt see any studies at all, there would be no point, we would know everything right Ttguy? In fact people have barely the first clue about its possible EDC effects for instance. People have a handful of studies to work with, humankind has only educated conjecture on this subject, and primitve knowledge of the action of glyphosate. Even with just its basic molecular action, first it was just thought to work on one pathway. A couple decades later someone besides Monsanto decides to carry out a study or two. Low and behold several new pathway effects are found. It works in ways not thought of before! Suprise suprise!...83.78.165.54 22:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

When you have a co-crystal of glyphosate and it target enzyme and you do X-ray crysalography of it and you see how glyphosate interferes with the enzymes active site I would say you know how glyphosate works on the atomic level. As would most educated biologists. The mere fact that glyphosate has some apparent inhibitory effect on other enzymes is totally irrelevant unless you know the degree of inhibition. If you study any compound you care to think of you can pretty much guarantee that a large proportion of them will inhibit one enzyme or another. It is called non-specific inhibition. But what is biologicially interesting is specfic inhibition - a situation where a specfic compound has a profound effect on a specific enzyme. These compounds are interesting as potential herbicides, insecticide, antibiotic, anti-virals and anti-cancer compounds.Ttguy 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You have replaced a 2001 reference explaining how glyphosate works at the molecular level with a 1993 paper that says we don't know how glyphosate works. Well I am sorry, but knowledge moves on. You can't use a 14 year old paper to say one thing when a 6 year old paper says it is now wrong. So it is you that is sprouting rubbish. Your edit will be reverted.Ttguy 07:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The way my childhood tinkertoy set works is mostly known down to the atomic level!-83.78.165.54 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, its misleading. The fact is we don't know how glyphosate fully works.

Give us a reference to back up this claim.Ttguy

There would no current ongoing research into the several unanswered questions about its actions if we did. Simple as that.

The sentance in the introduction to this article is about glyphosates mode of action as a herbicide in plants. Not about its mode of putative side effects. This is why it is completely missleading to say we do not know how it works. If you want to put a sentance in the sections about its putative side effects stating we do not know how these effects come about then feel free. But it does not belong in the introduction nor in the section were we are talking about glyphosates biochemical action as a herbicideTtguy 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No - it is you that is being misleading. You put in a 1993 study to support your claim that we don't know how glyphosate works. I remove that statement because a 2001 paper proves it to be inacurate. (The paper describes a co-crystal of glyphosate and it target enzyme with X-ray crysalography data showing how glyphosate interferes with the enzymes active site - see above). It is now encumbant on you to provide a paper from a reliable source published after 2001 that indicates that we do not know how glyphosate works. All your conjecture and arguments about this on the talk page constitute original research (and violates wikipedia:OR unless you can find a paper from a reliable source published after 2001 to back up your claims. Ttguy 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I included your new additions and references that I saw. Plus you reverted spelling corrections and removal of repetitions. Anyways, I have no problem with your adding new referenced material thats valid for the article. To make definitive statements about how glyphosate works at this time is rubbish, there are hundreds of unanswered questions about it. As to enzyme inhibitions, non-specific enzyme inhibitions are of course biologically interesting as well, and very relevant to something that is being sprayed en masse, in vast quantities all over the place, and that doesnt biodegrade and keeps building up year after year only to be slowly released for organisms to deal with little by little for age after age, or in big swooshes from time to time as a bunch of soil gets washed into water during large storms etc etc. Make some further statement about its action on its specific target enzyme being known at the atomic level if you wish. I think I actually included your sentence & reference about the X-ray crystallography study unless it got accidentally left out somehow, I'm a big Rosalind Franklin fan too, I included this Ttguy!

Yes Benjiwolf I can read and I do know you did not delete the X-ray Xlography study. But that is irrelevant because you are using a 14 year old paper as a basis for a claim when modern studies show that your assertion is totally false. Ttguy 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore Disruptive_editing policy has this to say "Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources. This exemption does not apply to settled disputes; for example, insertion of claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth would not be appropriate today; even though this issue was active controversy in the time of Galileo"

Note two things from this: controversies documented by reliable sources and settled disputes. Your statement that we don't know how glyphosate works is now a settled dispute unless you have a documented reliable source that is more recent than 2001 which states otherwise.Ttguy 13:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact still remains the working & action of glyphosate is not fully known. We have just an inkling of its full biochemical action & effects, and most of it is educated conjecture & extrapolations based on monsanto studies, which sometimes are good, and sometimes are bad...83.78.165.54 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I included it without hesitation ttguy, your objection doesnt make sense as I never removed your addition, but an X ray crystallography study is just one piece of the very complex biochemical puzzle of this compound's effects and working action on a wide range of species, both plant and animal, + humans, there are many many pieces of this puzzle still to be placed until we see a reasonable picture of its effects and working action on even a limited range of species. Even then there will still be large amounts of pure extrapolation and speculation. When it comes down to it, there are a lot of question marks about this stuff. On top of this, human testing has never been done, (after all its a poison not a medicine) and we are currently in an ongoing mass scale planet-wide experimental design, the survey study results will slowly pour in over the next few decades i suppose. I'm not saying this chemical is the end of the world, i am saying there is much to be discovered still.83.78.136.182 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new studies trumping old ones?

I think you need to be careful here ttguy, I have never disagreed with allowing in the crystallography study, I thought it was a nice addition even, but it is just one study. To say it somehow "trumps" a different type of study of a few years before, or even an entire book on the subject of roundup, just because it is slightly more recent, is a very unprofessional & unscientific thing to suggest. To then erase or remove other references from valid scientific sources that occured a couple years before a single crystallography study, and an entire book!, is just plain wrong. The crystallography study doesnt "trump" anything, plus it doesnt somehow contradict the book or other studies, it is merely one more piece of the puzzle as we try and accurately describe roundup/glyphosate products and their actions and impacts. It was a nice supplement to the article & its a nice puzzle piece, so of course i never removed it from the article. It gives us confirmation on its action on a specific enzyme, but thats about it, in fact if it was the only piece of evidence concerning roundup, it wouldnt really tell us much at all actually. I thought it important to point out in this thread that just because something is a more recent study, doesnt make it somehow better, in fact a recent study could be far worse than an older study, it just totally depends, things must stand on their own merits, and not some arbitrary date. Anyways, this crystallography study doesnt somehow clash with any other study of roundup at all, it is just a simple description of the action of roundup on a specific enzyme, and I have never tried to block it, what Ttguy has done was to use it to try and remove several other studies and an entire book about roundup from the references, and somehow try to claim that it tells us everything there is to know about the workings of glyphosate, which it quite plainy...doesnt...85.0.209.117 23:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

in fact its one of the most ridiculous lines of scientific reasoning I have heard from you so far: my study is a few years newer, so everything else is "trumped"???????...try using that on the scientific journal editors, "my study is the newest one so its the best" 85.0.209.117 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge with Glyphosate

In a section above a discussion was started about merging this page with Glyphosate. Lethaniol was of the opinon that the articles be kept seperate and myself and Limegreen were of the opinion that a merge would be a good idea. I created this section on the talk page for further formal discussion on this as I have tagged the page with the merge tag. Ttguy 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a minor point, but if you merge anything it should be GLYPHOSATE into ROUNDUP! most key searches would be to the trade (popular) name. Or perhaps I am just arguing semantics? As long as the search "Roundup" pulls up the article, seems fine. Larry Hallas 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions are for the use of non-proprietary names, I think. Roundup would take you straight to the glyphosate page, however. --Limegreen 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

100% agree with this - Larry has this the wrong way round. No brand name is more important than the generic. Cheers Lethaniol 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As a further note to the merger debate, it seems that most of the references are articles about glyphosate, or glyphosate-containing herbicides, rather than directly examining Roundup.--Limegreen 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I DISAGREE with any merge and here are my reasons:

Glyphosate is a distinct and notable chemical - IMHO all such chemicals should have there own article, even if there is a notable Brand name. If there is any merge, then it should be of the Brand into the chemical only
Roundup and Glyphosate are not equivalent. The added ingredients in Roundup have been studied and suggest that toxicity is greater for Roundup (due to the extra ingredients) than Glyphosate. - Note it is this point that makes me think that the articles should be kept separate.

It might need to be the case that Roundup is stripped of all the Glyphosate research (moved to that article instead) and have a summary of the Glyphosate research and link to section on such research in the Glyphosate article. Cheers Lethaniol 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy if most of the glyphosate stuff was stripped from the Roundup article. The main reason why I see a merger as appropriate is because of the excess duplication. I guess also my sense is that most 'generic' glyphosate weedkillers also contain other ingredients (with some overlap). I have seen a paper or 2 that explicitly compares a straight glyphosate with Roundup and some generics, and I didn't think the differences between the latter two were startling. Of course, I don't have the ref in front of me so that's not a lot of help. --Limegreen 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/u/Talk%7ERoundup_1bd4.html"