Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Endocrine disruptor?

The endocrine disruption topic isn't one that should have been removed from this article, however, it is still an unresolved issue. Invitro studies have shown glyphosate to cause abnormal steroid production in cell lines, but whole organism studies have thus far failed to find evidence of endocrine disruption. However, since endocrine disruption can happen by so many pathways, it may not be surprising to understand that if there was an abnormal affect, it may be difficult to detect over an entire organism. On the other hand, in-vitro studies often exaggerate circumstances to the point where an abnormal affect can be found that wouldn't actually exist in an actual organism. The topic requires more research before glyphosate can be said to be definately an endocrine distuptor, or definately not. However, the information about the research should remain, because it is still important for people to know that it is being studied.

For now, the information should stay, and because it is a matter of dispute (not here on wikipedia, but in the scientific community at large), make sure that all your claims on the matter are cited, to prevent this from turning into an edit war. Thanks!! Phidauex 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

Removed the statement about 'endocrine disruption' and provided a link to the health concerns section of the Roundup article (it provides much more information). --203.206.52.93 8 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

"peer reviewed" citation is not appropriate description

Under the External Links section of this entry, the "Peer-reviewed, up-to-date info on the toxicology of glyphosate" is not an accurate description -- although it may be the author's description (Ms. Cox). The item linked to this is actually a propaganda item authored by an employee of NCAP -- NCAP is the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, an anti-pesticide organization. The item itself was published in the Journal of Pesticide Reform, which is NOT a peer-reviewed publication, but a "journal" describing the positions of the NCAP organization. The JPR is not abstracted by any scientific abstracting service, include Chemical Abstracts, CABA, PUBMED, etc. Scientific libraries do not recognize this as a scientific publication. To call this information in this format "peer-reviewed" is incorrect and blatantly false, as no "peers" have reviewed and agreed with Ms. Cox interpretation of this assortment of studies.

I suggest that this linked item be re-evaluated for its suitability for this Wikipedia entry. If "the other side" needs to be represented, include a link to the NCAP website, so the reader knows the source of the material, just as the reader of the US EPA and EU reviews knows the source. NCAP website: http://www.pesticide.org/

Moved lines on toxicity out of first paragraph

I rearranged the environmental section, by moving the comments about toxicity (EPA class, etc) to the section on fauna toxicity.The first paragraph has been written about glyphosate's herbicidal effects on plants (presumably, plants that were not intended for destruction upon spraying). Looking at the entry on EPA toxicity classes, it seems that their definition of toxicity has to do with poisoning people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.74.80.240 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

citations needed

This is obviously now a contensious article. Funny how glyphosate was fine until GM crops came along and it became fashionable to bash it. Anyway, since it is controversial it is not acceptable to quote a source that itself does not quote a source for its claims. For example the greenpeace article at [5] which has the claim "In California, glyphosate is the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. " and is presumable the source of the claim to same effect in this article does not provide a source for this claim. The greenpeace article has a list of sources at the end but they do not reference which source belongs to which claim. Therefore, we are unable to check the veracity of the claim made in the Greenpeace article. Hence, my additions of the citation needed tags to this article.

contentious???

TTguy has consistently removed anything at all looking bad concerning roundup or glyphosate as it is "unreferenced"...in fact everything he has ever removed from this article was actually referenced on the page...he even tried to remove the entire paragraph on toxicity once before...i added monsanto references and even sentences declaring roundup formulations not so bad and explanations for high levels of poisoning incidents such as "of course as its used so much"...yet he went back thru to selectively remove only the references & sentences i added that arnt clearly pro-glyphosate...anyways as i have added reference to monsantos web page...the page of those that wish to sell as much of this product as possible...(and that is their right and its why i linked to their home page on this section)(we have a right to hear why their product is great and not harmful)...and i put in sentences citing them that they didnt reference at all on their home page...i can surely add a link as well to greenpeace...which is considered one of the few sources of information on issues such as this that might have a different view other than the actual seller of the product...the page is only contentious when people like ttguy remove everything except for the description from the seller of the product...then it becomes contentious...yet as i said...its actions such as these cover-ups that make glyphosate seem worse than it actually is...glyphosate was never looked at as "fine" by everyone...its clearly not so harmful as an organochlorine...yet people raise their standards from time to time...and monsanto has even adjusted its formulations to adjust to those higher standards...this has nothing to do with being "fashionable" or GM...in fact, i that have tried to balance this section out, am myself pro-GE tech when its responsible and there is a vocal critical lobby questioning some of GE techs various products...this has everything to do with the actions of this biochemical and its formulations...his explanation that "altho a reference was cited"...and even this had references it sited in its own article...yet doesnt attach to each sentence a reference number???...is pathetic...

A proper article will cite a reference to back up each claim not a list of "sources" at the end. This is called scholarship. And Wikipedia believes in scholarship.Ttguy 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

yet what makes it really pathetic is that ttguy doesnt go around hopping thru wikipedia looking for uncited sentences...he just removes everything critical he can get away with on a few pesticide pages and the GM pages...and this in fact does harm to these industries as people start to get distrustful and suspicious when all critical comment is wiped clean...anyways my own take on glyphosate and its newest formulations...is that they are indeed an advanced herbicide...relatively non-toxic compared to many...yet it seems the EDC potential/reproductive effects is what looks like it needs some research to determine better its level of harm vrs its agricultural benefit...if one makes the decision to use an herbicide and that one needs them in ones particular agricultural situation...Benjiwolf 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all I did not remove sections - I tagged them as citations needed.

I put back the citations needed tags. If you think you have references to justify the claims I have tagged then replace the citations needed tags with references to primary literature to back up the claims. Not references to a greenpeace article which may or may not have any evidence to back up its claims. Like I said above - the greenpeace article is not properly referenced and it is not possible to verify its claims unless you read every reference they quote. If you are prepared to do that and then provide the actual primary reference to back up the claims on the Glyphosate article then do so. Ttguy 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

your reasoning is invalid...u just have a gripe against greenpeace...they are just as valid a source of info as monsanto...we would have to tear down almost all the info on wikipedia if we went with ur thinking...greenpeace is a valid source..an accepted registered international organization and not some whacky extreme site...they are a valid reference even if they dont have any scientific links on their pages...the fact that they do makes it even more referencable...greenpeace is a valid source...if u disagree with a info of theirs then put ur own info showing the opposite...take ur monsanto lobby elsewhere...ive added pro-monsato statements and their own links...again i state u are pathetic to try and block other info besides theirs being on the page...and ur adding of "shes a vivisectionist" to a scientists page shows ur hypocrisy i think...half the scientists out there have carried out experiments on ants or worms or even mice...and u know what... oh no!!! im a vivisectionist too then i suppose ttguy!!!...Benjiwolf 19:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" If a greenpeace article does not have a source for their claims then their claims are not verifiable. You could perhaps write something like "Greenpeace believes XYZ" and link to the greenpeace site which makes the claims. Under this scenario we coud verify that greenpeace is making the claim. But you can not write "glyphosate is the third most likely pesticide/herbicide formulation to cause incidents" because we can't check where this claim comes from and what it actually means. What is an incident for example? As it stands such claims are meaningless. As to the mysterious lancet article that no one seems to be able to provide a refernence for: - the 9 deaths from glyphosate - were they from environmental exposure or are they from suicide attempts? It makes a big difference to the dangerousness of the herbicide.

I don't have particular beef with greenpeace as a source. However, in this instance they are not a soure of facts because they don't supply any detail to where their claims come from.

It is you that has referenced Monsanto as a source. I have not made any claims that Monsanto any more or less a valid source of info as Greenpeace. However, if you read some of Monsanto's information you might actually find references to articles in the published scientific literature to back up their claims. Because in order to get a pesticide or a GM crop registered they have to have research to back them up.

I don't think I have added any references except updated the JPR reference that you keep deleting. All I am asking is that you or someone supply some reference where the claims made against glyphosate can be verified.Ttguy 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Benjiwolf - If you look at the policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability you will note "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." So on this basis I will give you a few more days to supply the references needed to back up the Glyphosate claims and then I will be removing the unsourced claims.Ttguy 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did a search at http://www.thelancet.com and only two articles refer to the word Glyphosate. One was http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605715580/fulltext Volume 357, “Plan Colombia”—parallels drawn with Vietnam war by Kelly Morris which is an article about glyphosate being used in colombia to kill cocaine crops. The other is "GM food debate" by Ewen S, Pusztai A Vol. 354, Issue 9191, 13 November 1999, Pages 1726-1727. The full text for this 2 pager is not available. But this article is obviously not a primary source about glyphosate poisoning in Japan. So I am going to go ahead and delete the Japan deaths claim from the article as the claimed source for the claim does not exist. Ttguy 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

you need to look around the lancet docs from the 80s if u wish to say it doesnt exist...i doubt theyr even on the internet ttguy...u need to look in the lancet journals themselves not some internet search...and u just said they dont even give the articles contents even for 1999 articles so its rather worthless ur internet search...go to the university...Benjiwolf 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

just went to the reference listed next to the "toxicty" section..they in fact dont only refer to the lancet...they even gave us the specific one and page...stop wasting peoples time ttguy with making people double & triple reference everywhere...read through the references from now on ttguy...you go to pages and remove things without even bothering to read through the references themselves...im now going to grab several more scientific articles that trash this product as im getting tired of ur actions on this page...you know full well there is lots of info out their that can make this product look bad...its not anymore going to be a brief example such as the lancet letter...its going to be many of these stories of posionings...(and im sure we can find an example of a child dieing from this product or from swallowing monsanto herbicides to put on this page)...u have been removing material to unbalance this page that is clearly referenced and are wasting peoples time...before i made an effort to make some pro-monsanto statements and include their documents...that policy of mine is ending as i am fighting against a lobbiest editor (you!)...so im going to have to head to one side to lobby against you now...Benjiwolf 10:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf, thanks for supplying a reference to the Lancet article. At least I think it was you. Anyway the apparent reference is "The Lancet (Feb 6 1988, pg 299)". I just used Pubmed to check the reference [6]. There are 3 articles on that page of The Lancet in that year - using this search "1988[Publication Date] AND lancet[Journal] AND 229[Pagination]"

The articles are as follows:

1: Gallinaro P. Soft egg shells--carpal tunnel syndrome or sign of pollution? Lancet. 1988 Jul 23;2(8604):229-30.

2: Donnelly PK, Edmunds ME, O'Reilly K. Renal transplantation in sickle cell disease.Lancet. 1988 Jul 23;2(8604):229.

3: Guslandi M. Related Articles, Cimetidine plus cisapride for reflux oesophagitis.Lancet. 1988 Jul 23;2(8604):229.

None are about glyphosate deaths in Japan. Also note that this page of the lancet is July not Feburary. So this reference is bogus. You talk about me wasting peoples time. I am again going to delete the deaths in Japan sentance.Ttguy 20:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am back to eat my words. Another search on Pubmed [7] but for the text "polyoxyethyleneamine" does infact pull up Lancet. 1988 Feb 6;1(8580):299 Sawada Y, Nagai Y, Ueyama M, Yamamoto I. "Probable toxicity of surface-active agent in commercial herbicide containing glyphosate". I have no idea why my previous search "1988[Publication Date] AND lancet[Journal] AND 229[Pagination]" did not find this article. I appologise. I would like to point out that the beyond pesticides fact sheet that cites this article does so in the Inert ingredients section - so this is an article about the toxicity of "polyoxyethyleneamine" (POEA) an not about the toxicity of Glyphosate. This is the Glyphosate Wiki article. There is a roundup article and perhaps the two should be merged. But back to the question in hand ...

Unfortunately the Sawada et al Lancet arcticle does not have an online abstract available. This is a shame because I want to know if the deaths in Japan are from environmental exposure or ingestion of the concentrated roundup product. Pubmed did offer up a related article on Glyphosate poisioning which does have an on line abstract. Toxicol Rev. 2004;23(3):159-67. Bradberry SM, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA. from National Poisons Information Service (Birmingham Centre) and West Midlands Poisons Unit, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK.[8]

From reading this abstract we learn that the serious health effects quoted by some are due to deliberate ingestion of the roundup concentrate.

"Accidental ingestion of glyphosate formulations is generally associated with only mild, transient, gastrointestinal features."

"Most reported cases have followed the deliberate ingestion of the concentrated formulation of Roundup "

"There is a reasonable correlation between the amount ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death."

" Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. "

Bottom line on this is that I would suggest that is is not fair to open up a discussion about the toxicity of a hebicide by mentioning the fact that if you deliberate drink the concentrate that is poisionous. Is it relevant to the discussion on drain cleaner for example that it will kill you if you drink it? Ingestion of too much Dihydrogen monoxide will kill you too.

I intend to make an appropriate editTtguy 21:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

it is I that am soon going to report you for disruptive editing on several pages. I dont use the word pathetic at all towards u personaly yet i am refering to your editing practices which i feel are vandalism & in bad faith. The bottom line is that to be a scientist means to be a sceptic. That means being just as sceptical about the info from a products manufacturer as one is about a greenpeace article. Now we know that greenpeace has little motivation to engage in difficult fights or to raise an air of caution against extraordinarily powerful & wealthy companies unless they sincerely believe in their position and it is backed up with detailed scientific information. On the other hand a company has intense financial motivation when providing its information. Therefore it is good to remain sceptical of greenpeace on a scientific basis as one would be sceptical of any scientist in the spirit of science. The scepticism a good scientist held for the company however would naturally run far deeper. Therefore as you believe the company line totally on these issues and only edit away information not adhereing to it i regard your edits as "pathetic" and not in a scientific spirit. It is not a personal insult. I think your a decent guy. Yet you clearly seem to be a businessman and not a scientist. There is nothing wrong with being a businessman. I just think your editing is way off balance and therefore pathetic and in bad faith with things like hypocritical smears such as: "this scientist is a vivisectionist" onto pages. My definition of a "pathetic" edit is one such as this. A scientist wouldnt smear another in this way...only a businessman lobbiest would...in anycase i dont need to state any reason for removing your edits anymore...i have already stated that you consistently remove cited referenced material...this lancet study is a good example...it was already referenced you just didnt read the references and blanked as you didnt like it, then after i put in another reference right next to the sentence you removed again...anyways after looking over your editing patterns i need no reason to remove your edits anymore...some may still be acceptable and good edits and i will not remove them...yet many are just wasting peoples time and are vandalism...Benjiwolf 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf your acusation that I am removing references is baseless. I removed the links from the section heading Toxicity and put those links inside the text next to the claims that they seem to support. I have not deteleted any reference. For example The Lancet article reference was moved to the end of the Toxicity section where I talk about how drinking glyphosate concentrates can kill you. My edits are to make this section NPOV. Your constant reversions without any attempt to come to compromise are against wikipedia policy. I expect you to eventually pay the price for this. Ttguy 20:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf what is your justification for deleting this section? which has citations and is NPOV.

In California doctors report illnesses potentially related to pesticides to the Californian Envionmental Protection Agencies Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program. Statistics from this program indicate that Glyphosate related incidents are one of the highest reported . The Californian EPA however point out that when assessing the toxicity of pesticides call volumne is not a good measure since it does not take into account the number of people exposed and the severity of symptoms assocated with each incident . Of the 515 pesticide related hospitalizations recorded by the program over a 13 year period, none are attributed to glyhposate . In the 40 years to 1988 Cholinesterase inhibitors and methyl bromide were most often involved in the more serious occupational systemic pesticide poisonings .

and replacing it with "[glyphosate] is the third most likely pesticide/herbicide formulation to cause incidents." which is POV, misrepresents the situation and cites no sources.Ttguy 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

well first of all several references on the page mention this 3rd most common stat...i then saw another figure and qualified to top ten with 3rd and 8th reported...you now report 1st in one year it seems...anyways there is not yet a link right next to that sentence, but it is referrred to in many of the linked articles...everything on this page is cross linked to many documents...and i will further link and cross link to original studies to fend off ur blankings...yet please go ahead and tag it with the appropriate references...i myself added in that the high rate of these incidences are in part as of the high rate of its use...anything used so frequently is bound to have more incidents...anyways add ur own qualifiers...if they were removed it was accidental when reverting ur constant disruptive blankings...ur constant blankings have forced me to stop wasting my time trying to sort thru ur edits...if u begin a policy of discussing removal of things then youll find ur material additions are never lost when i try and sort thru ur edits...as to me "paying" the price...get real...Benjiwolf 15:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

you know what??? & "make it disappear"

when i look over that greenpeace document i find it often even superior in quality to this page as it stands currently...their introduction is much better with more relevant information...they make no excessive claims...they state clearly glyphosate itself is not very toxic to mammals or birds, and even explain why...(when we can find other more recent sources that state glyphosate may actually be toxic to mammalian reproduction) greenpeace even states that it is its action on other things like fish and the natural flora etc. that is in question... and they state that surfactants in many but not all glyphosate formulations are what usually cause the severe incidents...as you know what??? greenpeace knows all about lobbiests like ttguy...they know if they arnt very cautious that their credibilty will slip even with a single mistake as lobbiests ruthlessly exploit them...ttguy i think u qualify for a job with monsanto...theyd love you...they dont like people like me that aim to include greenpeace documents alongside the monsanto documents i include...they want it unbalanced...and if there is an incidence of a poisoning they want it blacked out...instead of standing up and acknowledging things like that so it doesnt happen so often and/or the products are adjusted to prevent such things, instead its tactics like this that just try and "make it disappear"...Benjiwolf 10:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

and now its tough to make it disappear

after a quick search yielding Carolines recent document thoroughly referenced in the manner TTguy demands (that is not however needed for inclusions to wikipedia)...yet is needed to beat back Ttguy and now force him to bring in his own studies...go ahead TTguy...theres all sorts of Monsanto funded studies...yet mainly just of pure glyphosate and so not giving us accurate info on glyphosate product toxicity...most everything on the toxicty section is also now referenced to her document as well, so you cant so easily throw it all out anymore (your argument that documents for inclusion to wikipedia had to be referenced in this specific manner is invalid however)...i can include a BBC article with no references in it even as they are a valid source and internationally recognized even...just like greenpeace (and dont you now wish it was just the cautious 10 year old greenpeace doc i refered to)...(yet i dont now have to head to an admin to prove this arguement now that ur referencing demands are invalid)...& i would have spent my own time including monsanto studies and docs...yet its ur job now Ttguy...ive done enough of that...if u wish to play lobbiest and just remove the other sides statements ur going to find this neutral editor leaving u all the work for that sides lobbying and document inclusion...if u shift to a neutral position i will return to including monsanto info & refs...anyways...have fun reading thru carolines heavily refd doc and all her nice nifty charts and graphs!!!...i will!...its far more thorough than the greenpeace doc...and not so hesitant (shes a scientist, however, and greenpeace is more worried about backlash from the anti-enviro lobby, she can be firm while they must be weak)...i now want to learn more of this chemical and its formulations after your heavy persistent lobbying for all critical review to be blanked from the page...(u seem to be more persistant than glyphosate even)...Benjiwolf 19:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

There are clearly content issues to be resolved here, but there are also some clear formatting issues. For example this Glyphosate has an EPA Toxicity Class of IV (practically nontoxic) [9]. was changed to this Glyphosate is classed as a moderately toxic herbicide and in EPA toxicity class 2. The former is preferable because it contains links to both information on the EPA (who I'd previously never heard of) and to the Toxicity Class thing (which I'd also never heard of). Secondly, from Toxicity Class, it appears the the correct formatting is Roman rather than Arabic numbering, and finally, the former also provides a source.

With respect to referencing, it would also be helpful to use Wikipedia's footnoting system. Having a footnote containing this information Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N, Seralini GE. (2005) Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase, Environmental Health Perspectives, 113 (6): 716-720. PMID 15929894 is preferable to an in-text citation (Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 113, No.6, 716-720) for the same article.

It is also some concern that many references are links to websites of not clearly verifiable nature. For these reasons, I have reverted the article to my version. I am more than happy to have negative evidence about this product presented (and there is plenty of it). However, it needs to be well-referenced, and presented in an NPOV way.

Finally, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that a separate articles exist to discuss Roundup and Monsanto.--Limegreen 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Further in terms of neutrality and accuracy, a sentence such as EPA however clearly admits in exposures above its limits (which it currently sets at 0.7 parts per million in water) could be improved by a) replacing "admits" with "states" (makes it sound less like a conspiracy). Further, the rate is not for "exposure", but for "drinking water". Presumably the dermal concentration would be higher. Finally, in a contextual sense, there are other commonly used herbicides and pesticides that have far lower acceptable levels [10]. --Limegreen 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

you cant remove the information such as the EPAs findings of fraud...while there are some links to sites such as greenpeace...they are legitimate links...all facts on the page can also be found in caroline coxs scientific review (in a 26 year old scientific journal...if monsanto can put out all the info from their studies, even after some of their scientists have been found guilty of fraud...then so can an alternative source of info for their products)...facts such as the EU bases its conclusions on monsanto studies can be easily noted by examining some of the references on this page such as the EUs own document...i will adjust some wording here and there...yet most everything on this page is factual information...if you see something that is not factual please discuss on talk page and we'll take a look...just as monsanto is a legitimate organisation...so are many of the action groups...yet i have not based any facts on this page from action groups...i sometimes cite them so the reader has a chance to see that there are indeed some action groups and can see what they say...Benjiwolf 08:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

the thing about the national medal of technology?...there was no citation and just what is this???...i left it and added the fact tag and stated the president it was given to him by as we would assume a "national medal" is handed over by a president or something yes???...yet if no one can cite this i will evetually remove it alltogether...for now i say that it is possible he received some such medal so im leaving it...Benjiwolf 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

as to american EPA rating it is currently at III and i have adjusted to the roman numeral format...Benjiwolf 08:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, feel free to add anything about fraud that you want. Just reference it from a good source in a tidy fashion and that's certainly worth mentioning. I've never heard of the National Medal of Technology. I assume it's some US-thing...

On the referencing thing, you've just changed it to III, and then provided no source? You had one initially with 2, I've found one with IV. Is III an average of 2 dodgy sources?

As for Caroline Cox, I'd much rather your reference her publications in a journal that she's not editor of. Another editor (see further up this talk page) has some (seemingly valid) concerns about the Journal of Pesticide Reform.

Finally, please see my above concerns and suggestions relating to footnoting and internal links within wikipedia. Also, please capitalise where appropriate. --Limegreen 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

as to american EPA rating it is currently at III and i have adjusted to the roman numeral format...you can find this here[11]with her references on the second page here[12] in what is clearly a scientific document, well referenced, and in a 26 year old journal the "Journal of Pesticide Reform"

...and also on the EPAs own pages...while cooperative extensions many times have valid facts...it seems several sources besides them have have been somewhat confused with the actual rating...stating from 2 to 4...it is at 3 actually after i have looked over things...i did not set it at 2 someone else had...i reinstated it from 4 knowing that wasnt true...and also you have to acknowledge the fact that anything needing to be registered by the EPA as a pesticide or herbicide is by very nature a poison and toxic...its just a question of how toxic..it takes about 200ml or a little less than a cup of glyphosate product to kill you...if you dont believe me and want to say "its practically non-toxic" then i propose this...i drink a cup of milk...you drink a cup of roundup...then we compare notes...OK???...(milk is "practically non-toxic" except for those with lactose intolerance and allegies and such)...(glyphosate products are not practically non-toxic...in fact the new york state attorney general sued monsanto for trying to say this type of thing claiming it was "safer than table salt")...dont make the same mistake limegreen

...many people have used these products to commit suicide even...anyways limegreen, i put on this page many things including several monsanto links which no one had done...and i have made several statements sympathetic to them such as these products are a "clear and vast improvement over organochlorines" which many might argue with actually saying they arnt really a clear and vast improvement, and i have kept any references and material which you added and i went forth with your idea to break up the discussion some seperating things out...yet mammalian reserach must stay with the human section...its the main source used to determine human info as this product is a poison and u cant go around dosing people with it for research purposes...yet go ahead...drink a cup...lets see...please sign several statements beforehand tho and make out a will, and i accept no liabiliy from your experiment...Benjiwolf 08:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

anyways honestly please dont drink any roundup or glyphosate limegreen...your a decent editor and its nice to have you around...dont even drink one drop...Benjiwolf 09:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

and please continue to discuss & edit this article as it needs a another reasonable editor...TTguy has mainly just removed anything anyone has put on this page even though it has been referenced...you have actually added information and references which is what the article needs...Benjiwolf 09:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

as to the journal of pesticide reform...well they havnt been indicted and sent to prison have they???...monsanto paid scientists have and so in the interest of NPOV i think its good the article mentions just exactly how and why many of its ratings in the EPA and such have been decided and whos info that is based on... and that when doing a literature review one is just going to see: monsanto studies...i have included monsanto studies and links...and i have included the document from the journal of pesticide reform...if i was going to start blanking things i think id start with the side that had scientist/felons on the payroll...the journal of pesticide reform has to be very careful limegreen as monsanto and its multi-billion dollar empire will sue the heck out of them if their not...they probably have already tried...somehow they have stayed alive for 26 years so that tells u something...Benjiwolf 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

after i looked over the document from the journal of pesticide reform, and also saw its referencing style which included many monsanto studies...ive determined they are a valid source of information besides just company studies and company funded studies...they dont have the funding monsanto does so cant hire a hundred people to churn out studies, yet its pretty much the best a shoe-string budget opposition can muster...anyways what caroline did was basically just review studies in other journals and monsanto studies...its a counter presentation to the way monsanto might present things to those such as the EPA or EU regulatory bodies...Benjiwolf 09:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! I certainly wouldn't drink glyphosate, and if I wanted to buy some, I'd probably not buy Roundup on principle. However, what I think is lacking (about from some referencing quibbles) is a lack of perspective. Yes, drinking glyphosate is worse than milk, but it's probably only a little worse than everyone's favourite toxic liquid (ethanol!). It's a lot safer than the average herbicide (and especially the most toxic). There are people complaining of respiratory problems with the organic herbicide (made from pine trees) used in my city. Which I guess leaves us with either steam (but you can get nasty scalds with that) or manual weeding. I note that in your edits your've removed the source I had for DDT being more toxic, and replaced it with a citation needed tag. As for the toxicity class, I'd rather see it on the EPA website. I note that the reference for class III is 1993, and I'd assume with the research conducted since then it may have been re-visited.--Limegreen 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thinking of referencing, you really need a source for this statement "Inhalation of glyphosate products is regarded as far more toxic than ingestion.". This statement (while true) "If a mammal (including a human) ingests enough glyphosate-product it will die" is also rather extreme. After all, if you drink too much water you will also die (as neatly shown by a radio station contest recently [13]). Ditto milk (although presumably via its water content), bleach, vodka... --Limegreen 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

on biochemical action

what is that refernece CAS??? do we have some author names or something..."CAS" is not a valid reference...i will remove in a day or so unless someone clarifies just what they meant...Benjiwolf 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

CAS is at the end of the reference Hietanen, E., K. Linnainmaa, and H. Vainio. 1983. Effects of phenoxy herbicides and glyphosate on the hepatic and intestinal biotransformation activities in the rat. Acta Pharma. et Toxicol. 53:103-112.)CAS: 1071-83-6, and is short for Chemical Abstracts Service, working like PMID for PubMed, but for a different system.--Limegreen 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ecologically harmful crutches

that is indeed what that side reports...the sentence starts with "it has been reported"...and that is one of the basic arguments of that side...that farmers are becoming dependent on an ecologically harmful crutch...we can state that sides position...in fact it should be expanded yet you can click onto that sides document so its just a paraphrase...maybe ill expand it sometime...and i think i might just say a brief word or two from personal experience...i have worked for big agro firms to distribute their products...and i have worked for farmers that dont use their products...a dutch immigrant farmer to the states that had the most successful community supported ag farm in new york state (where many customers sign on for a set amount of produce at the start of the year so the farmer has an idea of how much to grow)...this farmer the weed problem he inherited when he first got to the land were tough...(from a previously chemically farmed area) yet after several years of using methods passed down to him, and he developed quickly after a few seasons, he was able to mainly defeat his weed problem...he used mainly just mechanical cultivation with the tractors...& he used huge long sheets of black plastic mulch for the curcurbits...everything else was mechanical cultivation or cheap or free labor for stuff like just planted carrots...after hitting the weeds hard the fist few seasons and observing things, hitting them at the right time, and various other techniques, it became little problem and also a few minor weeds just make little difference...some even say a few weeds here and there can even increase yields...anyways the fact is farmers have forgotten how they used to deal with the weed problem...they now are totally dependant on a few companies to solve it for them...there has been a serious brain drain in the farming profession and many farmers just rely on what the ag firm tells them to do...yet mechanical cultivation has its problems too...and as to pesticides...well the season i worked for the guy there just werent many serious problems that would drastically affect anything...there were some cucumber beetles that hit hard that year...yet as the farmer had 25 different crops of things it didnt matter that some of the brassicas were hit hard...he had so many other things growing that it just wasnt an issue that seriously impacted his profits even if the brassicas had been totally devestated...its called the way people used to farm less than 100 years ago...its called crop diversification...it doesnt have to be so diverse as he had, to be successful either...just a few different types of crops and a good rotation and ur there...somethings are tougher than others...i worked for an organic apple farm once and they said the apples were a tough one...the strawberries were simpler in regards pests...yet it took them 15 years to develop the methods to solve totally their apple pest/disease problems as they started from scratch knowing nothing about it...people forgot what to do...there is a knowledge gap now after the chemical dependence...chemicals may have their use...yet are best reserved for emergencies...they are overused and their effectiveness for emergencies is now greatly reduced as of that...and what is really interesting me is how fast organic ag has returned to knowledge of how to farm without chems...research like paul stamets the fungi specialist in washington that show simple inncoulations of certain beneficials can double or triple yields is where the future of ag is at...organic agriculture combined with GE tech will be the future of agriculture...chemicals will be reserved for emergencies...and roundup-ready type GE tech (just continueing chem dependence) is going the way of the dodo...yet as i said theres way too much food in this world...people are seriously obese...and the farmers have been screwed as yields may have increased a tad for a while till the soil was ruined yet the prices of their crops just went down...and they were all forced out of business except the largest that could stay alive thru economies of scale...they were forced into their chem dependence...its not their fault...Benjiwolf 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an article on Glyphosate not the phylosphy of farming. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of various farming methodologies go and start a page for it or edit an existing oneTtguy 01:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

anyways that side can have their argument stated in paraphrased form

the other side would of course disagree, and even if u got them to agree they would say...well its too late...all these farmers dont have a clue how to farm without chems...and i myself would state itd be dangerous for all the farmers to abandon their chems overnight...they dont know what to do without them and their soil is hurting...and the big ag firms just didnt understand all these issues back at the turn of the century when they developed this stuff...people didnt realize how toxic some of this stuff was...when they finally did, greed prevailed, and we saw falsified studies and subtle manipulation of data...yet the real crime...the real current crime is domestic gardeners using the chems..the farmers have excuses...the domestic gardners in heavily populated areas have no excuse...anyways it a legitmate critique that side has, it is a highly public critique, many many books have been written concerning this issue...and a paraphrased sentence about it in the article stays...and...the fact is...some of the agro firms will listen to that argument and adjust their product lines so their products arnt controversial anymore...neither side enjoys fighting the other...someday a resolution will be found...Benjiwolf 13:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Roundup Article

I see that a lot of the text on this page is repeated verbatim at Roundup. There seem a couple of obvious options. 1. Roundup could redirect to glyphosate (usually the case for off-patent products). 2. Roundup, and in particular its association with Roundup Ready crops, is semi-distinct from glyphosate, so it could continue to exist with its own twist, but needs to have the overlap minimised.

Keep the article free of much of the Roundup issue so as not to add the relatively larger toxic issues with it, to Glyphosate. Amoun 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, this page is still a trainwreck. Please, Benjiwolf, while I have some issues with some of the content you've added, by far the biggest reversion temptation at the moment is the style of your edits. You're still using emotive language, still not capitalising, still not footnoting, and still not linking through to other articles. It's just a huge and not very readable blob of text. --Limegreen 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I read this article early in January and tried to edit it a little. Since then, it's become uglier and uglier. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, not a one-man band for green points of view, no matter how legitimate. 129.74.80.240 04:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC) jKay

its surely getting uglier and uglier to monsanto as studies now pile up that arnt so flattering, and now with the fact that their pro-monsanto scientists went to prison...Benjiwolf 09:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

well i need to now reference all the studies i put in to the reference section...of course its a mess with all the studies listed full out right next to the sentences...yet give some time people...this is volunteer work even!...i am proceeding in steps people...its not like i can do all this at once...im adding hundreds of scientific studies to this page...Ttguy forced this type of action, yet really people, i didnt know what i was going to find when i started editing this...Ttguy removed all critical comment on this page, so i went to reinstate some of it, then found he was just an agro lobbiest and removed it all...so i had to start searching and adding hundreds of scientific studies so that side was resistant to his blanking...and i had no idea i would run across what i did like monsanto scientists heading to prison even!...that came as a total surprise...anyways...as to glyphosate-roundup, well there is some slight difference, yet i am supportive of combining the pages, and we can spell out the differences on the single page...as currently i have to add things to both concurrently and its a hassle...i will work the next couple days on combining it effectively, please give a few days to allow for a proper transfer...anyways if someone that types faster than i can transfer the scientific references to the reference section id be appreciative...im best at adding new material, and i still have to add in another 50 studies so this guy Ttguy cant just remove it so easily!...anyways dont call me out...i have been adding many monsanto links & many pro-monsanto sentences too...& its been a two man band...Ttguy totally pro-monsanto blanking anything not flattering...and me trying to write in both sides stories linking to both yet forced to defend anything Ttguy doesnt like with hundreds of studies...right in the intro on toxicity i tell you there are two sides to this story, i also tell you there is no consensus, and that there is controversy, i tell you it is argueably less toxic than many other herbicides and pesticides (some would say yes it is as of its american EPA class III, others would say no it isnt as its used so much and hasnt been studied properly)...and its not my fault i found out monsanto had people heading to prison even!...they can only blame themselves...Benjiwolf 09:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

anyways limegreen your criticism are mostly valid...yet give some time please...i didnt care at all about this page until i saw someone blanking half it...now i have come in...yet it takes some time to get it all perfect, its not going to happen overnight, ive already spent many hours on this page...and id appreciate if other people actually went in to capitalize and such or move references to the reference section...as to emotive language, that criticism im not so sure i agree with...yet ill go thru and take a look...anyways thanks again for good criticisms and taking it to the talk page to give people some time and not just trying to erase...Benjiwolf 09:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

if the words "caught" and "falsifying" sound emotive...well thats what happened...its hard to get around that...other than that i see few emotive words..."clear and vast improvement" is somewhat emotive yet pro-monsanto...ill change that EPA "admits" to "states"...Benjiwolf 10:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf, do you realize how difficult it is to read your added text, even in the talk page? Believe it or not, correct grammar and punctuation aid in communication. 129.74.81.217 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) jKay

I quite agree. I haven't actually read any of the recent additions because it is too difficult. I have no problem in picking up occasional formatting, but I have absolutely no intention of serving as someone else's secretary. I would far rather be doing my own research on a topic and writing it up. My suggestion that rather than adding a large block of text that you read an article, summarise the sentence or two, and reference it properly, the first time. When I add a reference, I take the time (usually around 5 minutes) to format it properly. --Limegreen 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The roundup article is still a shocker. I think it is actually getting worse as Benjiwolf and his IP addresses continue to edit it unabated. I think the current Round Up article should be deleted and it should just redirect to Glyphosate.Ttguy 12:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

transferring referneces

if someone wishes to transfer the many full references to numbers it would be appreciated, with the full ref in ref section...im not sure how to do it...yet it will greatly make the page easier to read & more coherrent, and much shorter too...thanks...Benjiwolf 10:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:FN. It's not a quick or easy process, so I won't be volunteering. Further to my above point, this is an encyclopaedia that people can read now. To that end, I've moved what was the current page version to Talk:Glyphosate/Temp, and reverted back to a less stable-ish version. It is then encumbant on you to re-add content from the Temp page in a fashion that is acceptable to present to the public. --Limegreen 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Excelent move Limegreeen Ttguy 05:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Persists in food products for two years ??

This article states "It has been reported that glyphosate formulations can persist on foods & food crops for up to two years". The reference for this is a document from the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides [14]. Their document lists the source of this claim as their reference 6 which is: Pesticide Action Network, 1997. Glyphosate fact sheet. And suggests "For more information about glyphosate visit http://data.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33138". I did vist the PAN http://data.pesticideinfo.org but could not find the Glyphosate Fact Sheet mentioned. I found the glyphosate page referenced but no mention on this page either about food or a Fact sheet. So since there is nothing to back up this claim about residues persisting for 2 years I am going to delete it. Someone can put it back in if they can provide a citation to back up the claim.

See also Talk:Roundup#Several comments re: Roundup article which mentions that some people have misinterpreted a study that involved radiolabeled glyphosate. Radioactive 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 preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 05:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

quacks and frauds

ive actually quit wikipedia...and its as i wont work with quacks and frauds. I have always valued accuracy and precision. I wont be part of a group that wrongly lists this chemical as class 4 instead of 3. Someone had it as 2. It was changed to 4. I restored while looking it up on the side of caution. I saw it was 3 and changed it to this. I wont be part of a group that calls something proven deadly at 100ml to 200ml as "practically non-toxic". Milk is practically non-toxic. Anything needing to be registered by the EPA is not "practically non-toxic". I wont be part of a group that simply removes studies and referenced material instead of showing counter studies or examining the studies to find issues in the studies. I wont be part of a group that removes the fact that monsanto funded studies even had people going to prison, and that they faced lawsuit for trying to claim this product was "practically non-toxic" or "safe as table salt". I only have one question. I ask Ttguy to name the university that gave him his PHD. I want to know who is turning out people that just remove referenced studies instead of examining or criticizing the studies or citing their own. What university handed you that paper saying you are a PHD Ttguy?...currently my opinion of the entire university system in Australia is very very low...i officially went to the university system in Boston, using the resources of such places as Harvard and MIT and Boston University, and i have used the university system in Switzerland some...yet i consider my alma mater to be the UC system, and i have just recently begun to become familiar with non-american based university systems so can say little regards them in comparisons, yet i am begining to get a glimpse of the Australian system thru You...where did u go to university Ttguy?...Anyways do what you want with the page Ttguy. I tried to just remove it all to the "quack" version the other day and it was reverted...(with new wikipedia character "silence of the wolves"). This is the version i want for the american-australian audience. i will not work as part of a team of quacks and frauds. I was open to adjusting format and language and wished many counter studies from monsanto to the other sides positions...yet i am simply quitting wikipedia...i also am trying to get the ability to remove anything i have added to the talk pages i wish to, as it can be considered a POV rant in many cases. The true reason is i dont wish certain things i have said to be in the community of knowledge to australian and american users anymore. It removes it from british or new zealand users as well, and other english speakers, yet i write the british, english speaking community, with things i feel i need to, anyways, directly. Also i was not authorized to release some of these things, so wikipedia copyright over them is questionable if i wish to remove them myself...they will remain in my contribution list i suppose, yet very few will ever access that so it is effectively removed...Anyways this case of fraud is only a partial reflection on wikipedia. Many wikipedia pages are of excellent quality and the material is sound. I feel the concept was a good one, and of great benefit, and the fraud being executed on this page is no reflection on Jimmy Wales himself, it is one of the failings in the concept so far. However, pages subject to any controversy can be highly inaccurate, and factual material can be removed and false material can be instated, even after it is questioned and called out as false. Referenced material to valid scientific studies can be made to disappear. I am sorry, yet i adhere to a higher standard of precision and accuracy, i may have made a mistake here or there on a page of wikipedia, yet very few, and if it is shown i made one i instantly will remove an invalid study or false reference...my personal feeling for the glyphosate page was that everything on it, my last edit under "benjiwolf" was factual as far as i knew, i felt the page needed more studies from Monsanto to be a better scientific document, and I challenged Ttguy to simply bring in some of the many studies Monsanto has carried out, i added three links to their pages and studies to start the process and added several paraphrased sentences of the general line of their research results...Instead he simply removed valid counter-studies and factual information...i will not work with quacks and frauds...while you may suggest some of my wording or formatting was biased, well it was hard not to be somewhat biased once i discovered the cases of scientists going to prison or being accused of fraud on that side of the issue...

glyphosate products

as to glyphosate products, they are as i said moderately toxic herbicides, whether the benfits outway the costs i have stated no position on...some chemicals' benefits do outweigh the possible or actual harms they have...some chemicals and chemical products are in fact "practically non-toxic" to humans and their world...however, i am leaning to the position that i want it and all other chemicals Monsanto has developed to be used heavily in Australia with no regulation, i implore decent Australians, and the several Australian friends i have made, to only use filtered water, and to avoid the farm fields, and to take as many vacations as possible, i will no longer block the chemical industry going full out with every chemical in Australia no matter any negative research findings on any particular chemical...in fact im now going to lobby for them...let Australia err on the side of its native PHD and not on the side of caution, i fully support all chemical industries in Australia and will now lobby for all standards to be dropped as the Australian PHD i feel is accepting such treatment on behalf of Australia...and i suggest the label for all australian chemical products to state "practically non-toxic" no matter other findings...the label is general and vague enough to actually be true...and I turn this page over to Ttguy and with an admonition to British and New Zealand users that it is fraudulent...Benjiwolf 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bye Bye Benjiwolf

We will miss your bizare ramblings. They were actually quite entertaining in a train wreck kind of way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Neutrality of this article

An anonymous user taged this page with a Neutrality dispute. (The user that did the taging was infact Benjiwolf in defiance of his ban).

Well I think the page as it stands is NPOV. It provides two points of view for the chemical glyphosate. For example where it used to say "glyphosate creates the most cases of toxic exposure in california" it now points out what the data acutally shows - the most incidents reported - but also points out the severity of these incidents is very low. So now it is NPOV but in the past it has been very POV.

The issue with Benjiwolf was not over NPOV but over uncited sources for claims - violation of WP:CITE. He could not cite reputable sources for the claims he made. Rather he would either provide no citations or cite a web site put out by the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides - not exactly a neutral source. As I understand it web pages a sources for Wiki articles are not regarded as the ideal source. As to the comment that the large part of the talk page is devoted to NPOV added Dirk Beetstra when he put the neutrality tag back - I beg to differ. The talk page is talking about sources for statements. If a user - preferably not an anoymous one - can point out in this section on the talk page where the article deviates from NPOV then we have a point to start with for fixing the page. As it stands there are no specific claims about where the POV is off so it is not possible to fix it.

So unless someone can add to this section specific points where the page is violate NPOV I think the neutrality tag should go.Ttguy 07:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

comment on RFC

To my mind the article has a POV bias towards the position of the chemical company. The request by Ttguy that the tag be removed because no-one has added references is itself contentious given ttguy's non-neutral stance in the previous edit war. In addition the article is in a poor state and should be flagged for a clean-up, which I will now do, regards, sbandrews 10:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Sbandrews, this article needs to some major cleanup. I will try to do some, but things like missing references and addition of new sections (e.g. awards and praise does not belong in the chemistry section!) may be best done by the regular editors of this article. Cheers Lethaniol 15:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who wrote the POV "honored technologies" thing, but I think the point of having the awards in the Chemistry section is because they relate to the molecular discovery. Although, that only applies to the Perkin medal and the National Medal, not those other ones. --Limegreen 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In terms of tidying the article, it would be useful to look at something like Paraquat. At the moment the article mentions almost nothing on the actual use of glyphosate. For instance, some discussion of common uses (both agriculutural and home) would be warranted, along with other herbicides it is commonly mixed with, and its poor efficacy on clover.--Limegreen 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am liking what is being done on this article. It is looking much nicer. Thanks to us not having Benjiwolfs dense prose imposed.

I think we still need sources to back up some of the statements. And I think we need better sources than the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. The orginal articles - not a secondary and biased source needs to be consulted.

Is there still a POV problem? Ttguy 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I read (somewhere) that the chemicals that glyphosphate is mixed with in some commercial products are a cause for concern - that should be covered. Why have you made no effort to reference the Greenpeace article, if you are intent on removing the POV tag? Why does the greenpeace position come last in the *humans* section, and why so small? Sorry, but I thing the POV issue is still here, regards sbandrews 08:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I read (somewhere) that the chemicals that glyphosphate is mixed with in some commercial products are a cause for concern

That could be where the article says "Laboratory toxicology studies suggest, that other ingredients combined with glyphosate may have greater synergistic toxicity than glyphosate alone. For example, a study comparing glyphosate and Roundup found that Roundup had a greater effect on aromatase than glyphosate alone"

I've tidied up the Greenpeace thing. It didn't even reflect their position (at least on humans). As to whether there is more that should be in the other sections, someone else can deal with that. --Limegreen 09:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

TTguy do you think it's fair as stands? It seems ok to me now, at least both sides are included in the debate.. sbandrews 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While I think the article is starting to get more balanced, referenced, and tidy, it seems more like an essay on whether glyphosate/Monsanto is evil, rather than an encyclopaedia article on a herbicide. --Limegreen 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to the RfC, I removed the {{neutrality}} tag. I hope no one feels I jumped the gun, but as an outsider it appears neutral to me, balancing different sides. If anyone feels the tag still belongs, re-add it, but please explain exactly what you see as problematic so it can be addressed. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The cleanup is going well, need to concentrate on the bottom half now. Hmm still not convinced that the article is totally WP:NPOV though. Cheers Lethaniol 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

toxicity to soil microorganism

We used to have this text but the refererence did not support the claim. If someone can find the reference to this study then we can add this text back.

Of nine herbicides tested for their toxicity to soil microorganisms, glyphosate formulations were found to be the second most toxic to a range of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and yeasts. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. 2004. Herbicide Factsheet: Glyphosate (Roundup). Journal of Pesticide Reform, VOL. 24, NO. 4 [15] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

This is an example of the kind of editing that led to the RfC in the first place - please take a look wikipediAhimsa[16] which contains the following pearl of wisdom,

When in doubt, don't delete

That is, edit towards a goal, not away from what you think is bad. If someone contributes something which you find unclear or misleading, polish their work to make it shine. This polishing may involve deletion, but that shouldn't be considered the intent of the edit.

I have replaced the text and reference, please have another try, kind regards sbandrews 12:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sbandrews, If you look at the policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability you will note "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." The reference cited to back up the claim does not infact back up the claim. If you can find a citation inside the Jornal of Pesticide reform article that mentions the "9 herbicide study" and provides a source for the study then we can include this text. NPOV does not mean we have to include non-verifiable material. So according to Wikipedia:Verifiability it is out. I have deteted the text and reference - the reference does not back up the claim. Please have another try, kind regards.Ttguy 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - can you also take care with your reversions. You also managed to delete a reference I had dropped in to the article with your reversion. Thanks Ttguy 13:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to help you past the RfC, perhaps I came across as not assuming good faith, and I'm sorry about the other revision (which wasn't mentioned in the edit comment) - It seems perhaps I should leave it to someone else, as such I will reinstate the RfC, which I had removed yesterday. sbandrews 13:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

percent soybeans that are Roundup Ready (RR)?

I am looking into a ref for the claim that 80% of the soybeans in the USA are RR. I don't doubt the figure.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) Pocket K No. 16 Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2005[17] says 60% of the worlds soybeans were herbicide tolerant (HT) in 2005. The question is are there any other HT soybeans in comercial use besides RR soybean?Ttguy 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a couple of references directly talking about the % of RR soybean plantings in the USA in 2005 and have now included them.

Ttguy 00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Claim about very few studies on Glyphosate and toxicity

We currently have this unreferenced statement in the Other species section. "There are currently few studies into the toxicity of glyphosate formulations "

I want to point out this article in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Volume 31, Issue 2 , April 2000, Pages 117-165

Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans*1

Gary M. Williams, Robert Kroes and Ian C. Munroc

a Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, 10595

b RITOX, Universiteit Utrecht, P.O. Box 80176, NL-3508 TD, Utrecht Yalelaan 2, The Netherlandsand

c Cantox Health Sciences International, 2233 Argentia Road, Suite 308, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2X7, Canada

[18]

Reviews on the safety of glyphosate and Roundup herbicide that have been conducted by several regulatory agencies and scientific institutions worldwide have concluded that there is no indication of any human health concern.

Nevertheless, questions regarding their safety are periodically raised. This review was undertaken to produce a current and comprehensive safety evaluation and risk assessment for humans. It includes assessments of glyphosate, its major breakdown product [aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)], its Roundup formulations, and the predominant surfactant [polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA)] used in Roundup formulations worldwide. The studies evaluated in this review included those performed for regulatory purposes as well as published research reports.

The oral absorption of glyphosate and AMPA is low, and both materials are eliminated essentially unmetabolized. Dermal penetration studies with Roundup showed very low absorption. Experimental evidence has shown that neither glyphosate nor AMPA bioaccumulates in any animal tissue. No significant toxicity occurred in acute, subchronic, and chronic studies. Direct ocular exposure to the concentrated Roundup formulation can result in transient irritation, while normal spray dilutions cause, at most, only minimal effects. The genotoxicity data for glyphosate and Roundup were assessed using a weight-of-evidence approach and standard evaluation criteria. There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic. Glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA were not teratogenic or developmentally toxic. There were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with glyphosate. Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or subchronic studies. Results from standard studies with these materials also failed to show any effects indicative of endocrine modulation. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. For purposes of risk assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA. Margins-of-exposure for chronic risk were calculated for each compound by dividing the lowest applicable NOAEL by worst-case estimates of chronic exposure. Acute risks were assessed by comparison of oral LD50 values to estimated maximum acute human exposure. It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.

Thus, I think it is fair to say that it is demonstrably false that there are "few studies into the toxicity of glyphosate formulations". So since the claim has no supporting reference and there are references to the complete opposite of the claim I propose to delete the claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

In addition this EU document lists 24 toxicity studies for Glyphosate. Review report for the active substance glyphosate -Finalised in the Standing Committee on Plant Health at its meeting on 29 June 2001 in view of the inclusion of glyphosate in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC [19]

Ttguy 04:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

lack of testing on impurities

well first of all thanks for submitting the document, as it brings another issue to my attention "the substances of Nufarm and Calliope deviated significantly from the impurity profiles of Monsanto/Cheminova"[20] this is interesting as we can now see that these products may not even be clearly standard, and that impurities can exist with totally untested substances in them with no testing data on the impure compounds whatsoever!!! I hadnt thought of that before. Plus we could test a roundup product from one company and it could have a different toxicological profile from roundup made by another company! This document also states "Member States must pay particular attention to the protection of the groundwater in vulnerable areas" [21] so we also see that if it was entirely non-toxic they wouldnt have put this statement in there as there would be no concern with this product at all levels of use. Anyways these issues of testing and current studies, the statement reads "There are currently few studies into the toxicity of glyphosate formulations, most are conducted by Monsanto, and Greenpeace's cautious 10 year old statement that glyphosate has little toxicity to mammals came before the more recent research"...well this is true, greenpeaces statement came before the modern independent studies showing EDC effects or other reproductive effects, there are few studies today currently into glyphosate toxicity and most studies have been carried out by the big-agros or people they have funded, mainly monsanto as they developed this product...yet i am changing the wording slightly to "currently few independent studies"...and the problem is... there is no profit motive to fund studies showing toxicity of glyphosate products, there is extreme profit motive to have studies that show it is completely harmless , thats not to say many of the studies arnt good or relevant, just that this issue of testing is bound to be skewed to one side...and i havent even mentioned in this argument the fact that.......scientific fraud & false advertising:

"Until recently most studies of glyphosate and glyphosate product toxicty have been carried out by Monsanto or funded by them. On two occasions the american EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate, and Monsanto has been charged with illegally advertising, (falsely and misleadingly), glyphosate products calling them "safer than table salt", prompting a law suit by the New York State attorney general[22], and prompting several action groups to form in the United States against these products. In the second incident of falsifying test results in 1991, the owner of the lab (Craven Labs), and three employees were indicted the following year on 20 felony counts, the owner was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined 50,000 dollars, the lab was fined 15.5 million dollars and ordered to pay 3.7 million in restitution. Craven laboratories performed studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto. In the first incident involving "Industrial Biotest Laboratories", a reviewer stated after finding "routine falsification of data" that it was "hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits". The EPA performed this audit of IBT in 1976, yet the fraud did not make headlines until 1983. Monsanto has also been charged in countries besides the US for false advertising of roundup and misleading the public, and just recently lost a suit in Europe, yet are appealing.[23] and for the illiterate the following are what we call "even more references"!!!: (not too flattering of the product or the testing is it lethaniol, its the type of thing you really want to hide and erase isnt it lethaniol!)...(U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Com. on Gov. Oper. 1984. Problems palgue the EPA pesticide registration activities. House Report 98-1147)(U.S. EPA Office of pesticides and Toxic Substances 1983, Summary of the IBT review program. Washington D.C. July)(U.S. EPA 1978 Data validation. Memo from K LOcke, Toxicology Branch, to R Taylor, Registration Branch. Washington DC Aug 9)(US EPA Communications and Public Affairs 1991 Note to correspondents Washington DC Mar 1)(US EPA Communications, Education, And Public Affairs 1994 Press Advisory. Craven Laboratories, owner, and 14 employees sentenced for falsifying pesticide tests. Washington DC Mar 4)(US EPA Communications and Public Affairs 1991 Press Advisory. EPA lists crops associated with pesticides for which residue and environmental fate studies were allegedly manipulated. Washington DC Mar 29)(US Dept. of Justice. United States Attorney. Western District of Texas 1992. Texas laboratory, its president, 3 employees indicted on 20 felony counts in connection with pesticide testing. Austin TX Sept 29)" 83.78.144.13 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

until you add this factual account of the testing issues concerning this product

until you add this factual account of more than one even!! incidents and scandals involving scientific fraud that are factual and fully referenced and also false advertising that were blanked out despite extensive referencing (i dont think it was Ttguy that blanked that actually), your version of this product on this page has severe problems, you can mention all the studies you want, yet until people see that there is some serious question as to the independence of some of the toxicological testing for this product, and that the studies are bound to be skewed by the nature of the testing systems and who carries the tests out, this page has severe problems...that is not to say glyphosate products are the end of the world or something, or that it isnt less toxic than many ag-chemicals, or that the benefits of roundup and like products dont outweigh the harms, i feel personaly we need more current independent tests to decide upon that for our respective areas and nations, particularly into EDC and negative reproductive effects: as to do we need the possible benefits and are they worth the possible harms in our respective areas?, I'm just saying there are some issues here with the testing so far 83.78.144.13 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

as perhaps some of the results showing EDC activity would only be mainly applicable to the farmworkers and not the general population in the nation, and perhaps they could take adequate protection to minimize possible negative consequences of working with these types of products, perhaps the possible soil benefits of herbicide weed cultivation vrs mechanical tilling, and also potential labor saving despite massive worldwide unemployment is somehow worth it, yet I am considering advocating a new position, sort of my response to Hagel advocating reinstating the draft so things are more equal: if you consume conventional food mainly, then you have to spend a couple weekends a year spraying the chemicals, and you also have to allow your children to spend several weekends a year spraying the chemicals!!!...if you consume mainly organic/bio food then your kids spend those weekends on the chemical-free farms and instead of "suiting up" and spraying chemicals that are indeed stated as "safer than table salt" by the testers themselves (like Monasanto), they drive the tractor around the field instead, but its your choice, nuke power i can agree it is worth it, and we need the scientific developments that come by having the industry for our long term future (we just need better standards & planning), i would let my kid "suit up" for a weekend at the nuke plant, (but of course its best & more sensible to have the older folks "suit up" than the children & child bearing population if you want the "hagel equalitarian thing in the nuke industry", when my kid hits 50 then she can "suit up" to "pay her dues" at the nuke plant) ...yet with chem agro i think its way way overdone, and is unecessary, plus people have too much food, they are obese, and there is plenty of labor out there of people that arnt rocket scientist material yet that need some excercise, are unemployed, & that can work the chemical-free fields...plus the chem industry will still plunge on ahead without so much chem agro and just some compared to now, plus there are plenty of other ways to further the yields without roundup-ready tech, including other more sensible GE tech than roundup ready tech 83.78.144.13 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

83.78.144.13 please provide susinct suggestions for improvment of the article

Dear 83.78.144.13/Benjiwolf, The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. Your massive amounts of text does not suggest how to improve the article. Can you summarise your argument into a form that is encylopedic? Because I agree with Limegreen - your style is unreadable.

Your argument seems to suggest that we should change the model for regulation of chemicals in the environment. The current model as used in pretty much every part of the world is that an agency of the government is charged with regulating chemicals. This agency requires certain safety studies to be done before a company can sell a new chemical. Since it is the chemcial company that will profit from the sales of the chemical it falls to them to pay to do the studies. Who would you suggest should pay to do the studies?

Monsanto was not the only company to be burnt by the two fraud instances you continue to harp on. It cost Monsanto millions of dollars to re-do the tests that they paid the companies to do. They had to redo the studies and submit the results. Monsanto and other companies were victim of fraud not the perpertator of the fraud. You are conducting nothing more than a smear campaign. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Before I had removed the sections added by 83.78.144.13 because they are really not useful, they are extremely difficult to read and contain very little of any use. Some references have been added that I suppose we might find a use for. I suggest if 83.78.144.13 wants to add any more comments they suggest improvements to the article, not write an apparent rant from their strong POV.

A suggestion to all editors. Do not bother replying at all to 83.78.144.13's comments if they are not relevant to the development of this article. See WP:SOAPBOX Cheers Lethaniol 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I heartedly concur with your suggestion here Lethaniol. It seems that Benjiwolf's promise to quit the Wiki has been broken. IP addresses starting 83.78 and 83.79 are Benjiwolfs ISP in Zurich. So I suggest we ignore any non-relevant comments from any such IP addresses. Benjiwolf is still subject to a ban. I believe her anonymous postings will get her ban extended. It would be nice not to have her rants and personal attacks at all. At least she has stayed off the article itself for a while. She is certainly making a giant mess of the Roundup article right now though.Ttguy 12:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note any sockpuppet allegations should be reported here - [24], as well as possibly involving the blocking Admin User:Betacommand. Cheers Lethaniol 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually this case is closed but I started a new one here[25]. So I think this is the place to report Sockpuppet alligations for Benjiwolf.Ttguy 10:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Humans EPA , toxicity class and references.

Text used to read:

Glyphosate was given an EPA Toxicity Class of III in 1993 [17], but more recent studies suggest that IV is appropriate for oral, dermal, and inhalation. It has a rating of I (Severe) for eye irritation, however [9].

I changed it to

Glyphosate has been categorised as Toxicity Class III - slightly toxic - by the US EPA [17]. Some formulations of Glyphosate have a rating of I (Severe) for eye irritation. [17].

for the following reasons

Reference 17 - EPA re-registration fact sheet mentions the toxicity class and was published in 1993. But this does not mean glyphosate was "given" the III rating in 1993.

Reference [9] GM Williams, R Kroes, JC Munro (2000). "Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 31-N2: 117-165 which I have only seen the abstract. However, it is the reference 17 that actually mentions the rating of Severe for eye irritation. Ref 17 actually mentions that it is "some formulations" of glyphosate that have this rating - implying that it is something other than the glyphosate that is the problem when you splash the concentrate in your eyes. Hence cited ref 17 for the eye irritation rating.

There did not appear to be a reference to support the claim that class IV is appropriate for oral, dermal and inhalation. Unless this is ref 9. The abstract on 9 does not mention the class IV rating. So unless someone who has the full article can confirm the IV rating for oral dermal etc we should leave it out.Ttguy 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article references rather a lot of things that aren't in the abstract. Hence the danger of only reading the abstract. --Limegreen 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am cool with that reference mentioning the rating IV might be more appropriate. Do you hav a PDF of the full article. I would love to get my hands on it.Ttguy 08:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed for these claims

I am working through the text and I am up to this bit.

However, some recent work shows that glyphosate can be readily released from certain types of soil particles, and therefore may leach into water or be taken up by plants [citation needed]. Low glyphosate concentrations can be found in many creeks and rivers in U.S. and Europe[citation needed].

I am going to delete this bit fairly soon because we have not had any citations come forward in quite a while.

And before anyone whines about this I would point to the policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability states "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I found a reference for Glyphosate in US streams. Reconnaissance Data for Glyphosate, Other Selected Herbicides, Their Degradation Products, and Antibiotics in 51 Streams in Nine Midwestern States, 2002. Elisabeth A. Scribner, William A. Battaglin, Julie E. Dietze, and E.M. Thurman [26]. However, it mentions that Atrazine was found in 93 percent of the samples followed by metolachlor, found in 73 percent of the samples where as Glyphosate was found in 36 percent of the samples. So do we include the information that Glyphosate is found in low concentrations in streams. It actually seems pretty irrelevant information - especially with out the context that it is just one of many herbicides found in streams. Ttguy 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right way to do it, but Ttguy might be interested to know this.
Just stumbled over what seems like an obsolete reference (27) that Denmark has banned Glyphosate. I do not believe this is true - based on the fact that I am living in Denmark and have just bought a litre of All-Out (360g Glyphosate) and attacked an overwhelming mass of weed in my garden.
The Study referred to suggested that Glyphosate didn't bind to particles in the soil but actually washed down to the layers carrying drinking water. However, the experiment measured Glyphosate levels in water one (1) meter down - while there is water at this level, it has nothing to do with drinking water. Danish farmers - and this I recall was supported by independent research - pointed to the fact that structure in the top level of the soil lead water (and Glyphosate) quite quickly downwards - e.g. due to worm holes etc.. However this is not the case in greater depths where the particle binding may actually work as envisioned. For all I know, the suggested ban never passed legislature.
Reference (In danish): http://www.landbrugsavisen.dk/LandbrugsAvisen/2004/8/6/Glyphosat-forbudet+er+aflyst.htm
Bottom line is that Glyposate based products as RoundUp, GlyphoNova and All-Out are still sold for industrial and private use. There may be restrictions in the use near groundwater reservoirs and such, but to refer to a general ban would not be correct. 80.196.6.165 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted this claim. However, it has resurected itself as a heading on "Use Restrictions"

"Glyphosate has been subject to restrictions in some countries due to a perception of contamination risk."

But aren't all pesticides all around the world subject to use restrictions? I don't think Denmark and glyphosate is special in this regard. Monsanto themselves point out that roundup is not licenced for use in or near aquatic envioronments anywhere. This use restrictions is not news - I am deleting it. Ttguy (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert large revision

Have just reverted this [27]

This is clearly coming from a particular POV - but I think it is wortwhile checking out this diff for some useful references and content. Cheers Lethaniol 23:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

well all I got warned for was removing a bunch of information, I only got in trouble for reverting to y'alls page!!!...83.78.136.13 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we nominate this page for Semi-protection? Ttguy 13:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm you can if you want - read through Wikipedia:Protection policy first and then request protection here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. In this case, as a lot of the "interesting" edits come from likely sockpuppets/IP addresses of Benjiwolf, the best way to combat the problem is to address this issue, especially as any semi-protection is only going to be a temporary remedy. Cheers Lethaniol 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that large revision was actually a reversion to how the page was somewhere during the intensive editing phase. Having looked over semi-protection etc. for a school page, I don't think we're seeing nearly enough anything to make it worthwile. --Limegreen 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually now that I have looked into, I think this revert was a copy and paste from Roundup in response to Ttguy's WP:PROD! Cheers Lethaniol 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the last few edits to the roundup page Ttguy has used vulgar profanities such as "up shit creek" and has also used personal attacks, should the page be protected from him? Well it appears that currently on the roundup page people don't really resort to such things as blocks for other editors even in extreme cases of wikipedia violations such as these, yet the editors of this page "glyphosate" use lowblow tactics, like trying to delete other articles that are referenced extensively, or trying to block other editors, making this page "glyphosate" an unappealing one to work on, I don't think you need to protect it, no one really seems to want to join the editors of this page actually, and work on it with them, so the need to protect it, is a silly proposal-85.1.212.140 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I was going to suggest merging by putting in a 'Brands history' section or the like...

But it seems that everyone is concentrating on the health aspects and pro/con Monsanto reversions/revisions. Wouldn't it make sense to just place the nonrepeated information at the end of this article, instead of in it's own?

A controversy section would be the appropriate place to mention the health effects of the 'inactive' ingredients? Having a link to the preservative's article would make the deal?

I don't think that I want to volunteer to rewrite this since I'm a coward. (LOL) JWhiteheadcc (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Danish 2003 glyphosate restrictions

I (60.229.54.45)added a section on the use of restrictions which was subsequently removed by Ttguy for these reasons: "Restrictions section - denmark section. Not specific to Glyphosate or denmark ."

I question Ttguy's claim that the extra Danish 2003 restrictions placed were "Not specific to glyphosate or denmark" for these reasons:

1. The exceptional and specific restrictions to seasonal applications were placed specifically on glyphosate use by the Danish governmemnt in response to a study showing contamination of grondwater by glyphosate in Denmark - and was not a standard premptive restriction on pesticide use for reducing contamination (please provide evidence that the same restriction was applied to glyphosate in other countries prior to the Danish 2003 restrictions), and hence this also implies that this was overlooked in the original pesticide registration for glyphosate in Denmark.

2. The Danish 2003 restrictions on glyphosate could be an important precedence for glyphosate use and should be included in any encyclopedic type entry on glyphosate.

Also, there are other reasons why the Danish 2003 glyphosate restrictions deserve to be cited in Wikipedia:

1. The Danish 2003 glyphosate restrictions are frequently cited by glyphosate critics and to maintain NPOV we should cover this issue.

2. There is confusion over the extent of the Danish restrictions, with some critics erroneously using the term "ban" when in fact there is only "restrictions" on glyphosate use in Denmark, and I think Wikipedia has a role to play in clarifying the Danish position from a factual NPOV.

For comparison with another topic, the toxicology of citronella oil is dealt with thoroughly in Wikipedia, and appropriately deals with specific safety issues, and this article on glyphosate also needs to clarify specific issues - like the Danish 2003 restrictions on glyphosate - in a similar way to how the citronella oil articles cover the Canadian governments toxiciological viewpoint on citronella oil.

To this end I will reinstall the removed section on Use Restrictions with original references for verifiability, unless there is sound reason given to not do so. Cheers. John Moss (talk) 03.54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

this monsanto document states "There are no Roundup brand formulations approved in the US or Canada for application over water. In fact all current Roundup brand herbicide product labels specifically prohibit application over water".

It is a bit ambigous if the last sentance means anywhere in the world but I think that is the implication. But you are suggesting that Monsanto got a different regulation up and running in Denmark and then the danes had to change it? Seems unlikely <shrug> Ttguy (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

But ... I may have misinterpreted what the Danish restriction was proposed to be about. It seems it is not aquatic use but autumn spraying of the herbicide is banned “where leaching is extensive because of heavy rain.” I note from the reference that this was put in place 5 years ago and was being challenged. Do we have any updated news on whether this restiction held up. It it currently in place ? Ttguy (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Still further research on this (well actually a simple google on "glyphosate in denmark") pulls up this monsanto document which states that the Danish Environmental Protection agency revoked the earlier propsal for restriction of glyphosate use and issued a ruling in Dec 2004 stating "... the Danish EPA believes that no unacceptable risk of pollution of the groundwater is assocatied with the currently approved agricultural use of glyphosate".

So I think this just about wraps this up. There is no ban or restriction of glyphosate use in Denmark. Ttguy (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I just came across the same 2004 reference on the revoking of the Denmark restrictions. So that's resolved. Cheers. John Moss (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Rationale: Glyphosate and Roundup have largely identical content as of now, and for a good reason. Roundup is merely a trademark (and not the only one) of the herbicide with glyphosate as its only active ingredient. The sections "Chemistry", "Biochemistry", most of "Health, ecological concerns and controversy", "Glyphosate resistance in weeds and microorganisms", "Tradenames", and "Other uses" of the article Roundup, i.e. 95% of the article, should rather belong to the generic article Glyphosate. There is almost nothing specifically pertaining to Roundup in that article. Though we could in principle clean both articles up, eventually they'll become duplicates of each other again. I see absolutely no reason to maintain two very similar articles. Colchicum (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge. No reason to have the articles separate—we don't have a Viagra article in addition to a sildenafil one. Any Roundup-specific content can be specifically noted as such in the article. Besides, as mentioned by the nominator, having separate articles does create the potential for a content fork. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. Roundup IS glyphosate; I regret that I cannot see any nuances more relevant than this. Cosh (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Roundup is glyphosate + other chemicals. This article: [28] documents negative health effects of an adjuvant in Roundup. This article: [29] documents genetic damage caused by Roundup that was found to not be caused by the active ingredient. These studies are highly relevant to the Roundup article, and absolutely do not belong on the Glyphosate article. There are far more of these sorts of studies out there. This is "notable information that is specific to the brand rather than the chemical compound", as Edgar181 mentions below. Cazort (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge There is insufficient notable information that is specific to the brand rather than to the chemical compound to warrant a separate article. A separate "Roundup" section in the glyphosate article should suffice. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge As per above. Chris (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge in this case, for all the reasons given above. We do sometimes have articles on trade names or similar epithets, sometimes even as the main article (the classic example is Aspirin), but don't think that Roundup adds anything to WP which isn't in glyphosate, nor does it seem like to do so in the foreseeable future. The ISO name "glyphosate" is also widely used in technical and semi-technical literature. Physchim62 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge As per above. Ttguy (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Nah, oppose .. not to sure. Glyphosate is the chemical compound, which is now not under a patent anymore. Roundup is the trademark from Monsanto, and has had its controversies. I would say, keep them separate, as there are bound to be other products going to show up which contain Glyphosate as the active compound, which are then going to be connected to Roundup, and I am not sure if that is fair. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • At the very least, discussion on the chemistry and the action of this compound should be centralized at glyophosate. Then, we can then leave Roundup to discuss things like Roundup Ready crops, litigation, etc? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, if there is a separate section for Roundup here, your concerns will seem to have been addressed. Otherwise it is inevitable that the discussion on the chemistry of glyphosate itself will emerge there again. Moreover, we should judge considering the present situation rather than some future prospects, and as of now the articles are largely identical. Colchicum (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would indeed suggest a further split, as Rifleman 82 is suggesting. Minimize Roundup to the commercially available solution etc., and glyphosate to the chemistry of the compound. The section on Roundup inside Glyphosate could get quite big, there is quite something to tell there (even when leaving out the chemistry). I do agree that the articles now seem quite similar, and there is quite some duplicate, and at least something should happen. If that happens on these articles now, or that we first merge, refactor and then take out Roundup again is for me the same. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Expand: Actually, there is not so much double. E.g. the section "Health, ecological concerns and controversy" on Roundup does not get mentioned in so much detail on Glyphosate, and I don't think that it belongs in Glyphosate. The chemistry and biochemistry in Roundup should be minimized, and people should be redirected to Glyphosate there, on Glyphosate the formulations section should be minimized and redirected to Roundup (and other formulations that use glyphosate, if they are there (already)). I keep my oppose vote. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I forgot to add this yesterday, but in the UK there is at the moment a commercial on TV about a weed-killer (I think another brand than Roundup), which kills plants with their roots. That part of the commercial seems very similar to how I understood Roundup worked. We may need some more info on this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Found it: http://www.resolva-weeds.com/ .. "Resolva 24H contains glyphosate & diquat. Always read the label. Use pesticides safely.". Can't find a connection with Roundup .. yet. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So, shall we merge the chemical and glyophosate-specific information to glyophosate, and leave Roundup for the brand name? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, don't merge because the articles are long enough as it is. The Roundup article can reference glyphosate for the chemistry and the glyphosate article can remain succinct for those who don't care about Roundup. Though a comment above says 'Roundup IS glyphosate', it's also true that not all glyphosate is Roundup. There are several generic versions available. Irongs (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge I recently added some material discussing health and environmental effects of ingredients in Roundup other than the main active ingredient. 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. It's also relevant that Monsanto's patent on Glyphosate has expired. Is cleanup needed? Maybe. It is always good to avoid redundancy. But they are already very different articles! Merging them would, in my opinion, greatly confuse a bunch of things. I have been working on the Roundup article and I think it would be very tricky to work on the articles if they were merged. Cazort (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge With the existence of other brands of herbicides, such as the one mentioned above which contains glyphosate and diquat, the Glyphosate article would start to get very unwieldy with discussions of all the different commercial incarnations. Let's keep discussion of these variations, such as Roundup, in their own articles. cojoco (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A simple sentence describing how glyphosate kills please

I know there is a long sentence with big chemical names in it, but I am not a plant physiologist. Would someone please add a simple sentence like: interferes with energy metabolism, or shuts down sythesis of compounds necessary for respiration

to the appropriate section.

How about "Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of the amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan." ?

isn't this simple enough? If you don't know what an amino acid is I guess this might not be simple enough. You could try looking up "amino acid" on one of those new-fangled internet encyclopedia thingos ;-) Ttguy (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Roundup page has a lot of citations on it. If these are useful they should be transferred to whatever new form these articles take. A shame to waste someones good work.

Thanks in advance. Primacag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)