[APWG] Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers: study

[Gena Fleming]

This is a interesting article and I appreciate learning about it here on
APWG.  I was confused by the comments at first, thinking it was posted on
an environmental health listserve I subscribe to.   My comments below.

Dominic Maze wrote:

>  The fact that this paper identifies a whole range of medical issues
> linked to (presumably) one active ingredient makes me suspicious; it would
> seem to be much more realistic that a study on the potential ill-effects of
> an already rigorously studied, very well-known and contentious chemical and
> product, would turn up perhaps a single significant linkage between
> ill-health and glyphosate.
>
>
>
GF:  I see this idea implied a lot, that limiting the variable should
somehow limit the effects.  I'm not aware of any actual support of that in
reality.  Glyphosate or any other single chemical compound may not be
complex, but when they interact with biological systems, the effects can
become quite diversified and complex.  This is a function of the complexity
of biological systems, not the complexity of the chemical compound.

That being said, glyphosate is used in formulations, not in isolation.
There is a lack of data for the formulations, because manufacturers are not
required to disclose "inactive ingredients".  It is, however, well
recognized that adjuvants can and do increase the toxicity and
persistence of pesticide formulations, and this is the reason that they are
there in the first place.  This, along with other factors, contributes to a
contextual bias that makes it difficult to assess the full toxicity of
pesticide formulations.


DM:  A colleague sent this link to a Huffington Post article (not exactly
known for being journalistic shills for big business) which makes a nice
rebuttal:

>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/condemning-monsanto-with-_b_3162694.html
>
>
>
> I guess the real question is how does such a poorly executed study and
> paper get published in a well-respected, even if not impactful, journal?
>
>
>
GF:  Marc, I'm not sure what it is about Tamar Haspel's opinion piece that
you consider to be a nice rebuttal.  She explains that she googles
"exogenous semiotic entropy", retrieves that exact sequence of words only
in this article, and concludes the authors made the whole thing up.  (???)

I agree with you that there is no reason to suspect the writer is a shill
for big business, just a person with an opinion, which she is entitled to.
However, I do not find her analysis of this article to be particularly
insightful.

Here is a link to the referenced article in Entropy:

 http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

It is interesting to note that the article appeared in a special edition of
Entropy called "Biosemiotic Entropy:  Disorder, Disease and Mortality".
Biosemiosis introduces a significant paradigm shift in our perception of
biologic function.   This perspective may not embraced by all, but I
consider it a noble attempt to address the complexity of biological
systems.   In any event, I believe the article deserves more
thoughtful consideration than that offered by Tamar Haspel in the
Huffington Post.

 best regards,

Gena Fleming


>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20130430/ea4089de/attachment.html>