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

[Wayne Tyson]

This list needs more disciplined discourse like this. 

WT
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gena Fleming 
  To: Maze, Dominic ; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ; rferriel at blm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [APWG] Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers:study


  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
   








------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  _______________________________________________
  PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
  APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
  http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org

  Disclaimer
  Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting the message.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3162/5789 - Release Date: 05/01/13
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20130501/7da96125/attachment.html>