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

Sun May 5 22:51:33 CDT 2013

Probably what the contractor had in the tank before s/he sprayed your plots with glyphosate?
Regards,
Bill

From: APWG [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013 10:11 a.m.
To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [APWG] Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers: study

All:

I had a case about fifteen years ago where a contractor sprayed a part of the (ecosystem restoration) project that was particularly weedy with a glyphosate compound against my expressed orders to spray nothing. The idea was to germinate the seeds, then kill the plants before they set seed.

The weeds were killed, and after the period specified by the manufacturer had passed, the area was seeded with indigenous species. The indigenous species germinated everywhere but where the contractor had sprayed, but we got only more weeds in that area.

The manufacturer's representative went into denial; I got no help from them except to repeat the claim that the herbicide "biodegraded" into harmless components.

Can anyone shed light on this?

WT
----- Original Message -----
From: Maze, Dominic<mailto:Dominic.Maze at portlandoregon.gov>
To: Gena Fleming<mailto:genafleming at gmail.com> ; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:apwg at lists.plantconservation.org> ; rferriel at blm.org<mailto:rferriel at blm.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [APWG] Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers: study

Some excellent points, Gena,
   I'll try, with limited time, to address a bit of your thoughtful comments:

   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."

   I am unsure of how you received this "implied" from what I wrote (then again, I'm not the best at expressing my thoughts); but I'll bite and attempt to defend a point I wasn't really making. I think what I (and some others) have tried to point out that glyphosate HAS been studied; seemingly to death.  These previous studies; direct, toxicological studies (in marked contrast to this admittedly indirect study); have examined the effects of glyphosate at many concentrations and dosages ("the dose makes the poison").  I strongly disagree with your second sentence in the above paragraph and whole-heartedly agree with the third.

   GF: 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.

   I again agree, but the paper we're discussing is citing research examining the effects of not Roundup, or Aquamaster, or product X, but the chemical glyphosate.

    GF: "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."

     Fair points for the most part; however, I'm not sure how much consideration the article does deserve.  As organic chemist Derek Lowe has stated so much better than I: Their thesis is that the compound is an inhibitor of the metabolizing CYP enzymes, of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, and of sulfate transport. But the evidence given for these assertions, and their connection with disease, while it might look alarming and convincing to someone who has never done research or read a scientific paper, is a spiderweb of "might", "could", "is possibly", "associated with", and so on. The minute you look at the actual evidence, things disappear.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/04/30/is_glyphosate_poisoning_everyone.php

    He then, after providing more critiques, goes on to disparage the actual journal the article appears in and others have taken issue with the authors, themselves; not really adding to the discussion, in my opinion.

I shouldn't have to say it but I personally dislike the rampant use of herbicides in our society.  I employ them, reluctantly, as part of my job duties and I've seen some others resorting to them as a first resort, instead of last, in contradiction of most accepted IPM practices.  There are plenty of reasons to limit the use of herbicides in society: weed resistance, non-target effects, the resources required in manufacture/transport, animal testing, actual toxic effects of some formulations, etc.  But this poorly written and conceived "study" smacks of fear-mongering with an agenda.  The blowback from those established authors in the fields of organic chemistry and toxicology has begun, and surely won't assist those looking for an overall decrease in the use of herbicides.

Best wishes,

Dominic Maze | Invasive Species Coordinator/Biologist
City of Portland Environmental Services
1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 1000
Portland, Oregon 97204
p:  (503) 823-4899
f:   (503) 823-5344
dominic.maze at portlandoregon.gov<mailto:dominic.maze at portlandoregon.gov>
            www.portlandonline.com/bes/invasives<http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=45696>
________________________________
From: Gena Fleming [mailto:genafleming at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:26 PM
To: Maze, Dominic; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>; rferriel at blm.org<mailto:rferriel at blm.org>
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<mailto: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<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3162/5793 - Release Date: 05/03/13
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20130506/b4fe4ce7/attachment.html>