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

[Lauren Smith]

In addition to the sources that Gena sent, you might all be interested in
Rick Relyea's work on non-target effects of Roundup on amphibians.
http://www.pitt.edu/~relyea/Site/Welcome.html  The Roundup tab has
information about one particular study, but he has other interesting work
in his publication list on how sublethal levels of herbicides can alter
interactions amongst predators and prey or competitors.



On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Gena Fleming <genafleming at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, this is quite a conundrum, isn't it?  I guess we'll never know for
> sure, but it's an interesting puzzle.   The following may or may not be
> deemed relevant to the discussion.
>
> This correspondence by Michael Surgan is a good (and brief) discussion of
> the problems posed by the presence of "inert" ingredients in pesticide
> formulations:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1281320/#b1-ehp0113-a0657c
>
> In his reference section, he cites but does not provide a link to the New
> York lawsuit filed against Monsanto, so I will provide it here:
> http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/fraud.pdf
>
> Note that a similar lawsuit against Monsanto's false claim of Roundup
> being nontoxic and biodegradable was also successfully pursued in France.
>
> The article Surgan references by Richard et al. that explores the toxicity
> of some of the adjuvants in Roundup formulations is a worthwhile read; the
> abstract doesn't take too much time:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/
>
> Surgan's link to the EPA Reregistration Eligibility Document on Glyphosate
> doesn't work.  Here's an EPA fact sheet for that document:
> http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf<http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf>
> ... with the relevant excerpt being (and bold emphasis is mine):
> *
> *
>
> *Due to the presence of a toxic inert ingredient, some glyphosate end-use
> products must be labeled, "Toxic to fish," if they may be applied directly
> to aquatic environments.*
> * *
>
> *
> *The fact that the EPA feels comfortable using terms such as "toxic inert
> ingredient" is enough to keep my head in a spin.
>
> best regards,
>
> Gena Fleming**
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Wayne Tyson <landrest at cox.net> wrote:
>
>> **
>> A *possibility,* sure, but not a *probability. *Certainly the "soils"
>> were disturbed; they were cut slopes, creating ideal conditions for
>> colonization by weedy plants. Yes, the "invasives" could have altered soil
>> properties (one of the ways is soil-building), and in fact, it could have
>> been the dead invasives that harbored the residues that killed the emerging
>> native seedlings.
>>
>> Conjecture can be useful, but  useless in the absence of a stated
>> theoretical foundation or actual evidence. What is needed is good science
>> that can confirm or reject the conjectures.
>>
>> WT
>>
>> ----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
Lauren Smith
PhD Candidate
Reynolds Lab
Department of Biology, Indiana University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20130507/4dd35cae/attachment.html>