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

[Marc Imlay]

The toxic effects are due to the surfactant. That is why NPS has guided us
to use Roundup-Pro rather than Roundup. 
 
Marc 

  _____  

From: APWG [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of
Lauren Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 3:17 PM
To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [APWG] Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked tohealth
dangers:study


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.plantconserva
tion.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.plantconserva
tion.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/20130508/653640db/attachment.html>