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

Tue May 28 21:42:42 CDT 2013

Lauren and y'all:

Standard smoke and mirrors. Read "Bad Pharma." 

WT
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lauren Smith 
  To: Wayne Tyson 
  Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [APWG] Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked tohealth dangers:study

  Wayne and all,

  This is an excellent point.  When the author I mentioned (Rick Relyea) gave a talk at my university, he explained that standard toxicology tests generally run for five days (one work week) with animals under near-ideal conditions.  Running tests a little bit longer, or adding stressors or other interacting factors, could show "sublethal" levels of certain compounds to in fact be "lethal."  Another noteworthy point he made was that the cited half-life of compounds on labels apply to a particular set of conditions, so if herbicides are applied under extreme temperatures or otherwise different conditions, they may remain active in the environment longer than expected.  

  On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Wayne Tyson <landrest at cox.net> wrote:

    Lauren and all:

    "Sublethal" is a dangerous word. What is sublethal? What does it mean? Does it mean that the organisms affected die immediately, in a few hours or days, or, say, 80 years later? That'll be five years for me. That'll be 80 years for your newborn. 

    It is not necessary or desirable to kill all (or 99 percent of) weeds on any restoration project, but a good one will certainly cut their populations down significantly over the period of a few years as the restored vegetation becomes more and more mature. Healthy ecosystems resist invasions and work against weeds, and indigenous plants and other organisms keep them in check. 

    WT
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Lauren Smith 
      To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 
      Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:17 PM
      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 
        ... 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 

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

      _______________________________________________
      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: 3162/5807 - Release Date: 05/07/13

  -- 
  Lauren Smith
  PhD Candidate
  Reynolds Lab
  Department of Biology, Indiana University 

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

  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3184/5864 - Release Date: 05/28/13
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20130528/81b3ffea/attachment.html>