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

Tue May 28 20:50:30 CDT 2013

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 <smith659 at indiana.edu>
> *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<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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20130528/754288eb/attachment.html>