Oh, and blatant mischaracterizations as well. Forgot that.

Dan

Aaaaccckk! Only 33 32 posts left before this thread spirals into lockdown!

Lloyd

P.S. Does this qualify me as a semi-pro smart a$$ now?

P.S. Does this qualify me as a semi-pro smart a$$ now?
Your T-shirt and membership card are in the mail.

This post is for Mr. Staley: You sent me some very bizarre emails that could be construed as a tad threatening, including one regarding a past residence. I would ask that you refrain from contacting me again. Civil discourse is of course best. If you have an issue with anything I have said or posted...feel free to contact the Garden Forum Webmaster as I have done. Your emails alarm me.

Sunnybunny, I request you give this thread a rest, just back away. You're trying to have the last word and casting aspersions at the same time, which is lowering your credibility.
Any point you were trying to make was done long ago.

Also Sunnybunny, if you checked the box to receive email notifications when anyone replies to your original post, you WILL receive those posts in your email. Dan, me, or anyone else that replies to this thread is not emailing you directly*. Get it?

*Assuming Dan is not sending you other emails that don't appear in this thread.

medcave

Indeed, and that's exactly the case here. I missed that. She checked the box, so everyone's posts show up in her email box. At the bottom of the posts is the following statement, automatic when someone asks to have responses emailed to them. A copy of your follow-up will automatically be emailed to the original poster.

With her manipulations, this entire thread devolved to a discussion with sunnybunny in the dead center long ago, all about her, not a valid or interesting discussion about new research on Roundup. There's a word for people who do that, and they are best ignored in the future.

Speaking of blatant mischaracterizations. A few more unhinged cries for attention and the thread will max out.

Dan

PS: P.S. Does this qualify me as a semi-pro smart a$$ now?

Welcome. You'll get some pinch-hitting assignments and a spot start in the outfield at first, filling in for injury and rest days.

I believe I have been respectful in my postings. I realize the subject of round up and chemical use as well as issues with Master Gardeners are "sacred cow" topics that get people really riled up because it involves how we think about things and our sense of safety and what is right.

Environmental health is a big topic and very complicated but the research presented and the fact that Scientific American Journal reported on it is significant.
My opinion is: there is a health issue especially for children and I think it is important to spread the information. As committed organic gardeners we seek ways to educate people, sometimes it is through personal experience, sometimes an article in a Journal.

If I have made personal statements about myself it is because I have tried to explain why I am an organic gardener and what has led me to the conclusions I come to and why I am committed to environmental health and posted this article asking people to spread the word. I have made personal statements because comments have been directed a me personally. I believe I have responded in a respectful way without sarcasm for the most part. I was very personally shocked to learn about the Bayer company. Let us just say that we no longer will carry ANY of their products. They have a unique marketing strategy to link in consumers minds "Bayer Asprin" (invokes the image of baby asprin right?) and Bayer Chemicals.

Many people start exploring this issue as I said once they have a health concern or begin to see how environmental health, economic issues are linked. Also people asked me directly about my experiences as a volunteer in the Master Gardener program and so I tried to give information as to why I could not participate but that is my personal decision and others choose to do differently. I applaud the people who still are committed to environmental health and are trying to change the MG program.
The Bayer ad speaks for itself.

Medcave Mr. Staley has made hostile comments in public on this thread as well as sent me emails in person that were well, "alarming" when I asked him to clarify his point. I do not know him personally. I am sure he will respect my wishes and not do so again. I believe if this was a moderated site some of the sarcasm could be curtailed it does not serve a thoughtful discussion.

Round has been banned, it's use has been halted, it is controversial and the companies that produce it have been fined for mis-information and it's use is being fought over in courts because people are concerned about their health and that of their children because of the increased rate of birth defects and other problems. These are facts and people need to know about it.

I think it's funny that she never responded to me when I pointed out that organic companies could fund research just the same as compaines like Monsanto are (because she was griping that they fund university research, or something of the sort). So it certainly seems true that she runs away logic.

However, I know she read my post, because she finally started spelling herbicide correctly, after I pointed out that if she was going to bash them, she might want to spell it correctly.

Oh, and I forgot to say:
Sunny, I highly doubt that anyone sent any "alarming" emails directly to you. They just don't seem to care that much; rather, they seem to enjoy poking holes in what you're saying. You've checked the box that sends ALL responses to this thread directly to your email and I think you're getting confused as to what's being sent directly to you and what's being posted as a response. Chill out!

I believe I have been respectful in my postings.

I think you have too. In fact all the flak you have gotten would have broken a lesser person down into flames already. My opinion is: there is a health issue especially for children and I think it is important to spread the information. As committed organic gardeners we seek ways to educate people, sometimes it is through personal experience, sometimes an article in a Journal.

I agree, but in this particular case you pointed to sound research and then drew, well, rather absurd conclusions from it. You also started off painting the MG programs with too broad a brush. I was probably the one who poisoned the well with my sarcasm when I said I would warn all my pregnant friends against injecting Round Up into their wombs. While it was certainly sarcastic, there was also a point. The point is that the way RoundUp is used is not capable of affecting developing babies based on the research you presented. The conclusion that it might was not a valid inference from the research. Round has been banned, it's use has been halted, it is controversial and the companies that produce it have been fined for mis-information and it's use is being fought over in courts because people are concerned about their health and that of their children because of the increased rate of birth defects and other problems. These are facts and people need to know about it.

I agree, but if you go to forums on this or other garden sites I think you will find that many gardeners tend to think of organic growers as nut jobs suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias and lack of critical thinking skills. The unfortunate reality is that this label is often deserved as people refer to Miracle Grow as 'blue death' or insist that synthetic fertilizers are toxic or that things like Round Up are so incredibly dangerous that even when used according to label instructions babies will die.

For those of us who think that organic principles have sound merit and can stand up to rigorous scientific scrutity it's a huge set back when other organic growers spread sensationalized reports from special interest groups who misuse scientific research.

While I don't believe you did this intentionally, you did exactly that by essentially using sound research and drawing unsupportable conclusions from it.

On an internet forum not moderated to support an ideology you pretty much have to expect to be challenged when you do this.

Old, old, old tactic:

when someone points out incomprehension, confused prolixity, misinformation, misdirection and mischaracterizations, call it "alarming" or "hostile".

Whether such tactics are rationally understood and consciously applied on this forum is an exercise best left to the reader.

Dan

The unfortunate reality is that this label is often deserved as people refer to Miracle Grow as 'blue death' or insist that synthetic fertilizers are toxic or that things like Round Up are so incredibly dangerous that even when used according to label instructions babies will die.

For those of us who think that organic principles have sound merit and can stand up to rigorous scientific scrutity it's a huge set back when other organic growers spread sensationalized reports from special interest groups who misuse scientific research.

This post achieved Godwin's Law AGES ago !
Sunny - get a life and stop insulting every Master Gardener in the entire United States .

Could the definition of Staley's Law be posted - please ?

Yes, very well said jag2. That should be the final word in this thread, unfortunately there are 19 posts to go.

...18...

Lloyd...who's getting his very own smart a$$ t-shirt and membership card...HEY...Wait a minute...do I have to pay membership fees?

HEY...Wait a minute...do I have to pay membership fees?

Hmmmm...a real smart a-- would have a snarky comment about clubs and fees, or sending Godwin or the APA the bill...is the card in the mail already?!?

;o)

sunnybunny, thank you for bringing up this subject.

I often wonder whether the chemical companies have people represent themselves as independent individuals but are actually company representatives on the forums. At first I was impressed by some of the answers given by these "independent" people until one of the highly tecnicial answers was for a completely different research paper than the one under discussion. I then learned through private e-mails that the chemical company whose product was being discussed prepared "their spin - position papers" when non favorable research was published. The completly wrong answer was from one of those "position papers concerning an earlier somewhat similar (to the non scientist) research paper" (but not cited as such, instead presented as the posters' own work). I also observed that if the "company spin - position papers" information did not appear to work than often it seemed that an attempt was made by other "names" to disrupt the real meaning of the thread by the use of sarcasm, trying to take the discussion to an extreme position not meritered by the earlier posts, and even overloading the thread with completely unrelated "nothing" posts. This happened so much in the old "newsgroups" that most people left them and went to moderated groups.

There's always room for yet another conspiracy theory.

One can use the same flawed logic found just upthread, and state that making conclusions not supported by the papers presented above, or changing the subject when called on the use of logical fallacy is an indicator of an "independent" plant using "spin" to promote an ideological position.

Jus' sayin'.

Dan

In a post (July 25) in this thread I gave a link to a in vivo study as some posters appeared to be not satisfied with in vitro scientific studies.

For some reason lately even some Google obtained links do not "stick".

The following is from the conclusion section of the full paper:

"In conclusion, according to these data and the literature, G-based herbicides present DNA damages and CMR effects on human cells and in vivo. The direct G action is most probably amplified by vesicles formed by adjuvants or detergent-like substances that allow cell penetration, stability, and probably change its bioavailability and thus metabolism (Benachour and Séralini, 2009). These detergents can also be present in rivers as polluting contaminants. The type of formulation should then be identified precisely in epidemiological studies of G-based herbicides effects (Acquavella et al., 2006). Of course to drive hypotheses on in vivo effects, not only dilution in the body, elimination, metabolism, but also bioaccumulation and time-amplified effects (Benachour et al., 2007b) should be taken into account. These herbicides mixtures also present ED effects on human cells, at doses far below agricultural dilutions and toxic levels on mitochondrial activities and membrane integrity. These doses are around residual authorized levels in transgenic feed, and this paper is the first clear demonstration of these phenomena in human cells. The in vivo ED classification of Gbased herbicides with this molecular basis must be now carefully
assessed."

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

The reference and abstract are:

Published in: Toxicology, Volume 262, Issue 3, 21 August 2009, Pages 184-191.

Title: Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines

Authors: Céline Gasniera, Coralie Dumontb, Nora Benachoura, Emilie Claira, Marie-Christine Chagnonb and Gilles-Eric Séralinia, ,

Authors affiliations: aUniversity of Caen, Institute of Biology, Lab. Biochemistry EA2608, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen cedex, France

bUniversity of Burgundy, Lab. Food Toxicology UMR1129, 1 Esplanade Erasme, 21000 Dijon, France

Abstract: "Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most widely used across the world; they are commercialized in different formulations. Their residues are frequent pollutants in the environment. In addition, these herbicides are spread on most eaten transgenic plants, modified to tolerate high levels of these compounds in their cells. Up to 400 ppm of their residues are accepted in some feed. We exposed human liver HepG2 cells, a well-known model to study xenobiotic toxicity, to four different formulations and to glyphosate, which is usually tested alone in chronic in vivo regulatory studies. We measured cytotoxicity with three assays (Alamar Blue®, MTT, ToxiLight®), plus genotoxicity (comet assay), anti-estrogenic (on ERα, ERβ) and anti-androgenic effects (on AR) using gene reporter tests. We also checked androgen to estrogen conversion by aromatase activity and mRNA. All parameters were disrupted at sub-agricultural doses with all formulations within 24 h. These effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration. First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm. A real cell impact of glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed or in the environment has thus to be considered, and their classifications as carcinogens/mutagens/reprotoxics is discussed."

The Monsanto position papers are called "response" papers. I have not found one yet for the above published paper.

The following is a Google search using the search terms:
Monsanto, Seralini, glyphosate, and response:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Monsanto%20%20Seralini%20%20glyphosate%20response&hl=en&rlz=1R2IRFC_en&sa=G&tbo=1

I found this news report interesting (Outer Cape residents rail against NSTAR herbicide plans.) See:

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2009/08/14/outer-cape-residents-rail-against-nstar?blog=53

The Cape Cod meeting is not a ban, and should not be construed, implied, or assumed to be evidence to support the false assertions of bans. Rich people can afford to resist power line clearance by chemical.

Second, there is a gathering body of evidence that the environmental chemical burden we are imposing on people is harmful. Only the 85% of the population of clueless citizens would think otherwise.

But the hand-fluttering, ululating, and fear-mongering false conclusions that soaking cells in vitro equates to the dangers of our environmental chemical burden does not - as I wrote above - help anything.

If anything, it helps the chemical companies, as they can paint their opponents as nut jobs. There is plenty of evidence of nut-jobbery in this thread. Folks with more than two firing brain cells can help fight the nut-jobbery label by clearly stating that there is a growing literature showing that chronic exposure is harmful (as in so many other chemicals, including dihydrogen monoxide, which has killed so many of us), but typical homeowner exposure has not been shown to cause harm. This RU burden is not the same as, say, DBCP exposure.

Again. There are no plants on this thread, unless one's self-identity is so weak and tenuous that one must paint those who point out logical fallacies and flawed logic as "plants" or "industry shills" or whatever it is that such folk call those who point out weak logic on comment threads.

We are finding out that we are swimming in a soup of chemicals. Everyone should be told this. They should not be told this by hand-fluttering, fear-mongering, or nut-job ululating.

They should be told by rational folk linking to a study and explaining the implications in clear language (not weak vagaries or insinuation). Anyone care to start?

Dan

The following was stated: "The Cape Cod meeting is not a ban, and should not be construed, implied, or assumed to be evidence to support the false assertions of bans. Rich people can afford to resist power line clearance by chemical."

My (H. Kuska) question: why even state that? Please point out why/where you interpreted that such was intended? This is similar to the third post in this thread that stated:

"I guess we all need to warn pregnant women about the dangers of injecting RoundUp into their wombs.
Unfortunately this study didn't examine the effect of replacing breast milk with RoundUp. I wonder if that would be harmful as well? Does anyone know?

Since it is the surfactant in RoundUp causing all the problems for placenta I suppose us organic gardeners should stop using our organic products with surfactants in them as well as any insecticidal soaps since these are also surfactants.

Don't want to go killing any babies with the surfactants/soaps. I would feel really awful if I was out spraying soap on some aphids and a pregnant woman walked by and it somehow got into her womb and damaged the placenta."

I interpret these as attempts to draw the thread away from a serious discussion. Please notice how often in this thread this type of post appeared.

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

What the Cape Cod report told me was that those people did their homework and were aware of the potential dangers of the proposed spraying.

Apparently the Standing Committee of Food Chain and Animal Health of the European Parliament feels that the research of the type discussed here deserves further study:

" ..... the recently published study Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical embryonic and placental cells from Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Seralini, published in the Chemical Research Toxicology, 2009, 22 (pg. 97‑105) by the American Chemical Society. The study has been made available to the experts of Member States by the Commission at the Standing Committee of Food Chain and Animal Health. In addition, the Commission has asked Germany, the rapporteur Member State when glyphosate was approved as active substance by Commission Directive 2001/99/EC(1), to examine it."

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2009-2860&language=EN

Henry,

You quote my sarcasm in regard to the injecting round up into the womb thing. I explained why I was so sarcastic a little bit upthread.

I agree with Dan that I believe chronic, long term exposure to various chemicals is harmful to human health. This is not the same as implying babies will die because someone nukes some patch of lawn with RoundUp.

My own journey to organic started with my moving into a new lot where we built a home and needed a lawn. The lawn didn't do well for a couple years and the weeds invaded massively. I couldn't hand remove them as fast as they reproduced. In the end I hired a lawn care company to fertilize and weed kill. Every time they came out they put signs in our yard stating a 24 hour keep off the lawn policy. We adhered to that. Unfortunately I had a grass eating dog that grazed on the treated grass. She died at the age of 7 from cancer. It was horrific. First one of her eyes popped out of her head. We had it removed. She could barely move she was in so much pain. We put her on drugs. It didn't really help, she simply collapsed one day in what should have been the prime of her life.

I then took the receipts from the lawn care service listing the chemicals used and researched them. Overall they weren't too bad, but one of them when I read the actual studies indicated that monkeys, cats, pigs, rabbits etc. had pretty much no reaction to the product, but with dogs exposure to this chemical had a strong correlation with tumerous cancers.

To say I felt like crap would be a understatement.

I certainly get that the label instructions aren't enough and much of the research is hidden in obscurity instead of made plainly available to the public as it should be.

I believe I lost a loved family member due to this.

I am quite anal and even b1tchy with people who use things without so much as reading the label.

Having said all that, what is your point in this thread? I think we all 'get it'. Still, the homeowner nuking a patch of lawn to put in a garden later isn't putting his/her developing child at risk. There is simply zero evidence to support such an assertion.

So, I ask, what is the point you wish to make?

justaguy2, your post under discussion was the 4 th post in this thread, 2 short ones with links by the thread originator, then a reply without quotes or links by JAYK, then yours, then Dan Staley with a very short post supporting what you said. Unless you and/or Dan Staley can produce quotes from the posts before yours that justify your post, I would classify both yours and his as attempts to set up a straw man ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=setting+up+a+straw+man&btnG=Google+Search&rlz=1R2IRFC_en&aq=f&oq=&aqi= ) .

Scientific American is a very respected publication. I presented evidence to support that they were indeed presenting "New Report about dangers of Round Up" as the thread originator selected for the thread title. I felt that the evidence that I presented was needed to offset the continual use of "straw men".

Your experience with your dog ( "Unfortunately I had a grass eating dog that grazed on the treated grass. She died at the age of 7 from cancer. It was horrific.") appears to be very similar to a posted experience with a dog, lawn, and Round Up which appears in the following thread:
http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/newgard/msg0603574315714.html

Here you go Henry,
In the French study, researchers tested four different Roundup formulations, all containing POEA and glyphosate at concentrations below the recommended lawn and agricultural dose. They also tested POEA and glyphosate separately to determine which caused more damage to embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

Glyphosate, POEA and all four Roundup formulations damaged all three cell types. Umbilical cord cells were especially sensitive to POEA. Glyphosate became more harmful when combined with POEA, and POEA alone was more deadly to cells than glyphosate. The research appears in the January issue of the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology.

By using embryonic and placental cell lines, which multiply and respond to chemicals rapidly, and fresh umbilical cord cells, Seralinis team was able to determine how the chemicals combine to damage cells.

My sarcastic comment about warning pregnant women against injecting Round Up into their wombs was based upon this. The experiment soaked cells in RoundUp and this is not possible in a real world environment.

Henry, anyone with a scroll wheel and two firing brain cells can go upthread and see the proximity of your Cape Cod thing to yet another false assertion of a ban. There. Is. No. Ban. No. Ban. Ban, no. Negative bannage. A certain seemingly unhinged commenter has asserted such in another thread, and continues to try to do so here, which necessitates correction. That is not to say that rich people who can afford it today should not ban.

Your ...interesting...rhetoric containing lots of implied vague stuff seemingly connected to something - like another frequent commenter on this site - doesn't work with me and smacks of strawman, now that you mention it.

Everyone's statements here are clear. Mischaracterizing what folks say for the sake of an ideology (or wishing to deny issues with self-identity) is weak rhetoric. Not weak rhetoric would be providing text along the lines of what I wrote in the last para @ Sat, Aug 15, 09 at 21:57.

As I said, soak some of your liver cells in dihydrogen monoxide and tell us what happens. No one here is defending the environmental chemical burden.

Well, maybe the voices in people's heads are doing so, but these voices in people's heads are not expressing themselves in text on this thread.

Dan

henry_kuska

Don't be so gullible about Scientific American. It once was America's premier science news magazine, publishing only peer-reviewed reports. But that's no longer the case.

It has unfortunately deteriorated into a so-called science magazine that is quite willing to publish opinions that also contain enormous errors and call them "reports". The link below is a primary example for gardeners:

How to Grow a Better Tomato: The Case against Heirloom Tomatoes

The product of archaic breeding strategies, heirloom tomatoes are hardly diverse and are no more "natural" than grocery-store varieties. New studies promise to restore their lost, healthy genes

Once a science organization opens its doors to non peer-reviewed "reports" that are full of errors and opinions, it has lost its integrity, and all of its content is suspect because there's no way to depend on it prima facie claim to excellence.

Just saying. The gullible are everywhere.

anney, please notice that Scientific American provides for reader input which is made available along with the article. i.e. the world is (in a sense) the reviewers for what is published there. In the case of your tomato example there are 83 comments when I checked.

You wanted more reviewed scientific papers - that was a reasonable desire. I provided them. I admire Dr. Seralini's tactic for taking the wind out of the "this is policical" by going to (the first link that I gave) an American Chemical Society journal for a follow up paper. . In addition to the link to the actual paper, I gave the link to the American Chemical Society highlight of that particular paper. I am amazed that a reviewed scientific paper in an American Chemical Society Journal (note the byline "High Quality, High Impact") should be dismissed so lightly by some. I myself have a much, much higher image of the quality of a reviewed ACS scientific publication.
In my mind there is a place for technical reviewed scientific papers and for papers that summarize science for the non specialists. Another source (in addition to Scientific American) that I recommend (and subscribe to) carried essentially the same story:
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/roundup-weed-killer-is-toxic-to-human-cells.-study-intensifies-debate-over-inert-ingredients
----------------------------------------------------
dan stanly, in my graduate courses I often gave the students scientific papers to read and then be prepared to discuss in a later class. Needless to say a professional lifetime of that has given me sufficient experience to recognize the fallicy of your justification that: "Henry, anyone with a scroll wheel and two firing brain cells can go upthread and see the proximity of your Cape Cod thing to yet another false assertion of a ban." There have been many subthreads in this (and most) complex threads. I am sorry that you appear unable to keep the subthreads separate.

anney, please notice that Scientific American provides for reader input which is made available along with the article. i.e. the world is (in a sense) the reviewers for what is published there.

Sorry, but SA cannot make the publishing of reports valid by providing for the world to review them and point out the errors and misinformation. That is the job of scientific peer-reviewers before anything is published, not the readers' job after publication. Readers should be able to glean trustworthy information from their pages, not point out their errors.

They have given up their scientific integrity in several cases. Here's another example. They also have misspellings in their articles and reports, hardly the mark of publishing integrity.

You wrote this earlier: Scientific American is a very respected publication. I presented evidence to support that they were indeed presenting "New Report about dangers of Round Up" as the thread originator selected for the thread title. I felt that the evidence that I presented was needed to offset the continual use of "straw men".

I'm just pointing out that SA is certainly not "a very respected publication" to thousands who are discovering their sloppiness and errors in substance and presentation. It would have been better if you hadn't tried to strengthen your point by praising them -- it accomplished the opposite result and suggests you aren't aware of their errors and sloppiness and maybe the same kinds of problems that others have.

No need to mischaracterize to defend your purportedly coincidental comment, Henry; it is interesting that you choose to do so, though, and esp mischaracterize someone who has repeatedly said they are not defending the chemical and that we must reduce our environmental chemical burden. One wonders why this tactic is repeatedly used. Nonetheless,

BTW, I have an advanced degree as well, and choose not to go into academia to teach as you did. So the fact that you were a professor doesn't intimidate me into thinking your argument from authority means that the proximity of the aforementioned article*, and the fact I mentioned this 'coincidence' means I am automatically wrong simply because you expected your students to remember something at a later date.

Come now. It is clear you didn't teach rhetoric. Tap-dancing, maybe. But not rhetoric.

Dan

*which was not restricted to merely RU but several other chemicals as well, which you surely remember, and certainly could mean the citizens were objecting to the soup or to another chemical such as, say, Garlon. Shall I mention I could use this article as well to support my statements that we need to reduce our environmental chemical burden, or would that be failing to keep track of subtopics?

anney, here is the link to Scientific American's "about us":

http://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=aboutus

You certainly can utilize only reviewed scientific papers. That is your choice. There are many areas of science that have more than one "camp". I feel that only publication after review can lead to suppression of ideas by those in the "in" camp. I feel that Scientific Americans present format is a good compromise between only "approved ideas" being published and the no feedback allowed "special interest" type publications. This is my personal opinion based on what I observed in scientific circles. This is a subject that could be the basis for a different thread in a different forum:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=suppression+of+ideas+in+science&btnG=Google+Search&rlz=1R2IRFC_en&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

--------------------------------------
justaguy2, thank you for pointing out what you based your sarcasm on.

The link below gives the definition of sarcasm:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

You certainly can utilize only reviewed scientific papers. That is your choice.

Not in Scientific American, I can't, though that wasn't the case 35-40 years ago when I first began reading it.

Justaguy-

"I agree, but if you go to forums on this or other garden sites I think you will find that many gardeners tend to think of organic growers as nut jobs suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias and lack of critical thinking skills."

Oh my I might have to change my user name!! Tee Hee

On a serious note I am very sorry to hear about your dog. I dearly love animals and also lost a dog to cancer and that is why now my dogs only eat holistic foods. Like Merrick and Home style Prairie. Boy we are off topic now:)

Dusty

Dan Staley the link was given so that all interested readers could utilize it. I presented it with only the "interesting" description so as not to bias the presentation:

"I found this news report interesting (Outer Cape residents rail against NSTAR herbicide plans.) See: ......"

My students were not given the paper with the expectation that they remember something. They were expected to utilize scientific reasoning - critical thinking. I was the moderator to keep the discussion on the topic and to suggest "have you considered this possible idea?". Often in science there are not clear cut yes or no answers. This is sometimes hard for beginning students to understand, but I consider it a very important part of their development:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=critical+thinking+skills&rlz=1R2IRFC_en&aq=1s&oq=critial+thinking&aqi=g-s5

http://home.roadrunner.com/~kuska/

I am neither a scientist or a researcher, just an observer and a concerned mother. I would not be qualified to judge the merits of a research study except as a novice but I do find it interesting that my common sense, my sanity and my
character in emails have been challenged when all I did was present a link to what is considered a credible journal; I suspect political pressure will cause SA to have other research debating the conclusion in a few more months.

It is still important to present this information and through this thread others have been presented. The researchers can debate ad nauseum frankly, but mothers and potential mothers need to make choices about what they do and what products they use based on the studies which come from the "fact" that women and children seem to be affected. Each of us has a story about why we became organic gardeners. This is what changes the hearts and minds of people and why your story should be heard and is the real point of discussion. The SA Journal article conclusion does not suggest that "one" dose of Round up will kill you but that it persists in food and the environment. I was surprised it was put in this jourmal. How else do people hear about it unless you are in research circles or already part of an environmental group?

I think the word used was "histronic" isn't that close to hysterical? Women and their wombs have always been attacked when they challenge authority with concerns for children. It is a tactic used when the other side does not have good arguments or the issue causes harm to others and people want to avoid that discussion.

Yesterday I had dinner with a friend whose child has severe autism and she has had cancer in her 30's. She was exposed to heavy doses of pesticides and herbicides in the South and is convinced her health issues as well as those of her child are related. These are the type of people I am concerned about as well as protecting the future health of mothers and their unborn children. This is the real issue and I guess one that is too scary for people to discuss. My critical thinking skills are what led me to be an organic gardener and just say "no" to products that we do not need in our home gardens and our homes, in our breast milk and in our children's bodies.

Kids could be exposed to glyophosate in so many products. Every time I eat a pierce of fruit, or other product that contains corn or soy I wonder about it, including the baby formula's. This chemical is so pervasive in our environment via processed foods. I had no idea.
In the home stores the garden product seems to now be mixed with other chemicals as well to "enhance" its abilities and well as its persistence in the environment. So there are two sides of Roundup and roundup like products, one in the environment via home use, and one via our food supply.

I had a conversation with two local farmers on Saturday, at a local farm event; one organic, one not. The first one went organic five years ago and was very glad he had. The other did not and for a variety of reasons is facing bankruptcy. His dear friend who did go organic, urged him to change his methods and now he worries it is too late. The cost to go organic was hundreds of thousands of dollars. (this is what we the consumers need to know about and work to change.)

We can admire both these men very much for their hard work and dedication to what they are doing. They are both good people who want to produce a product and make a living doing it. The non-organic farmer simply did not have the means to change over and even stated he is concerned about the long term use of the chemicals he uses but he is in a rut. Hopefully he will not lose his farm.

So, it is not just the patch of Roundup on your lawn you have to worry about...it is in the food supply as well.

My friend who is not a researcher or Phd either (just a graduate student) looked for answers, and feels totally helpless and responsible for what happened to her child. She is utterly heartbroken but was not aware of what chemical exposures could do. Her child (and she) will be faced with incredible challenges.

I am worried about my child and my chemical exposures and what I passed on to him in my breast milk and via my teeth which were full of mercury fillings while I breast fed.

We are currently self-employed and do not not have medical insurance because we cannot afford the premiums and have a hard time buying organic products because it is so expensive. We simply cannot get sick.

Another friend who is here for the weekend from Southern California is an avid hunter and outdoorsman for meat purposes. He has told me this weekend about stories of how the deer populations in the midwest are sick, and underweight and the hunters believe it is due to ingesting pesticides and herbicides.

He is very careful where he hunts and locates the deer and elk he brings down. Evidently hunters talk about this in their circles.

It is the aggregate of stories of observations of the environment that make these discussions useful as well and informative for newbie organic gardeners.

Sunnybunny, thank you for the Canadian link and relating your experiences.

Here is a March 2004 "real world" farm paper that even has Monsanto as the affiliation of one of the authors:

Title: Glyphosate biomonitoring for farmers and their families: Results from the Farm Family Exposure Study.
Authors: Acquavella, John F.; Alexander, Bruce H.; Mandel, Jack S.; Gustin, Christophe; Baker, Beth; Chapman, Pamela; Bleeke, Marian

Authors affiliation: Epidemiology, Monsanto Company, 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., Mail Stop A2NE, Saint Louis, MO, 63167, USA.
Published in: Environmental Health Perspectives, volumn 112, pages 321-326, (March 2004).
Abstract: "Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup agricultural herbicides and other herbicide formulations that are widely used for agricultural, forestry, and residential weed control. As part of the Farm Family Exposure Study, we evaluated urinary glyphosate concentrations for 48 farmers, their spouses, and their 79 children (4-18 years of age). We evaluated 24-hr composite urine samples for each family member the day before, the day of, and for 3 days after a glyphosate application. Sixty percent of farmers had detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine on the day of application. The geometric mean (GM) concentration was 3 ppb, the maximum value was 233 ppb, and the highest estimated systemic dose was 0.004 mg/kg. Farmers who did not use robber gloves had higher GM urinary concentrations than did other farmers (10 ppb vs. 2.0 ppb). For spouses, 4% had detectable levels in their urine on the day of application. Their maximum value was 3 ppb. For children, 12% had detectable glyphosate in their urine on the day of application, with a maximum concentration of 29 ppb. All but one of the children with detectable concentrations had helped with the application or were present during herbicide mixing, loading, or application. None of the systemic doses estimated in this study approached the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reference dose for glyphosate of 2 mg/kg/day. Nonetheless, it is advisable to minimize exposure to pesticides, and this study did identify specific practices that could be modified to reduce the potential for exposure."
----------------------------------
Notice the higher amounts when rubber gloves were not used. What do rubber gloves prevent? Skin penetration.
----------------------------------
Google Scholar reports that 47 papers have cited this paper.
------------------------------
This is a link to the journal's credentials: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/admin/about.

Henry, I read that study and the findings and it suggests that the manner of application if done improperly leads to problems due to the fact that the product penetrates the skin. Let us say for the sake of argument you do everything "correctly" and apply without skin penetration, what about the residues and product that do not break down or wash off the the veggie or the corn or soy? I understand from what I read that round up resistant GMO's were developed to allow farmers to use even more of the glyophosate so it follows that if it persists in the soil and environment and on the vegatative material in greater amounts.

Okay, so now in the GMO situation they use even more of it...the studies I have read that come from different sources seems to suggest that glyophosate does not break down in soil as believed and if it is turning up in breast milk doesn't that mean we are digesting it? and that it is persistant in the environment? I am not singling out any of the particular ingredients but it may just be what is in the formulation.

(I have a link from an Autism site regarding the persistance of pesticides and herbicides in humans, breast milk and umbilical cords etc... one of these studies listed my neighbor's mother in Seattle was involved with in San Francisco due to the prevalence of breast cancer in the area. - her mom died and they linked the levels of breast cancer to mercury from fish, and pesticides.)

Wouldn't this support what the French research suggests? It is not just the application but the actual ingestion via skin penetration or the food?

My friend whose child has autism says that there are so many controversies regarding this issue it is hard to single out one single cause except that it appears to be an environmental related issue and possibly a gene connection where some individuals are more sensitive to pesticides and how they penetrate cells. Unfortunately it is too late for her child.

For the most part I have not seen most people use gloves to use pesticides, in the cases in Argentina it was "arial spraying, and "combinations" of deadly pesticides with the glyphosate where the birth defects and cancer were turning up.

I poisoned myself in my 20's when I did not use gloves, and did not understand the significance of the label and the warnings. Most people are not educated about these labels, in fact I was told that "round up was perfectly safe" by the garden center that sold it to me.

It is all so disturbing. I am going to interview the organic farmer I met and ask him about his process. He was very clear that he went organic because "it was the right thing to do, and teased his friend, the other farmer about not being a moral person...in jest...Farmers, especially small family farms live in a different world than the home, or urban gardener.

If we the consumers are misled it is easy to see how farmers would be misled as well.

If we the consumers are misled it is easy to see how farmers would be misled as well.

The information Henry presented didn't examine the general public, but farming families who applied the product. It even states that all but one of the children were in the field assisting. It also stated that nobody had levels even approaching the amount the EPA established as a threshold.

The label instructions have safety instructions to avoid inhalation or skin contact and even have emergency procedures to follow in the event of exposure. I am pretty sure the label doesn't say 'feel free to hose down your fields with your children present in shorts and tank tops'.

I am not defending RoundUP and certainly not Monsanto, I am pointing out that you appear to, once again, be drawing conclusions from research that the research cited does not support.

Sunnybunny, I agree with your pointed out concerns. I feel that the Precautionary Principle should have been applied.
The following links may help indicate how serious the problem is:

http://www.ocfp.on.ca/local/files/Communications/Current%20Issues/Pesticides/Summary%20of%20Remarks.pdf

http://www.ocfp.on.ca/local/files/Communications/Current%20Issues/Pesticides/News%20Release.pdf

http://www.ocfp.on.ca/English/OCFP/Communications/CurrentIssues/Pesticides/default.asp?s=1

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

When you talk to your farmer friends, you may want to point out the following 2006 paper in a reviewed scientific journal:

http://stopogm.net/files/RGTNTPVR.PDF

I am pointing out that you appear to, once again, be drawing conclusions from research that the research cited does not support.

Note the distraction and hand-waving after you wrote this, jag. This handwaving is sometimes hard for beginning folks to understand, and I consider it a very important part of their development to know that people with a cause often do this; it appears throughout the thread.

Dan

Henry and Justaguy:

I am not drawing any conclusions, I am asking questions. I asked...what if you did every thing "right" with application? Why does glyophosate show up in breast milk along with other pesticides, why is it showing up in cord blood? I read the research about what is going on in other countries and it appears it is being "mixed" with other very toxic chemicals and currently there are formulations that have other chemicals in them. My point is...if it is detectable in the food, the water, the cord blood the breast milk, of people in different locations and studies doesn't this mean it persists in the environment, which includes our food and then our bodies?
Perhaps the first step to safety for non organic farms would be application and use being evaluated and monitored in a more meaningful way and how do you do that in a foreign country where there are less not more environmental controls? Moreover, why wouldn't the pesticide companies that produce this stuff want safety?
Unless they know they can get away with doing whatever the hell they want because no one questions what they sell or their practices?

I think farmers like most people when they get "used" to being around something get cavalier about safety. (I own a small business and we have safety meetings every week to remind and educate our employees) This is the same when people go to box stores and buy the chemicals off the shelf.

I was told "emphatically" that "Round up is safe" by a garden center...that it breaks down in soil...if this is not true and it persists, wouldn't that mean it persists in our food? And this is where the most of it is going to be?

However, this is my question, if it persists, and due to GMO's more of it is used...isn't this why it is showing up in breast milk and cord blood? and possibly affecting our reproductive health and endocrine systems?

Monsanto according to several sources I read was fined and forced to change their ads regarding "breaking down in soil." This was found to be inaccurate and misleading.

The original "marketing" of Round up is still around..."that it is perfectly safe and breaks down in soil." This is exactly what I was told and believed until I started doing research. All you have to do is go to box stores and ask people what they know and think about Round up.

So that again begs another question...if it is not safe for the farmer, how can it be safe for us?

I am interviewing the farmers I met because I want to hear their stories and why they make the choices they do.

The article in Scientific American I believe was printed because people have a "concern" not just for home gardening use of chemicals but for what is going on in the food supply.

I mean how can you not be concerned about the millions and millions of pounds being put in the food supply?

I mean how can you not be concerned about the millions and millions of pounds being put in the food supply?

I am concerned. I think Monsanto is a corporation with some incredibly horrific business practices. I think their corporate ethics are shameful.

What I said above was that you were reaching conclusions not supported by the evidence presented. You stated that farmers and consumers were being deceived, but the evidence you cited did not reach that conclusion.

You were apparently deceived by a retail store employee who likely didn't know what s/he was talking about. It is generally true that it breaks down rapidly in the environment, but there are exceptions. It is generally true that it doesn't affect other plants as it doesn't move in the soil, but there are exceptions.

I share the concerns of many that the labeling laws don't go far enough particularly in what can be legally hidden under 'inert ingredients'.

However, when it comes to educating people I strongly believe we must never make statements that are not supported by the evidence we are citing. Doing so simply conditions people to ignore the ranting and raving of 'organic lunatics'.

If you wish to make a compelling case, then use sound research and make only those statements which can be logically and reasonably inferred from it.

In most cases if you examine the studies that find Glyphosate in water supplies you will see it's water adjacent to a recently sprayed field. In one country several years back there was an alarming study about finding it in the ground water supplies. When one actually read the study it was clear it was seriously overapplied on ground with a very high water table complete with soil cracks going right down to the water table.

This kind of information doesn't point to anyone being deceived by Monsanto, it points to what I would consider criminal misuse of a product by careless farmers. The deception in this case wasn't from Monsanto, it was from the special interest groups who drew alarming and false conclusions from the research and presented it to the already converted who believed the interpretation without any independent research of the source cited and then made fools of themselves spreading it all over the internet. I don't think chemical companies need to do much in the way of spreading misinformation when they have an army of zealots who have turned the general public off to their dire warnings by repeatedly presenting 'facts' not supported by the research cited.

In terms of the study done on farming families, what nut of a farmer puts his kids in a field being sprayed with toxic material at all, let alone without the protective gear anyone with an ounce of sense would use?

They weren't deceived, they are simply examples of how evolution has a long way to go in weeding out some real morons.

I am not surprised that this statement was brought up for further discussion: "It also stated that nobody had levels even approaching the amount the EPA established as a threshold."
---------------------------------
Of course the authors, editor, and reviewers felt that the following should be added: "Nonetheless, it is advisable to minimize exposure to pesticides, and this study did identify specific practices that could be modified to reduce the potential for exposure."

Why did they add that statement? I feel that they recognized that the amount the EPA determined was based on the EPA's interpretation of information available at that time. I would like to emphasize "interpretation" and "at that time".

The initial scientific papers in this thread strongly suggest (to me) that those numbers have to be reevaluated.

My personal guideline is: If I choose not to use the Precautionary Principle especially when red flags are raised then I are choosing to be part of the long term database.

-------------------------------
As a side note, the statement: " I am pretty sure the label doesn't say 'feel free to hose down your fields with your children present in shorts and tank tops'." Notice the addition of "shorts and tank tops" to what the actual statement in the paper reports".

I stated that this was a "real world" report. The ideal is nice but laws have to also take into account the "real world" experience.

Justaguy, I am glad you are stating your opinion in a civil conversation rather than sarcastic answers. Your answers and concerns make sense to me and I agree with many of them. I would probably put garden chemicals behind a counter like they do with some drugs and so when people came to purchase them they had to really talk to someone who could tell them the ramifications of improper use, and continual exposure as well as the fact that these chemicals are in our food supply. I think most people would choose not to use them.

I am not going to blast the family farmers. They are just like the people, including me who go to box stores and buy the stuff and with farmers it is even tougher because their livelihood depends on what they do. The local non-organic farmer I spoke to on Saturday is a good man, he works his butt off and is trying to save his farm and livelihood. He "regrets" not going organic as his friend did 5 years ago but the cost is astronomical and now he states there is no way he could change without help. It is hard for consumers to understand how complex these issues are with farms and why it is useful to research and discuss.

I think you need to visit family farms to see how they work. I would be terrified to go overseas where people are not very educated and feel forced to use the chemicals.
I stated a friend of mine was in Africa and saw the pressure put on farmers...it is horrific and very wrong.
Food produced in Africa ends up in Europe and not as much in the USA from what I can see but if you read the news reports about South and Central America it is not much better.

Regarding persistence in the environment...so again...I ask you if it breaks down so quickly...why is it showing up in breast milk, cord blood and other places? There are too many studies all over the world that dispute this and the fact that if we cannot control the source of where this comes from, the only thing we can do as consumers
is to demand accountability and responsibility.

It is not going to happen without INCREDIBLE consumer pressure.

It never does.

I hardly think a mother whose child has autism is a zealot, or the woman who is trying to save herself from breast cancer...

Or the mother whose child has birth defects...

Monsanto will not change its practices without consumer, political and legal pressure.

I believe the Scientific American Journal Article stated the case against Round up pretty well, now that I have read and researched so much in fact I think they could have said much more.

My personal guideline is: If I choose not to use the Precautionary Principle especially when red flags are raised then I are choosing to be part of the long term database.

I agree 100% As a side note, the statement: " I am pretty sure the label doesn't say 'feel free to hose down your fields with your children present in shorts and tank tops'." Notice the addition of "shorts and tank tops" to what the actual statement in the paper reports".

It's called hyperbole. It is an exaggeration intended to emphasis a point. Here is a link to the definition of hyperbole you may find useful. I stated that this was a "real world" report. The ideal is nice but laws have to also take into account the "real world" experience.

I agree 100%. My posts on the various garden web forums over the years are a public record of positions I have/do hold. I have written a short paper providing reasons to *not* use Sevin. I have pointed out that common fungicides such as chlorothalonil contain other substances not listed on the label due to inadequate labeling laws such as hexachlorobenzene, which is banned for use just about everywhere including in the US. I have even stated my opinion that it should be illegal for anyone to purchase any *icide unless they take a short course after which they can correctly answer basic questions about the product including it's toxicity and what the label requires for 'safe' application and use.

What I have done in this thread is attempt to point out when conclusions are being reached that are not supported by the evidence cited. It is my belief that this important if those of us who try to steer folks away from certain products and practices wish to be deemed credible.

justaguy2, your statement about water contamination included "in most cases". i.e. you are implying that there are other cases.

This is one: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w1461w60366lk018/

Of importance is that when studies in the real world are done, it is found in the water.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V74-4WDFC6T-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=983876439&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9cf7e7d0d0972093c181b8f293bd0b03