Glyphosate (Round Up): Toxic?

R

Reed2179

Location
Colorado\'s foothills
I don't know if any of you guys do weed control or find a use for Glyphosate. I found this to be interesting: http://disinfo.com/2015/03/ecologis...phosate-is-safe-to-drink-refuses-to-drink-it/.

This product is one of the most widely used pesticides in the world. I believe in the TT&O market it is the most widely used. It also is the reason for much of the genetic modifications done to our food: http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html. Now Monsanto is dealing with some push back; Glyphosate has been found to cause cancer: http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-monsantos-glyphosate-herbicide-should-be-banned-does-it-cause-cancer/5439351.

I find this topic and the ensuing discussion interesting. I was curious of other Arborists (granola eating hippie and tree killing, size 15 carbon footprint alike) position on where we are headed as humanity changes nature and feeds our children roundup ready fruit snacks?

As a licensed applicator professionally, and a father/plant nerd/organic gardener/tree hugger personally, I question the use of all pesticides. My family consumes 90% organically grown food, yet professionally my company applies several different pesticides. I think this dichotomy makes my business better. Many clients know my position and concern for my own and their outdoor living space, that provides another level of comfort when a application is recommended by our firm.
 
I think a lot of chemicals get a bad name based on misuse and abuse, i'm not going to argue that a large majority can have nasty effects, that being said the active ingredients are getting better and more targeted every day, round-up is a useful tool but its so easy to abuse it, as for the issue with gene escape and "super weeds" its not inherently caused by the application of round-up its caused by the exclusive use of round-up. In the medical field you wouldn't expect your doctor to prescribe the same medicine over and over again, you would just be creating a massive selection pressure on the target organism. Our lust of perfection goes hand in hand with our use of pesticides and herbicides, it comes down to choices, if its important to have a weed free lawn and blemish free produce in the market, its going to involve a "non- organic" approach in most cases. Just looking at the LD50 alot of the items we use everyday are more toxic then alot of pesticides, aspirin is a great solution to headache but if you take 15 its going to be the last headache you have
 
Treespotter said:
In The Netherlands this product is finally banned for professional use and most big garden center chains have stopped selling to the public.
Click to expand...

The government banned its use by professionals first? Are we not the responsible and educated ones? Seems counterintuitive...

zip215 said:
In the medical field you wouldn't expect your doctor to prescribe the same medicine over and over again, you would just be creating a massive selection pressure on the target organism.
Click to expand...

Hence the antibiotic resistant staph (sp?) infections.
 
Most things 'could' be toxic if you consume enough. There's no true proof that it causes cancer yet we eat foods containing some of the most powerful carcinogens known like aflotoxin in peanut butter.
 
turtile said:
Most things 'could' be toxic if you consume enough. There's no true proof that it causes cancer yet we eat foods containing some of the most powerful carcinogens known like aflotoxin in peanut butter.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true plant health care specialist:baba:. Tell your lazy fucking customers to eat some peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and go pull the weeds .:)
 
pesticide, insecticide, fungicide are all biocides. Bio cide = kills life.
So yes, toxic. But, as observed above, so are things like asprin, or even water, depending on the quantity consumed.
Like right tree righ place, it must be proper product, for proper application, in the proper manner.
 
turtile said:
There's no true proof that it causes cancer yet we eat foods containing some of the most powerful carcinogens known like aflatoxin in peanut butter.
Click to expand...
And, guess what? That's why it is closely tested for by the FDA, especially in peanut butter. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002429.htm
That issue has been known since the 60s whereas Roundup dates to the 70s and the research is still ongoing. Here's an interesting article about another problem with Roundup. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

Natural carcinogens and toxins are the baseline that we need to monitor and avoid. We need to be more vigilant about adding man-made sources.
 
Roundup custom is just glyphosate.

Show me one sound research proving that glyphosate is toxic/cancerous. Oh, and not one backed by the opposite party. The bigger concern should be the use of third party Roundup (patent expired). Who knows what you're actually getting and the government definitely isn't checking. Then again, if the government had proper funding, we'd have better knowledge on the toxicity of many of these products.

Another lesser known fact is that organic food is not pesticide free. Actually, they're covered in pesticides in many cases.
 
turtile said:
Roundup custom is just glyphosate.

Show me one sound research proving that glyphosate is toxic/cancerous. Oh, and not one backed by the opposite party. The bigger concern should be the use of third party Roundup (patent expired). Who knows what you're actually getting and the government definitely isn't checking. Then again, if the government had proper funding, we'd have better knowledge on the toxicity of many of these products.

Another lesser known fact is that organic food is not pesticide free. Actually, they're covered in pesticides in many cases.
Click to expand...
So, the research that's done by the pro-roundup/glyphosate party is sound? What it does boil down to is a he said she said debate. Like much of what we introduce the law of unintended consequences prevails. The expression, "when properly applied" comes up so often that it points to the obvious, we don't apply things properly. It was a running joke in arboriculture classes dealing with pesticides.. Highly dubious measuring of concentrations, methods of applications, compliance to restrictions, etc.... We can't let a few silly rules get in the way of production and profit! I stumbled across this interesting presentation. Some of you, like me can blunder your way through this and get to the conclusions in the slides towards the end. It's a presentation on efficacy of application. http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/ag-professionals/cpm/2007/Messersmith_Glyphosate.pdf

Organics.... ah that elusive concept.... again as a label it's a marketing term. As such it is also a politically spinning term. While the lay consumer takes it at it's dictionary or commonly understood meaning the reality is something else entirely. When applied to products it has a negotiated meaning derived from meetings of vested parties. They come to an agreement on what will be allowable under the term. You could say they figure out how wide the door should be left open.


http://www.gcbl.org/live/home/landscaping/is-there-a-safe-alternative-to-roundup
 
turtile said:
Another lesser known fact is that organic food is not pesticide free. Actually, they're covered in pesticides in many cases.
Click to expand...

In this case the term "pesticide" is not easily understood by most. While many USDA Organic farms do use some variety of control agent to mitigate pests these agents are considerably better on the environment and in turn the animals that consume them. With one caveat: they must be applied at label rate/instruction. These products can be found here: http://www.omri.org/omri-lists
There is a BIG difference between spraying your potatoes with a BT product, a GMO BT potato, and a crop like non organic potatoes that receive 17 courses of insecticide (some systemic) and fungicide over a growing season.
 
Many years ago, I worked for a very large chemical company with an agricultural chemical business.

The larger group that I worked in did diversified & extensive research before a new chemical was commercialized. Briefly, these include:

1. Find a chemical that did something useful (very difficult !)
2. Environmental & industrial hygiene exposure rates.
3. Test efficacy (target species, application rate, frequency, etc)
4. Test the chemical break-down components in the target produce ! ! !
(specimens from test plots all over the world were sent in for the labs to identify the components)
5. Collect & test break-down products in environment associated with the test plots.
6. All of these chemicals were then evaluated by toxicologists ! (tests lasted for years !)
7. Submit all of these results periodically to the US government authorities (and other countries)

Without exaggeration, these steps required 10 to 30 years.

IMO, to think the “big M” does not know how its ag chemicals react, break-down, and the final results on products, animals & humans is not plausible.
Let’s keep it scientific.

Let the flames begin !
 
I had the privilege to work on a pesticide trial in the 1990’s. It was testing Permethrin & Bifenthrin efficacy for mountain pine beetle preventative spraying. I was the applicator. We did several baited trials over a multi year span using differing dilution rates on USDA land/trees. I learned a lot about what it takes to get a product to market and about the patent process as it pertains to chemistry patents. R & D money is only spent when the company has it under patent. For example some studies to determine accumulated toxicity, like a watershed study, are never done because of the time and costs involved.
One very important thing I took away is it isn’t just the active ingredient doing the work. The inert ingredients or carriers in a product are not usually regulated and can be toxic. Many times these are proprietary too, they won’t tell you what they are.
 
All of that is done but at the end of the day, the multitude of environmental variations and control over the application is well outside of the company's control. I don't think that any company hasn't done it's due diligence in testing but that too is a minimum standard and not entirely exhaustive. Once it's out then the ongoing monitoring and evaluation is a needed component of the product's life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom