Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

For what it is worth

…having had an otherwise busy December and early January, I am only now arriving at this long ongoing discussions after being directed to it by a colleague. I would note for the record that I strongly agree with the stated opinion that a consensus of well-regarded secondary sources should determine the content here, with discussion of editors shaping what we conclude (based on those sources) to be the preponderance of scientific opinion on each point. If the literature does not present a consensus in its secondary sources that we can agree on, then we can present brief parallel presentations of each position with substantial published support. In general, primary sources should only appear (in my view) as added information, and only in the context of the secondary source that cites and discusses it. I am a hard-liner on this, and I know there are good science articles that step outside these constraints, but this is what I support, here and in general. I would close by noting that among those supporting the "rely on secondary sources" editorial point of view here are actual subject matter experts, individuals with doctoral level training and beyond in fields relevant to this article. If those knowing this field as well as that can accept the constraint of only reflecting opinions taken from experts as stated in secondary sources, then all editors should be able to (IMHO). Cheers. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's entirely reasonable., As the RfC closer noted, WP:ONUS applies, too: There needs to be a consensus to include something from primary sources, (even properly quoted and attributed, and balanced against contrary views per WP:PSTS and WP:UNDUE) and that consensus is hard to achieve, especially at science articles. Much of the above heat-without-light is clearly the result of territorial chest-beating. MEDRS only applies to medical information, not all content in a chemistry article that is within the scope of both the chemistry and medicine (among other) projects. MEDRS is a valuable guideline, but remains a guideline not a policy, and at some point there's going to be yet another ArbCom case restraining wikiprojects from page and entire-topic ownership behavior, with WikiProject Medicine in the center of it, if this sort of "turfwar" behavior doesn't stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

FAQ Test: Basic questions this article should easily answer

Our goal is to write comprehensive, unbiased articles, in plain English, intended for general readers of all ages. With this broad target in mind, we can propose the most basic questions likely to be asked for this subject, and then, see if the article answers them, and how easily. Evaluation is based on simple usability testing which anyone can perform: pick a question, go to the article, and see how quickly you can find the answer, noting what steps you took. Questions rely on our common sense, and are also based on glyphosate FAQs from various sources.

NOTE: The questions are not intended to be literally included in the article, they are only for evaluating the article—don't be concerned with precise wording, unless a question is not clear to you. --Tsavage (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• What is the toxicity to various animal groups? Already a "Toxicity" seciton, and not really a basic question in this form, see "Is it toxic to animals?" as basic summary question, below. --Tsavage (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Which plant species have become resistant? Already a "Resistance" section - a basic related question: see "Are plants that have developed resistance - so-called superweeds - a significant problem?" below. --Tsavage (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This and the first point are already amply covered - evidently I should have been clearer that I think that these are over-emphasised in relation to the other areas the article should cover. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Animals: It should be possible to summarize a lot of the Toxicity section, as a significant amount of it is quite highly technical and will impart zero practical information to the general reader. Summarizing this will be no doubt be...polarizing, but need not be if we can pose a couple of basic questions first - I will try.

Resistance: "Efects of use" section seems a little unfocused, starting with the heading itself. A good rule is that every heading should have a brief lead, and not be used as a bare umbrella for subsections, so, what is "Effects of use" about? The Resistance section seems more of a list, without summary. After the first three sentences, it is all a bunch of facts that become a blur without a framework. Needs a unifying question... --Tsavage (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)More generally though, here are some sources which review resistance to glyphosate (not cited here, highly cited elsewhere). SmartSE (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • _{Powles, Stephen B.; Yu, Qin (2010). "Evolution in Action: Plants Resistant to Herbicides". Annual Review of Plant Biology. 61 (1): 317–347. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112119. ISSN 1543-5008.}
  • _{Shaner, Dale L; Lindenmeyer, Richard Bradley; Ostlie, Michael H (2012). "What have the mechanisms of resistance to glyphosate taught us?". Pest Management Science. 68 (1): 3–9. doi:10.1002/ps.2261. ISSN 1526-498X.}
• Are plants that have developed resistance - so-called superweeds - a significant problem?

• Minimum pass. Quite easy to find the sentence in the lead referring to resistance as a "costly problem," then ToC and jump to "Resistance" section. There, the costly aspect isn't addressed directly, but all of the stats - affected area and number of species, countries around the world - indicated that it seems a pretty big deal. The jumping between countries seemed a little random, no clear world picture emerged. An introductory paragraph, summarizing the stats and the geographical distribution, is needed. --Tsavage (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is it toxic to animals?

• If the article can't answer this quite completely, quickly and easily, it is failing to address our target general reader. --Tsavage (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This one's not so basic as this discusses (linked below. Basically no (historically), probably is (IARC), unlikely to be (EFSA). SmartSE (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine (summary) answer to me! Why not write it up, that can't hurt. If it flies, it can be the lead to...somewhere, the current Toxicity, I guess. There's of course a not so fine line between cautiously saying nothing, and expressing a blunt and supported, "We're not sure, there are opposing views." And it will frame the whole contentious section. Be bold! :) --Tsavage (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• What is the process that explains the two schematics of synthesis?
  • _{John E. Franz; Michael K. Mao; James A. Sikorski (1997). Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. American Chemical Society. ISBN 978-0-8412-3458-1.}
  • This source looks like it should be able to answer this any provide a great deal of other information currently lacking. It's a 650 page book written by the discoverer of glyphosate in 1997 and cited hundreds of times. We don't currently cite it at all and unfortunately AFAICT it's only available in paper form. SmartSE (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• How much is produced and where is it produced?
• How has use changed over time?
• What are the advantages of it over other herbicides?
• When did it go on sale? Answered in first para of lead (easy to find), and in "Monsanto" subsection (although it should probably appear in a glyphosate section, not a specifically Monsanto section)."
• When did Monsanto's patent expire? Answered in first para of lead, and in Monsanto subsection. However, this is for US only (I believe), and has no context, see also: "Commercial history," "worldwide rights."

Discussion: Monsanto patent expiry

Yes, but without any citation. This says the rights for gly expired in 1991 but they had other rights on the formulation until 2000. This may not be RS but says the second patent was on the isopropylamine salt. SmartSE (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC) The first source appears reliable for a more accurate explanation. (Monsanto contradicts, or confuses with oversimplification, with: "Monsanto discovered and patented the original molecule for glyphosate in 1969 and held the U.S. patent until 2000."[2] --Tsavage (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: I think the mention in the lead, "Monsanto's last commercially relevant United States patent expired in 2000" is accurate and sufficient for the US, for general information (and until more definitive detailed info is available). According to Monasnto: "Monsanto discovered and patented the original molecule for glyphosate in 1969 and held the U.S. patent until 2000." [3] Another source says: "A great change came about, when the original patent protection expired in many parts of the world outside the United States in 1991. As a result, an almost immediate price decline occurred (by 30% in one year, 40% in two years and about 50% in two decades (Cox, 1998). Upon the expiration of the patent protection also in the United States in 2000, sales of generic preparations intensively expanded (main international producers include Dow, Syngenta, NuFarm, etc.), but the leading preparation producer re mained Monsanto (Duke & Powles, 2008)." [4] So whether they had separate patents on the glyphosate molecule, and the isopropylamine salt formulation, as far as products, the latter patent protected Roundup, while other companies worked on other salts once the molecule patent ended (as I understand it). Whatever the case, if there is no objection to the last (Intech) source, I (or someone) could add a basic menton of the 1991 elsewhere in the world expiry stuff, to cover beyond the US. --Tsavage (talk)

• Did Monsanto ever have worldwide rights?

"A great change came about, when the original patent protection expired in many parts of the world outside the United States in 1991. As a result, an almost immediate price decline occurred (by 30% in one year, 40% in two years and about 50% in two decades (Cox, 1998). Upon the expiration of the patent protection also in the United States in 2000, sales of generic preparations intensively expanded (main international producers include Dow, Syngenta, NuFarm, etc.), but the leading preparation producer re mained Monsanto (Duke & Powles, 2008)." [5]

• What is its commercial history?

This could be a top-level section to reorganize some existing material AND it should be a summary paragraph covering key points of US and rest of world commercial deployment, in the general form: "First marketing by Monsanto in US and wherever else, for Agricultural, industrial and consumer applications..., patent expired.... other companies own brands...." --Tsavage (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Is Roundup the same as glyphosate? Answered pretty clearly in "Formulations and tradenames" - a summarizing lead paragraph to that section that breaks out adjuvants would improve it for the general reader.
• How does it work? Geogene (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This could be made clearer by changing the 'biochemistry' header to 'mode of action'. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, easily done...if the article wasn't locked!!!! (That's actually how I found it's protected, by trying to make this edit.) --Tsavage (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Rereading that - it doesn't actually explain how gly kills plants though - only that it inhibits an enzyme and (to the layman) it just does things to long and unusual words. Surely there must be more information on how the inhibition leads to plant death? SmartSE (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No doubt. A 60-second search for "glyphosate mode of action" turned up this (I'm not sure if the source is reliable, but at least we have one answer to start with): "Inhibiting the function of the shikimic acid pathway causes a deficiency in aromatic amino acids, eventually leading to the plant’s death by starvation."[6] --Tsavage (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(Do plants have feelings, too?) --Tsavage (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Inhibiting the enzyme (mechanism of action) prevents the synthesis of essential aromatic amino acids that are required for life (mode of action). We should explicitly state the obvious, but do we need a source for this statement? Boghog (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As the source below explains it's more complicated than that - shikimate accumulates and drives carbon away from other processes leading to starvation. I still don't agree with 'organisms' in this paragraph either since it is about how the herbicide works. Somewhere we should describe the biochemistry in more detail. The same source mentions that the K_i differing between lower in plants and microorganisms as well, but there is probably a better source for this elsewhere. SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This covers it in detail:_{Bertold Hock; Erich F. Elstner (28 September 2004). Plant Toxicology, Fourth Edition. CRC Press. pp. 292–296. ISBN 978-0-203-02388-4.} SmartSE (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A great source that would justify a more complete description of the mode of action. As discussed elsewhere, I also agree that the use of 'organisms' is inappropriate in this section and unnessarily complicates the discussion of toxicity which may differ significantly between plants and glyphosate sensitive bacteria. Most readers are interested first in how glyphosate kills plants. The way glyphosate may affect bacteria is best left to the bacteria section. Boghog (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I added a sentence that should be well within the ballpark. Since we agree it is verifiable, it should be only a matter of tweaking if necessary, and adding a citation. --Tsavage (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I'll leave this struck because the basic question appears to be answered ("diverts energy and resources..."). Meanwhile, from a source already cited in this article (is this then not fully settled?):

"How glyphosate-induced inhibition of the shikimate pathway actually kills plants is not entirely clear. Many assume that insufficient aromatic amino acid production to maintain necessary protein synthesis is the primary effect, and this is consistent with the slow development of symptoms. Yet others have produced evidence to support the view that the increased carbon flow to the shikimate pathway by deregulation of the pathway by inhibiting EPSPS results in shortages of carbon for other essential pathways.9 The rapid cessation of carbon fixation in glyphosate-treated sugarbeet10 is better explained by this mechanism than by reductions in aromatic amino acid pools"[7]

--Tsavage (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• What did it replace?
  • This is not-RS but may help to find RS that answer this. This is RS and lists a two: atrazine and alachlor. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• How do we know it's safe for humans?

(How transparent is access to studies which were used to justify the release of the agent?) prokaryotes (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

My indenting, parenthesizing, italicizing: I don't see this as a straightforward basic question a general reader might be most likely to ask, but it could be addressed in answering the previous "how broadly tested" question. (It'd be good to stick to the "real basic" theme here, else the list will become meaninglessly broad and even more likely to join the hundreds of thousands of other words in the discarded Talk pile.) --Tsavage (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Antivaxers always say that vaccines have not been properly tested because there are no RCTs. Questions about how widely things have been tested for safety to humans are a common rhetorical device within the spectrum of "JAQing off" - attempts to create a climate of fear, uncertainty and doubt. I would say that the real and broad question is simply: what is the evidence in respect of safety. And I am in favour of a Safety section that addresses that evidence. Obviously there is the usual problem of science (which talks of relative risk, LD50s and so on) and activist rhetoric (which always focuses on the fact that it is impossible to prove anything absolutely safe, even water, and will always point to the adverse effects of vast dosages on rats). Guy (Help!) 14:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but/and my purpose here is to present FAQ-style questions that general readers are likely to ask, so "what is the evidence in respect of safety" can be plainly put as "how do we know it's safe for humans." Updated. --Tsavage (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Notes

Recently, SmartSE commented that "this article is far from providing a balanced view of the available sources" and, with my encouragement, provided several items to address that. They are included below, with a few additions of my own. Please feel free to add to and edit this list, and use the list to literally test the article, as well as, of course, for article improvement, and also as a reality/context check in the midst of arguing the crap out of single, piecemeal points. --Tsavage (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate article edit error: apology and thanks

Hi Pyrrhia,

I was recently updating references in the article Glyphosate. I noticed that dates were in ymd, dmy and mdy so I wanted to add the template. In order to find out what the original editors used I searched through the article history and I opened earlier versions of the article. I had two versions of the article open at the same time-the current version and the older version. I inadvertently made an edit to the older version deleting major content in one mouse click. I caught my error immediately and was in the process of reverting it when you caught it and reverted it. Thanks for catching that. I want it on record that this was not intentional vandalism. I have spent the last two hours updating references and content, reading articles, etc. regarding this article and my intention was article improvement and update. I thanked you for catching the error in the article's history. Oceanflynn (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh no problem with me, I figured it was an accident. I see this article is under sanction by Arbcom though so be careful. Those can be tricky to navigate. Good luck and keep up the good work. Pyrrhia (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

NHL correlation?

This 2016 study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015139) looked at glyphosate and NHL and found no causal relationship. Since this study was more thorough than the one the IARC cited, should it be mentioned in the introductory section? There's more evidence directly contradicting a link to NHL than there is evidence supporting such a link. twasbrillig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.114.245 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Diligent weeding?

What is the point of the "Monarch butterfly" section? How does any member of the farming community's diligent mechanical weeding escape such scorn?

This article provides a quintessential exemplar for librarians to explain to young researchers about when NOT to rely on Wikipedia. Rt3368 (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Arguably, the ease of weeding that use of relatively harmless herbicide like glyphosate has permitted does seem to have reduced the amount of milkweed (other factors may exist), which could be expected to impact monarch populations; however, as you say, farmers aren't obligated to permit weeds to grow. In addition, there may be other factors to consider, like logging and weather, so perhaps the section shouldn't imply quit so definite a connection. tronvillain (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to question that section. It is not the glyphosate that is harmful for the butterflies. It is the lack of milkweed. The logic of the section is similar to: "I used an axe to cut down my cherry tree. Now the bees do not come to collect any nectar. Therefore axes are dangerous for bees." Mlewan (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversy absent

I see no one has added this [8] or [9]. I put it in the government section, but it might be better in a controversy section. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Being critical and factual is unwanted here. The Banner talk 18:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Use

Folllowing was removed by kingofaces43 due to the quality of the references. I agree the Poisoned Fields docu may not be the best of sources, but I mainly rely on the papers written by Günther Neumann. Anyway, perhaps look into it, perhaps see if you can find more references, and reinclude.

Old text added:

For agricultural use however, despite the benefits that can be attained from the use of the product in the first (2 to 3) years, it has shown to impair the growth of crops if used for several (7 or more) successive years on a same field. According to one farmer, some fields in which the pesticide has been used for over 7 years experienced a reduction of the yields by over 50%. KVDP (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Poisoned Fields can fall into what we call WP:FRINGE territory. There are a lot of activist "documentaries" out there, especially in this topic, that aren't considered reliable at all. The main reason I reverted though was because PhD dissertations generally aren't considered reliable, much of which is covered in WP:SCIRS. It would need to undergo peer-review and be published in a reputable journal first to be considered. Being a controversial topic, we typically rely on secondary sources in science (e.g. review articles) instead of relying on primary sources that put forth novel ideas that we cannot assess as anonymous editors. We need the larger scientific community to weigh in showing they are taking the ideas seriously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The research has been published in Plant and Soil but does not support the broad claim of:

"For agricultural use however, despite the benefits that can be attained from the use of the product in the first (2 to 3) years, it has shown to impair the growth of crops if used for several years (7 years or more) on a same field."

The paper is a lab-based and makes no such claim about the effects of glyphosate in agriculture, concluding:

"the development of strategies to avoid these negative side effects requires further attention to characterize responsible factors and to investigate underlying mechanisms of action and their degree of expression under field conditions."

I've looked through the thesis as well and the only thing I can see that is related is an anecdote on page 171 of the pdf that doesn't support the claim and again in the conclusion they state that further research is required to place this into context of field grown crops. As I've been unable to verify the information, I have removed it. SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Error in number of resistant weed species

I agree and have made the edit as my own edit, but the editor is topic-banned. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article states that 211 species of plant have developed resistance to glyphosate here but this is incorrect. The number of species is much lower. The source is this website where you pull down "glyphosate" and see a table but the species are duplicated many times over, so it is not actually 200+ species. I've been told it's currently 36 species resistant to glyphosate. Anyway, this is a significant error and i'm going to edit this out right now because it should not be reflected in the world's supposed collective knowledge base. SageRad (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference given does not match with statement

Has anyone else noticed that this statement in the "Discovery" section is not borne out in the reference given? "Stauffer Chemical patented the agent as a chemical chelator in 1964 as it binds and removes minerals such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, and zinc.[17]" I'm no chemist, but it appears to me that the patent was granted for a series of "precursor" chemicals which could be further modified to eventually produce glyphosate. There is no mention of N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine until you get further in the patent process -- meaning that Monsanto's glyphosate patent does indeed reference this one, as do many others. I would invite other editors, particularly chemists, to examine the patent for themselves and see if I'm right. It can be seen here [[10]].

I'm bringing this up because most literature on glyphosate in a field situation seems to indicate that mineral chelation is a minor problem, other than in Dr. Don M. Huber's papers. Other thoughts? Perhaps we can get this little point cleared up. Thanks! Kwagoner (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Good catch and I agree with your analysis. The claims define the rights granted to the applicant, hence one must focus on what is written in the claims. The composition of matter claims are synthetic intermediates (and by extension, a process by which phosphinic acids can be converted into phosphonic acids) and not the use of glyphosate as a metal chelator. The patent mentions chelation as one of several potential uses of the claimed synthetic intermediates, but this patent does not contain any use claims. Finally glyphosate is included as example #14 (an end product that can be synthesized from the claimed phosphinic acid intermediates), but glyphosate (a phosphonic acid) is not within the scope of the claims. Hence I would suggest that we delete this sentence. Boghog (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• The patent was added in this edit. On second thought, perhaps the sentence could be revised to read "Stauffer Chemical was granted a patent in 1964 that describes a synthesis of glyphosate". This apparently is the first published description of glyphosate and hence notable. (Please note that the structure of the intermediate phosphinic acid in the patent is mis-drawn, it is missing a methylene between the nitrogen atom and carboxylate group. However the theoretical elemental analysis is correct for glyphosate and the starting material used in this synthesis should also lead to glyphosate). Boghog (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Nitpick extreme

For what it's worth, the symbol-and-stick diagram for the molecule is swapped left-for-right compared to the two graphical versions (see P on left in symbol, but orange globe on right in graphics) I don't know if it's difficult to swap either of these across the vertical axis, but if it's easy, perhaps someone can take the time and do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 17:59, June 11, 2016‎

My photo editor is replacing the white with a black background, but it will be easier to flip the bottom two pictures as the letters will get reversed in the top image. I'll look into it a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually just noticed uploaded images can be rotated in the image details.[11] I've requested that the rotation bot take care of these two, so we'll at least get the phosphorus on the left side for each of the pictures. Looks like the change should take effect by tomorrow. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Seneff source

I ask this question out of genuine ignorance. About deleting the sentence based on that source, I believed the source indicated that Seneff is at MIT. I get it, that it's a primary source, but is it actually on a par with Seralini? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this up as I was putting together a note on this too. Some of the problems with this person are documented at their article Stephanie Seneff. There's a general trend where this person has been repeatedly criticized as a non-expert in the field basically trying to find various ways to correlate glyphosate use with a myriad of maladies such as autism in extremely low-tier journals. Here are a few sources when it comes to parity on this.[12][13][14][15]

My edit summary was basically reiterating that there are red flags when certain well known authors (like Seralini) of fringe material make another claim in a similar fashion to what has been heavily criticized before. I haven't heavily dug into other recent material on Seneff, but seeing that there's now a string a publications like this (currently "V"), there might be more to add to the BLP article if these articles have similar commentary and aren't just being ignored by the scientific community at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's informative. I agree with your revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Section 7.1.4: Toxicity/Glyphosate alone/Amphibians

The section is referenced with a self-published source: Marin-Morales MA, de Campos Ventura-Camargo B, Hoshina M (2013). Toxicity of Herbicides: Impact on Aquatic and Soil Biota and Human Health". In Jessica A. Kelton, Herbicides–Current Research and Case Studies in Use, Lulu com [16]. When I checked this source, I found out that this review summarizes research by Relyea on Roundup (with surfactant, p.418). The next section [17], last sentence, also uses the book published by Lulu com as a source and it is also based on test results with Roundup, including surfactant. JimRenge (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

So you must move it to other section, but you deleted it. Also, it is not self-published. Cathry (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

human toxicity

• "Acute toxicity is dose-related; Skin exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation, and photocontact dermatitis has been occasionally reported. These effects are probably due to the preservative benzisothiazolin-3-one. Severe skin burns are very rare.[114] Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, or tingling and irritation in the throat. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis. Superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate.[114] Death has been reported after deliberate overdose.[114][115] Ingestion of Roundup ranging from 85 to 200 ml (of 41% solution) has resulted in death within hours of ingestion, although it has also been ingested in quantities as large as 500 ml with only mild or moderate symptoms.[116] A reasonable correlation is seen between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of more than 85 ml of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults."

I came to this article after accidental skin exposure. Impressed with the level of relevant helpful detail provided!

Article could be improved with details about safe handling of typical formulations. The infobox is helpful:

• GHS precautionary statements

P273, P280, P305+351+338, P310, P501

But too cryptic for the typical reader. It would be better for the codes above to be fully unpacked into actual words, such as:

• P280: Wear protective gloves/protective clothing/eye protection/face protection.

-71.174.180.38 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Residue levels in food products

It is already well known that glyphosate persists in soils. Recent tests by Ecowatch might be a bit emotional, but the levels in processed foods are indeed "higher" than expected, meaning higher than in some other foods when considering they are formulated from other ingredients. These tests sponsored by Eco-watch were not field tests, but tests conducted on packaged food products from the shelves. Since the consumer most often doesn't eat carrots directly from the field, or the vegetables are formulated into consumer products, it not just a question of agricultural techniques but also of food safety. The National Pesticide Information center does not have any regulatory oversight and only refers to field tests rather than tests on food products directly, which is usually the domain of the FDA. (Osterluzei (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC))

The tests were actually funded by US Right To Know rather than Ecowatch. Full report here. Where did you read that these were higher than expected? Looking at the values, the highest was in Cheerios at around 1 ppm. This is very much in line with the maximum levels found in UK wheat - see refs in Crop_desiccation#Glyphosate - but still way below the MRL of 20 ppm. We could do with more details on the residues found in food in comparison to MRLs, but it would be preferable to get this from academic sources rather than activist organisations. SmartSE (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Ecowatch is not the organisation having the tests done, the article implied that they were higher than expected with regard to ADI. I clearly stated in my contribution that the levels were below the U.S. limits for common food products and therefore not alarming. Nevertheless, they have tested above 1 ppm as you also wrote, and the Code of Federal Regulation limit (MRL) here is 0.5 ppm for the grain itself, hence the concern is not so far-fetched (difficult what a limit for Cheerios would be, and again the differences in ADI values have concerned consumers). I believe tests conducted by licensed labs such as Anresco (full lab results here: anresco_reports_food_testing_2016.pdf) can have value even for academics, but you are right maybe another more objective paper on such consumer product tests would be favorable. I just don't agree with the interpretation "environmental fate"; once those levels show up in food products, they are considered food contaminants. (Osterluzei (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC))

We're veering towards original research here, but the second ref you cited gives the MRL for grain as 30 ppm, so 1 ppm is much lower. We need to look for better sources which discuss permissible MRLs and the amount found in foodstuffs because they must be out there. It is very poor that we don't have info on the MRLs or ADIs. There is discussion of ADIs in this review but there might be better ones available. I agree that environmental fate isn't the best place for it, but it didn't seem sensible to leave just one sentence in a section of it's own. SmartSE (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glyphosate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402204619/http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx to http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904235825/http://www.mlmp.org:80/Results/Findings/Pleasants_and_Oberhauser_2012_milkweed_loss_in_ag_fields.pdf to http://www.mlmp.org/results/findings/pleasants_and_oberhauser_2012_milkweed_loss_in_ag_fields.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

RAC opinion

Glyphosate not classified as a carcinogen by ECHA → should be mentioned in the article. --Leyo 14:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the RAC decision is to European... At least it is published in English so even the US-American could read it.--Plastiktüte (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

recent development/publications possibly of interest

It seems that Monsanto tried to "play dirty" of sorts with various glyphosate and round-up studies.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html?_r=1
• http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/medical-school-examine-whether-professor-published-paper-partly-written-chemical
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715?via%3Dihub

--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

So it is alleged by plaintiffs an ongoing lawsuit. Geogene (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been sort-of following that coverage. I do think that we need to source anything here to independent sources, rather than reports within sources of what the plaintiff's attorneys have been saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems like that user Kmhkmh needs more help with literature research (2nd link):

"Update: After quick review, medical school says no evidence Monsanto ghostwrote professor's paper" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.64.15 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Safety must be seen in the context of the Human-gut biota symbiant.

The following needs careful consideration and the insights it provides should be incorporated into the main Wikipedia on Glyphosate

From: The Interplay Between Environmental Chemical Exposures and Obesity: Proceedings of a Workshop. Page 109

Young asked a question about the presence of small amounts of glyphosate—the pesticide sold as Round Up—in foods, particularly corn and high-fructose corn syrup. A paper published by Shehata and colleagues (Shehata et al., 2013) reported that many pathogenic gut bacteria are resistant to glyphosate, whereas many beneficial bacteria are susceptible to it. Could the presence of glyphosate in corn syrup be a confounding variable in the results showing a link between fructose and metabolic dysfunction? Goldman answered that she has not seen any studies addressing the issue, but that it is a reasonable question to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.194.197 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Citations

So, a study that found a minimum inhibitory concentration of 0.5 mg/mL at the lowest? When levels in food are at parts per million and lower, further diluted when eaten? No. Even if that weren't the case, this fails WP:MEDRS. --tronvillain (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Considering Glyphosate's safety merely in the context of how it affects the Human gut biota is woefully inadequate. Herbicides like RoundUp are known to have a serious negative effect on bee hive survivability, and as such on foods produced by all plants that need bee fertilization in their life cycle. This applies both to crops grown for human consumption and for all other flora of which parts are consumed by wild living creatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.28.195 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Need a better source before this can even be considered — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 21:51, January 22, 2017 (UTC)

References

At this moment this article seems to be way behind the growing deluge of publications, including material presented in Congressional hearings, coming out on this issue of effects of glysophate on gut bacteria, to say nothing of soil microorganisms and symbiotic relationships within other organisms, ecosystems and the ecosphere. Take for example, more than 76 articles by Dr. Stephanie Seneff at MIT: https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/. The Wiki article seems to imply that as long as there is not currently indication of cancer, then there is no problem for humans. But the works of Seneff and others observe that the human gut bacteria supply many different requirements for the human body, and when you start interfering with these a wide range of effects emerges. All these Families of bacteria contain the enzyme EPSPS and are susceptible to glyphosate in amounts as small as 1ppm: Neisseriaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, Pasteurellaceae, Mycobacteriaceae, Nocardiaceae, Brucellaceae, Streptococcaceae, Alcaligenacea, Micrococcaceae, Trichocomaceae, Bacillaceae, Chlamydiaceae, Listeriaceae, Pseudomonadaceae Enterococcaceae, Cardiobacteriaceae, Campylobacteriaceae, etc.

Monsanto's premise was that because humans don't have the enzyme EPSPS, then glyphosate would not be a problem for humans. But as the human gut is filled with bacteria that not only do have the enzyme but also supply a wide range of requirements for the human organism, interference with and disturbance of these bacterial communities manifest themselves in a wide range of human maladies.

From the 2016 Congressional Hearing on Glyphosate: "Glyphosate and Disease": "Monsanto long-term Trade Secret studies in mice and rats reveal that Glyphosate destroys the tissues of glands and organs. Tissue destruction leads to gland and organ dysfunction and failure. The effect of glyphosate mis-incorporation into diverse proteins leads to disease by mis-folded proteins. These diseases and increases in diseases include but are not limited to Alzheimer’s, ASD, PD other neurological disorders, obesity, diabetes, cataracts, CKD, celiac disease, liver disease, heart disease, lung disease, asthma, deterioration of joints, destruction of teeth, acid reflux, other digestive disorders, birth defects, infertility, sterility, sexual disorders, skin disorders, scleroderma, cancer, lack of vitamins D, B vitamins including cobalamin (B12) and folate, chelation of necessary minerals and more…."

This also extends itself to other organisms throughout the ecosystem and can be assumed to affect ecosystem and ecospheric systems more generally when hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate are dumped into agricultural and non-agricultural ecosystems, just as agroecologists have demonstrated already for other agricultural chemicals and the associated farming systems that come out of the policies and purposes that presume the need for these chemicals. There are also unexpected crossovers, such as what happens to organic growers who use manure from animals kept on pastures treated with glyphosate. One needs also to identify and inspect the premises that underlie the use of glyphosate and other chemicals within agroecosystems and the ecosphere more generally.

Regarding premises, there is the whole question of what is meant by an herbicide, for example, from the 2014 Congressional hearing on Glyphosate: "Glyphosate is an antibiotic masquerading as an herbicide. Imagine the consequences of farmers spraying 10 million metric tonnes of any other antibiotic like penicillin or tetracycline on the food crops of the USA and Canada. People and politicians would definitely react if they knew." As pointed out by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, one problem at the very root of science is that when we assign a particular word to describe something, it leads us to ignore other dimensions not contained within the word.

As bacteria are the origin and substraight of life on this planet, every multicellular organism on the planet has complex symbiotic and symbiogenetical (from the word symbiogenesis) relationships with bacteria, it cannot be assumed that lack of observed experience of effects of glyphosate should mean that it does not have effects.Stephen Mikesell 15:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singing Coyote (talk • contribs)

Alot of this is just WP:FRINGE (especially whenever someone attempts to cite Seneff as credible in this topic). There's a lot of armchair biology and correlation = causation faulty logic to be wary of there. At the end of the day, WP:MEDRS sources are needed on the health related content, and the scientific literature does not reflect these viewpoints. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Roundup

User:Smartse suggested having a discussion about this issue here. He had undone this addition I had made: "In 2017 Monsanto marketed Roundup for Lawns, a herbicide formulation without glyphosate".(See Roundup for Lawns description) I admit it could have said differently but the point here is this: "Roundup" does not mean anymore that there is glyphosate in the formulation. This was true in the past but is not anymore, yet the WP article continues to present "Roundup" as a glyphosate formulation without qualification. People may want to understand why "Roundup for Lawns" does not kill the lawn as it would if it would contain glyphosate.Ekem (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I had mixed feelings about the revert when I first saw it, because I agree with you that it is relevant and useful information. As I understand it, the issue is that the source was from the company, and that a secondary source would be better. However, my understanding is that primary sources can be considered reliable for simple statements of fact within a page, and that's what this is. We wouldn't use such a source to establish notability of a page, but that doesn't mean that we cannot use a primary source here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, it's a problem of WP:WEIGHT. How are we supposed to determine whether this is really worthy of inclusion in the grand scheme of all information of roundup and glyphosate? I'm not totally against including it, but for example, can we even tell that they only started selling non-gly roundup in 2017? If it's to avoid confusion for readers, then a hatnote mentioning that roundup redirects here would be better than burying the information where it was, but this has the problem of there being nowhere to direct readers to. Maybe there are enough sources to have an article on Roundup as a brand, with a greater focus on their consumer products, as opposed to this article which is mainly agricultural. SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree Roundup as a brand may be worth an article, more so now as the brand has been apparently uncoupled from glyphosate, and also in view of all the other ingredients. But what to do in the meantime to be accurate? By the way, I did not specify when non-gly Roundup entered the market, just that it is marketed in 2017, - I do not think we should get hung up on when non-gly Roundup was introduced.Ekem (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be wary about starting a Roundup article. Pesticide companies tend to play fast and loose with their trade names, which is why we normally don't have articles named after the trade name. Sticking to active ingredients for article names gives the most consistency. If this lawn "Roundup" formulation gets to a point it's of sufficient weight (I don't think it's there quite yet from my quick glance), we can just say that the active ingredient is marketed as Roundup or Roundup for lawns at their respective active ingredient articles. There are so many pesticide trade names out there though that I think it's better to wait and see for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we are getting sidetracked on if Roundup needs its own article. My starting point is that the current article is inaccurate when it indicates that Roundup is a glyphosate formulation without any qualifications.Ekem (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I also feel that the discussion has gotten off-topic. So returning again to whether or not we should include the alternative formulation, based on a primary source, I can see now that the concern was about due weight. I believe that, as a single sentence, there is no problem with due weight, and furthermore, there is no reason to be concerned that the information is not reliably sourced. I'm inclined to add the material back in a day or so, unless someone presents a good reason not to. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, can we merge Glyphosate#Legal_cases with Monsanto legal cases#Roundup?Wakari07 (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Better to keep it as this article. Monsanto isn't the only producer of glyphosate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Human Interaction

Sorry I'm new here but I think more needs to be added to this article on the work Dr. Seneff at MIT has done to show how glyphosate interacts with humans after ingestion from foods whose crops were treated with glyphosate based herbicides. Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.133.131 (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, Mike. This highly contested subject has led us to take a conservative approach to additions. Dr. Seneff's academic background is not in this field and her work is highly contested. If you find other sources that support her conclusions, please chime in. Lfstevens (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Assertion that using glyphosate as a dessicant results in residues

I have removed this statement because it does not seem to be supported by any of the sources provided. Only one source even mentions use as a dessicant that I can see, and even it never attributes residues to that practice. If anyone can provide quotes of where these sources state that use as a dessicant results in a residue on crops, then please do so. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur that that wasn't supported by the sources. I wrote most of Crop_desiccation#Glyphosate a while back and at least on the sources available then this wasn't the case. The new Canadian report doesn't say that the residues were the result of desiccation. The British work does indicate that it can result in residues, but they were below the MRL. It's a pity the Canadian work doesn't report the figures in more detail though. Worth noting that the MRLs they use are lower than the UK (5 vs 20 ppm) and that they include AMPA in the figure as well. To reiterate though, there is a big difference between "results in a residue on the food crop" and "can result" and similarly between "residue" and exceeding the MRL. SmartSE (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So we've had another attempt at adding this material. Problem is that four references are given. The University of Michigan one us pertinent, but only adresses one crop and specifically says that only incorrect application may lead to residue issues. I've changed the article to refect this. The WHO document never even uses the word Glyphosate that I can see. The Glyphosate.eu reference doesn't claim that use as a dessicant increases rsidue levels anywhere that I can see. The ec.europa reference only mentions the effects of preharvest use in Rounup ready crops: no mention at all is made of use as a dessicant that I can see. If I'm wrong and these articles do make a claim that use of Glyphosate as a dessicant increases residue levels, then please quote it for me and provide a page number. At this stage we have one reference saying that oncorrect use can lead to residue increases, something true of all pesticides and fertilisers by definition. If we can't find some more sources, we will have to discuss whther this material meets WP:DUE. I'm inclined to think that one offhand comment from one source that would be true of any crop treatment probably doesn't warrant inclusion And can we please discuss before making any more changes so we can avoid this constant reverting of unsourced claims? Thank you.Mark Marathon (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, still learning! I can see that my formatting is probably wrong for this page. The wording of the assertion is a little off. I would maybe rephrase as "the preharvest application of pesticides (such as glyphosate) results in residues". There are other potential (less common) preharvest usages and its not a dessicant but similar to the use of dessicants. I believe these are 3 additional citations for "preharvest application of pesticide results in residues":

Those appear to be the same citations, and they have the same issues. I don't see how you have adressed my concerns at all. Atthis stage we have a single reference saying that incorrect use can lead to residue increases, something true of all pesticides and fertilisers by definition. That's all that should be added to the article, and even that needs a discussion re WP:DUE.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

They are the same citations. I clipped the sentence/text (in quotes) from each that support the assertion that preharvest application of pesticide results in residues.Elmwoodie (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

1. "Preharvest applications and in-crop applications in glyphosate tolerant crops can produce higher residue levels, resulting in MRLs > 0.1 mg/kg"
2. "Many residue trials have been carried out over many years with pre-harvest uses. The residue data from these trials are used as the basis for the setting maximum residue levels (MRLs) for crops like cereals, pulses and oil seed crops where pre-harvest treatments are recommended. These MRLs are set for the highest recommended doses for weed control with the shortest pre-harvest interval" .
3. 3 variables of residue level: "application rate, number of applications, and preharvest intervals" Elmwoodie (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Windrow or winnow?

The text "This dry crop does not have to be windrowed (swathed and dried) prior to harvest..." under Use links to the combine harvester page. I think perhaps this should have been linked to Windrow. The combine combines reaping, threshing, and winnowing, and the winnowing page specifically says it's not to be confused with windrowing. Can someone more familiar with farming check this? bendodge (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like winnowing is being confused here. For grains like wheat, oats, etc., the plant used to be mowed and rolled into windrows to dry, whereas it's more common today (regardless of using dessicants) that combines are used that do not need swathing. For now, I moved the link to windrow as the combine head section isn't extremely descriptive here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Cai review

This source was recently added in this edit. I was originally going to leave it be for the time being, but I had a chance to look at the full text, and it's quit the mess. I've removed it due to a few issues. First, it cites Seralini extensively, which is a pretty big WP:REDFLAG It's also extremely difficult to get through the source due to poor English and extremely poor data presentation (I'm kind of surprised it was accepted without taking care of the basic readability prior to publishing). The studies used for the meta-analysis also are not even cited in the references for the most part, and the few that are are not peer-reviewed.

The additional problem with the edit itself is that is says nothing of glyphosate concentrations (i.e., ecological relevance), which is generally needed in toxicological reporting as the previous sentence on maternal effects. This isn't included in the source either. Basically, there's too many red flags to try consider it the type of study we're looking for per WP:MEDASSESS at this point or to even gleam appropriate information from. If we are going to consider it as a source, better to wait for other experts to comment on it to see if someone can make sense of the study as well as avoid WP:RECENTISM. If it doesn't get discussed, that would be an indication that scientists didn't take it seriously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not your responsibility to judge whether it is poor data or good citations. It is responsibility of journal reviewers. Cathry (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cathry: It most definitely is our responsibility to consider that, especially on a subject as controversial as this. I've also had a look at the full paper and concur with KoA about the problems. It's illogical for the paper to state that it is toxic without stating the doses at which toxicity occurs. If we base a claim in our article that it decreases sperm count in rats, our readers are likely to misunderstand the conclusions that the source made. SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not illogical. Exposure doses are in cited studies and at page 20 in this paper. Cathry (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the studies are not cited anywhere in the paper. The page numbers are from 148-155, and there is not even a 20th page within that. Slow down and re-read the actual paper. Regardless of what page is being looked at, the papers are not cited in the references cited, which is on the very last page. Also keep in mind that we do not engage in peer-review as Wikipedia editors, but this basic level of assessing evidence quality is far from that. There are basic red flags as well as problems with the presentation of the paper that makes us unable to generate content from it, much less consider it a reliable source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There is all data about exposure in Table 2. Specific characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis of Sperm Concentrations. It can be seen here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668917302041?via%3Dihub Cathry (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not data we can use per WP:OR. Secondary sources are supposed to synthesize that information for us, which this source did not do in addition to all the other problems with it. I think that's one of the points you've been missing here. Also, keep in mind the source is paywalled. I can access it with my university, but many editors will only see the abstract with that link. As mentioned before, there isn't really anything more to do with this conversation except wait for other experts to comment on it at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Review by Nicole E De Long

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370400/ Nicole E De Long. Alison C Holloway. Early-life chemical exposures and risk of metabolic syndrome//Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy.

Added info from review: "Glyphosate has been shown to cause liver and kidney toxicities at low doses and to increase apoptosis and induce oxidative stress in preadipocytes"

It was reverted by Kingofaces43 with comment "Source cites WP:FRINGE Seralini study in addition to additional WP:WEIGHT issues"

Review cites study by Mesnage et al, including Seralini "Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure." This study was not retracted. Increase of apoptosis and oxidative stress are also serious issues. Cathry (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: I'll let you speak for yourself of course, but here is my take. The fact that a particular paper co-authored by Séralini was not retracted does not change the fact that it was co-authored by Séralini. If we are going to include content about liver and kidney health effects, then WP:MEDRS must be applied to sources, and the De Long paper does not really satisfy the need for a secondary source. The authors describe it as a "narrative review", which sounds like a review article, but is actually an opinion piece. So we have somewhat inadequate sourcing for something whose due weight does not justify the amount of text given it. I agree with KofA's revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

More or less what I was going to say. Definitely low quality in terms of MEDRS. I'm on limited internet connection tonight, but the Seralini experiment in question is another criticized one such as being the type of experiment where if you bump the desk the cell culture petri dish is on, the cells die. Basically, its another experiment that overexaggerates itself. I'll see if I can pull up some of the sources discussing it if it's relevant in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that a particular paper co-authored by Séralini was not retracted does not change the fact that it was co-authored by Séralini. It does not mean anything as long is it published in reliable journal and cited in review. Cathry (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

is actually an opinion piece It is not true. I found it at Pumbed review section. You name it "inadequate" because you don't like it. Cathry (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

About "you don't like it", per WP:AGF I would appreciate it if you would be more polite towards me. I think that I understand how the sourcing works here, and that what I said was accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't provide arguments why it is "inadequate", except "opinion piece" and that is not true according to Pubmed base. Cathry (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, narrative reviews are already explained as being of weaker quality in MEDRS because they are essentially author opinion instead of systematic weighing of studies. You need to stop personalizing disputes as you've already been reminded this topic is under discretionary sanctions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Narrative reviews are appropriate according WP:MEDRS Cathry (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please reread the above as this has been covered already. Such a narrative review is not given much weight in MEDRS, especially with terms of WP:DUE in a controversial topic with contradictory literature. It's not going to work here in terms of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Duke and Powles

Plmoknqwerty you have now reverted this content twice [18], [19] and in doing so you have given edit summaries that have misstated policy. There is no prohibition on including opinions as long as they have sufficient weight and notability, and are not presented in Wikipedia's voice. Since these opinions are attributed, then merely being opinions isn't a problem. Geogene (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Geogene said. I'll add that, so long as the opinions are reliably sourced, then an editor disagreeing with the opinion becomes original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

So when some opinion states something good about glyphosate it can be added when "reliably sourced", but when some opinion (as you name it) or review (as pubmed names it) states something bad about glyphosate (see topic below) it is forbidden to add. Cathry (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just playing games with words (you are not, for example, considering what was said about due weight, nor are you considering the consensus of the community at WP:GMORFC), and a continuation of your violation of WP:AGF for which I cautioned you below, to which you replied without any acknowledgment of my concern. WP:Discretionary sanctions apply here, as you have been made aware, so I strongly encourage you to conduct yourself accordingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, what I said about a narrative review below was in the context of WP:MEDRS, whereas this is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Narrative reviews are appropriate according WP:MEDRS. There is no reasonable cause to add outdated opinion by Duke and to not add fresh review about glyposate toxicity Cathry (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain this very precisely. The quotation from Duke is not about any sort of medical claim, and does not require MEDRS. The material based on the DeLong source does involve a medical claim, and therefore MEDRS applies. These are two different kinds of content, and the sourcing requirements are consequently different. And that is what I just said above. And as for what WP:MEDRS#Assess evidence quality actually says about narrative reviews is in the context of ranking the evidence quality of various types of sources. MEDRS places narrative reviews below systematic reviews, and says that narrative reviews "can help establish the context of evidence quality." Thus, they are useful in deciding what weight to assign to other sources, but they are not the final word in themselves. And that material comes just after the instructions to "summarize scientific consensus", which takes priority. MEDRS, taken as a whole, is not about "this kind of source is A-OK", but rather, about how to compare and contrast the usefulness of various sources, with some sources more useful than others. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Duke states glyphosate "ideal" because it has low toxicity, this is sort of very medical claim. MEDRS do not forbid narrative reviews. that's all Cathry (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The material on the page says nothing about Duke discussing toxicity, only about its impact on agriculture. The authors are agricultural scientists, not medical scientists. The claim that an herbicide has had a major impact on agriculture is not a medical claim. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just playing games with words. Duke says in his paper it's ideal in agriculture because it has low toxicity. And this paper outdated anyway. Now (in 2017) there are plenty of glyphosate-resistant wild plants and increased volumes of glyphosate application as a consequence and increased data on toxicity. The situation perhaps was somewhat different in 2008 Cathry (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually there is fresh article by this Duke, and it is much less enthusiastiс than 2008 one. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28643882 Cathry (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that unlike some of the viewpoints you've been trying to add recently, the idea that glyphosate has low toxicity, effective against many weeds, requires very little active ingredient, etc. compared to older herbicides is a common viewpoint held by agricultural scientists. It's nothing controversial to say it's an "ideal" herbicide, and the source expounds on that more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Low toxicicty concept is very outdated according to current studies. Cathry (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The statement that "glyphosate is the most important herbicide discovered in the last 100 years" is not a medical claim. An equivalent statement, "penicillin is the most important antibiotic discovered in the last 100 years" would not be a medical claim, either. Both are too vague, neither statement contains any specific medical claim. Trying to reinterpret the statement to create specificity is Wikilawyering. Geogene (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is impossible to judge such thing as herbicide without health context. And anyway 2008 and 2010 articles are outdated, as i mentioned above fresh 2017 article by same author has different view. Cathry (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That's such a broad interpretation that it would make every aspect of agrochemicals MEDRS. Geogene (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Your first sentence is extremely concerning in terms of WP:POV as the major area of focus of pesticides are agronomic aspects (efficacy, broad selection, little active ingredient needed, etc). That's what much of the focus of the source is question is discussing. Agronomic sources are not under the same guidelines as MEDRS. That being said, when the authors are discussing toxicity, they are also citing additional reviews on the subject, and WP:WEIGHT supports such use of a source. Please remember that many of the ideas you are trying to introduce are not supported in terms of weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate text, double quotation

I'd delete the first quotation myself, but it's locked. It's in the "toxicity" section:

However, in 2016 a joint meeting of the United Nations (FAO) Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the World Health Organization Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues concluded that based on the available evidence "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet".[10] In May 2016, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues concluded that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet", even at doses as high as 2,000 mg/kg body weight orally.[10]

I think the best edit would be to preserve the quote and the off-quote note about the dosage, assuming it's really backed-up by the cited article:

However, in 2016 a joint meeting of the United Nations (FAO) Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the World Health Organization Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues concluded that based on the available evidence "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet", even at doses as high as 2,000 mg/kg body weight orally.[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.68.69 (talk • contribs) 02:01, October 1, 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I've updated the section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring = full protection

Please discuss edits here. Perhaps run an RfC. Please obtain consensus before making changes.Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Portier debacle?

Why hasn't the Portier claim made it here yet? Portier was paid a consultancy fee of >$160,000 by lawyers representing people who claim to have been injured by glyphosate. David Zaruk (who blogs as the Risk Monger) has exposed this and he's probably a bit polemic for citation here but USRTK has the entire transcript on its website including the admission (by Portier) that he misled the press and didn't admit to working with the attorneys. I suggest people do their own reading on this as I'm too busy preparing work on it myself and I don't want to add too much here that will be repeating work or color people's perceptions too much.Smidoid (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

References

A problem that I'm seeing is that Facebook is not a reliable source. Unless there's a better source, I don't know what anyone can do with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This must be a new editor that does not yet understand how to post on talk pages and understand about how WP sourcing works. I'm sure that gracious help is appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is presumably the Risk Monger post (or one of them), and there's another article co-written by Zaruck here. --tronvillain (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That was an interesting read. (There is so much out there about supposed scientific influence by the GMO industry, so it is interesting to see an instance from the anti-GMO side.) Nonetheless, it seems to me to be more opinion than factual reporting, so I don't think it belongs on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

There could be a WP:PARITY argument here, but I think there have been stronger sources on the IARC ongoings (something I'll try to check into again when I have time).

Also, just as a general more personal experience, a lot of us scientists who are trained in agricultural extension often spend much more time and energy debunking corporate PR from (or beneficial to) organic, etc. than we do conventional companies for public outreach just due to the sheer difference in volume of misinformation out there. While we're trained to tamp down on corporate spin regardless of where it comes from, the irony you mention isn't lost on many of us ag scientists. In terms of Wikipedia, that means that you will find scientists discussing this topic sometimes, but they'll often be blogs (of known experts at least) that are good in terms of parity. Mainstream news coverage (and hence weight) can be pretty variable, so it's often not the lowest hanging fruit for us editors here. That's why I'm always cautious on these subjects for how messy they can get. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)