Talk:Roundup (herbicide)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Add John E. Franz

I believe Franz is credited with inventing, or first synthesizing Roundup. He should be acknowledged. Nantucketbob

Whoever added the following

"A Swedish survey-based study found a non-statistically significant association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, although this study did not provide a control for exposure to other pesticides and demonstrated no dose-response relationship"

Do you realize this sentence is essentially meaningless or worse it is potentially confusing. Essentially "non-statistically significant association" means no link. If no link why add information about a failed study? ThereIsNoSteve 02:10, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Another user added the reference to the study. I wasn't bold enough to delete the reference, so I clarified it. The same goes for the "genetic damage" study.

When editing don't be afraid to be bold. If you think an edit might be controversial, explain what you are doing and why on the talk page. Also, it would probably be helpful if you created a user name for yourself. ThereIsNoSteve 02:29, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'll be more bold. ThereIsNoSteve

Note to 192.55.20.36

192.55.20.36, thanks for your contributions to this article. One request: Please use the Show Preview button rather than the Save page button to review your edits onscreen. One change in the document history rather than twenty makes it much easier for the rest of us to follow your contributions. If you nonetheless end up making more than one edit, please describe your actions in the Summary field. Thanks. -- Viajero 10:37, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Safe as salt?

Regarding the line:

While glyphosate iteself is less toxic than table salt

Is this true or is this Monsanto marketingspeak? -- Viajero 10:47, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, ditch the salt line

I agree. This table salt comparison is extremely biasing. I was reading this article mentioning kidney and reproductive damage, but I couldn't find that mentioned here or any further source regarding kidney and reproductive damage. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/glyphosa.html

this article has been subject to heavy lobbying by monsanto, in fact they themselves were sued in New York state for using that line in their advertising, and while everyone seems gung-ho to use all monsantos own information on their own product for this page, it only has partial value, and now we even see they had scientists they paid being indicted for fraud and going to prison...83.78.187.33 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Resistance to Roundup

I've noted that the article poison-ivy cites the fact that Roundup doesn't seem to affect poison ivy - how is this possible? I thought Roundup was wide-spectrum? -- Natalinasmpf 23:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Plants with waxy leaves, such as lily of the valley don't absorb roundup too well. Roundup enters the plant though the leaves, not the roots. BigE1977 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Many dicotyledons (buttercup, blackberry, hawthorn, gorse, broom) seem to have more resistance to glyphosate compared to grasses ( monocotyledons ). Has something to do with absorption. If you mix in a little urea, in my experience, it is far more effective and quick. They actively take it in. I use it mainly for a "cut & paste" method in natural re-vegetation work (a modified Bradley Method of Bush Regeneration ) in Tasmania (blackberry, gorse, hawthorn, rose briar, broom etc etc etc). This reduces the actual amount used (and subsequent bad effects of surfactants on amphibians etc) to the amount that can be soaked up by a cut stump (do it within 30 seconds of cutting). -- meika 20 Oct 2005

Even when the Roundup works, poison ivy takes longer to die than many other plants when sprayed with Roundup. The other plants in the area may die within a few days, leaving the poison ivy still looking green until it dies a few weeks later. This is easy to mistake for failure to kill. This may relate to poison ivy being a woody perennial vs. herbaceous annual plants.

Roundup may not kill plants that are green, but not actively growing due to weather conditions. Poison Ivy may tend to look green when inactive under these conditions when compared to annual weeds. Archangle0 (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Resistance to glyphosate in on the rise in California's Central Valley. A few year ago the number of acres impacted was up to a couple hundred.

How to add a page with a similar name?

I was going to add a quick skeleton writeup of the Roundup Issue Tracker, but don't know how to do that .. they both 'deserve' the name "Roundup." How would you go about separating the two?

Several comments re: Roundup article

Several comments follow:

1. Most of the references listed in the text are not included at the bottom of the page.

2. The Roundup website in the External Links is only for marketing of residential use products -- there no useful information there other than advertising. However, on the corporate website, there is quite of bit of technical information about Roundup and glyphosate. This would be a good resource to include in the External Links: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/sci_tech/crop_chemicals/scipubs.asp

3. The statements "Glyphosate residues have been found in strawberries (Cessna & Cain, 1992), lettuce, carrots, barley (U.S. EPA, 1993), and fish (Wang et al., 1994, Folmar et al., 1979). Glyphosate residues persisted a long time after the glyphosate was used; for example, lettuce, carrots, and barley contained glyphosate residues at harvest when planted a year after treatment (U.S. EPA, 1993). " require some explanation. All of the cited studies were conducted to deliberately determine the effects of glyphosate on the plant or animal. For examle, it is not surprising that residues were found in strawberries that had been sprayed with Roundup -- the study was designed to study the translocation of glyphosate throughout the plant. The Wang and Folmar studies were laboratory studies to determine the toxicity to fish -- of course there will be residues in lab tests -- this doesn't indicate that residues are found in fish in the environment. In the lettuce, carrots, and barley study, radiolabeled glyphosate was applied to plants, and the radiolabeled carbon was tracked for a few years -- this is a study the EPA requires. The "residues" noted in the EPA report were the individual carbon atoms that had been metabolized by the plant and soil and then taken up by the next year's crop. The statement about "residues" is not scientifically accurate -- just check the EPA reference that is mentioned (but not included in the references).

4. While a researcher (not cited) has reported that the surfactant in Roundup (POEA) has been found to be toxic to tadpoles, the results aren't relevant since the tests were conducted at concentrations much higher than would be found in the environment, and were conducted to mimic an illegal (off-label) use. Monsanto has provided a scientific review of the article making the allegations (which is not cited, by the way); this review is included at the website in point 2 above.

Roundup Illnesses

I find it highly questionable that Roundup is the third-leading cause of pesticide illness in California. I would expect that restricted materials; products containing ingredients such as organophosphates, carbamates, methyl bromide or metam sodium; Category I (labeled "Danger") pesticides; insecticides would dominate. I have been involved in agricultural pest control in various capacities for about 15 years and have never heard of such a thing. Roundup is generally considered a very safe product. I believe the health risks in this article are much overstated. If motivated, I may check the CA EPA DPR website. They are the definitive source for illness data in California. Ozdog 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have authoritative proof from CA EPA DPR. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/pisp/2003spec_pest_type_illness.pdf I have deleted the reference from the article. Ozdog 13:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I thought that was bunk also, but I didn't have the technical background to back up my assumption. kenj0418 15:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

These types of statistics seem to be broadly used, i think part of it stems from the very high level of use of roundup compared to many more acutely toxic things, plus eye-related incidents i am assuming are what notch that figure up. 83.78.187.33 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Monsanto endeavoring to better understand the potential dangers of surfactants? If some surfactants - such as the one used in RoundUp - are thought to be environmentally hazardous, will Monsanto look for safer alternatives? I contacted Monsanto about an independant study that was done on frogs, using the surfactant in RoundUp, and they responded with a refutation of the findings and included additional marketing-type information on why RoundUp is safe.

--Papaver S 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

well it sort of goes like this

There is Monsanto info, and some of it is good, yet some of it is bad, and they have incidents of scientists heading to prison for fraud. It sort of goes like this, every once in a rare while someone manages to get some funding to do a study thats not monsanto backed, it maybe comes up with some info not so flattering of the product, monsanto slams the study in any way they can with their multi-billion dollar power. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they however are not right. Really all we can say is that this product was a good step up from DDT and agent orange and a step in the right direction towards lower toxicity to humans and mammals and their habitats and health, when someone needs to use a weed killing type of technology that is chemical based, so we can thank monsanto for their improvement...it is however, by no means the perfect product & technology...yet they have "bet the farm" on this product and their roundup ready GE tech so they are loathe to acknowledge any problems with the product...So the one thing we can be sure of is that if anyone has a study showing a problem with the product, Monsanto will have a half dozen saying they were false, maybe they are correct in denouncing the unflattering studies, maybe not, just depends, anyways there is no way the product is going to be banned, even if it shows conclusive harmful reproductive effect to humans under present conditions of use and environmental & water concentrations, and really the only thing that will be getting monsanto to design a new and further improved weed killing technology whether chemical based or not, is weed resistance to roundup which is occuring and will slowly continue to increase in occurence, or someone else designing a better even less toxic product and technology...thats what will force them to improve..also, just slightly, the increasing prevalence of organic/bio farms and demand from consumers for non-chemical produce and foodstuffs will force them to better their technologies to non-toxic forms, this demand is small though, and mainly only from certain percentages of the educated classes and varies according to region so has far less impact than will weed resistance & new competitor inventions 83.78.187.33 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ttguy

make good edits on the glyphosate page and we will bring them over here, we have no problem with that. Just dont vandalize this page Ttguy...if you have a problem with the page bring it to the talk section. With now detailed references for everything it is immune to your style of vandalism. You simply have to bring in fresh information and study results instead...there is plenty out there...we want an accurate comprehensive document, what this page really needs is more information on positives of roundup such as yield comparisons or information on soil conservation from using herbicides vrs. mechanical weed cultivation etc. 129.132.239.8 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommend for Cleanup

This article gets very difficult to read towards the end and has multiple formatting issues. Anyone adverse to flagging it for cleanup? FienX 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

well i agree fully we need to transfer the multiple scientific journal references to reference tags in the reference section...its just a matter of someone taking the time...i suppose i will at some point...ive spent a lot of time on this...all anyone else does is complain complain about the references needing to be transfered instead of just doing it...yet in time i will...maybe ill try and make it a project for tomorrow, as to the section under microorganism resistance...well it reads simple to me...yet I'm rather handy with science stuff, despite that, i have tried to use lay language in this article in my edits, and i can easily see how it would be daunting to some this paragraph that someone else has been working on, but i think it should stay & here is why i think this:...it is a very minor part of the article, at the very end, yet people need to get a glimpse of what biotech is all about i think...so i am supportive of Ttguy having this scientific-technical description as people need to learn how to read thru this type of stuff, or else at least not be afraid when they see a paragraph or two in detailed microbiological scientific format, i agree many people would not understand it at all, so a summary sentence perhaps before, and then this technical paragraph, people need to at least be presented with what many in the biotech community can zip right thru with perfect understanding, i think it is important for people to see how others language is developing, its tough language yes, yet its just a paragraph, and i think anyone with a good modern college biology & chemistry class would understand its basics, someone not understanding can just skip it & it is indeed very short...83.78.144.13 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

and i think this brings an issue to my mind...it should be simpler to put in references on wikipedia, i should be able to just copy and paste the journals title & authors etc. from the article on another page to wikipedia and have not much else to do...i shouldnt have to retype it to wikipedia reference format...i should just be able to paste and not bother beyond this!...83.78.144.13 04:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

what do you think Fienx?

i still have more to do, more reference adding and transfering, i added links for the words in the bioengineering section for terms people may not be familiar with, yet i think it is all basic terminology and can stay as is, i really think we need some more information about increased yields from monsanto in a section on historical documented benefits to farmers...plus Ttguy needs to bring in some more studies from monsanto that counter some of the studies showing possible harms so we have more from that side of the debate 83.78.144.13 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

premature births and miscarriages

well i saw that the rates were about 1½ times the rate for miscarriage, and about 2½ times the rate for pre-term birth...both with 95% or greater confidence, and this was actually exposure of just the male!...and the effect of glyphosate on his sperm could produce this effect on the later embryo...this wasnt even looking at female exposure to glyphosate...and it seems the critical time as the researchers see it is within 3 months before conception if the male is exposed it led to this effect...83.78.144.13 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where in the article you are reading but page 6, table 3 - "glyphosates states" 17 miscarriage cases, Adujusted odds ratio = 1.5 , 95% confidence interval 0.8 - 2.7.[1] Perhaps you don't know what a 95% confidence interval means. It is a statistical term which means that there is only a 5% chance that you could get an odds ratio of greater than 2.7 or less than 0.8 given that glyphosate has no effect. The fact that the odds ratio is only 1.5 - in the middle of the 95% CI means the result is not statistically significant and would not be used by any real scientist to decide anything. I am putting my comment about the lack of statistical significance in. In fact I should delete the whole claim about misscarriages all together because if something is of such low statitistical significance it can not be regarded as real at all. If you can point to the place in the article where the effect of glyphosate is statistictically significant then go ahead and do so and delete my commnent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 07:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

The scientists doing that study made no mention of your explanation Ttguy, they themselves did not say it was statistically insignificant, so your explanation is OR and your own opinion,

The scientists don't have to say it is not statisticically signfificant. The 95% Confidence interval says it. Any scientist can read and understand what a 95% CI is. If you don't know then perhaps you should stop playing where science is being done and sumarised.Ttguy 12:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

the rate for miscarriages was 1.5, the rate for premature births was 2.4, also, of the several chemicals studied glyphosate had a higher rate than most of them for pre-mature births, this is not to say there was 100% confidence in the results of that study, only 95%, so it is only very likely it has this effect.

So you really are as dumb as I thought Benjiwolf. 95% CI means the researchers are 95% sure that the Odds ratio would lie between 0.8 and 2.7 if Glyphosate had no effect - the null hypothesis. The measured odds ratio was only 1.5 - in the middle of the 95% CI and so not statistically significant.

Actually this is wrong. The reason why the results are not statistically significant is that the CI includes the Odds ratio of 1. The 95% CI means that we can be 95% sure that the true odds ratio lies between 0.8 and 2.7. So with the variablity in the data the true odds ratio could quite easily be 1 and thus not a difference at all. And this is the reason why the results are not statistically significant.Ttguy 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with them not being 100% sure about the result. Nothing to do with them being only 95% sure. Ttguy 12:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact in the last decade or so pre-mature births have skyrocketed in the US[2], up 13%, & pre-mature births are up 29% since 1981, perhpas Ttguy will once again come out with a fancy statistics argument to say it is "not statistically significant",

The whole paper you are banging on about uses "fancy statistics". I am afraid you can't have it both ways. If you try and use "fancy statistics to "prove" how bad glyphosate is then you have to live by the rules of statitistics. And when your answer falls right in the middle of a 95% CI you are up shit creek for "proof"Ttguy 12:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am wrong about this point where I say that because the found Odds ratio is in the middle of the CI means the results are not significant. The found odds ratio will always lie somewhere in the middle of the CI. The reason why the results are not statisistically signficant is that the CI includes the odds ratio of one.Ttguy 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

well i am going to download the whole study beyond the abstract and take a closer look......129.132.239.8 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What a novel idea. Perhaps you should have done this before calling me a liar.Ttguy 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(I'm not calling you a liar, yet I think I will now call you a "deceiver", in this case, as you continually just talk about the 1.5 rate for miscarriage, and not the 2.4 rate found for pre-mature birth the abstract did say it was not strongly associated with miscarriage which i read over too quickly and had been thinking it was strongly associated, its just associated, ...so we can say that in their particular model, it wasnt, as of the confines of their study, able to be declared strongly associated under a statistical argument based on the numbers of testees which were too few (at near 2000 i think) to yield statistical confidence, yet in fact it is associated with this reproductive effect, ...and i do agree that whatever this study came up with there need to be more studies to determine what is going on with glyphosate and miscarriage & pre-term birth...this study just looked at the effect on a males sperm to see if this would increase a womans rate of miscarriage or pre-term birth...and i dont really think it was an especially good study for this reason and several others...we need studies looking at the direct effects on the female as well...and the one i see looking at this does in fact note definite negative effects from glyphosate...anyways i'm going to rewrite that whole sentence, after looking at the study examining direct effects on the female & embryo...129.132.239.8 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

after looking at the study now in a little more detail I see your argument is somewhat deceiving Ttguy, in fact the entire study and every single result could be called "statistically insignificant"...in fact i could say we cant be statistically confident in any of their results, even their results showing no effects that they came up with!...does that mean the entire study is meaningless?...129.132.239.8 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does there study say they found no effect? That is the whole point of a null hypothesis and the idea you can not prove a negative. If they do a study and their Odds ratio lies in the middle of the 95% CI then their study does not prove there is an effect. It also does not prove there is not an effect either. You can calculate a statistic called the POWER of the experiment which would tell you how large the effect would have needed to be before it would show up as statitistically significant given the variability you have in your data. I don't believe the authors of this paper quote a power stat. So yes the whole study is in fact pretty meaningless because as you point out - no results were statistically signficant.

Ttguy 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

...what it means is they have found correlations and trends,

This study is the equivalent to tossing a coin 5 times and getting 3 heads and then concluding there is something funny with the coin.Ttguy 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

no, that is a ridiculous comparison, and highly misleading and deceiving, they studied near 2000 couples, they found clear associations between some chemicals and not others, for some reproductive effects and none for others, the study was simply too small at 2000 subjects for results showing only 2 to 3 times the rates for some things, to not say with 100% assurity that we will always see these exact results, and with a study sample of this size for these rates that there is some room for error...85.1.223.203 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

anyways more studies should be done to put absolute 100% certainty in these results...they would need vast population samples to give statistical confidence on odds ratios of just 1.5 or 2.4 times the risk of miscarriage or pre-term birth, and here is what they themselves say about the results: "The combination of engaging in pesticide activities and reported use of specific chemicals on the farm produced a number of more substantially elevated adjusted odds ratios for miscarriage."...they also say " Our results provide some indication that male farm activities may influence risk of preterm delivery, par-ticularly when occurring in combination with reported applications of specific chemicals on the farm. The pattern for miscarriage also suggested some potential effect of male activities combined with reported chemical use, although to a lesser extent than for preterm delivery." and although the following, like everything else, is statistically insignificant according to Ttguy, do we just write it off?: "We found virtually no evidence of associations with SGA births or altered sex ratio in the offspring". using Ttguys argument i could say well thats totally false what they found: that it didnt effect sex ratio...we also have to keep in mind that this was just studying the effect on male sperm and how this would effect reproductive issues for the female and embryo. The study tells us "For miscarriage, there is clear experimental evidence of a paternal effect (5), and the epidemiologic literature offers at least some replicated indications of an environmental contribution, most strongly for mercury and anesthetic gases (11). Preterm deb'very has not been assessed as a consequence of male exposures in experimental studies, and very limited epidemiologic research has been generated on this issue (12). Maternal characteristics, particularly reproductive and medical, are most strongly associated with preterm delivery"...so it seems that finding these trends and associations with pre-term births in the male using glyphosate within 3 months of conception suggests it could have more drastic effect directly on the female...anyways they have found trends and associations, they just dont have a large enough study population at 1900 couples interviewed and observed to give 100% certainties that these are the exact odds ratios and risks. Its trends and associations they found, perhaps the odds on something were not 2.4 for glyphosate and pre-term birth, perhaps they were slightly lower or actually slightly higher, perhaps its 2.6 or 2.2, perhaps its 5 or even 7!... or perhaps its way less and you have fewer pre-term births if the male actually uses glyphosate!, yet the further you move away from saying the odds ratio is 2.4 the less likely you are to be correct. So do we just say, well it is all statistically insignificant so its all total conjecture and speculation, even the common sense results they found that using protective equipment gives lower odds ratios?...

yet i can say touche Ttguy!...you have tripped me up finally in the case of this particular study, i can say an association, yet not a big enough statistical correlation to enable you not to say "its statistically insignificant" as there were too few study subjects at 1,900 or something, there is indeed a possibility that a male spraying glyphosate one time within 3 months of sleeping with his wife will not cause a greater rate of pre-mature birth or miscarriage, yet this study seems to suggest it will affect this rate, i should have read thru this particular study slowly, completely, and carefully, instead i made this last edit at 5 in the morning swiss time after staying up all night, relied on several other scientists characterizing this particular study with "an association between glyphosate and reproductive effects",

These wouldn't be Greenpeace,Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, ISIS, NGIN, Natural Law Party etc "scientists" would they? There is a lesson here. You seem to be learning...

(and i would agree with them still!),

Oops - I guess not. Nothing can shake the belief of the true believer Ttguy 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact the scientists who stated that have no links to these organizations that I'm aware of, (Ive never even heard of 3 of these 5 organizations), but not that that would somehow undermine their credibility anymore than is true for the many many scientists working for the manufacturer or paid by them. The only thing i "truly believe" Ttguy is that you are not a good faith editor, and only edit on the very limited set of issues of pesticides/herbicides and GM food, you are either a straight up paid lobbiest, or someone, from a plant biology perspective and not a human biology perspective, that has actually done harm to your positions by using the sorts of tactics you do such as erasing all critical comment and study results, I tried to encourage you, I said you had a few good edits, i encouraged you to branch out and give wikipedia more information about the land in which you live and have good first hand knowledge of for instance, Australia, yet you haven't really done that...85.1.223.203 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

and just rapidly skimmed thru it as I am rather tired of this edit war as my opinion on this substance was set a while ago,

Really. We couldn't tell by reading your stuff :-). Perhaps you should disqualify yourself from editing this page at all then since you have a self admited bias.Ttguy 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While you insist on breaking up my comments to try and twist words, I will say further my opinion was set after reading a large amount of scientific data and opinion, it was set towards a neutral position, part of which entails more studies need to be carried out, I have not said anything about the weight of benefits vrs. harms, I have not said this is an "evil" product designed maliciously by an "evil" company, in fact I have said they designed the product in good faith and it was a vast improvement for chemical herbicides, part of which says there is little evidence for carcinogenicity except for long term farm workers, part of which is there is reason for concern about its mammalian reproductive effects & particularly if you arent wishing for a reduction in birth rate, part of which is, it is lethaly toxic in small doses in the range of 100ml-200ml (ie. even a shot glass or two) and so therefore calling it "practically non-toxic" like milk or something is ridiculous, part of which is there has been fraud & false advertising carried out more than once in the interests of the manufacturer, (it only wasnt in their interests as the "scientists" got caught twice, who knows what others got away with?!), part of which is there need to be more studies carried out by an opposition trying to prove it is harmful instead of just many with methodologies trying to prove it isnt, yet none the less part of which is this page needs more positive data with regards yield increases and more studies representative of monsantos position, (and although I, and not you, in fact am the one who has linked multiple times to Monsanto pages and studies and created several sentences favorable to the product, I am not being paid by monsanto and their multi-billion dollar empire and I'm not going to further spend my time doing that after you and a couple editors have clearly established a one-sided pro-monsanto bias, including disruptive blanking of referenced material and other tactics harmful to the page and an NPOV, which I was forced to come and fight hard for mainly by leaning towards the oppositions side and providing data from hundreds of scientists that have found results not flattering of the product's "perfection", and incidently, while I feel those calling monsanto an "evil malicious" company have gone way too far, I lean much more towards some of their positions on the company after seeing your editing tactics)...85.1.223.203 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

& there are plenty of other studies out there that show concern over this product besides this one, anyways as I have said I have not made a statement on its benefits vrs its harms, as i have said it also depends on the nation, standards, monitoring, and protective measures there, and the situation to make a statement regarding this whether it is worth it, perhaps some country at some time point has a higher birth rate than it wants and is capable of handling, so wants more miscarriages, wants testosterone reduced, and wants a lower birth rate, yet wants this herbicide for its weed killing effects also!, and i could of course remove this little exchange where i have tripped up slightly, as you have resorted to personal insults and also vulgar profanity in this exchange!, which I might remind you is against wikipedia policy and not in line with an encylopedic tone, yet I'm not one for removing things and blanking, even when i happen to have looked foolish, and i could get you blocked maybe for this type of tone, yet while you have repeatedly tried to block good faith editors from editting i do not resort to such tactics when at least some of the edits have value even though the editor has gotten carried away on occasion, and whatever creek you come from, i say keep your opinions, & your nasty products out of the creeks near where i live and where my children might play!, you on the other hand consistently blank & remove anything not flattering of your lobbiest position and this chemical, with sometimes ridiculous excuses, and i wouldnt really have been drawn into this article if it wasnt for that, your very POV editing on this article, i knew full well there were a hundred commonly used chemicals out there far nastier than this one from the get go, yet I have indeed found in this edit war that the chemical was nastier than i expected, and it does seem that it could be proved, to statistical significance, that it has a negative effect on several areas of human reproduction including perhaps miscarriage & pre-mature births, the study just needs the proper methodology, and also i have found that some study results are questionable and biased towards the manufacturers position whether subtley in the methodology, or even with outright fraud, with even felony charges for some of the scientists, i reiterate my call for some more fully independent studies to be carried out before i could make a sure assessment whether its potential reproductive harms are severe enough to warrant alarm (some of which must be carried out by those in opposition to the monsanto scientists that carry out most of the studies, once i see 100 studies by herbicide/pesticide opponents next to the monsanto studies i could make a determination in a comparison)(at this point i could say to women wanting children, you should surely not smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, and you should probably stay away from glyphosate products, and drink water free of them, even water with just a few ppms of the stuff!, and maybe even you should keep your boyfriend or husband away from the stuff!)...85.0.218.125 22:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

the severity of a possible negative effect on human reproduction is still unknown

and I'm not trying to say glyphosate is somehow responsible all by itself for this, the fact in the last decade or so pre-mature births have skyrocketed in the US[3], up 13%, & pre-mature births are up 29% since 1981...it is of course noteworthy that glyphosate use started around 1981 and got used more and more, yet I am willing to say it is likely that glyphosate, in combination with the cumulative effects of 100 or so other agricultural and industrial chemicals is responsible for a large portion of this dramatic increase, perhaps higher obesity rates have a part to play, alcohol use I'm not aware has risen though in this period, tobacco smoking has actually declined!, so something else is responsible for this dramatic rate of increase even while tobacco has been smoked less! What do you propose is responsible for it Ttguy?...of course there are many possible explanations to account for some of the increase, it could be narrowed down to just a couple chemicals that have all by themselves a dramatic effect, yet I lean towards the explanation that at least part or even the majority of this effect is as of the synergistic and combinatory effects of a wide array of chemicals & pollutants, including perhaps glyphosate which has increased in use during this period to very very wide-spread and heavy usage, this study with their significant results leads me think indeed perhaps glyphosate has at least a minor part in responsibility for this, at least for farmworkers and those living near conventional farms or whose water may be consistently polluted with glyphosate, as after all this study was even just looking at the effect of glyphosate on the males sperm up to 3 months before conception to achieve these effects and not even direct effects on the female or embryo...83.79.133.133 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

so i could tell a country that wants to reduce its birth rate, that glyphosate it seems could help in this endeavor, we just arnt totally sure yet, we need more studies, yet it does seem its a good choice if you want a chemical herbicide that also has the bonus of reducing birth rate and hampering somewhat human reproduction, yet isnt especially carcinogenic...85.0.218.125 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

a proposal for Ttguy

anyways here is my proposal Ttguy!...we start dosing your two daughters with roundup for the next 30 years and take notes on the outcome!...are you game for a study of this nature?...of course whatever happens it wont be "statistically significant"...we both know that...if they miscarry repeatedly or have pre-term births its just not going to give us a "statistically significant" result...yet I am greatly interested in a study of this nature so we at least have anecdotal case study evidence...so are you game for the challenge?...I will think a moment and decide on a dosage regime...a lower one for one daughter, a higher one for the other...we need some human volunteers i think and you seem to think the stuff is practically non-toxic or some such thing so it should be like testing out a new medicine right???...so volunteer your two daughters for studies of roundup dosing Ttguy is my challenge to you!!!...lets hear your answer!...129.132.239.8 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

as scientific study results show..."we conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals"..."here we show that glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells within 18hr with concentrations lower than those found in agricultural use"..."our studies show that glyphosate acts as a disruptor of mammalian cytochrome P450 aromatase activity from concentrations 100 times lower than the recommended use in agriculture"..."the dilution of glyphosate in roundup may multiply its endocrine effect, roundup may thus be considered as a potential EDC"..."moreover at higher doses still below the classic agricultural dilutions, its toxicity on placental cells could induce some reproductive problems"...so lets see it Ttguy...lets see you volunteer your two daughters to do some tests...i volunteer mine as the control with absolutely no roundup dose!...let readers note these tests of course would not yield statistically significant results no matter what happened, if Ttguys daughters turned purple and puked blood out of every orifice that would not be statistically significant!...i would not be able to use a statistical argument to say this stuff can be nasty, i could not even be able to say there was a statistical association...i could only remark that "in anecdotal case studies with Ttguys daughters there were some untoward effects of being dosed with roundup...to say the least"..yet I'm not proposing a 100ml (a fluid ounce or two) a day dosage regime Ttguy...(the study would only last a day or two with that one)...I'm proposing something less than the clear toxic dose...so what do you say?...129.132.239.8 19:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

tactics not in line with a good discussion

Well you totally avoided answering my challenge didnt you!!!...anyways I suggest you change your debating tactics in the future with other editors, including myself, to allow them to say what they wish in an unbroken format, and then respond with what you have to say in your own paragraph, I dont see your latest edit war tactic being an especially good faith tactic and it shows you feel the need to break apart anothers comments and arent confident enough to allow them their say, and then have your own say. You can attack bit by bit, point for point, in your own paragraph, yet this latest tactic I see little value in and encourage all other wikipedia editors when at all possible not to emulate this style of debate in a written format, let your opponent have their say, without interfering in their say with your own sentences laced thruout it! then go ahead and have your own say and expect the same treatment from your debate opponent, otherwise they are forced to respond back into it and this further complicates someone else following the chronological progression of the debate...this was not a good faith editing tactic on your part! (thats not even mentioning your profanities)...I again challenge you to provide the name of your University that turns out PHDs using such profane comments in an encyclopedia, and using such a debating style of inserting sentences thruout anothers paragraph!...yet as always I am not going to try and "block" you from editing as you have tried for me, or block you from having your say on wikipedia, I encourage you to continue editing, yet to adjust your tone and style!....( i have a mind to edit this back to extract your comments out of mine and put them in chronological order, yet I want readers to see that this tactic you have used is not a good faith tactic, and betrays a lack of confidence, and attempts to twist words of another and take everything out of context, to the point of even breaking up their individual sentences!)...85.1.223.203 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

now Ttguy tries to remove the entire article!!!

cant bear it? you couldn't remove all those fully referenced cited sentences and the hundreds of scientific study results. You always have removed anything talking unfriendly to this product, all critical comment, but finally someone comes along and references it fully! So now you try to just erase the whole article???...Its your finest effort Ttguy! Your finest example of trying to blank! I have said dozens of times to simply add more monsanto study results to this page, and too create a section on positive effects on yield!...yet you are terrified of study results that arent flattering of this product! The glyphosate page is currently a joke, and is cited for expansion even (and not by me!)...83.78.136.13 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever 83.78.136.13 says above, this article should not be merged IMHO with Glyphosate. Glyphosate is a unique chemical agent that may be used in many different ways, while Roundup is a branded product which is a combination of a number of chemicals. It is like merging/redirecting a branded bleach product into Chlorine. Furthermore it seems to be the case that the combination of chemicals in Roundup has a greater toxicity than Glyphosate alone, hence studies of Roundup are not applicable to Glyphosate (note this not the same the other way round) - the two need to be kept separate.

Finally please do not use WP:PROD or even WP:AFD for this type of discussion. Instead use the process laid out in WP:MERGE. Cheers Lethaniol 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - deletion I guess is not really the best option. I agree we need to have both a glyphosate and an roundup article. It just the roundup article is in a very poor shape. Full of Benjiwolfs soap boxing on Monsanto and attempting to accuse Monsanto of commiting massive fraud with their toxicology studies. In its current state it going to require a lot of work and we will be fighting Benjiwolf the entire way. I guess we will just have to put in the work. Ttguy 10:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do think that a merge should be considered. A lot of this text appears to have been cut&paste from between Roundup and glyphosate. Including some bits that have been much improved in glyphosate (e.g., the "chemistry" section, which is really just the awards the discoverer was given). Also, in terms of science, my impression is that the amount of research differentiating glyphosate formulations and Roundup is not high. The surfactants are certainly an issue, but I think a common issue. I think there is the possibility of this becoming a POV fork, and I think that a separate Roundup section in the glyphosate article is probably more appropriate. As an aside, I'd assume that the awards were given for the discovery of the properties of glyphosate, not the specific Roundup formulation? --Limegreen 03:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Limegreen's idea of a merge between glyphosate and Roundup (with a section in Glyphosate on roundup) might be a good idea. And I also think now might be good time to start working on it because very soon our disruptive friend Benjiwolf is going to be locked out. See User_talk:AuburnPilot#Block_on_Benjiwolf.

The above comment may not be completely in the Wiki spirit of colaborative editing by concensus. I dunno about you guys (Limegreen, Lethinol) but I don't find Benjiwolf acts too much in the spirit of colaboration or concensus so I don't feel too bad about trying to actually make some positive progress on these articles in his absence.Ttguy 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of a merge + Roundup section Lethaniol?Ttguy 22:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

<deleted text from banned user 85.0.212.81 at this point under Wiki policy on ban enforcement - Enforcement by reverting edits. "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. ". Will also revert 85.0.212.81 copying of Glyphosate onto roundup.>

I have tried to merge before. There are pros and cons to it. The thing is however they are two different things. Glyphosate is a single chemical compound, and the couple of variations of it were marketted by different companies, now the compound is off patent of course and the GE engineered seeds resistant to glyphosate products are where the patents exist. Roundup is a complex mix of compounds, and was marketted exclusively by Monsanto. PS to limegreen, it was I that added the other awards for Franz myself, for those of you thinking I have some sort of POV, get real! As to Ttguys comments, the PCPHD, no, you have not at all tried to edit by consensus, and you have tried several times to simply block out the editor with content dispute over it, its an underhanded method you have been using, its why I have no respect whatsoever for you as a wikipedia editor. No respect whatsoever. Now to talk about your double standards, for example, take that line about "glyphosate is used by conservation groups". I added it to watch you in action, first it wasnt referenced at all, but you didnt do anything to remove it though, however lines not flattering of the product you remove instantly, even if they are referenced. I then put in the true refernence of that line, to monsantos page, however once again with your "supposed" high standards for referencing you have used in arguments before, as that monsanto page didnt specifically note where they got that line from, or reference it themselves, once again you should have removed it immediately according to your self described standards for referencing. In fact all your talk is a seriously heavy load of crap. In fact the document most scientifically referenced ever to come to the page was Caroline Cox's article, its actually the only link ever to have lived up to your standards of scientific referencing, it was thoroughly referenced in the style you desire, yet you simply removed the most thoroughly referenced link. You only apply your standards to material you don't want in the article. Just to watch you in action I myself placed some fact citation tags on some stuff in the glyphosate article not flattering of the product, that were already clearly established as being referenced however, and were clearly from linked pages, it was fun to see you remove them as uncited, when before they were indeed cited. Anyways as I have said, if you want to do some actual good to the roundup page you would simply add some material about yield increases, and add some more monsanto studies, instead your strategy is to commandeer the page to the glyphosate version so you can remove all study results not flattering of the product, and so you can remove the material about the multiple false advertising charges and the multiple occasions of scientific fraud including felony convictions 85.0.212.81 17:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"the way glyphosate works is known down to the atomic level"???

What utter rubbish! ...The chemical structure of glyphosate is known down to the atomic level Ttguy. Molecular biology can indeed characterize its basic structure. However its full mode of action is of course not fully known. How could it ever be, indeed if one really wants to push this argument? There are near infinite combinations of matter for glyphosate to act upon, we have a handful of studies on a miniscule few possible permutations of matter, like a couple mouse studies for example, etc etc. Even taking one permutation of matter, one specific strain of mouse say, even then the way it works and its definite accurate effects on the mouse strain is barely known and mostly educated conjecture. Even that single mouse strain itself is so complicated that it will take 1000s of years to figure everything out about its own workings and molecular intricasies. In fact it takes a hundred years or so for humankind to begin to get a primitive grasp on the mode of action and working of a novel compound on a range of species. At this point, (in the cases of "much studied" compounds), it has gone from educated conjecture to a primitive grasp of the actual workings. When it comes to the working on the human permutation of matter, the first few decades are mainly pure conjecture, with copious mistakes and oversights, then after a half century sometimes results from broad surveys and studies on a population start coming in so we start to get an idea of the actual effects of the thing. If the way glyphosate works was fully known we wouldnt see any studies at all, there would be no point, we would know everything right Ttguy? In fact people have barely the first clue about its possible EDC effects for instance. People have a handful of studies to work with, humankind has only educated conjecture on this subject, and primitve knowledge of the action of glyphosate. Even with just its basic molecular action, first it was just thought to work on one pathway. A couple decades later someone besides Monsanto decides to carry out a study or two. Low and behold several new pathway effects are found. It works in ways not thought of before! Suprise suprise!...83.78.165.54 22:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

When you have a co-crystal of glyphosate and it target enzyme and you do X-ray crysalography of it and you see how glyphosate interferes with the enzymes active site I would say you know how glyphosate works on the atomic level. As would most educated biologists. The mere fact that glyphosate has some apparent inhibitory effect on other enzymes is totally irrelevant unless you know the degree of inhibition. If you study any compound you care to think of you can pretty much guarantee that a large proportion of them will inhibit one enzyme or another. It is called non-specific inhibition. But what is biologicially interesting is specfic inhibition - a situation where a specfic compound has a profound effect on a specific enzyme. These compounds are interesting as potential herbicides, insecticide, antibiotic, anti-virals and anti-cancer compounds.Ttguy 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You have replaced a 2001 reference explaining how glyphosate works at the molecular level with a 1993 paper that says we don't know how glyphosate works. Well I am sorry, but knowledge moves on. You can't use a 14 year old paper to say one thing when a 6 year old paper says it is now wrong. So it is you that is sprouting rubbish. Your edit will be reverted.Ttguy 07:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The way my childhood tinkertoy set works is mostly known down to the atomic level!-83.78.165.54 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, its misleading. The fact is we don't know how glyphosate fully works.

Give us a reference to back up this claim.Ttguy

There would no current ongoing research into the several unanswered questions about its actions if we did. Simple as that.

The sentance in the introduction to this article is about glyphosates mode of action as a herbicide in plants. Not about its mode of putative side effects. This is why it is completely missleading to say we do not know how it works. If you want to put a sentance in the sections about its putative side effects stating we do not know how these effects come about then feel free. But it does not belong in the introduction nor in the section were we are talking about glyphosates biochemical action as a herbicideTtguy 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No - it is you that is being misleading. You put in a 1993 study to support your claim that we don't know how glyphosate works. I remove that statement because a 2001 paper proves it to be inacurate. (The paper describes a co-crystal of glyphosate and it target enzyme with X-ray crysalography data showing how glyphosate interferes with the enzymes active site - see above). It is now encumbant on you to provide a paper from a reliable source published after 2001 that indicates that we do not know how glyphosate works. All your conjecture and arguments about this on the talk page constitute original research (and violates wikipedia:OR unless you can find a paper from a reliable source published after 2001 to back up your claims. Ttguy 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I included your new additions and references that I saw. Plus you reverted spelling corrections and removal of repetitions. Anyways, I have no problem with your adding new referenced material thats valid for the article. To make definitive statements about how glyphosate works at this time is rubbish, there are hundreds of unanswered questions about it. As to enzyme inhibitions, non-specific enzyme inhibitions are of course biologically interesting as well, and very relevant to something that is being sprayed en masse, in vast quantities all over the place, and that doesnt biodegrade and keeps building up year after year only to be slowly released for organisms to deal with little by little for age after age, or in big swooshes from time to time as a bunch of soil gets washed into water during large storms etc etc. Make some further statement about its action on its specific target enzyme being known at the atomic level if you wish. I think I actually included your sentence & reference about the X-ray crystallography study unless it got accidentally left out somehow, I'm a big Rosalind Franklin fan too, I included this Ttguy!

Yes Benjiwolf I can read and I do know you did not delete the X-ray Xlography study. But that is irrelevant because you are using a 14 year old paper as a basis for a claim when modern studies show that your assertion is totally false. Ttguy 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore Disruptive_editing policy has this to say "Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources. This exemption does not apply to settled disputes; for example, insertion of claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth would not be appropriate today; even though this issue was active controversy in the time of Galileo"

Note two things from this: controversies documented by reliable sources and settled disputes. Your statement that we don't know how glyphosate works is now a settled dispute unless you have a documented reliable source that is more recent than 2001 which states otherwise.Ttguy 13:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact still remains the working & action of glyphosate is not fully known. We have just an inkling of its full biochemical action & effects, and most of it is educated conjecture & extrapolations based on monsanto studies, which sometimes are good, and sometimes are bad...83.78.165.54 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I included it without hesitation ttguy, your objection doesnt make sense as I never removed your addition, but an X ray crystallography study is just one piece of the very complex biochemical puzzle of this compound's effects and working action on a wide range of species, both plant and animal, + humans, there are many many pieces of this puzzle still to be placed until we see a reasonable picture of its effects and working action on even a limited range of species. Even then there will still be large amounts of pure extrapolation and speculation. When it comes down to it, there are a lot of question marks about this stuff. On top of this, human testing has never been done, (after all its a poison not a medicine) and we are currently in an ongoing mass scale planet-wide experimental design, the survey study results will slowly pour in over the next few decades i suppose. I'm not saying this chemical is the end of the world, i am saying there is much to be discovered still.83.78.136.182 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

new studies trumping old ones?

I think you need to be careful here ttguy, I have never disagreed with allowing in the crystallography study, I thought it was a nice addition even, but it is just one study. To say it somehow "trumps" a different type of study of a few years before, or even an entire book on the subject of roundup, just because it is slightly more recent, is a very unprofessional & unscientific thing to suggest. To then erase or remove other references from valid scientific sources that occured a couple years before a single crystallography study, and an entire book!, is just plain wrong. The crystallography study doesnt "trump" anything, plus it doesnt somehow contradict the book or other studies, it is merely one more piece of the puzzle as we try and accurately describe roundup/glyphosate products and their actions and impacts. It was a nice supplement to the article & its a nice puzzle piece, so of course i never removed it from the article. It gives us confirmation on its action on a specific enzyme, but thats about it, in fact if it was the only piece of evidence concerning roundup, it wouldnt really tell us much at all actually. I thought it important to point out in this thread that just because something is a more recent study, doesnt make it somehow better, in fact a recent study could be far worse than an older study, it just totally depends, things must stand on their own merits, and not some arbitrary date. Anyways, this crystallography study doesnt somehow clash with any other study of roundup at all, it is just a simple description of the action of roundup on a specific enzyme, and I have never tried to block it, what Ttguy has done was to use it to try and remove several other studies and an entire book about roundup from the references, and somehow try to claim that it tells us everything there is to know about the workings of glyphosate, which it quite plainy...doesnt...85.0.209.117 23:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

in fact its one of the most ridiculous lines of scientific reasoning I have heard from you so far: my study is a few years newer, so everything else is "trumped"???????...try using that on the scientific journal editors, "my study is the newest one so its the best" 85.0.209.117 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge with Glyphosate

In a section above a discussion was started about merging this page with Glyphosate. Lethaniol was of the opinon that the articles be kept seperate and myself and Limegreen were of the opinion that a merge would be--Limegreen 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) a good idea. I created this section on the talk page for further formal discussion on this as I have tagged the page with the merge tag. Ttguy 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a minor point, but if you merge anything it should be GLYPHOSATE into ROUNDUP! most key searches would be to the trade (popular) name. Or perhaps I am just arguing semantics? As long as the search "Roundup" pulls up the article, seems fine. Larry Hallas 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions are for the use of non-proprietary names, I think. Roundup would take you straight to the glyphosate page, however. --Limegreen 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

100% agree with this - Larry has this the wrong way round. No brand name is more important than the generic. Cheers Lethaniol 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As a further note to the merger debate, it seems that most of the references are articles about glyphosate, or glyphosate-containing herbicides, rather than directly examining Roundup.--Limegreen 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I DISAGREE with any merge and here are my reasons:

1. Glyphosate is a distinct and notable chemical - IMHO all such chemicals should have there own article, even if there is a notable Brand name. If there is any merge, then it should be of the Brand into the chemical only
2. Roundup and Glyphosate are not equivalent. The added ingredients in Roundup have been studied and suggest that toxicity is greater for Roundup (due to the extra ingredients) than Glyphosate. - Note it is this point that makes me think that the articles should be kept separate.

It might need to be the case that Roundup is stripped of all the Glyphosate research (moved to that article instead) and have a summary of the Glyphosate research and link to section on such research in the Glyphosate article. Cheers Lethaniol 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy if most of the glyphosate stuff was stripped from the Roundup article. The main reason why I see a merger as appropriate is because of the excess duplication. I guess also my sense is that most 'generic' glyphosate weedkillers also contain other ingredients (with some overlap). I have seen a paper or 2 that explicitly compares a straight glyphosate with Roundup and some generics, and I didn't think the differences between the latter two were startling. Of course, I don't have the ref in front of me so that's not a lot of help. --Limegreen 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There are major differences. For instance roundup will kill a human being with about 100ml to 200ml, a shot glass or two, its likely that a pure glyphosate liquid by itself would take much more. For instance one study found roundup many many times more toxic to human embryos than pure glyphosate. Pure glyphosate has far less aquatic toxicity, Monsanto has even altered product formulations to address aquatic toxicity, any one given glyphosate formulation could have very different properties in several areas of interest. One study actually found dilutions more toxic, likely as of synergisms between chemical constituents. Of course some varying formulations could have very similar properties in some areas, totally depends on the specific thing you are looking at, and in one area of comparison pure glyphosate may be identical to roundup, in another it won't be. Also generics are chemical mixtures, they are almost surely not pure glyphosate, pure glyphosate is not ever used for anything as far as I know, it just exists in the manufacturing process as an active ingredient to add to a mixture. You don't seem to have a chemistry or biology background limegreen, a mixture of several chemicals is completely different than a single chemical, and will behave differently almost surely, lethaniol does seem to realize this important fact. Anyways, the roundup article of course should maintain in keeping all relevant info, of any of its constituent products. It does need more about some of the non active ingredients i suppose, & that info is out there to be had on the internet incuding talk of the constituent chemicals in the context of roundup formulations. If you wish to bring out some stuff to the glyphosate page thats fine, it is very weak and limited currently, and has been flagged for expansion by uninvolved users. Wikipedia is about expanding knowledge, not shrinking it, what the roundup page needs is not deletion and erasures, but more about yield increases, more monsanto studies represented, and more about possible soil conservation by no till herbicide regimes.83.79.139.11 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm. I wrote "most 'generic' glyphosate weedkillers also contain other ingredients", which indicates that I'm well aware they're chemical mixtures. I also mentioned that the toxicity of generic glyphosate weedkillers and Roundup were more similar than pure glyphosate, illustrating that I understand the implications of a chemical mixture. I added a reference to the glyphosate page about Roundup being more toxic that 'straight' glyphosate. Also, I'm pretty sure I added a paper where they compared 'straight' glyphosate, a generic concentrate, a generic diluted, Roundup concentrate, and Roundup diluted. --Limegreen 22:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, have not been following ur edits to glyphosate lately! Cheers! Actually i think either way can possibly work, merger or separate articles. When I used a merger type style long ago, (keeping the two articles to read the same), I had thought this does work as most info is basically applicable to either page. However, some would be perhaps more appropriate for just the roundup page, but everything about glyphosate (a more limited subject) would be appropriate for the roundup page (a broader subject). Ultimately technically, i tend to think they should have separate pages, since one is a basic compound, the other is a complex & varying mixture, and a specific brand name herbicide product and product line, but both pages should have links to eachother of course. As to duplicated material, I dont really see it a problem, some people may only ever read the glyphosate page for instance, or only to the roundup page. Where I do see the problem is for editors adding things that may be relevant to both pages, and therefore having to duplicate this material and add it twice, and this speaks for a reason to have a single page. Currently though, i just watch the glyphosate page from time to time, and if any valuable additions have been made, I elaborate on them or copy them over to the roundup page, lately I've been getting lazy about that, but i try to, so usually anything especially important added to the glyphosate page i just move over within a few weeks, and it takes only a minute or so. I'll try and make some time to look over all recent changes and copy over all relevant and worthwhile stuff. i also suggest we head around wikipedia to see examples of similar situations and what has been done, and not just basic chemical/specific herbicide product examples-83.78.152.128 14:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: if these two subjects were more obscure, and not the "number one herbicide" or a very widely used chemical and popular chemical product line for example, then i would be much more leaning towards a single page, however as its a rather important topic, of a very widely used substance, and as there is a vast amount of info about them both jointly, yet also separately, I could see them each having their own page. We also may wish to do a yahoo and a google search for both "roundup herbicide" and "glyphosate herbicide", and see what the top 10 or 20 hits look like in their presentations-83.78.152.128 14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

anyways, once again, the roundup page needs more info about yield increases, soil benefit from no-till herbicide regimes, and more monsanto studies. The glyphosate page, well its really in a sorry state, you lead the toxicity with a reference to a random local US soil service, that even doesnt have glyphosate placed in the right category of EPA toxicity?, you've also got the other ref as being a monsanto marketting statement? Its silly the glyphosate page. I could head thru it and remove most everything as poorly referenced, for example the statement about placing it in category 4, that abstract as ref mentions nothing about this, and is an older literature review before more recent reproductive studies, and its a single review, other reviews have found differently and that its should be upgraded even, plus the EPA conducted their own review and didnt change it did they?. You removed the stuff about weed resistance, it was even from farmers associations and not even herbicide opponents! Your page reads as from a manufacturers advertisement. I'm not gonna really get into it, as the page is a joke, really. The thing about paraquat leading to 70% death rate and roundup 10%...look at that study, you have made a highly misleading statement, the toxicity of either of these is totally dependent on the amount swallowed, both are highly toxic lethal substances in very small amounts in the range of a fluid ounce or two or a 100ml-200ml or less even, a small amount of either leads to a 100% death rate, it just is totally dependent on the specific suicide attempt and how much they swallowed, the treatment and rapidity of emergency care, etc, neither is somehow "more safe than the other" in a suicide attempt, it just depends on the specific product mixture and dilution ratio etc etc, one glyphosate formulation even may be far more acutely lethal than another in a suicide situation, one paraquat mixture may be. For basic human safety I think you have to make clear, a very very small amount of roundup is lethal, if someone swallows even an ounce or two they need to go immediately to hospital, a shot glass or two of it with no treatment and death will be unpleasant, I have included the entire 100% factual highly referenced range of effects up to and including death for ingestions, as well as the effects of contact exposures, and have given the clear range it becomes lethal in. Anyways if glphosate editors want to come over here, thats fine, but please, have some respect, this page is looking for a professional presentation, contribute good work, but not garbage-83.78.152.128 15:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to more clearly differentiate between the Toxicity Class that EPA has given Glyphosate, and other non-global measurements using EPA's scale by other groups. For example, EPA give glyphosate Class III, which is fine. For oral exposure, however, most sources are very clear the LD50 is over 5000mg/kg, which, using EPA's scale descriptively would fit to Class IV. In the same way that also, using EPA's scale, it would be Class I for eye irritation. Although these can be presented on EPA's scale, they are not EPA assessments.

I had nothing to do with the Monsanto statement, so please try to assume good faith.

"the toxicity of either of these is totally dependent on the amount swallowed". That will always be the case. However, you have to drink a lot less paraquat to die than glyphosate. Glyphosate is in multiple shotglasses for a person of average weight, whereas paraquat is in a couple of teaspoons.

As to the review, you'd be well advised to read the paper (not just the abstract) before criticising it. Also, as I've just explained, the EPA are rating the product in a global sense, not for specific types of toxicity, so there is no surprise that the come to different conclusions. While 7 years is getting on a bit in age, the reproductive studies don't assess mortality, so again, given that the toxicity ratings are for mortality, you wouldn't expect them to have a great deal of impact. --Limegreen 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as to the state of other things, mostly products redirect to key ingredients. The only one I've noticed is Tylenol not redirecting to paracetamol (although panadol does). This appears to be because some formulations include codeine. Whether POEA is sufficiently analogous to codeine, I'm not sure.--Limegreen 03:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO with Roundup being a glyphosate based product it would be just as acceptable for Roundup to redirect to glyphosate or for each to have its own article.

Since both articles already exist I propose that some responsible educated person/s take the time to disentangle the two articles, specifically with Roundup specific research content moved to the Roundup article and viceversa. Then only necessary reference to ( or citation from ) each article be used in the other especially in the glyphosate article which probably only needs to mention glyphosate is the primary constituent of Roundup, or words to that effect.

Cheers NOD32user 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

the following was from an australian user:

professional writer or journalist

Dear Benjiwolf,

I have been following your battles with that facist Monsanto appologist ttguy on roundup. Congratulations on socking it to him. Fascinated to read on your user page that you are a "professional writer or journalist." I really like your stuff and would like to read more. What newspapers have you been published in? What by line to you go by? Have you written any books? 124.254.108.7 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

see everybody, all aussies arent so bad, I've never met one i didnt get along with great and liked actually, just read about a couple that really pissed me off like Ttguy, maybe if we checkusered him hes not even an aussie?...85.0.209.117 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think i must take this opportunity to make an apology to the Australians. After seeing the edits, and style, of Ttguy, and his attempt to simply block out someone adding anything unflattering of this product, I must admit I let frustration and anger get the best of me. But I must say this. I really don't know for sure ttguy is Australian, but I am assuming he is telling the truth on his user page. Even then, while his behaviors and edits do reflect poorly on his native land, its no reason for us to lump all aussies in with him. In fact what I said is true, I have met a half dozen Aussies or so, mainly here in switzerland, a couple when I lived in america, and i have thought highly of them. Once an aussie was high up in the mountains, and had lost his camera somehow, as i climbed up and passed by, he waved me over, and I helped look for the camera, to no avail though. Never the less we climbed up the rest of the way, and on reaching the top, and the panorama restaurant, he bought me the drink of my choice, and we had a good conversation and some laughs. He was clearly a decent fellow, and showed great compassion and concern for one of his children that had been born with developmental disabilities. On remarking of another aussie, I can say she was of the highest caliber, she was actually greek by blood, but had an australian upbringing, and citizenship to there as well. She was kind, calm, and considerate, a wonderful hostess, highly intelligent and a microbiologist by trade, though at this time she was looking after a small hotel in the mountains of switzerland. I actually lived and volunteer worked in the hotel she co-managed for a brief spell while visiting the area, and can say she was a fully forthright, upstanding, honest, and an excellent "employer". I have like stories about other aussies too. So I will say I am fully in the wrong to lump all Aussies together with Ttguy or Rupert Murdoch. I was very frustrated by some few aussies, and let it get to me, and i apologize fully to Australia and my aussie friends. I never wanted to devote my time to this article, I was sucked into it, mainly as I saw untoward editing behaviors erasing and blanking anything unflattering of the product. I knew full well from the get go, that if I wanted to start hollering about nasty chemicals I could pick better ones than this to start shouting about, but none the less i was trapped into spending a bunch of my time on something i'm not so interested in, so as there was some balance and truth to the page. Unfortunately, i discovered the incidents of false advertising and scientific fraud while engaging in this page, my opionion as to its harm has always remained rather the same, its not especially carcinogenic except to farmworkers in long term exposures, but it looks like it may have some harms to human reproduction, the extent of this harm is not yet fully known, whether the benefits outweigh the harms is a hard call, I do feel strongly it is somewhat overused though, and this compounds the potential human reproductive toxicity issues. I also feel strongly that the page was being abused by Ttguy, and thats the main reason why I got involved, to bring all positions on this chemical to light and to stop the erasures. I have tried to pursue an NPOV, I have been forced as of the circumstances, to spend more time presenting the positions of those questioning this product as of the editing behaviors of Ttguy and his clear lobbying. Never the less it was I that added such things as several links to monsantos pages and studies, added in that one of Franz's awards was "stated as the highest honor given for advances in American industrial chemistry, for his design of an effective herbicide, relatively non-toxic compared to previous herbicides." I myself added "glyphosate products are argueably less toxic than many other herbicides and pesticides" as well as "Overall, glyphosate products are a clear and vast improvement, however, from Monsanto's organochlorine products such as DDT and agent orange, that were eventually forced to be discontinued and phased out of many nations, including the US and EU."..."Glyphosate as a pure ingredient is of far less concern than many other herbicides, pesticides, and chemicals such as those from the organochlorine family."..."The evidence would suggest that roundup may be partially carcinogenic to farmworkers or those living nearby, likely only mainly in long term exposures, and of less concern than several other agricultural chemicals. However, cancer causing effects for even long term consumers of foodstuffs which have been sprayed with roundup would be minimal to non-existent, of greater concern to children than adults, and would only be relevant when taken in context with the many other chemical residues possibly present on foodstuffs, and the possible synergistic effect from these in combination and added together."........I have not been going crazy about this chemical using scare tactics, I have added more concerning its possible harms, but mainly as I knew its just all getting erased by ttguy, and so i started digging for studies and sources so he wouldnt be able to erase so easily, it was to no avail though as he just erases anyways even when multiple studies back things up. It has been a very disappointing experience for me to edit on this page and see the types of tactics used to erase non flattering study results or even just block out the offending editor when that isnt working so well. However it is the actions of one aussie, and not all aussies, and I, and everyone ever reading through this page, should remember that...85.0.209.117 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually there isnt such great need apologize, most comments about australian clearly tung and cheek, and deliberate provocation for ttguys--85.1.215.108 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Round up and cancer

We used to have this text

Opponents of glyphosate-based pesticides frequently state that glyphosate is linked to cancer, citing a study in the British Journal of Cancer that showed three times the rate of Hodgkins lymphoma in people occupationally exposed to glyphosate herbicides, and similar to the rate found in the very few animal studies that have been conducted by Monsanto.

And the reference for this claim was Cox J.Pesticide Reform [4] and Cox cites Br J Cancer. 1998 Jun;77(11):2048-52. Occupational exposures, animal exposure and smoking as risk factors for hairy cell leukaemia evaluated in a case-control study.Nordstrom M, Hardell L, Magnuson A, Hagberg H, Rask-Andersen A. PMID 9667691

Three things about this study. One the study does not show 3 times the rate of lympoma exposed to glyphosate herbicides but rather the study is looking at overall hebicide exposure to come up with the Odds ratio of 2.9 for "herbicide exposure". Not glyphosate exposure.

Two - the study points out "Certain findings suggested that recall bias may have affected the results for farm animals, herbicides and insecticides".

Three the study finds that "exposure to farm animals" in general makes you two times as likely to have lymphoma leukaemia. So the not only to the authors of the study suggest that it might not be very adequate, but if you take the results on face value you should not be arround cuddly sheep or cows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 11:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Suggestion that there are few studies on Roundup is not true

Much is made of a suggestion that there is a lack of data on the toxicity of roundup formulations and the suggestion that the data is only on pure glyphosate.

For example the text says "One of the difficulties with assessing true glyphosate toxicity, is the fact that it is always used in formulations with several other ingredients, and therefore studies of pure glyphosate toxicity have only partial relevance "

This statement is true but is based on the false premise that there are few or no studies on Roundup itself. I looked at a comprehensive review of the Roundup literature (Giesy et al 2000) and found the following Roundup (not glyphosate studies)

♦ Aquatic Micro organisms - 4 species tested

♦ Aquatic Macroophytes - 5 species tested

♦ Aquatic invertebrates 12 species tested

♦ Chronic toxicity to freshwater invertebrates - 2 species tested

♦ Accute toxicity to fish - 16 species tested

♦ Chronic toxicity to fish - 1 species tested

♦ Amphibians - 10 species tested

♦ Terrestrial micorganisms - effect on Nitrification, dehyhdrognease, urea hydrolysis and nitrogen fixation measured

♦ Terrestrial and soil invertebrates - 2 species tested

♦ Birds - 3 species tested

♦ Terrestrial mammals - 5 species tested

I count 58 studies of Roundup based on this review. So suggestions that Roundup itself has not been studied are false and misleading.

JP Giesy, KR Solomon, S Dobson (2000). "Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment for Roundup Herbicide". Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 167: 35-120. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

EPA does not say glyphosate "is extremely persistent "

The text used to have the claim "In the US glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by its EPA" citing Carolyn Cox, J of Pesticide Reform as a source. Cox in turn states "In summary, this herbicide is extremely persistent under typical application conditions." and cites "U.S. EPA. Ecological Effects Branch. 1993. Science chapter for reregistration eligibility document for glyphosate. Washington, D.C., May 1." as her source for this claim.

The reregistration eligibility document for glyphosate is available on the EPA web site here. The Science chapter starts on page 9 (page 34 in the PDF). Searching in the PDF finds no occurances of the word "extremely". The document contains two instances of the word "persistent".

"glyphosate residues in the field are somewhat more persistent in cooler climates as opposed to milder ones"

"Also, the available information suggest that glyphosate is relatively persistent."

So the EPA actually says "relatively persistent" and Cox says that the EPA says "extremely persistant" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

"Persistance on Food for two years" and "negatively impact earthworm and beneficial insects" claims

The text used to state "It has been reported that glyphosate formulations can persist on foods & food crops for up to two years and that they also negatively impact earthworm and beneficial insect populations " and cites Beyond Pesticides' chemicalWATCH Factsheet. The Beyond Pesticides document in turn states "It has been shown to persist in food products for up to two years" and cites Pesticide Action Network, 1997 Glyphosate fact sheet. For more information about glyphosate visit http://data.pesticideinfo.org/4DAction/GetRecord/PC33138

Visiting the link supplied does not pull up the PAN Glyphosate fact sheet. I have found another site for the PAN - Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) http://www.panna.org. A search of this site fails to pull up the Glyphosate fact sheet. So I have been unable to locate the ultimate source of the "Persistance on Food for two years" claim. Also the claim about effects on benficial insects and earthworms is not supported because the cited source can not be verified.

Ttguy 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

desorbtion in soil claim

"Other sources show that 80% of glyphosate absorbed by soil can be rapidly desorbed in just two hour period, leading the study to conclude that the herbicide can be extensively mobile in soil." citing Carolyn Cox. Cox in turn cites Fate of glyphosate in a Canadian forest watershed. 2. Persistence in foliage and soils, Joseph C. Feng and Dean G. Thompson J. Agric. Food Chem.; 1990; 38(4); 1118-1125. [5]

In the abstract to this paper it states "In soils, glyphosate and AMPA residues were retained primarily in the upper organic layers of the profile, with >90% of total glyphosate residue in the 0-15-cm layer. Distribution data for both glyphosate and AMPA suggested strong adsorption and a low propensity for leaching."

I fail to see how a paper which states in its abstract that glyphosate has a "low propensitiy for leaching" can be the source for a claim that glyphosate "can be extensively mobile in soil".

Ttguy 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

SMILES formula, for the infobox

OC(=O)CNCP(O)(O)=O

I'm not sure why the illustrated structural formula includes directional P-OH bonds. Since the two -OH groups are identical, the P is not chiral. Anyway. 71.41.210.146 02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetic engineering vs. modified

I have a Ph.D. in genetics. Engineered indicates that new DNA was inserted through recombinant technology, as in the case of Roundup Ready crops. Modified is a term used in general discussion that has no specific scientific meaning. Modified could mean any method that would result in genetic change, including traditional crosses, mutation breeding etc. The exact meaning of modified has been hotly debated, whereas the meaning of engineered is clear. --Zeamays 22:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Neutrality of this article is disputed

I can't find any recent discussion of the neutrality of the article here on the talk page. So I propose to remove the NPOV tag.Ttguy 13:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Modification from the 4 May 2005

By checking this article with Wikiscanner, I saw something interesting : the modification of the 4 May 2005 21:05 about the effect on animals was done by an IP-adress of Monsanto

The previous modification said:

Roundup was believed to have no effect on animals. However, as of 2005, research has shown that polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), the surfactant used in Roundup, kills tadpoles. The finding could be a reason for the global decline in frog populations since Roundup is widely used. (Science)

And the modification with the Monsanto IP-adress said:

Roundup was believed to have no effect on animals. However, as of 2005, research has shown that polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), the surfactant used in Roundup, kills tadpoles. However, there are no Roundup formulations currently approved in the U.S. or Canada for use over water. There are separate glyphosate-containing formulations for use over water that do not include the surfactant.

For me, this modification was far to be neutral ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemiopsis (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares where the edit came from. Is the information correct?. We lost the text "The finding could be a reason for the global decline in frog populations " which is actually just an opinion and is not allowed on Wikipedia under the original research rule. It is pointed out that glyphosate with POEA is not licenced for use in aquatic ecosystems and is thus unlikely to be the cause of global frog declines. Seems to me like someone pointing out a logical inconsitancy in an argument.Ttguy (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a chemical compound, but a commercial product

This article is about the commercial product Roundup, not about the chemical compound glyphosate. Therefore I removed the {{chemicals}} template. The (limited) chemical details about glyphosate can be moved/copied to the glyphosate article, if necessary. Or the two articles can be merged (even better IMHO) Wim van Dorst (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

IBT and Craven Labs scientific fraud re add

On Nov.1 2007, an anonymous user removed the section on scientific fraud by IBT and Craven Labs claiming that because the studies were redone, the fraud committed was irrelevant to the Roundup story. I think this is false. First, repeated scientific fraud is a noteworthy part of the product's story per se. Second, it is relevant today because a history of repeated fraud is indicative of potential additional, as yet undetected fraud, and that Monsanto may have a hand in it.

I did edit the entry a bit for POV. Also I added that the Craven fraud was first detected by a pesticide industry watchgroup and that the studies had been repeated. I only found info from Monsanto stating this, though I believe them since I doubt the EPA would certify Roundup without repeating the studies. If any one else has a stronger source, please add it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Metric vs. U.S. units in RoundUp usage stat

I have reverted the changes to metric tonnes from pounds for amounts of Roundup used in the U.S. according to WP guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diderot's dreams (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Which guidline is this? I thought there was an effort on wikipedia to reduce the US slant of the enterprise. This edit does not help this much.Ttguy (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The article refers mostly to a U.S. product and is mostly a U.S. article, and the numbers are not scientific data, so U.S. units are appropriate. It also just makes sense: most Americans don't know what a metric ton is, that a tonne is a metric tonne, or what the abbreviation 't' stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diderot's dreams (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And I don't really know what a pound is. So why do we have to edit it for uninformed Americans rather than uninformed Australian? Is'nt the case that the metric ton and the US Ton are similar in size. Or is it the imperial ton? I seem to vaguely recall there being three different tons. Metric, US and Imperial. Ttguy (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally pounds rather than tons gives a better feel for the extent that RoundUp is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diderot's dreams (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "epa reds" :
  • U.S. EPA ReRegistration Decision Fact Sheet for Glyphosate (EPA-738-F-93-011) 1993. [http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf]
  • US EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision - Glyphosate - (EPA-738-F-93-011) 1993 [http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/glyphosate.pdf]

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

This sentence is from the third paragraph of the article.

"Weeds and grass will generally re-emerge within one to two months after usage."

Will someone please explain what it means? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

yield drag/lower yields from Round up ready

The comments about roundup ready soybeans having lower yields come from a 10 year old study.

Soybeans with any new trait bred into them can have this yield effect. See for eg "Averaged over 110 field tests , the susceptible to phytophthora cultibvars. Harosoy, Hawkeye, and Lindarin each yielded about one bushel per acre more than their respective resistant backcross derivatives 'Harosoy 63', 'Hawkeye 63', and 'Lindarin 63'." J.L. Cartter et al., 1965. Results of the cooperative uniform soybean tests, 1964. Part I. North Central States, RSLM 220 as quoted in Caviness, C.E., and H.J. Walters. 1971. Effect of phytophthora rot on yield and chemical composition of soybean seed. Crop Science 11:83-84.

So Round up ready soybeans is nothing special in this regard. The sole purpose for singling out RR soybeans and yield drag is to denegrate the GM technology that the crop is based on. Ie it is POV.

The article also compares the application of totally different herbicides on the basis of application rates measured in mass of active ingredients. However, if we are actually concerned about the environment we should consider the toxicity of the herbicides to non-target species. RR ready soybeans allow farmers to use much less toxic herbicides. Ttguy (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to explain this in the context, hopefully providing further sources. II | (t - c) 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge to glyphosate

There's significant redundancy with this and glyphosate. A merge discussion at glyphosate's talk page seemed to indicate consensus on merging the two. I'd like to go ahead with the merger. II | (t - c) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't discussed in this page. I disagree Roundup is a formulation that contains Glyphosate.[6] I'm reverting your merge.--Nutriveg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

The tag was up here for a long while. It was discussed by lots of people at the other page. Merge discussions typically happen on one page. Anyway, if you have such major issues, you can keep Roundup-specific information here, but the general glyphosate information remains on the glyphosate page. It's too confusing to have this much overlap. II | (t - c) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That discussion was dead, and died with a partial merge consensus

"So, shall we merge the chemical and glyophosate-specific information to glyophosate, and leave Roundup for the brand name? --Rifleman 82"

"I think that is a good solution. (Roundup should also contain the majority of the controversy story). And then try to keep it that way"

The most recent comment (April 1) previous to your merge was against it

If the tag is the problem I may remove it later.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The tag is not a problem, but the glyphosate-specific information on this page is a problem, and will need to be trimmed at some point. The difference between Roundup and glyphosate is not precisely discussed here as well; perhaps you could fix that. II | (t - c) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You started it, you finish it. I don't have the time to check whether the source of the informations cited on the article was about glyphosate alone or a RoundUp formulation, and I'm confortable with the idea that the authors who wrote it here and not on that article had a reason to do that.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge I recently added some material discussing health and environmental effects of ingredients in Roundup other than the main active ingredient. There is a distinction made in the scientific literature between studying the effects and benefits/harm of Roundup as a whole product, vs. Glyphosate as a chemical. It's also relevant that Monsanto's patent on Glyphosate has expired. Is cleanup needed? Maybe. It is always good to avoid redundancy. But they are already very different articles! Merging them would, in my opinion, greatly confuse a bunch of things. I have been working on the Roundup article and I think it would be very tricky to work on the articles if they were merged. Cazort (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Merge There is too much reduncancy between the pages. Roundup should redirect to Glyphosate. The claim that "there is a distinction made in the scientific literature between studying the effects and benefits/harm of Roundup as a whole product, vs. Glyphosate as a chemical" is misleading. It is true that studies need to examine the total formulation of any herbicide and not only its active ingredient. But if you are going to have a whole article for every herbicide formulation of a given active ingredient you are going to have a very large amount of duplication indeed. Why does the Roundup brand and formulation get its own article but no other brand get its own? Why isn't there are Zero weeding wand page? It is far more sensible to group the articles on particular herbicides based on their active ingredients. People opposing this merge need to write up a Brunning Glyphosate 360 Weedkill article to report the effects of the formulation of glyphosate that I found in my shed just now.  :=) Ttguy (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's so fun you come up only to edit Roundup and Genetically modified food controversies articles pushing a Monsanto POV.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ttguy, it's not that studies "need to examine the total formulation"...it's that they do examine it. I too am concerned about duplication--but with careful work, we can eliminate most of the duplication, leaving only brief summaries and references to the other article when relevant. Also to address your concern about other formulations, Roundup very solidly meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline for having a page of its own. As does Glyphosate. Many other formulations, however, would likely not meet this guideline...and they can and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. "Brunning Glyphosate" gets 0 google news and google scholar hits. Glyphosate gets 139,000 google scholar hits, Roundup gets 68,200. Not exactly a good analogy there. Cazort (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

replanting controversy

Used to have a section on replanting controversy which stated "Monsanto has received criticism for trying to prevent farmers from saving and replanting seeds, accusing farmers of patent infringement even when such practices clearly fall under the exhaustion doctrine and the third exemption of the Plant Variety Protection Act. [7][8] "

Well the cited refrences refer to legal cases from 2001 and 2003. And the farmers lost their cases See Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser for eg. So clearly the law does not believe that Monsantos patents "clearly fall under the exhaustion doctrine"

So unless the author of this edit can provide any citations of current legal precident where it is clear that crop biotech patents "clearly fall under the exhaustion doctrine" then this constitutes orginal research and is disallowed under WP:NOR.

The rest of the section had

"The practice of patenting living things is in itself also subject to much debate[74] because Monsanto has patented MON-89788-1[75] (RR 2) which was only created through the insertion of the naturally-occurring gene for the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) isolated from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens into soybeans. "

This is not the appropritate place for info on the ethics of patenting living things in general. This is a page about a herbicides active ingredient. So this goes.

Lastly it had "Monsanto is also developing genetic modifications into crops so that the resultant plants are incapable of reproducing, and seed can't be harvested, and also completely destroying biological self-sufficiency.[76][77]"

Even if this is true - which it is not because no one is stupid enough to creat a crop that produces seed that you can't harvest (what do sell or eat if you can't harvest the seed !!!!) - Even if it is true this is not the appropritate place for info on GURT technology. This is a page about a herbicides active ingredient. So this goes. Ttguy (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with all of your comments here, and I think the material you deleted was well-sourced--but I agree with your deletion of it--as much as I think the material is fine, it is not about Roundup per se and has no clear reason for belonging on this page (and is entirely inappriate/irrelevant here). So...thanks for removing it!  :-) Cazort (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW one clarification; this page is about the product and formulation Roundup...the page on the active ingredient is Glyphosate. There was some controversy about a merge and the pages were actually merged but the merge was reversed and now there is no consensus to merge and it seems some compelling arguments to keep them separate. There may be some material hanging around on this page that belongs on that one, and vice-versa, so feel free to move statements around if you think they really belong on the other page. Cazort (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Roundup Infobox

Roundup should have an infobox, so people can see at-a-glance basic info, such as the active ingrediant, patent status, and its effectiveness.Lifelonglego (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

the infobox could look like this: Lifelonglego (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You can mention the main active ingredient, but Roundup wasn't patented, glyphosate was, and there are several Roundup formulations different from each other which exact compositions are unknown. It's all OK but the patent section.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition of half-life ot the infobox

The average half-life of roundup is 32 days according to this source(http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/productivity/roundup/gly_halflife_bkg.pdf) perhaps it should be added to the infobox.--Lifelonglego (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a reliable source for that purpose, time varies from where it was applied ( soil, concrete, asphalt), the weather, the substances presented in the soil (microbes, others...). The article is also about glyphosate, not about a roundup formulation.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Tradenames" section

The "tradenames' section is short and not useful. The article title states the tradename, and in several places throughout the article it is stated that the roundup is a brand, not a chemical. It contains only info that can be easily gained from the infobox.--Lifelonglego (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Monsanto loses landmark court-case about Roundup in France

Info to be integrated in the articlewww.naturalnews.com/027352_Monsanto_GMO_Roundup.html MaxPont (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is old and already in the article "False advertising".--Nutriveg (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

scotts

why is their no mention that this product is licensed to scott's miracle-grow corp for a lawn weed killer75.24.250.165 (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

IBT and Craven Labs scientific fraud re add

Opinion from an ex-Craven Employee... Actually... you really don't know what you are talking about here. I was working at Craven Labs at the time the investigation came down. Above, you stated that the "Craven fraud was first detected by a pesticide industry watchgroup". That is totally false. A disgruntled QA guy (that was about to be fired by Craven because...after he was told not to, he drilled an expensive refrigerator to add a padlock, and hit a freon tube) turned Craven and the lab in for altering data. Note: the QA guy had been involved in the fraud and only turned Craven in when he found out he was about to be fired.

Craven and others were falsifying the data in order to get sample sets run faster. As opposed to trashing sets and starting over - because the spikes had insufficient recoveries or the standards shot on the GCs were not spot on... spikes and standards were blown down(concentrated) or diluted, or peaks were dialed in order to get spikes and standards to fall within acceptable levels for the test sets to be valid. The various companies... Monsanto, Chevron,Dupont, etc.... did not know any of this was going on. The falsifications were not done to try to benefit these companies... but rather to try to keep Don Craven happy with his production levels. Craven hired a lot of people that were not qualified to do this type work, then trained them on how to skew the data - justifying the practices as standard operating procedures to the inexperienced (non-degreed) employees. There were several employees that had chemistry degrees and participated in these illegal practices, but a good portion of the employees were not qualified to work in an environmental test lab. All the data samples that were run at Craven Labs were also run at other independant labs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excraven (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a source which says the results weren't biased towards positive or negative results and we can add that. I expect the someone deliberately defrauding the tests results would try to avoid scrutiny from it's clients that could be raised from negative results.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Toxicity - claim that Williams article does not review round up formulations

The toxicity section had this claim the Williams et al 2000 "study only reviewed experiments where glyphosate and POEA were used alone and not as a mixture as in Roundup" and cited Benachour et al as the source for this.

Well Benachour et al are wrong. The abstract for the Williams et al 2000 article is available [9] and it clearly states

"It includes assessments of glyphosate, its major breakdown product aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), its Roundup formulations, and the predominant surfactant [polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA)] used in Roundup formulations worldwide."

I don't have a copy of the Williams review. But I do have a copy of a Giesy 2000 review and it reviews 58 studies on roundup Including

• Aquatic Micro organisms - 4 species tested
• Aquatic Macroophytes - 5 species tested
• Aquatic invertebrates 12 species tested
• Chronic toxicity to freshwater invertebrates - 2 species tested
• Accute toxicity to fish - 16 species tested
• Chronic toxicity to fish - 1 species tested
• Amphibians - 10 species tested
• Terrestrial micorganisms - effect on Nitrification, dehyhdrognease, urea hydrolysis and nitrogen fixation measured
• Terrestrial and soil invertebrates - 2 species tested
• Birds - 3 species tested
• Terrestrial mammals - 5 species tested

Since both reviews are from the same year I suspect the Williams one will also cover these round up formulation data - since they say they cover this in the abstract.

So - bottom line. The article is wrong and I am changing it. Ttguy (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We just cite the sources here. The source (Benachour) points Willians evaluated the substances individually, not as a mixture, as in Roundup. Giesy is in a totally different paragraph and is about ecologic effects.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You miss the whole point. Both Giesy and Williams are "reviews". Neither of them "evaluated" the substances. They reviewed the literature. I have a copy of Giesy and it reviews 58 studies of roundup forumulations. ie mixtures. Williams says he does the same in his abstract. So unless you have acutall evidence that Williams did not review studies of round up formulations then you and the article is wrong. Ttguy (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about Williams here, Geisy is about a different issue and is in a different section. I know what a review is, and the criticism is that Williams reviewed few or no studies where a RoundUp mixture was used, he reviewed mostly experiments where glyphosate and POEA were used alone.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Presentation of unreliable review

The 2000 Cantox review is currently presented according with this discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nutriveg here that this review is not a reliable source. There seems to be a consensus on wikipedia that this journal has serious problems with reliability. However...I also understand Ttguy's concern that the way it is currently written seems POV. In particular, "This review is extensively cited by Monsanto." seems like WP:Weasel words...where is it cited? Rather than this sentence I think the article needs to give specific examples of how and when Monsanto cites that review. In the absence of such concrete evidence, I would just as soon totally remove the citation to this review from the article because it's not a reliable source. On the other hand, if it's documented that Monsanto is using this source heavily, then I think the review should stay and it should be accompanied by concrete and well-sourced statements detailing how Monsanto uses this review and also citing Monsanto's connection (through funding or other interests) to the journal in question. Cazort (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the primary source cited by Monsanto [10].--Nutriveg (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am satisfied with this change, thanks. We still need to address the fact that the citation for "monsanto sponsored journal" is broken--it leads to a page that doesn't list any sponsors (gee...i wonder why). Fortunately, the internet archive documented the past states of the page: [11]. What would be better, however, would be to find a third-party source discussing the sponsorship of that journal--and even better, discussing any role that sponsorship may plan in bias. I suspect that won't be too hard to find. Cazort (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference is valid by the provided access date, when it was also discussed in the noticeboard. Monsanto sponsoring is the most relevant for this article. We just present the facts, it's up to the reader to decide if it has any influence in the study outcome. You can make an article specific about that journal/society if you will.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to verify that the reference is valid. The current page is blank, and the date given (2009-04-22) is not in the internet archive, nor are any 2009 dates. There's no way for anyone to tell whether or not it is a totally empty assertion that at that date it supported the material it is used to cite. Right now I have nothing to go on other than your word; while I trust you as an editor based on your track record, if an editor challenged the reference I would not have anything to back it up with. I think this is really shaky ground to stand on here. While I pretty much think Monsanto is the devil incarnate, I think it's really important to be rigorous and use good sources that cannot be easily challenged when you are criticizing a company like this. Cazort (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said before the link was verified by those who joined that discussion on the noticeboard, and directly checked by another user. If the content is not readily available that's usually not a problem for scientific studies as long as content was valid by the access date. You can cite live events, paid content, old books ... getting the actual content is a issue for the reader which in this case may request a list of sponsors directly from the journal. By Wikipedia's guideline it's not necessary to remove the reference. I added the dead link template. By the way, that sponsors page was last changed May 09, 2009.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If all you have to criticize an article in a peer-reviewed journal is some original research you dug up on Google from two years ago that's no longer around, than this isn't the place to put it. We need information that is verifiable. You need to show something more reliable and well-known that has been published criticizing the article, and only then should it be included. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not an internet discussion board about Monsanto and its products. And if you're problem with my edit was only with that part, reverting everything else I added is improper. Furthermore, you are so far the only person to support this view, so it seems you are in the minority here. Regardless of your feelings about Monsanto and Roundup, are you aware that this article has been cited nearly 200 times in many other journals? In the scientific community, this typically means the paper is highly regarded. If you don't like the article, please provide some other sources refuting it. --Mikeman67 (talk) 2:35, 16 April 2010.

This issue was already discussed in the RS notice board, see the link discussion. The reference was not dug from Google, its online version was removed from the website after it was cited here in the wikipedia. The reference was checked by many editors when it was cited as exposed in the noticeboard discussion. It's not up to wikipedia to give you access to that version of the document, as its not to rare or expensive books or paid articles, you can always ask the journal to provide you that list of sponsors in that year. The presentation of the study is not critical, only facts were presented about the authors and the journal, it's up to the reader to decide if that's important. I'm not the only one supporting that presentation, it's the result of a process that involved other editors as you can see here and on the links provided and that version has been pretty stable, you're the one proposing the change. I can't imply how that source was cited in those articles, if it was in a positive or negative way, if you can find a source saying that study is good we can add it. The remaining of your edit was reverted because it was not about the herbicide formulation but the GMO seeds. --Nutriveg (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think that this discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard resulted in a concesus that Regulatory_Toxicology_and_Pharmacology is not a reliable source then you are deluded.

We have Dlabtot, II | (t - c) , MastCell and Chaldor suggesting that it fine to cite Regulatory Tox and Pharm with just Stephan Schulz and Nutriveg arguing the opposite.

Ttguy (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not defined by how a discussion started but how it ended.

• Dlabtot, the first to comment, just said we shouldn't qualify the whole journal as questionable but specific articles and asked for more information what that article would be. And never disagreed with the final decision.
• II said " the disclosure should be on the Wikipedia page". And never disagreed with the final decision
• MastCell also asked what would be the article in question but generally qualified the journal as questionable " there's certainly a case for a large grain of salt here"
• Stephan Schulz said "Good Catch"
• Chaldor said "Use it with the appropriate disclosure"

That's exactly how that source is cited here: it's cited but with the appropriate disclosure.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"monsanto sponsored journal" line is original research

The edit that Nutriveg is defending constitutes original research. He has no reliable source to back up this claim. It is a classic attempt to "poison the well".

The article does not need to publish an unfounded personal attack on Munro. Doing so commits the logical fallacy of the ad homenum attack.

If there is a valid criticism of the review and you can cite a source were this criticism is made then that should be enough. And I believe we do have this in the article.

So Nutriveg leave the personal slur out of it. Ttguy (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The current version of this article is the result of a long discussion as described in this same talk page. As pointed above only facts are presented in the article. You've already tried to make that change before, so save us from that Monsanto WP:SPU edit.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

More balance ?

The article presently concentrates on the various adverse effects of the product. For someone unfamiliar with the product, there is little useful info about intended uses, guidelines and effects. Perhaps a bit more comprehensive discussion (section?) should be added near beginning discussing in layman terms what it is supposed to do, how it is supposed to be used ... and whether it achieves these aims in real life and the principal pitfalls and unanticipated side effects.

This page is virtually useless to a user who wants general information on commonly used and relatively safe herbicide. It has obviously been taken over by someone(s) with an agenda to push. It contains nothing about the chemistry, common uses, etc. just propoganda. My understanding of the purpose of WP is to present cogent and unbiased articles. This is neither. You would be better to just link to the glyphosate page and delete everything else.Humanriff (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would second the opinion above. I don't know much about Round Up except what I've heard at academic conferences regarding the many evils of Monsanto. That's fine that this article discusses in depth the criticisms of the product (I'm quite glad that this information is put to light), but I'm concerned that people could dismiss the entire article given its obvious over-focus on the negative aspects of the product. 140.247.250.128 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Roundup Plus

This page seems to neglect to mention that Roundup is available in formulae that include active ingredients other than glyphosate, for example Roundup Plus, which includes diquat, an herbicide very different from glyphosate in form and action. There is a real-world problem with using "Roundup" as a generic or glyphosate-equivalent term: consumers purchase Roundup thinking they're getting glyphosate when what they're getting is Roundup Plus. I would strongly urge against merging the Roundup and glyphosate pages on this basis alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.49.71 (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed this article seems like a total hatchet job, on one brand of herbicide. As someone just wanting to do some gardening this page was far too long and complicated. Perhaps some of the information could split off into a Glyphosate controversy page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.163.154 (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPU

Ttguy (talk · contribs), a user which has been, for five years, editing solely Monsanto related articles supporting a Monsanto POV, is, as before, making changes to a paragraph that is the result of WP:Consensus of many editors. Please stop pushing that change (again) through an edit war.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This single purpose account accusation is baseless. See polploidy, Genetic Engineering, Precautionary principle, GURT, Plant Breeding, Genetically Modified food etc.

And this is a further example of you playing the man rather than engaging in civilised discussion of the issue. See Original research above.Ttguy (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And those are not Monsanto issues, where you mainly edit supporting a Monsanto POV? Read the WHOLE discussion about that paragraph, and you will see the issue you "raise above" (again) was already addressed.

Making statements like this "I don't care how many editors think you can have a non NPOV edit. They are all wrong." is a clear disrespect of Wikipedia's consensus policy.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid consensus does not trump POV. If there is a concensus of some editors that wikipedia should have biased POV pushing language then the concensus of those editors is overruled by the overall guiding principle of Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV and the disallowance of original research WP:OR

The statement you are trying to defend is tountamount to the following

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology is a corupt journal and knowingly published a fraudulent paper and that IC Munro is a corupt individual and is lying about the evidence for the low level toxicity of roundup herbicide.

Do you have any reliable source who is making this claim? If so cite it. If not then the edit can not stand. It is original research and not WP:NPOV

What is this concensus you speak of? I don't see any on the talk page. I see Cazort and Mikeman67 disputing your dead link as a reliable source and you defending it. If you add me that is 3 to one that that it goes.

Your invoking of the WP:STATUSQUO is actually a policy in my favour. "revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter". You failed to discuss the matter.

It is my position that the whole claim that the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology article does not have any data on Roundup formulations is probably bogus. I note that when you put back this claim you softened it from "That study only reviewed experiments where glyphosate and POEA were used alone and not as a mixture as in Roundup" to "reviewing mostly experiments where glyphosate and POEA were used alone". You cite Benachour et al for both versions of this claim. Have you actually read Benachour et al ? What does it say? "That study only reviewed experiments where glyphosate and POEA were used alone " or does it say " mostly experiments "?

So I still dispute the critisim of the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology article but I have let that go. I am trying to get concencus here. But you will have none of it. Like I said before. You have critizied the review on posibly valid grounds. There is no need for a POV slur on the journal or the man. Such a retorical method is a sure sign of a weak argument.

See also Poisoning the well

Ttguy (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is how we make editorial decisions.

There's no such statement in the text, it only presents that Monsanto sponsored the Journal, Munro worked for Cantox and how Cantox describes its mission. It's presented that way to respect a decision in the RS noticeboard. It's up to the reader to decide if that information is relevant or not.

As I said before Consensus is not about how discussion started but how it ended, Cazort and Mikeman67 raised the issue but didn't supported that point after they were properly explained about it.

About this former discussion the article is properly referenced, it's not Wikipedia's problem if you don't have access to a paid article. It's strange you questioning it's wrong when you didn't even read that source, but I'll try to provide a direct quote for you.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please link to this so called decision of the RS notice board. I found somewhere where you attempted to have Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology deemed unreliable and noted that 3 to 2 said it should not be regarded as unreliable. I don't see any so called decision on whether you can poison the well and wite POV drivel.

Please show where Cazort and Mikeman67 rolled over to you?

I have found the Benachour et al article and it says "Most of the tests undertaken in a regulatory context are in fact performed with the active ingredient alone in vivo for one or two years". It does not say "That study only reviewed experiments where glyphosate and POEA were used alone " - which is what you originally had in this article. So forgive me if I question your impartiality on writing up this stuff. But you have a track record. Ttguy (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The issues you raised yesterday in a section above, and raise again here, were answered that same day in that same place, please open your ears while talking.

Benachour directly cites (Williams, 2000) for his claims, the current article text couldn't reflect better that (whole) quote and (Williams, 2000) couldn't have reviewed studies that didn't exist! We may present that a fact and not a criticism if you will.--Nutriveg (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please link to the so called decision of the RS notice board. You don't have a "decision". You have a few comments on RS notice board.

Please show where Cazort and Mikeman67 rolled over to you to create your so called concencus over your attempt to have Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology deemed unreliable?Ttguy (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a general consensus as explained to you above the link to that discussion you posted yourself.

"As I said before Consensus is not about how discussion started but how it ended, Cazort and Mikeman67 raised the issue but didn't supported that point after they were properly explained about it."

The issue is not if that whole journal is unreliable, is the result of that RS discussion: "to cite it with disclosure", you're opposing exactly that.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. So now what you were claiming as a "decision" on the RS notice board is suddenly now only a "general consensus".

re: Cazort and Mikeman67 - just because you spoke last on a page does not mean that everyone that disaggeed with you earlier on a talk page suddenly aggrees with you. You seem to think that if you speak last on some matter you hold authority. Ttguy (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes we make decisions trough WP:Consensus here, so they roughly mean the same thing, don't play with words if you don't have an argument

This is simply Silence procedure, the users were referenced to the RS noticeboard discussion, the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the history of that version being stable for so long time and hadn't any further complain to support their former point, there's no need for a formal approval. --Nutriveg (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to see that Ttguy is still terrorizing this page. I can only imagine what kind of vested interest he has in Monsanto. Regardless, he probably should be banned from this page if he insists on reverting edits that don't attack Roundup and Monsanto. I did some reading in a few scientific journals at my university and added some well sourced articles from peer-reviewed journals, most of which agreed that Roundup was a safe and unanimously approved herbicide. The massive weight of evidence appears to unequivocally back this up. He immediately reverted the edits, criticizing a tiny part of my contribution, which is of course against Wikipedia guidelines. Seeing that he will refuse to let this page be changed unless it is to his liking and POV, I gave up. But I'll just leave this comment here and ask a neutral party to review it and see if I did a good job. And please, Ttguy does not have any consensus. He just has more time. --MikeMan67 (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mikeman67, the sources you added were about GM seeds not the herbicide.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Section for third opinion discussion re the dispute between ttguy Nutriveg

About your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: Although I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a Third Opinion in response to the request made at WP:3O, but is merely some personal observations and/or information about your request and/or your dispute.

Comments/Information: Considering the history of disputes here, it would be of considerable help if the specific dispute in question could be defined, preferably with a diff or two illustrating it. Please remember that Third Opinions are only for content disputes while WP:WQA does pretty much the same thing for conduct disputes.

Note to other 3O Wikipedians: I have not yet "taken" this request, removed it from the active request list at the WP:3O page, or otherwise "reserved" it, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC) PS: Subsequently removed from WP:3O, see below. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK)

I don't know if we have reached that point since every time TTguy raise a different issue or go back to a resolved one. But his insistence in citing Carrefour (and its association with sweatshops and false advertisement) as explained in the section bellow is a good start for a Third opinion.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This dispute centres around this diff. I claim that Nutriveg is clearly trying to poison the well - committing the argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy. He violates WP:NPOV with this wording and his unsupported claim about journal sponsorship constitutes WP:OR.

He claims he has some sort of consensus to support his edit. See the talk section Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)#WP:SPU - Ttguy (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This dispute is about the motivation for certain arguments or edits, not about the content of the edits per se. It does not appear appropriate for a Third Opinion since it seems to be about behavior rather than content. Let me suggest that you relist it at WP:WQA. Good luck, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from User_talk:TransporterMan — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)) The dispute between myself and Nutriveg, to me, is about content. It may have degenerated a bit into behaivour. But it really centers on the content of that one particular edit. I would really appreciate a third opinion on whether it is encyclopedic attack the man rather than criticise the contents of his argument.Ttguy (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to relist your dispute at the Third Opinion project, I won't remove it again. In your question, above, however, whether the dispute is conduct or content depends upon whether "the man" to which you refer is another Wikipedia editor or the author of the study which you referred to in the diff you cited, if it is the former then the question is about conduct, if the latter, it is about content. Due to my involvement with the article, I must disqualify myself, however, from opining. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the author of the study which I refer to in the diff. The Nutriveg edit plays "the man" in my opinion. Ttguy (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Carrefour

How Carrefour is related to this topic to worth a disclosure the same way as Monsanto who owns the product/brand this article is about?--Nutriveg (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Carrefour makes money by scaring people into wasting money on organic food. Hence, them sponsoring Serlini's research creates a confict of interest for his research and thus needs to be disclosed - as per the "decision" you got on your RS notice board Ttguy (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That Carrefour/Roundup association is completely WP:OR unless you find a source supporting that association, less to say the association with sweatshops also unrelated to the article topic.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The association was published in Le Monde newspaper on the date I referenced.

The fact that monsanto may or may not have sponsored a journal and the affiliation of the author of a paper are also irrelevant as is the misson statement of Cantox. What is relevant is the content of the argument.Ttguy (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the author association, but the Carrefour/Roundup association. Please properly cite the reference, Le Monde is published in french, not in english as is the title of the article you cited.

The disclosure about that Monsanto sponsored Journal and the author affiliation is the result of discussion in the Reliable Source noticeboard detailed several times to you "cite with disclosure", Serralini study also has a disclosure pointing to his association with CRIIGEN, so I don't see what's your problem, beyond your eager to push a Monsanto POV as in the last five years of WP:SPU.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's noting on the article you cited supporting Carrefour is associated with Roundup, so a disclosure about that is not necessary. Even if there was it finances CRIIGEN which non-GMO role is already described so that would be redundant.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I never said there was. What I did say is that Carrefour fund Serelini. And Carrefour make money by promoting organic foods. So Serelini is not independant. By your own logic this means it needs to be disclosed. Ttguy (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If there's no association with Roundup, or no sources supporting that association, than the disclosure is not necessary.

There's no source supporting that Carrefour funded that Serelini Roundup study, it funded CRIIGEN, whose non-GMO role is already clear in the article.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Please stop making edits[12][13][14] that you clearly believe are bad behavior by your edit summaries and former commentary. The relevant disclosure about Serralini association is already presented in the text.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Monsanto did not sponsor Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology in 2000

I just used the way back machine to find out that Monsanto did NOT sponsor the journal in 2000- the year in which the disputed article was published [15]. It also did not sponsor it between 2001 [16] - 2006 [17] But it did sponsor it in 2007 [18] - the last year the Wayback machine has data for. So is is an article to be discounted because several years later a company sponsors the journal is is published in? I don't think that is fair. The fact that Monsanto sponors a journal in 2007 can not influence its editors back in time in 2000. Hence, the Monsanto sponsored journal bit needs to go. Ttguy (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The article was received for publication in "December 6, 1999" I can not check the link for that year (1999) right now. I omitted the Monsanto sponsorship until then.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Glyphosate as source of botulism in humans?

The Leipzig microbiologist Monika Krüger is speculating that glyphosate engenders botulism in cattle and humans. Any expert willing to discuss this? My source is a Deutsche Welle website in German. Nhrenton 11:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhrenton (talk • contribs)

I googled the terms and nothing came up - sounds like a fringe theory? Gandydancer (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is toxicity and other sections neutral?

This article appears to be slightly biased because, reading this article, there is absolutely no reason why anyone would use round-up. Yet it is used world-wide. Why is there not anything in this article that states the advantages of using round-up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.24.118 (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A number of good faith edits have been reverted on this page by a single user over a long period of time. Additions have been made throughout the article, particularly its Toxicity section, about this widely used product that argues only a single side of the issue. MikeMan67 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For this RFC to be of any use, there should be at least some simple breakdown of disputed claims. This is so broad it will likely be useless without something to go on. — Scientizzle 19:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've made at least three edits to the toxicity sections dating back to April 14. Here's the first: [19]. I added some information from well sourced scientific journals. I think I've followed WP guidelines carefully. Each time, they have been reverted by two editors who constantly edit this page for years. In general, I think the toxicity section sounds very biased, along with several other parts, and I tried improving it. Perhaps you could make the necessary changes, as well as take a look at what I've added and see if it improves this page: [20]. MikeMan67 (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at this page shows that you have made only a couple of posts. How can you expect someone to come in and do your work for you? For instance, rather than ask for outside help why don't you argue why you feel that your edit re GM crops should be included in this article? Gandydancer (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anyone to do any work. I did argue actually. If u looked in this [21] section you'd see the argument. Regardless of what I said, it was deleted. I added the same information three times, and each time it was deleted. I think it's pretty clear the section is really biased. Can you please just read the changes I made and tell me if what I added deserves to be included on this page? --MikeMan67 (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No you did not, and you seem to be confused about your own edits/"arguments". Please argue the GM issue or quit wasteing my time. Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems the discussion has ended. I shall remove the tag. Gandydancer (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Toxicity section is far from neutral. We need an expert with access to the cited article to sort this out. I have never seen such a partisan, one-sided article on Wikipedia before. The hysteria is quite palpable. -J. Snyder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.8.226 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The toxicity section is not neutral. For example, the statement "Roundup commercial formulations were never submitted to test by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);" suggests that they should have been. There are thousands of agencies to whom Roundup was not submitted. If Monsanto (or anyone) broke the law, so state. Otherwise this is biased. Likewise, while a number of studies suggesting health risks are referenced, there is little context. At what doses? If Roundup is indeed so toxic, why has it not been banned or heavily restricted, as so many other pesticides have been? There is also a whiff of original research, in the repeated implications that combinations of ingredients are somehow far more toxic than the simple sum of their toxicity. OliverHeaviside (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Oliver Heaviside, 14 June 2012

glyphosate runoff citation

The last citation in the following sentence seems wrong:

"While the use of Roundup Ready crops has increased the usage of herbicides measured in pounds applied per acre,[98] the use of Roundup Ready crops has changed the herbicide use profile away from atrazine, metribuzin, and alachlor[citation needed] which are more likely to be present in run off water.[99]"

[99] goes to "Jones RM, Fletcher DR, MacLellan DG, Lowe AW, Hardy KJ (April 1991). "Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial experience". Aust N Z J Surg 61 (4): 261–6. PMID 1826830." which has nothing to do with herbicide runoff (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1826830).

I have no idea what reference this is actually supposed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R343L (talk • contribs) 14:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)