Earth Day 2008

[PaulW]

"toxins in the environment are very likely raising cancer rates"
Again, what does this have to do with GMO?

Of course you can post anything you want, and I can question its relevance.

[JWFITZ]

well, no doubt the courts are always right.

[Rob Tucker]

I think that what is implied is that Roundup™ is the product that Monsanto focuses on with it's genetically modified plants. They are modified so that Monsanto can sell Roundup™ at $100 a gallon world wide. A very symbiotic relationship. GMO seeds and weed killer.

I don't frankly know what Roundup™ consists of but I would hesitate to drink the stuff and it would seem reasonable to consider it toxic. Perhaps we should read the cautions on the label.

[PaulW]

Thanks Rob, I didn't get the connection. I'll look into that theory.

[Rob Tucker]

Roundup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article is about the herbicidal formulation. For information on the herbicidal main active ingredient, see glyphosate. For other uses, see Round Up (disambiguation).

Roundup is the brand name of a systemic, broad-spectrum herbicide produced by the U.S. company Monsanto and contains the active ingredient glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most used herbicide in the USA.[1]

Monsanto developed and patented the glyphosate molecule in the 1970s, and marketed Roundup from 1973. It retained exclusive rights in the US until its US patent expired in September, 2000, and maintained a predominant marketshare in countries where the patent expired earlier.

The main active ingredient of Roundup is the isopropylamine salt of Glyphosate.

Monsanto also produces seeds which grow into plants genetically engineered to be tolerant to glyphosate which are known as Roundup Ready crops. The genes contained in these seeds are patented. Such crops allow farmers to use glyphosate as a post-emergence herbicide against both broadleaf and cereal weeds. Soy was the first Roundup Ready crop and was produced at Monsanto's Agracetus Campus located in Middleton, Wisconsin.

Health, ecological concerns and controversy

Roundup commercial formulations were never submitted to test by the United States Environmental Protection Agency#8206; (EPA), its main active ingredient, glyphosate, received EPA Toxicity Class of III for oral and inhalation exposure.[2]

Beyond the glyphosate salts content, commercial formulations of Roundup contain surfactants, which vary in nature and concentration. As a result, human poisoning with this herbicide is not with the main active ingredient alone but with complex and variable mixtures. [3]

[edit] Human and mammalian toxicity

About Roundup formulations, a 2000 review of the available literature published in a Monsanto sponsored journal,[4] conducted by Ian C. Munro a member of the Cantox scientific and regulatory consulting firm, which role is defined as "protect client interests while helping our clients achieve milestones and bring products to market"[5] concluded that "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans".[6] This review is extensively cited by Monsanto.

On the other hand, a same year review of the toxicological data on Roundup shows that there are at least 58 studies of the effects of Roundup itself on a range of organisms.[7] This review concluded that "for terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted for potentially exposed nontarget organisms". It also concluded that there were some risks to aquatic organisms exposed to Roundup in shallow water. In later mammalian research, Roundup has been found to interfere with an enzyme involved testosterone production in mouse cell culture[8] and to interfere with an estrogen biosynthesis enzyme in cultures of Human Placental cells.[9]

A 2008 scientific study has shown that Roundup formulations and metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells in vitro even at low concentrations. The effects were not proportional to the main active ingredient concentrations (glyphosate) but dependent on the nature of the adjuvants used in the Roundup formulation.[10]

Opponents of Roundup claim that it has been found to cause genetic damage, citing Peluso et al.[11] The authors concluded that the damage was "not related to the active ingredient, but to another component of the herbicide mixture".

There is a reasonable correlation between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported occasionally; these effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel (benzisothiazolin-3-one). Severe skin burns are very rare. Inhalation is a minor route of exposure but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis, and superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate. [3]

[edit] False advertising

In 1996 Monsanto was accused of false and misleading advertising of glyphosate products, prompting a law suit by the New York State attorney general.[12]
On Fri Jan 20, 2007, Monsanto was convicted of false advertising of Roundup for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use. Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms" by the European Union. Monsanto France planned to appeal the verdict at the time. [13]

[edit] Scientific fraud

On two occasions the United States Environmental Protection Agency has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.[14][15][16] In the first incident involving Industrial Biotest Laboratories, an EPA reviewer stated after finding "routine falsification of data" that it was "hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits".[17][18][19] In the second incident of falsifying test results in 1991, the owner of the lab (Craven Labs), and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts, the owner was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined 50,000 dollars, the lab was fined 15.5 million dollars and ordered to pay 3.7 million in restitution.[20][21][22] Craven laboratories performed studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto.

Monsanto has stated that the studies have been repeated and that Roundup's EPA certification does not now use any studies from Craven Labs or IBT. Monsanto also claims that the Craven Labs investigation was started by the EPA after a pesticide industry task force discovered irregularities.[23]

[edit] Aquatic effects

Fish and aquatic invertebrates are more sensitive to Roundup than terrestrial organisms.[7] Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with 12 to 60 day persistence observed in Canadian pond water, yet persistence of over a year have been observed in the sediments of ponds in Michigan and Oregon.[2]
The EU classifies Roundup as R51/53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.[24]

Although Roundup is not registered for aquatic uses[25] and studies of its effects on amphibians indicate it is toxic to them,[26] scientists have found that it may wind up in small wetlands where tadpoles live due to inadvertent spraying during its application. A recent study found that even at concentrations one-third of the maximum concentrations expected in nature, Roundup still killed up to 71 percent of tadpoles raised in outdoor tanks.[27]

[edit] Environmental degradation and effects

When glyphosate comes into contact with the soil it can be rapidly bound to soil particles and be inactivated.[2] Unbound glyphosate can be degraded by bacteria.[28] Glyphosphate has been shown to increase the infection rate of wheat by fusarium head blight in fields that have been treated with glyphosphate. [29]

In soils, half lives vary from as little as 3 days at a site in Texas, 141 days at a site in Iowa, to between 1–3 years in Swedish forest soils.[22] It appears that higher latitude sites have the longest soil persistences such as in Canada and Scandinavia.

A recent study concluded that certain amphibians may be at risk from glyphosate use.[30] One study has shown an effect on growth and survival of earthworms.[31] The results of this study are in conflict with other data and have been criticized on methodological grounds.[7] In other studies nitrogen fixing bacteria have been impaired, and also crop plant susceptibility to disease has been increased.[29][32][33][34][35][36] [37]

[edit] Endocrine disruptor debate

An in-vitro study[38] has suggested glyphosate may have an effect on progesterone production in mammalian cells and affect mortality of placental cells in-vitro.[9] Whether these studies classify glyphosate as an endocrine disruptor is a matter of debate.

Some believe that in-vitro studies are insufficient, and are waiting to see if animal studies show a change in endocrine activity, since a change in a single cell line may not occur in an entire organism.[citation needed] Additionally, current in-vitro studies expose cell lines to concentrations orders of magnitude greater than would be found in real conditions, and through pathways that would not be experienced in real organism.[citation needed]

Others believe that in-vitro studies, particularly ones identifying not only an effect, but a chemical pathway, are sufficient evidence to classify Roundup as an endocrine disruptor, on the basis that even small changes in endocrine activity can have lasting effects on an entire organism that may be difficult to detect through whole organism studies alone.[citation needed]

[edit] Glyphosate resistance in weeds and microorganisms

The first documented cases of weed resistance to glyphosate were found in Australia, involving rigid ryegrass near Orange, New South Wales.[39] Some farmers in the United States have expressed concern that weeds are now developing with glyphosate resistance, with 13 states now reporting resistance, and this poses a problem to many farmers, including cotton farmers, that are now heavily dependent on glyphosate to control weeds.[40][41] Farmers associations are now reporting 103 biotypes of weeds within 63 weed species with herbicide resistance[40][41]. This problem is likely to be exacerbated by the use of roundup-ready crops [42].

Some microorganisms have a version of 5-enolpyruvoyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthetase (EPSPS) that is resistant to glyphosate inhibition. The version used in genetically modified crops was isolated from Agrobacterium strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS) that was resistant to glyphosate.[43][44] The CP4 EPSPS gene was cloned and inserted into soybeans. The CP4 EPSPS gene was engineered for plant expression by fusing the 5' end of the gene to a chloroplast transit peptide derived from the petunia EPSPS. This transit peptide was used because it had shown previously an ability to deliver bacterial EPSPS to the chloroplasts of other plants. The plasmid used to move the gene into soybeans was PV-GMGTO4. It contained three bacterial genes, two PC4 EPSPS genes, and a gene encoding beta-glucuronidase (GUS) from Escherichia coli as a marker. The DNA was injected into the soybeans using the particle acceleration method. Soybean cultivar A54O3 was used for the transformation. The expression of the GUS gene was used as the initial evidence of transformation. GUS expression was detected by a staining method in which the GUS enzyme converts a substrate into a blue precipitate. Those plants that showed GUS expression were then taken and sprayed with glyphosate and their tolerance was tested over many generations.

[edit] Genetically modified crops

In 1996, genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans resistant to Roundup became commercially available, followed by Roundup Ready corn in 1998.[45] Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, maize (corn), sorghum, canola, alfalfa, and cotton, with wheat still under development. These cultivars greatly improved conventional farmers' ability to control weeds since glyphosate could be sprayed on fields without hurting the crop.[citation needed] As of 2005, 87% of U.S. soybean fields were planted to glyphosate resistant varieties.[46][47] While the use of roundup ready crops may have increased the usage of herbiices measured in pounds applied per acre.[48], the use of roundup ready crops has changed the herbicide use profile away from atrazine, metribuzin, and alachlor. This has the benefit of reducing the dangers of herbicide run off into drinking water.[49]

In 1999, a review of Roundup Ready soybean crops found that, compared to the top conventional varieties, they had a 6.7% lower yield [48]. This so called "yield drag" follows the same pattern observed when other traits are introduced into soybeans by conventional breeding. [50] Monsanto claims later patented varieties yield 7-11% higher than their porely performing initial varieties, although there refrain from citing actual yields [51]. (If these statistics were combined with the above cited numbers resultant yield would still only be identical to conventional farming)

Monsanto has received harsh 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.[52][53] The practice of patenting living things is in itself also subject to much debate. Monsanto did not "invent" anything, rather to create MON-89788-1[54] (RR 2) they inserted the gene for the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) isolated from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens into soybeans[54]. Evolution did the invention of a glyphosate tolerant enzyme, not Monsanto. Monsanto is also developing genetic modifications into crops so that the resultant plants are incapable of reproducing, and seed cant be harvested, and also completely destroying biological self-sufficiency.[55][56]

[edit] Tradenames

The Roundup trademark is registered with the US Patent Office and still extant. However, the chemical formulation is no longer under patent, so similar products using glyphosate as the active ingredient are available from other manufacturers and marketed under many names,[57] including Buccaneer, Razor Pro, (41%), Rodeo (51.2%), Aquaneat (53.8%), and Aquamaster (53.5%)[58]

[edit] Other uses

Glyphosate is one of a number of herbicides used by the United States government to spray Colombian coca fields through Plan Colombia. There are reports that widespread application of glyphosate in attempts to destroy coca crops in South America have resulted in the development of glyphosate-resistant strains of coca known as Boliviana negra, which have been selectively bred to be both "Roundup ready" and also larger and higher yielding than the original strains of the plant. [13][59] However, there are no reports of glyphosate-resistant coca in the peer-reviewed literature.[60] In addition, since spraying of herbicides is not permitted in Colombian national parks, this has encouraged coca growers to move into park areas, cutting down the natural vegetation, and establishing coca plantations within park lands.

In many US cities, Roundup is sprayed along the sidewalks and streets, as well as crevices in between pavement where weeds often grow. In many Canada cities its use for cosmetic purposes is either banned or restricted.[61][62]

[edit] Superweeds

Roundup overuse resulted in the development of "Superweeds" which are resistant to the herbicide.[63][64]

[Rob Tucker]

Roundup™ From HowStuffWorks.com

Roundup® (a trade name used by Monsanto) and other herbicides based on glyphosphate (the generic name) are probably the most commonly applied weed killers in use today. These herbicides are used by everyone from farmers to foresters to gardeners to biologists trying to control invasive exotic plants.

Roundup will kill almost any plant, including aquatic plants, so you want to be sure to avoid spray drift onto other plants or into water.
Glyphosphate-based herbicides all work on the same biochemical principle -- they inhibit a specific enzyme that plants need in order to grow. The specific enzyme is called EPSP synthase. Without that enzyme, plants are unable to produce other proteins essential to growth, so they yellow and die over the course of several days or weeks. A majority of plants use this same enzyme, so almost all plants succumb to Roundup.

If you have read the HowStuffWorks article How Cells Work, you know a good bit about DNA and how it produces enzymes. In the same way that many antibiotics gum up enzyme production to kill bacteria, glyphosphate gums up enzymes in plants to kill them. Glyphosphate kills plants like antibiotics kill bacteria.

If you've been following farming news or the genetically modified food debate, you know that glyphosphate-tolerant seeds are now available -- you can buy genetically modified corn, soybeans, etc. that are immune to glyphosphate. These plants produce an enzyme that performs the same function as EPSP synthase but is not inhibited by glyphosphate.

The question of safety is a hard one to answer because there is a lot of polarized and conflicting information. Here are a few things we can probably say with some certainty:

* Given the amount of glyphosphate sprayed on the planet every day, it is probably safe to say that glyphosphate is not violently toxic to people or animals. People do not have the same enzymes in their cells that plants do, just like human cells and bacteria differ enough that antibiotics kill bacteria cells but not human cells.

* On the other hand, most people react badly to glyphosphate (and other chemicals mixed with it) when ingested or applied to the skin, so you want to avoid any contact with the chemical.

* Roundup will kill almost any plant, including aquatic plants, so you want to be sure to avoid spray drift onto other plants or into water. Any pesticide should be applied carefully.

[PaulW]

Thanks Rob. I didn't see any mention of cancer. Or Agent Orange. Or that Roundup is a GMO.

[Rob Tucker]

Agent Orange references might be due to one of two things:

1. * Roundup will kill almost any plant, including aquatic plants,

2. Agent Orange was a product of the Monsanto Corp.

or maybe not.

[aprild]

Paul,

At times you need to do your own research. Thank you, Rob, for taking the time.

Round up is not a genetically modified organism, because it is not an organism but a chemical soup herbicide.

I have often had encounters with individuals who offer lots of criticism and contrary OPINIONS that they themselves do not substantiate. They then challenge me and others to PROVE to them my statements which I have often done at great length that takes a lot of time and effort. They then totally ignore what has been presented to them, even going so far as to NOT EVEN READ THE EVIDENCE.

Therefore, I no longer jump to do their work for them. If you honestly want to know about this subject YOU do the research to get to the bottom of it. You have a computer and access to librairies, films, books and tv and radio programs which cover these topics in depth, just as I do.

This forum is not a college course, but a place where people exchange ideas, talk via the web informally and generally just want to have fun. You do like to have fun, don't you, Paul?

april

[PaulW]

I have done the research.

You claim Roundup = Agent Orange. Not true.
You claim Roundup causes cancer. Not true.

I ask you to back up your claims. Your response is to type words in capital letters.

Have a great day.