This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
…having had an otherwise busy December and early January, I am only now arriving at this long ongoing discussions after being directed to it by a colleague. I would note for the record that I strongly agree with the stated opinion that a consensus of well-regarded secondary sources should determine the content here, with discussion of editors shaping what we conclude (based on those sources) to be the preponderance of scientific opinion on each point. If the literature does not present a consensus in its secondary sources that we can agree on, then we can present brief parallel presentations of each position with substantial published support. In general, primary sources should only appear (in my view) as added information, and only in the context of the secondary source that cites and discusses it. I am a hard-liner on this, and I know there are good science articles that step outside these constraints, but this is what I support, here and in general. I would close by noting that among those supporting the "rely on secondary sources" editorial point of view here are actual subject matter experts, individuals with doctoral level training and beyond in fields relevant to this article. If those knowing this field as well as that can accept the constraint of only reflecting opinions taken from experts as stated in secondary sources, then all editors should be able to (IMHO). Cheers. 50.179.252.14 ( talk) 06:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Our goal is to write comprehensive, unbiased articles, in plain English, intended for general readers of all ages. With this broad target in mind, we can propose the most basic questions likely to be asked for this subject, and then, see if the article answers them, and how easily. Evaluation is based on simple usability testing which anyone can perform: pick a question, go to the article, and see how quickly you can find the answer, noting what steps you took. Questions rely on our common sense, and are also based on glyphosate FAQs from various sources.
NOTE: The questions are not intended to be literally included in the article, they are only for evaluating the article—don't be concerned with precise wording, unless a question is not clear to you. -- Tsavage ( talk) 13:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion: Monsanto patent expiry
|
---|
|
Recently, SmartSE commented that "this article is far from providing a balanced view of the available sources" and, with my encouragement, provided several items to address that. They are included below, with a few additions of my own. Please feel free to add to and edit this list, and use the list to literally test the article, as well as, of course, for article improvement, and also as a reality/context check in the midst of arguing the crap out of single, piecemeal points. -- Tsavage ( talk) 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pyrrhia,
I was recently updating references in the article Glyphosate. I noticed that dates were in ymd, dmy and mdy so I wanted to add the template. In order to find out what the original editors used I searched through the article history and I opened earlier versions of the article. I had two versions of the article open at the same time-the current version and the older version. I inadvertently made an edit to the older version deleting major content in one mouse click. I caught my error immediately and was in the process of reverting it when you caught it and reverted it. Thanks for catching that. I want it on record that this was not intentional vandalism. I have spent the last two hours updating references and content, reading articles, etc. regarding this article and my intention was article improvement and update. I thanked you for catching the error in the article's history. Oceanflynn ( talk) 18:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This 2016 study ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015139) looked at glyphosate and NHL and found no causal relationship. Since this study was more thorough than the one the IARC cited, should it be mentioned in the introductory section? There's more evidence directly contradicting a link to NHL than there is evidence supporting such a link. twasbrillig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.114.245 ( talk) 20:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the point of the "Monarch butterfly" section? How does any member of the farming community's diligent mechanical weeding escape such scorn?
This article provides a quintessential exemplar for librarians to explain to young researchers about when NOT to rely on Wikipedia. Rt3368 ( talk) 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The evidence seems clear that the number of milkweed plants through this region has indeed declined. The cause for the milkweed decline, though, is a little less certain.
I see no one has added this [8] or [9]. I put it in the government section, but it might be better in a controversy section. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Folllowing was removed by kingofaces43 due to the quality of the references. I agree the Poisoned Fields docu may not be the best of sources, but I mainly rely on the papers written by Günther Neumann. Anyway, perhaps look into it, perhaps see if you can find more references, and reinclude.
Old text added:
For agricultural use however, despite the benefits that can be attained from the use of the product in the first (2 to 3) years, it has shown to impair the growth of crops if used for several (7 or more) successive years on a same field. [1] [2]According to one farmer, some fields in which the pesticide has been used for over 7 years experienced a reduction of the yields by over 50%. [3] KVDP ( talk) 15:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree and have made the edit as my own edit, but the editor is topic-banned. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article states that 211 species of plant have developed resistance to glyphosate here but this is incorrect. The number of species is much lower. The source is this website where you pull down "glyphosate" and see a table but the species are duplicated many times over, so it is not actually 200+ species. I've been told it's currently 36 species resistant to glyphosate. Anyway, this is a significant error and i'm going to edit this out right now because it should not be reflected in the world's supposed collective knowledge base. SageRad ( talk) 22:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC) |
Has anyone else noticed that this statement in the "Discovery" section is not borne out in the reference given? "Stauffer Chemical patented the agent as a chemical chelator in 1964 as it binds and removes minerals such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, and zinc.[17]" I'm no chemist, but it appears to me that the patent was granted for a series of "precursor" chemicals which could be further modified to eventually produce glyphosate. There is no mention of N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine until you get further in the patent process -- meaning that Monsanto's glyphosate patent does indeed reference this one, as do many others. I would invite other editors, particularly chemists, to examine the patent for themselves and see if I'm right. It can be seen here [ [10]].
I'm bringing this up because most literature on glyphosate in a field situation seems to indicate that mineral chelation is a minor problem, other than in Dr. Don M. Huber's papers. Other thoughts? Perhaps we can get this little point cleared up. Thanks! Kwagoner ( talk) 03:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
References
For what it's worth, the symbol-and-stick diagram for the molecule is swapped left-for-right compared to the two graphical versions (see P on left in symbol, but orange globe on right in graphics) I don't know if it's difficult to swap either of these across the vertical axis, but if it's easy, perhaps someone can take the time and do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree ( talk • contribs) 17:59, June 11, 2016
I ask this question out of genuine ignorance. About deleting the sentence based on that source, I believed the source indicated that Seneff is at MIT. I get it, that it's a primary source, but is it actually on a par with Seralini? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The section is referenced with a self-published source: Marin-Morales MA, de Campos Ventura-Camargo B, Hoshina M (2013). Toxicity of Herbicides: Impact on Aquatic and Soil Biota and Human Health". In Jessica A. Kelton, Herbicides–Current Research and Case Studies in Use, Lulu com [16]. When I checked this source, I found out that this review summarizes research by Relyea on Roundup (with surfactant, p.418). The next section [17], last sentence, also uses the book published by Lulu com as a source and it is also based on test results with Roundup, including surfactant. JimRenge ( talk) 23:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I came to this article after accidental skin exposure. Impressed with the level of relevant helpful detail provided!
Article could be improved with details about safe handling of typical formulations. The infobox is helpful:
But too cryptic for the typical reader. It would be better for the codes above to be fully unpacked into actual words, such as:
- 71.174.180.38 ( talk) 19:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It is already well known that glyphosate persists in soils. Recent tests by Ecowatch might be a bit emotional, but the levels in processed foods are indeed "higher" than expected, meaning higher than in some other foods when considering they are formulated from other ingredients. These tests sponsored by Eco-watch were not field tests, but tests conducted on packaged food products from the shelves. Since the consumer most often doesn't eat carrots directly from the field, or the vegetables are formulated into consumer products, it not just a question of agricultural techniques but also of food safety. The National Pesticide Information center does not have any regulatory oversight and only refers to field tests rather than tests on food products directly, which is usually the domain of the FDA. ( Osterluzei ( talk) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Glyphosate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Glyphosate not classified as a carcinogen by ECHA → should be mentioned in the article. -- Leyo 14:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems that Monsanto tried to "play dirty" of sorts with various glyphosate and round-up studies.
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 22:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems like that user Kmhkmh needs more help with literature research (2nd link):
"Update: After quick review, medical school says no evidence Monsanto ghostwrote professor's paper" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.64.15 ( talk) 13:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The following needs careful consideration and the insights it provides should be incorporated into the main Wikipedia on Glyphosate
From: The Interplay Between Environmental Chemical Exposures and Obesity: Proceedings of a Workshop. Page 109 [1]
Young asked a question about the presence of small amounts of glyphosate—the pesticide sold as Round Up—in foods, particularly corn and high-fructose corn syrup. A paper published by Shehata and colleagues (Shehata et al., 2013) [2] reported that many pathogenic gut bacteria are resistant to glyphosate, whereas many beneficial bacteria are susceptible to it. Could the presence of glyphosate in corn syrup be a confounding variable in the results showing a link between fructose and metabolic dysfunction? Goldman answered that she has not seen any studies addressing the issue, but that it is a reasonable question to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.194.197 ( talk) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Citations
|
---|
|
Considering Glyphosate's safety merely in the context of how it affects the Human gut biota is woefully inadequate. Herbicides like RoundUp are known to have a serious negative effect on bee hive survivability, and as such on foods produced by all plants that need bee fertilization in their life cycle. This applies both to crops grown for human consumption and for all other flora of which parts are consumed by wild living creatures. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.28.195 ( talk) 16:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
At this moment this article seems to be way behind the growing deluge of publications, including material presented in Congressional hearings, coming out on this issue of effects of glysophate on gut bacteria, to say nothing of soil microorganisms and symbiotic relationships within other organisms, ecosystems and the ecosphere. Take for example, more than 76 articles by Dr. Stephanie Seneff at MIT: https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/. The Wiki article seems to imply that as long as there is not currently indication of cancer, then there is no problem for humans. But the works of Seneff and others observe that the human gut bacteria supply many different requirements for the human body, and when you start interfering with these a wide range of effects emerges. All these Families of bacteria contain the enzyme EPSPS and are susceptible to glyphosate in amounts as small as 1ppm: Neisseriaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, Pasteurellaceae, Mycobacteriaceae, Nocardiaceae, Brucellaceae, Streptococcaceae, Alcaligenacea, Micrococcaceae, Trichocomaceae, Bacillaceae, Chlamydiaceae, Listeriaceae, Pseudomonadaceae Enterococcaceae, Cardiobacteriaceae, Campylobacteriaceae, etc.
Monsanto's premise was that because humans don't have the enzyme EPSPS, then glyphosate would not be a problem for humans. But as the human gut is filled with bacteria that not only do have the enzyme but also supply a wide range of requirements for the human organism, interference with and disturbance of these bacterial communities manifest themselves in a wide range of human maladies.
From the 2016 Congressional Hearing on Glyphosate: "Glyphosate and Disease": "Monsanto long-term Trade Secret studies in mice and rats reveal that Glyphosate destroys the tissues of glands and organs. Tissue destruction leads to gland and organ dysfunction and failure. The effect of glyphosate mis-incorporation into diverse proteins leads to disease by mis-folded proteins. These diseases and increases in diseases include but are not limited to Alzheimer’s, ASD, PD other neurological disorders, obesity, diabetes, cataracts, CKD, celiac disease, liver disease, heart disease, lung disease, asthma, deterioration of joints, destruction of teeth, acid reflux, other digestive disorders, birth defects, infertility, sterility, sexual disorders, skin disorders, scleroderma, cancer, lack of vitamins D, B vitamins including cobalamin (B12) and folate, chelation of necessary minerals and more…."
This also extends itself to other organisms throughout the ecosystem and can be assumed to affect ecosystem and ecospheric systems more generally when hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate are dumped into agricultural and non-agricultural ecosystems, just as agroecologists have demonstrated already for other agricultural chemicals and the associated farming systems that come out of the policies and purposes that presume the need for these chemicals. There are also unexpected crossovers, such as what happens to organic growers who use manure from animals kept on pastures treated with glyphosate. One needs also to identify and inspect the premises that underlie the use of glyphosate and other chemicals within agroecosystems and the ecosphere more generally.
Regarding premises, there is the whole question of what is meant by an herbicide, for example, from the 2014 Congressional hearing on Glyphosate: "Glyphosate is an antibiotic masquerading as an herbicide. Imagine the consequences of farmers spraying 10 million metric tonnes of any other antibiotic like penicillin or tetracycline on the food crops of the USA and Canada. People and politicians would definitely react if they knew." As pointed out by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, one problem at the very root of science is that when we assign a particular word to describe something, it leads us to ignore other dimensions not contained within the word.
As bacteria are the origin and substraight of life on this planet, every multicellular organism on the planet has complex symbiotic and symbiogenetical (from the word symbiogenesis) relationships with bacteria, it cannot be assumed that lack of observed experience of effects of glyphosate should mean that it does not have effects.Stephen Mikesell 15:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singing Coyote ( talk • contribs)
User:Smartse suggested having a discussion about this issue here. He had undone this addition I had made: "In 2017 Monsanto marketed Roundup for Lawns, a herbicide formulation without glyphosate".(See Roundup for Lawns description) I admit it could have said differently but the point here is this: "Roundup" does not mean anymore that there is glyphosate in the formulation. This was true in the past but is not anymore, yet the WP article continues to present "Roundup" as a glyphosate formulation without qualification. People may want to understand why "Roundup for Lawns" does not kill the lawn as it would if it would contain glyphosate. Ekem ( talk) 22:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, can we merge Glyphosate#Legal_cases with Monsanto legal cases#Roundup? Wakari07 ( talk) 09:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I'm new here but I think more needs to be added to this article on the work Dr. Seneff at MIT has done to show how glyphosate interacts with humans after ingestion from foods whose crops were treated with glyphosate based herbicides. Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.133.131 ( talk) 15:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I have removed this statement because it does not seem to be supported by any of the sources provided. Only one source even mentions use as a dessicant that I can see, and even it never attributes residues to that practice. If anyone can provide quotes of where these sources state that use as a dessicant results in a residue on crops, then please do so. Thank you. Mark Marathon ( talk) 02:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, still learning! I can see that my formatting is probably wrong for this page. The wording of the assertion is a little off. I would maybe rephrase as "the preharvest application of pesticides (such as glyphosate) results in residues". There are other potential (less common) preharvest usages and its not a dessicant but similar to the use of dessicants. I believe these are 3 additional citations for "preharvest application of pesticide results in residues":
Those appear to be the same citations, and they have the same issues. I don't see how you have adressed my concerns at all. Atthis stage we have a single reference saying that incorrect use can lead to residue increases, something true of all pesticides and fertilisers by definition. That's all that should be added to the article, and even that needs a discussion re
WP:DUE.
Mark Marathon (
talk)
02:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
The text "This dry crop does not have to be windrowed (swathed and dried) prior to harvest..." under Use links to the combine harvester page. I think perhaps this should have been linked to Windrow. The combine combines reaping, threshing, and winnowing, and the winnowing page specifically says it's not to be confused with windrowing. Can someone more familiar with farming check this? bendodge ( talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
This source was recently added in this edit. I was originally going to leave it be for the time being, but I had a chance to look at the full text, and it's quit the mess. I've removed it due to a few issues. First, it cites Seralini extensively, which is a pretty big WP:REDFLAG It's also extremely difficult to get through the source due to poor English and extremely poor data presentation (I'm kind of surprised it was accepted without taking care of the basic readability prior to publishing). The studies used for the meta-analysis also are not even cited in the references for the most part, and the few that are are not peer-reviewed.
The additional problem with the edit itself is that is says nothing of glyphosate concentrations (i.e., ecological relevance), which is generally needed in toxicological reporting as the previous sentence on maternal effects. This isn't included in the source either. Basically, there's too many red flags to try consider it the type of study we're looking for per WP:MEDASSESS at this point or to even gleam appropriate information from. If we are going to consider it as a source, better to wait for other experts to comment on it to see if someone can make sense of the study as well as avoid WP:RECENTISM. If it doesn't get discussed, that would be an indication that scientists didn't take it seriously. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370400/ Nicole E De Long. Alison C Holloway. Early-life chemical exposures and risk of metabolic syndrome//Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy.
Added info from review: "Glyphosate has been shown to cause liver and kidney toxicities at low doses and to increase apoptosis and induce oxidative stress in preadipocytes"
It was reverted by Kingofaces43 with comment "Source cites WP:FRINGE Seralini study in addition to additional WP:WEIGHT issues"
Review cites study by Mesnage et al, including Seralini " Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure." This study was not retracted. Increase of apoptosis and oxidative stress are also serious issues. Cathry ( talk) 01:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Plmoknqwerty you have now reverted this content twice [18], [19] and in doing so you have given edit summaries that have misstated policy. There is no prohibition on including opinions as long as they have sufficient weight and notability, and are not presented in Wikipedia's voice. Since these opinions are attributed, then merely being opinions isn't a problem. Geogene ( talk) 13:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The statement that "glyphosate is the most important herbicide discovered in the last 100 years" is not a medical claim. An equivalent statement, "penicillin is the most important antibiotic discovered in the last 100 years" would not be a medical claim, either. Both are too vague, neither statement contains any specific medical claim. Trying to reinterpret the statement to create specificity is Wikilawyering. Geogene ( talk) 00:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd delete the first quotation myself, but it's locked. It's in the "toxicity" section:
I think the best edit would be to preserve the quote and the off-quote note about the dosage, assuming it's really backed-up by the cited article:
Please discuss edits here. Perhaps run an RfC. Please obtain consensus before making changes. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Why hasn't the Portier claim made it here yet? Portier was paid a consultancy fee of >$160,000 by lawyers representing people who claim to have been injured by glyphosate. David Zaruk (who blogs as the Risk Monger [1]) has exposed this and he's probably a bit polemic for citation here but USRTK has the entire transcript on its website including the admission (by Portier) that he misled the press and didn't admit to working with the attorneys. I suggest people do their own reading on this as I'm too busy preparing work on it myself and I don't want to add too much here that will be repeating work or color people's perceptions too much. Smidoid ( talk) 16:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
References
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
…having had an otherwise busy December and early January, I am only now arriving at this long ongoing discussions after being directed to it by a colleague. I would note for the record that I strongly agree with the stated opinion that a consensus of well-regarded secondary sources should determine the content here, with discussion of editors shaping what we conclude (based on those sources) to be the preponderance of scientific opinion on each point. If the literature does not present a consensus in its secondary sources that we can agree on, then we can present brief parallel presentations of each position with substantial published support. In general, primary sources should only appear (in my view) as added information, and only in the context of the secondary source that cites and discusses it. I am a hard-liner on this, and I know there are good science articles that step outside these constraints, but this is what I support, here and in general. I would close by noting that among those supporting the "rely on secondary sources" editorial point of view here are actual subject matter experts, individuals with doctoral level training and beyond in fields relevant to this article. If those knowing this field as well as that can accept the constraint of only reflecting opinions taken from experts as stated in secondary sources, then all editors should be able to (IMHO). Cheers. 50.179.252.14 ( talk) 06:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Our goal is to write comprehensive, unbiased articles, in plain English, intended for general readers of all ages. With this broad target in mind, we can propose the most basic questions likely to be asked for this subject, and then, see if the article answers them, and how easily. Evaluation is based on simple usability testing which anyone can perform: pick a question, go to the article, and see how quickly you can find the answer, noting what steps you took. Questions rely on our common sense, and are also based on glyphosate FAQs from various sources.
NOTE: The questions are not intended to be literally included in the article, they are only for evaluating the article—don't be concerned with precise wording, unless a question is not clear to you. -- Tsavage ( talk) 13:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion: Monsanto patent expiry
|
---|
|
Recently, SmartSE commented that "this article is far from providing a balanced view of the available sources" and, with my encouragement, provided several items to address that. They are included below, with a few additions of my own. Please feel free to add to and edit this list, and use the list to literally test the article, as well as, of course, for article improvement, and also as a reality/context check in the midst of arguing the crap out of single, piecemeal points. -- Tsavage ( talk) 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pyrrhia,
I was recently updating references in the article Glyphosate. I noticed that dates were in ymd, dmy and mdy so I wanted to add the template. In order to find out what the original editors used I searched through the article history and I opened earlier versions of the article. I had two versions of the article open at the same time-the current version and the older version. I inadvertently made an edit to the older version deleting major content in one mouse click. I caught my error immediately and was in the process of reverting it when you caught it and reverted it. Thanks for catching that. I want it on record that this was not intentional vandalism. I have spent the last two hours updating references and content, reading articles, etc. regarding this article and my intention was article improvement and update. I thanked you for catching the error in the article's history. Oceanflynn ( talk) 18:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This 2016 study ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015139) looked at glyphosate and NHL and found no causal relationship. Since this study was more thorough than the one the IARC cited, should it be mentioned in the introductory section? There's more evidence directly contradicting a link to NHL than there is evidence supporting such a link. twasbrillig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.114.245 ( talk) 20:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the point of the "Monarch butterfly" section? How does any member of the farming community's diligent mechanical weeding escape such scorn?
This article provides a quintessential exemplar for librarians to explain to young researchers about when NOT to rely on Wikipedia. Rt3368 ( talk) 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The evidence seems clear that the number of milkweed plants through this region has indeed declined. The cause for the milkweed decline, though, is a little less certain.
I see no one has added this [8] or [9]. I put it in the government section, but it might be better in a controversy section. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Folllowing was removed by kingofaces43 due to the quality of the references. I agree the Poisoned Fields docu may not be the best of sources, but I mainly rely on the papers written by Günther Neumann. Anyway, perhaps look into it, perhaps see if you can find more references, and reinclude.
Old text added:
For agricultural use however, despite the benefits that can be attained from the use of the product in the first (2 to 3) years, it has shown to impair the growth of crops if used for several (7 or more) successive years on a same field. [1] [2]According to one farmer, some fields in which the pesticide has been used for over 7 years experienced a reduction of the yields by over 50%. [3] KVDP ( talk) 15:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree and have made the edit as my own edit, but the editor is topic-banned. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article states that 211 species of plant have developed resistance to glyphosate here but this is incorrect. The number of species is much lower. The source is this website where you pull down "glyphosate" and see a table but the species are duplicated many times over, so it is not actually 200+ species. I've been told it's currently 36 species resistant to glyphosate. Anyway, this is a significant error and i'm going to edit this out right now because it should not be reflected in the world's supposed collective knowledge base. SageRad ( talk) 22:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC) |
Has anyone else noticed that this statement in the "Discovery" section is not borne out in the reference given? "Stauffer Chemical patented the agent as a chemical chelator in 1964 as it binds and removes minerals such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, and zinc.[17]" I'm no chemist, but it appears to me that the patent was granted for a series of "precursor" chemicals which could be further modified to eventually produce glyphosate. There is no mention of N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine until you get further in the patent process -- meaning that Monsanto's glyphosate patent does indeed reference this one, as do many others. I would invite other editors, particularly chemists, to examine the patent for themselves and see if I'm right. It can be seen here [ [10]].
I'm bringing this up because most literature on glyphosate in a field situation seems to indicate that mineral chelation is a minor problem, other than in Dr. Don M. Huber's papers. Other thoughts? Perhaps we can get this little point cleared up. Thanks! Kwagoner ( talk) 03:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
References
For what it's worth, the symbol-and-stick diagram for the molecule is swapped left-for-right compared to the two graphical versions (see P on left in symbol, but orange globe on right in graphics) I don't know if it's difficult to swap either of these across the vertical axis, but if it's easy, perhaps someone can take the time and do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree ( talk • contribs) 17:59, June 11, 2016
I ask this question out of genuine ignorance. About deleting the sentence based on that source, I believed the source indicated that Seneff is at MIT. I get it, that it's a primary source, but is it actually on a par with Seralini? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The section is referenced with a self-published source: Marin-Morales MA, de Campos Ventura-Camargo B, Hoshina M (2013). Toxicity of Herbicides: Impact on Aquatic and Soil Biota and Human Health". In Jessica A. Kelton, Herbicides–Current Research and Case Studies in Use, Lulu com [16]. When I checked this source, I found out that this review summarizes research by Relyea on Roundup (with surfactant, p.418). The next section [17], last sentence, also uses the book published by Lulu com as a source and it is also based on test results with Roundup, including surfactant. JimRenge ( talk) 23:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I came to this article after accidental skin exposure. Impressed with the level of relevant helpful detail provided!
Article could be improved with details about safe handling of typical formulations. The infobox is helpful:
But too cryptic for the typical reader. It would be better for the codes above to be fully unpacked into actual words, such as:
- 71.174.180.38 ( talk) 19:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It is already well known that glyphosate persists in soils. Recent tests by Ecowatch might be a bit emotional, but the levels in processed foods are indeed "higher" than expected, meaning higher than in some other foods when considering they are formulated from other ingredients. These tests sponsored by Eco-watch were not field tests, but tests conducted on packaged food products from the shelves. Since the consumer most often doesn't eat carrots directly from the field, or the vegetables are formulated into consumer products, it not just a question of agricultural techniques but also of food safety. The National Pesticide Information center does not have any regulatory oversight and only refers to field tests rather than tests on food products directly, which is usually the domain of the FDA. ( Osterluzei ( talk) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Glyphosate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Glyphosate not classified as a carcinogen by ECHA → should be mentioned in the article. -- Leyo 14:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems that Monsanto tried to "play dirty" of sorts with various glyphosate and round-up studies.
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 22:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems like that user Kmhkmh needs more help with literature research (2nd link):
"Update: After quick review, medical school says no evidence Monsanto ghostwrote professor's paper" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.64.15 ( talk) 13:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The following needs careful consideration and the insights it provides should be incorporated into the main Wikipedia on Glyphosate
From: The Interplay Between Environmental Chemical Exposures and Obesity: Proceedings of a Workshop. Page 109 [1]
Young asked a question about the presence of small amounts of glyphosate—the pesticide sold as Round Up—in foods, particularly corn and high-fructose corn syrup. A paper published by Shehata and colleagues (Shehata et al., 2013) [2] reported that many pathogenic gut bacteria are resistant to glyphosate, whereas many beneficial bacteria are susceptible to it. Could the presence of glyphosate in corn syrup be a confounding variable in the results showing a link between fructose and metabolic dysfunction? Goldman answered that she has not seen any studies addressing the issue, but that it is a reasonable question to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.194.197 ( talk) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Citations
|
---|
|
Considering Glyphosate's safety merely in the context of how it affects the Human gut biota is woefully inadequate. Herbicides like RoundUp are known to have a serious negative effect on bee hive survivability, and as such on foods produced by all plants that need bee fertilization in their life cycle. This applies both to crops grown for human consumption and for all other flora of which parts are consumed by wild living creatures. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.28.195 ( talk) 16:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
At this moment this article seems to be way behind the growing deluge of publications, including material presented in Congressional hearings, coming out on this issue of effects of glysophate on gut bacteria, to say nothing of soil microorganisms and symbiotic relationships within other organisms, ecosystems and the ecosphere. Take for example, more than 76 articles by Dr. Stephanie Seneff at MIT: https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/. The Wiki article seems to imply that as long as there is not currently indication of cancer, then there is no problem for humans. But the works of Seneff and others observe that the human gut bacteria supply many different requirements for the human body, and when you start interfering with these a wide range of effects emerges. All these Families of bacteria contain the enzyme EPSPS and are susceptible to glyphosate in amounts as small as 1ppm: Neisseriaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, Pasteurellaceae, Mycobacteriaceae, Nocardiaceae, Brucellaceae, Streptococcaceae, Alcaligenacea, Micrococcaceae, Trichocomaceae, Bacillaceae, Chlamydiaceae, Listeriaceae, Pseudomonadaceae Enterococcaceae, Cardiobacteriaceae, Campylobacteriaceae, etc.
Monsanto's premise was that because humans don't have the enzyme EPSPS, then glyphosate would not be a problem for humans. But as the human gut is filled with bacteria that not only do have the enzyme but also supply a wide range of requirements for the human organism, interference with and disturbance of these bacterial communities manifest themselves in a wide range of human maladies.
From the 2016 Congressional Hearing on Glyphosate: "Glyphosate and Disease": "Monsanto long-term Trade Secret studies in mice and rats reveal that Glyphosate destroys the tissues of glands and organs. Tissue destruction leads to gland and organ dysfunction and failure. The effect of glyphosate mis-incorporation into diverse proteins leads to disease by mis-folded proteins. These diseases and increases in diseases include but are not limited to Alzheimer’s, ASD, PD other neurological disorders, obesity, diabetes, cataracts, CKD, celiac disease, liver disease, heart disease, lung disease, asthma, deterioration of joints, destruction of teeth, acid reflux, other digestive disorders, birth defects, infertility, sterility, sexual disorders, skin disorders, scleroderma, cancer, lack of vitamins D, B vitamins including cobalamin (B12) and folate, chelation of necessary minerals and more…."
This also extends itself to other organisms throughout the ecosystem and can be assumed to affect ecosystem and ecospheric systems more generally when hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate are dumped into agricultural and non-agricultural ecosystems, just as agroecologists have demonstrated already for other agricultural chemicals and the associated farming systems that come out of the policies and purposes that presume the need for these chemicals. There are also unexpected crossovers, such as what happens to organic growers who use manure from animals kept on pastures treated with glyphosate. One needs also to identify and inspect the premises that underlie the use of glyphosate and other chemicals within agroecosystems and the ecosphere more generally.
Regarding premises, there is the whole question of what is meant by an herbicide, for example, from the 2014 Congressional hearing on Glyphosate: "Glyphosate is an antibiotic masquerading as an herbicide. Imagine the consequences of farmers spraying 10 million metric tonnes of any other antibiotic like penicillin or tetracycline on the food crops of the USA and Canada. People and politicians would definitely react if they knew." As pointed out by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, one problem at the very root of science is that when we assign a particular word to describe something, it leads us to ignore other dimensions not contained within the word.
As bacteria are the origin and substraight of life on this planet, every multicellular organism on the planet has complex symbiotic and symbiogenetical (from the word symbiogenesis) relationships with bacteria, it cannot be assumed that lack of observed experience of effects of glyphosate should mean that it does not have effects.Stephen Mikesell 15:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singing Coyote ( talk • contribs)
User:Smartse suggested having a discussion about this issue here. He had undone this addition I had made: "In 2017 Monsanto marketed Roundup for Lawns, a herbicide formulation without glyphosate".(See Roundup for Lawns description) I admit it could have said differently but the point here is this: "Roundup" does not mean anymore that there is glyphosate in the formulation. This was true in the past but is not anymore, yet the WP article continues to present "Roundup" as a glyphosate formulation without qualification. People may want to understand why "Roundup for Lawns" does not kill the lawn as it would if it would contain glyphosate. Ekem ( talk) 22:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, can we merge Glyphosate#Legal_cases with Monsanto legal cases#Roundup? Wakari07 ( talk) 09:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I'm new here but I think more needs to be added to this article on the work Dr. Seneff at MIT has done to show how glyphosate interacts with humans after ingestion from foods whose crops were treated with glyphosate based herbicides. Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.133.131 ( talk) 15:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I have removed this statement because it does not seem to be supported by any of the sources provided. Only one source even mentions use as a dessicant that I can see, and even it never attributes residues to that practice. If anyone can provide quotes of where these sources state that use as a dessicant results in a residue on crops, then please do so. Thank you. Mark Marathon ( talk) 02:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, still learning! I can see that my formatting is probably wrong for this page. The wording of the assertion is a little off. I would maybe rephrase as "the preharvest application of pesticides (such as glyphosate) results in residues". There are other potential (less common) preharvest usages and its not a dessicant but similar to the use of dessicants. I believe these are 3 additional citations for "preharvest application of pesticide results in residues":
Those appear to be the same citations, and they have the same issues. I don't see how you have adressed my concerns at all. Atthis stage we have a single reference saying that incorrect use can lead to residue increases, something true of all pesticides and fertilisers by definition. That's all that should be added to the article, and even that needs a discussion re
WP:DUE.
Mark Marathon (
talk)
02:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
The text "This dry crop does not have to be windrowed (swathed and dried) prior to harvest..." under Use links to the combine harvester page. I think perhaps this should have been linked to Windrow. The combine combines reaping, threshing, and winnowing, and the winnowing page specifically says it's not to be confused with windrowing. Can someone more familiar with farming check this? bendodge ( talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
This source was recently added in this edit. I was originally going to leave it be for the time being, but I had a chance to look at the full text, and it's quit the mess. I've removed it due to a few issues. First, it cites Seralini extensively, which is a pretty big WP:REDFLAG It's also extremely difficult to get through the source due to poor English and extremely poor data presentation (I'm kind of surprised it was accepted without taking care of the basic readability prior to publishing). The studies used for the meta-analysis also are not even cited in the references for the most part, and the few that are are not peer-reviewed.
The additional problem with the edit itself is that is says nothing of glyphosate concentrations (i.e., ecological relevance), which is generally needed in toxicological reporting as the previous sentence on maternal effects. This isn't included in the source either. Basically, there's too many red flags to try consider it the type of study we're looking for per WP:MEDASSESS at this point or to even gleam appropriate information from. If we are going to consider it as a source, better to wait for other experts to comment on it to see if someone can make sense of the study as well as avoid WP:RECENTISM. If it doesn't get discussed, that would be an indication that scientists didn't take it seriously. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370400/ Nicole E De Long. Alison C Holloway. Early-life chemical exposures and risk of metabolic syndrome//Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy.
Added info from review: "Glyphosate has been shown to cause liver and kidney toxicities at low doses and to increase apoptosis and induce oxidative stress in preadipocytes"
It was reverted by Kingofaces43 with comment "Source cites WP:FRINGE Seralini study in addition to additional WP:WEIGHT issues"
Review cites study by Mesnage et al, including Seralini " Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure." This study was not retracted. Increase of apoptosis and oxidative stress are also serious issues. Cathry ( talk) 01:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Plmoknqwerty you have now reverted this content twice [18], [19] and in doing so you have given edit summaries that have misstated policy. There is no prohibition on including opinions as long as they have sufficient weight and notability, and are not presented in Wikipedia's voice. Since these opinions are attributed, then merely being opinions isn't a problem. Geogene ( talk) 13:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The statement that "glyphosate is the most important herbicide discovered in the last 100 years" is not a medical claim. An equivalent statement, "penicillin is the most important antibiotic discovered in the last 100 years" would not be a medical claim, either. Both are too vague, neither statement contains any specific medical claim. Trying to reinterpret the statement to create specificity is Wikilawyering. Geogene ( talk) 00:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd delete the first quotation myself, but it's locked. It's in the "toxicity" section:
I think the best edit would be to preserve the quote and the off-quote note about the dosage, assuming it's really backed-up by the cited article:
Please discuss edits here. Perhaps run an RfC. Please obtain consensus before making changes. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Why hasn't the Portier claim made it here yet? Portier was paid a consultancy fee of >$160,000 by lawyers representing people who claim to have been injured by glyphosate. David Zaruk (who blogs as the Risk Monger [1]) has exposed this and he's probably a bit polemic for citation here but USRTK has the entire transcript on its website including the admission (by Portier) that he misled the press and didn't admit to working with the attorneys. I suggest people do their own reading on this as I'm too busy preparing work on it myself and I don't want to add too much here that will be repeating work or color people's perceptions too much. Smidoid ( talk) 16:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
References