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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
"IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides" ( 20 March 2015 ) http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf
"Health Agency Says Widely Used Herbicide Likely Carcinogenic - Herbicide, glyphosate, is sold by Monsanto under Roundup brand " March 20, 2015 5:05 p.m. ET http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-agency-says-widely-used-herbicide-likely-carcinogenic-1426885547 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.104.17 ( talk) 15:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll just piggyback on this section, but content related to this was recently added to the lead. This is a very recent event that's still unfolding, so we don't yet know if it has enough weight to include in the lead or not per WP:RECENTISM. The first problem is that other sources like the EPA and other sources conflict with the WHO's findings, so just providing the WHO's stance is undue weight. Others are beginning to respond directly to the WHO's statement, so it's best to give the topic some time to flesh itself out before giving it more prominence. It's a bit too early to say more than what the WHO said within the body, so it can always be revisited when some time has passed. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Before we all get too worked up about this as the smoking gun that Monsanto critics have been waiting for, its probably worth noting that the IARC also considers wood dust as a known human carcinogen. The IARC's assessment deserves mention, side by side with the EPA's assessment that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. If one belongs in the lead, so does the other. Formerly 98 ( talk) 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I tightened the wording in both places. Now I'll go find the EPA ref. Everybody calm down and stop the name-calling. Lfstevens ( talk) 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I found this: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf no date
It says:
"Health Effects Summary
"Acute: EPA has found glyphosate to potentially cause the following health effects from acute exposures at levels above the MCL: congestion of the lungs; increased breathing rate. Drinking water levels which are considered "safe" for short-term exposures: For a 10-kg (22 lb.) child consuming 1 liter of water per day, upto a ten-day exposure to 20 mg/L or up to a 7-year exposure to 1 mg/L.
"Chronic: Glyphosate has the potential to cause the following health effects from long-term exposures at levels above the MCL: kidney damage, reproductive effects.
"Cancer: There is inadequate evidence to state whether or not glyphosate has the potential to cause cancer from a lifetime exposure in drinking water.
Then there's this: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-0009
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats found no systemic effects in any of the parameters examined (body weight, food consumption, clinical signs, mortality, clinical pathology, organ weights, and histopathology). A second chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats tested at higher dietary levels, and a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) was identified at 20,000 ppm (approximately 940 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) based on decreased body-weight gains in females and increased incidence of cataracts and lens abnormalities, decreased urinary pH, increased absolute liver weight, and increased relative liver weight/brain weight in males. No evidence of carcinogenicity was found in mice or rats. In a chronic toxicity study in dogs, no systemic effects were found in all examined parameters.
There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure in developmental studies. A focal tubular dilation of the kidneys was observed in an older 3-generation reproductive study on rats at the 30-mg/kg/day level (highest dose tested (HDT)); however, a 2-generation reproductive study on rats did not observe the same effect at the 1,500 mg/kg/day level (HDT), nor were any adverse reproductive effects observed at any dose level. A clear NOAEL was established and the chronic reference dose (cRfD) was set at a level well below this effect. Neurotoxicity has not been observed in any of the acute, subchronic, chronic, developmental, or reproductive studies performed with glyphosate.
Neurotoxicity screening battery tests and an immunotoxicity study have been submitted to the Agency. Given the timing of the submission of these studies, the Agency has conducted preliminary reviews of these studies. The preliminary reviews show no effects up to the HDT for both the acute and subchronic durations for the neurotoxicity studies and no effects up to the HDT in the immunotoxicity study. EPA does not believe that further review will result in different conclusions concerning the neurotoxic or immunotoxic potential of glyphosate.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by glyphosate as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document entitled “Glyphosate. Section 3 Registration Concerning the Application of Glyphosate to Carrots, Sweet Potato, Teff, and Oilseeds (Crop Group (CG) 20) and to Update the CG Definitions for Bulb Vegetable (CG 3-07), Fruiting Vegetable (CG 8-10), Citrus Fruit (CG 10-10), Pome Fruit (CG 11-10), and Berry (CG 13-07). Human-Health Risk Assessment” on pp. 26-28 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a RfD—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for glyphosate used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in theFederal Registerof April 8, 2011 (76 FR 19701) (FRL-8866-8).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to glyphosate, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existingglyphosate tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364. EPA assessed dietary exposures from glyphosate in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for glyphosate; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for both proposed and existing commodities.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for glyphosate. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used both a screening level water exposure model (surface water) as well as monitoring data (ground water) in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for glyphosate in drinking water. The simulation model takes into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of glyphosate. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and monitoring data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of glyphosate for chronic exposures are estimated to be 8.11 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.03 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 8.11 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
Glyphosate is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf (including golf courses and residential lawns) and for aquatic application. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:
Based on the registered residential use patterns, there is a potential for short-term dermal and inhalation exposures to homeowners who mix and apply products containing glyphosate (residential handlers). However, since short- and intermediate-term dermal or inhalation endpoints were not selected, a quantitative exposure risk assessment was not completed.
Based on the registered use patterns, children 1-2 years old may have short-term post-application incidental oral exposures from hand-to-mouth behavior on treated lawns and swimmers (adults and children 3-6 years old) may have short-term post-application incidental oral exposures from aquatic uses. Based on the soil half-life for glyphosate, intermediate-term soil ingestion was also considered for children 1<2 years old. The incidental oral scenarios for the turf assessment (i.e., hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion) should be considered inter-related and it is likely that they occur interspersed amongst each other across time. Combining these scenarios would be overly conservative because of the conservative nature of each individual assessment. Therefore, none of the incidental oral scenarios were combined.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found glyphosate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and glyphosate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that glyphosate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
The lead contains the sentence
I think this sentence is not really correct, as
However no source has been provided supporting a sea change in scientific thinking on this subject, and the conclusions of the meta analysis itself are controversial. I would like to propose changing this to something along the lines of
I am not deeply attached to any exact wording, but I think we need to communicate that different authorities have reached differing conclusions, and we need to remove the unsourced assertion that a sea change in opinion occurred in 2014. Formerly 98 ( talk) 19:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
the way this is set up, within the toxicity section, there are 3 main subsections: toxicity of glyphosate itself, toxicity of individual additives, and toxicity of glyphosate formulations (the actual products used - which are glyphosate + additives). these need to stay separate, and sources need to be placed into whichever section is appropriate. some of the additives are more toxic than glyphosate itself. All the toxicology reviews deal with these diffferently and carefully. See the BfR for example... you will be able to see the same thing in the actual IAFR monograph when it publishes. Jytdog ( talk) 13:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Several statements have been introduced and several have been removed that have moved the article away from WP:NPOV's requirement that the space given to different points of view should reflect their prominence among reliable sources.
Lastly, there is a 2015 systematic review of animal studies that failed to find any evidence of carcinogencity. It should be in here if we are going to quote a meta analysis of non-randomized epidemiologic studies in the lede. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25716480
Formerly 98 ( talk) 04:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Here are the IARC sources (from the Lancet) International Agency for Research on Cancer Volume 112: Some organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon and glyphosate. IARC Working Group. Lyon; 3–10 March 2015. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Hum (in press).
Parker, CM, Van Gelder, GA, Chai, EY et al. Oncogenic evaluation of tetrachlorvinphos in the B6C3F1 mouse. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1985; 5: 840–854 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (5)
National Toxicology Program. Bioassay of parathion for possible carcinogenicity. Natl Cancer Inst Carcinog Tech Rep Ser. 1979; 70: 1–123 PubMed
Cabello, G, Valenzuela, M, Vilaxa, A et al. A rat mammary tumor model induced by the organophosphorous pesticides parathion and malathion, possibly through acetylcholinesterase inhibition. Environ Health Perspect. 2001; 109: 471–479 CrossRef | PubMed
Waddell, BL, Zahm, SH, Baris, D et al. Agricultural use of organophosphate pesticides and the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among male farmers (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2001; 12:509–517 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (65)
McDuffie, HH, Pahwa, P, McLaughlin, JR et al. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and specific pesticide exposures in men: cross-Canada study of pesticides and health. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.2001; 10: 1155–1163 PubMed
Eriksson, M, Hardell, L, Carlberg, M, and Akerman, M. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer. 2008; 123: 1657–1663 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (32)
Band, PR, Abanto, Z, Bert, J et al. Prostate cancer risk and exposure to pesticides in British Columbia farmers. Prostate. 2011; 71: 168–183 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (31)
Koutros, S, Beane, Freeman, LE et al. Risk of total and aggressive prostate cancer and pesticide use in the Agricultural Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2013; 177: 59–74 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (16)
US Environmental Protection Agency. Peer review of malathion: 18-month carcinogenicity study in mice. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-057701_undated_004.pdf. ((accessed March 6, 2015).)
Alavanja, MC, Hofmann, JN, Lynch, CF et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk and insecticide, fungicide and fumigant use in the agricultural health study. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9: e109332 CrossRef | PubMed
Jones RR, Barone-Adesi F, Koutros S, et al. Incidence of solid tumors among pesticide applicators exposed to the organophosphate insecticide diazinon in the Agricultural Health Study: an updated analysis. Occup Environ Med 2015 (in press).
Hatjian, BA, Mutch, E, Williams, FM, Blain, PG, and Edwards, JW. Cytogenetic response without changes in peripheral cholinesterase enzymes following exposure to a sheep dip containing diazinon in vivo and in vitro. Mutat Res. 2000; 472: 85–92 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (28)
De Roos, AJ, Zahm, SH, Cantor, KP et al. Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men. Occup Environ Med. 2003; 60: E11 CrossRef | PubMed
WHO/FAO. Glyphosate. Pesticides residues in food 2004 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticides Residues. Part II Toxicological. IPCS/WHO 2004; 95–162. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/chemical-risks/jmpr/en/. ((accessed March 6, 2015).)
Bolognesi, C, Carrasquilla, G, Volpi, S, Solomon, KR, and Marshall, EJ. Biomonitoring of genotoxic risk in agricultural workers from five Colombian regions: association to occupational exposure to glyphosate. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2009; 72: 986–997 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (25) NB: content above added by — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) note by me Jytdog ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The lead has a section that explicitly points out the IARC report. Their conclusion is at odds with other meta-analysis. I am clueless to why this report should be so explicitly mentioned in the lead section. WHO analyses are not published in scientific magazine, and WHO work groups have in the past also concluded that acupuncture is an effective treatment. Besides, the conclusion of the work group is criticized by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Not a light-weight: this scientific body advises the German government and the European Union commanded them to conduct a meta-analysis on the topic. I suggest to move all that from the lead to the appropriate section 'toxicity' and just write about the current scientific consensus in the lead. Kind regards, Timelezz ( talk) 12:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see this. Now the link to the Lancet study is broken. I will leave someone else to fix it for reasons I dare not talk about here. David Tornheim ( talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I got the full Lancet article. You just have to register at no charge. Here's the link: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8/fulltext
Could we have another source, please, for this material in the lead?
However, the same data had been analyzed by the German Institute for Risk Assessment in a report also published in 2014, which found that "the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing" with regard to correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers including NHL. [1]: Volume 1, p64-66
Many thanks, Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Formerly 98 ( talk) 19:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we please have a source that discusses the German study so that we know how to summarize it?
Jytdog added to the lead: "The German Institute for Risk Assessment published a toxicology review in 2014, which found that 'the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing' with regard to correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers including NHL."
His source is the study itself, but it is long, and we don't know whether this is the best way to summarize it. There is a link to it here. The quote Jytdog uses is on p. 65. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following content is being edit warred into the article by 5.12.55.41 and 188.25.223.185 dif
On 26 march 2015 in a preview of an interview it was revealed that Monsanto lobbyist Dr. Patrick Moore said the chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer is safe for humans but then refused to drink it when the journalist offered him a glass.
He said that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, was not increasing the rate of cancer in Argentina and insisted that “You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you” but these arguments have been invalidated by his own behavior. [1]
References
- ^ french interviewer (2015-03-26). "Lobbyist claims Monsanto weed killer is safe to drink, then bolts when TV host offers him a glass". Raw Story. Retrieved 2015-03-26.
{{ cite news}}
:|author=
has generic name ( help)
Does anybody find this content to be encyclopedia worthy? In my view: it is WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and it also doesn't describe what happened accurately. See here. Jytdog ( talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)As Spydoo points out, there is a contradiction in the article. It reads, "...the UN World Health Organization have all concluded pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic." which is at odds with "...the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans"". There is no source provided for the former claim, while IARC is tradionally the workgroup that classifies this for the WHO. The IARC indeed did a review years ago in which it found that glyphosate was not carcinogenic. Thus, Spydoo "Removed WHO from list of organisations that have found glyphosate to not be harmful, considering the upcoming release of study with adverse findings against the chemical." But Sjgknight undid this arguing "An org can find both things, complete removal doesn't make sense". While that is obviously possible, the article does not need 'whatever is possible', but what can be verified and substantiated. I support Spydoo's edit and enforced it again, noting in the summary, "that was probably based on the IARC review years ago. IARC redid exactly that review. WHO opinion IS changed on the matter." But Sarr Cat undid that with exactly the same argument as Sjgknight gave. I now request a source to substantiate the claim that WHO conclude that pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic, because it is very likely that opinion is based on a former review by the IARC. Which is now superseded by their latest review. Kind regards, Timelezz ( talk) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The new findings contradict their previous ones, correct? I see no mention of this fact in the article. (which could just be me being stupid, ill admit). I get where you're going in that the new review supersedes the old ones though. However, i don't like how the new report is mentioned right in the lead section without at least some mention of it's controversial status. SarrCat ∑;3 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
change formula as it shows the Phosporus atom on the left where the pictures have it on the right
The following ref was used to support the claim that glyphosate is taken up by roots. Kuklinsky-Sobral, Julia, et al. "Isolation and characterization of endophytic bacteria from soybean (Glycine max) grown in soil treated with glyphosate herbicide." Plant and soil 273.1-2 (2005): 91-99. I read that ref and i do not find where it says that. Where does it say that? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 13:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
So, the secondary sources all make it clear that in actual use, glyphosate is primarily taken up by leaves. there is uptake by roots but it is minimal, as glyphosate that doesn't stick to leaves or otherwise enters the soil, binds tightly to the soil. in my edit to the body yesterday, i added content about that, with sourcing (please do check that sourcing and if you disagree I am interested in hearing about that). because root uptake is minimal, i just removed "roots" from the lead here, since the lead is a summary and doesn't deal with small details generally. Since this is important to SageRad I went ahead and made the lead match the body in this dif. Unsure why this is so important to you, SageRad. Can you explain? thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 13:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SageRad_and_User:Jytdog_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29 Jytdog ( talk) 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I added this sentence to note that EPSPS sensitivity to glyphosate varies by species among microbes and plants. "Glyphosate inhibits the EPSPS enzymes of different species of plants and microbes at different rates." I hope you find that the reference to Shulz 1985 is reliable and supports the statement that i added. I also hope you find it relevant to the basic biochemistry of glyphosate in its main mode of action as competitive inhibitor to EPSPS. I would also like to add a statement on the lower limits of sensitivity of microbial cells and plants to glyphosate, as that seems relevant to describing the biochemical interactions of the subject of this article. SageRad ( talk) 17:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
SageRad added this content, which i reverted.
In April 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Monsanto alleging false advertising for the claim they made that Roundup herbicide (containing glyphosate as the active ingredient) acts on an enzyme that is not found in people. [1] The plaintiff claims that because the EPSP synthase enzyme is found in microbes of the human gut microbiome, it is therefore found in people. The outcome of the case is pending.
First, this is sourced to the website of the people bringing the suit, so is essentially spam for the attorneys bringing it. This is not a reliable source. It is also not independent of the topic. (Again please see the essay WP:Controversial articles for the kind of sourcing that should be used on controversial topics). Finally, WP is WP:NOTNEWS. We don't "report" lawsuits being initiated (especially not via the lawyer's website); filing of lawsuits isn't noteworthy. Settlements/verdicts reported in reliable source are noteworthy. See WP:UNDUE. Jytdog ( talk) 12:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The other problem, which was described above, is notability. If the NYTimes runs a story on this, it may be worth adding. But as editors, we are dependent on reliable secondary sources to inform us whether events are noteworthy. Right now, the silence of these sources is telling us that this event is not. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement `
Yes, I've heard this before. For the record, verifiable lawsuits are acceptable content, I note the "not usually included" and "normally don't cover" as indications that this particular lawsuit is not deemed noteworthy by some editors at this time. As I have stated, I for one do consider the filing noteworthy, and awaiting further developments. That said, since the article is about glyphosate, and the suit is against Monsanto, I am inclined not to argue this position (with continued discussion or an RfC) here. However, over at Monsanto legal cases, a daughter article obviously devoted to Monsanto legal cases, this seems germane to the topic and noteworthy at this time. Jytdog directed the inclusion discussion there, to here, so I wonder what is the best way to proceed now? (If other editors continue to argue for inclusion here, I support that.) -- Tsavage ( talk) 13:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Kingofaces43: "Lawsuits happen all the time, so just mentioning that one occurred is unencyclopedic and fits WP:INDISCRIMINATE pretty well" Your application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is as far as I can see is completely off-point, although I've seen it used like this by some editors, apparently relying on the word "indiscriminate" itself, rather than the actual policy section. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about large, undifferentiated data sets. Its other shortcuts are WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:NOTLYRICS, WP:NOT#LYRICS, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:PLOT, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:RAWDATA, and WP:WHIM. It is about groups and collections, not single instances, like a particular lawsuit. The four specific examples given are: "1. Summary-only descriptions of works; 2. Lyrics databases; 3. Excessive listings of statistics; 4. Exhaustive logs of software updates." The entire instructional content is: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." How does WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply here? -- Tsavage ( talk) 14:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
"IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides" ( 20 March 2015 ) http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf
"Health Agency Says Widely Used Herbicide Likely Carcinogenic - Herbicide, glyphosate, is sold by Monsanto under Roundup brand " March 20, 2015 5:05 p.m. ET http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-agency-says-widely-used-herbicide-likely-carcinogenic-1426885547 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.104.17 ( talk) 15:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll just piggyback on this section, but content related to this was recently added to the lead. This is a very recent event that's still unfolding, so we don't yet know if it has enough weight to include in the lead or not per WP:RECENTISM. The first problem is that other sources like the EPA and other sources conflict with the WHO's findings, so just providing the WHO's stance is undue weight. Others are beginning to respond directly to the WHO's statement, so it's best to give the topic some time to flesh itself out before giving it more prominence. It's a bit too early to say more than what the WHO said within the body, so it can always be revisited when some time has passed. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Before we all get too worked up about this as the smoking gun that Monsanto critics have been waiting for, its probably worth noting that the IARC also considers wood dust as a known human carcinogen. The IARC's assessment deserves mention, side by side with the EPA's assessment that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. If one belongs in the lead, so does the other. Formerly 98 ( talk) 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I tightened the wording in both places. Now I'll go find the EPA ref. Everybody calm down and stop the name-calling. Lfstevens ( talk) 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I found this: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf no date
It says:
"Health Effects Summary
"Acute: EPA has found glyphosate to potentially cause the following health effects from acute exposures at levels above the MCL: congestion of the lungs; increased breathing rate. Drinking water levels which are considered "safe" for short-term exposures: For a 10-kg (22 lb.) child consuming 1 liter of water per day, upto a ten-day exposure to 20 mg/L or up to a 7-year exposure to 1 mg/L.
"Chronic: Glyphosate has the potential to cause the following health effects from long-term exposures at levels above the MCL: kidney damage, reproductive effects.
"Cancer: There is inadequate evidence to state whether or not glyphosate has the potential to cause cancer from a lifetime exposure in drinking water.
Then there's this: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-0009
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats found no systemic effects in any of the parameters examined (body weight, food consumption, clinical signs, mortality, clinical pathology, organ weights, and histopathology). A second chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats tested at higher dietary levels, and a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) was identified at 20,000 ppm (approximately 940 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) based on decreased body-weight gains in females and increased incidence of cataracts and lens abnormalities, decreased urinary pH, increased absolute liver weight, and increased relative liver weight/brain weight in males. No evidence of carcinogenicity was found in mice or rats. In a chronic toxicity study in dogs, no systemic effects were found in all examined parameters.
There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure in developmental studies. A focal tubular dilation of the kidneys was observed in an older 3-generation reproductive study on rats at the 30-mg/kg/day level (highest dose tested (HDT)); however, a 2-generation reproductive study on rats did not observe the same effect at the 1,500 mg/kg/day level (HDT), nor were any adverse reproductive effects observed at any dose level. A clear NOAEL was established and the chronic reference dose (cRfD) was set at a level well below this effect. Neurotoxicity has not been observed in any of the acute, subchronic, chronic, developmental, or reproductive studies performed with glyphosate.
Neurotoxicity screening battery tests and an immunotoxicity study have been submitted to the Agency. Given the timing of the submission of these studies, the Agency has conducted preliminary reviews of these studies. The preliminary reviews show no effects up to the HDT for both the acute and subchronic durations for the neurotoxicity studies and no effects up to the HDT in the immunotoxicity study. EPA does not believe that further review will result in different conclusions concerning the neurotoxic or immunotoxic potential of glyphosate.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by glyphosate as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document entitled “Glyphosate. Section 3 Registration Concerning the Application of Glyphosate to Carrots, Sweet Potato, Teff, and Oilseeds (Crop Group (CG) 20) and to Update the CG Definitions for Bulb Vegetable (CG 3-07), Fruiting Vegetable (CG 8-10), Citrus Fruit (CG 10-10), Pome Fruit (CG 11-10), and Berry (CG 13-07). Human-Health Risk Assessment” on pp. 26-28 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a RfD—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for glyphosate used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in theFederal Registerof April 8, 2011 (76 FR 19701) (FRL-8866-8).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to glyphosate, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existingglyphosate tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364. EPA assessed dietary exposures from glyphosate in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for glyphosate; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for both proposed and existing commodities.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for glyphosate. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used both a screening level water exposure model (surface water) as well as monitoring data (ground water) in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for glyphosate in drinking water. The simulation model takes into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of glyphosate. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and monitoring data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of glyphosate for chronic exposures are estimated to be 8.11 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.03 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 8.11 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
Glyphosate is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf (including golf courses and residential lawns) and for aquatic application. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:
Based on the registered residential use patterns, there is a potential for short-term dermal and inhalation exposures to homeowners who mix and apply products containing glyphosate (residential handlers). However, since short- and intermediate-term dermal or inhalation endpoints were not selected, a quantitative exposure risk assessment was not completed.
Based on the registered use patterns, children 1-2 years old may have short-term post-application incidental oral exposures from hand-to-mouth behavior on treated lawns and swimmers (adults and children 3-6 years old) may have short-term post-application incidental oral exposures from aquatic uses. Based on the soil half-life for glyphosate, intermediate-term soil ingestion was also considered for children 1<2 years old. The incidental oral scenarios for the turf assessment (i.e., hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion) should be considered inter-related and it is likely that they occur interspersed amongst each other across time. Combining these scenarios would be overly conservative because of the conservative nature of each individual assessment. Therefore, none of the incidental oral scenarios were combined.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found glyphosate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and glyphosate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that glyphosate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
The lead contains the sentence
I think this sentence is not really correct, as
However no source has been provided supporting a sea change in scientific thinking on this subject, and the conclusions of the meta analysis itself are controversial. I would like to propose changing this to something along the lines of
I am not deeply attached to any exact wording, but I think we need to communicate that different authorities have reached differing conclusions, and we need to remove the unsourced assertion that a sea change in opinion occurred in 2014. Formerly 98 ( talk) 19:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
the way this is set up, within the toxicity section, there are 3 main subsections: toxicity of glyphosate itself, toxicity of individual additives, and toxicity of glyphosate formulations (the actual products used - which are glyphosate + additives). these need to stay separate, and sources need to be placed into whichever section is appropriate. some of the additives are more toxic than glyphosate itself. All the toxicology reviews deal with these diffferently and carefully. See the BfR for example... you will be able to see the same thing in the actual IAFR monograph when it publishes. Jytdog ( talk) 13:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Several statements have been introduced and several have been removed that have moved the article away from WP:NPOV's requirement that the space given to different points of view should reflect their prominence among reliable sources.
Lastly, there is a 2015 systematic review of animal studies that failed to find any evidence of carcinogencity. It should be in here if we are going to quote a meta analysis of non-randomized epidemiologic studies in the lede. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25716480
Formerly 98 ( talk) 04:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Here are the IARC sources (from the Lancet) International Agency for Research on Cancer Volume 112: Some organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon and glyphosate. IARC Working Group. Lyon; 3–10 March 2015. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Hum (in press).
Parker, CM, Van Gelder, GA, Chai, EY et al. Oncogenic evaluation of tetrachlorvinphos in the B6C3F1 mouse. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1985; 5: 840–854 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (5)
National Toxicology Program. Bioassay of parathion for possible carcinogenicity. Natl Cancer Inst Carcinog Tech Rep Ser. 1979; 70: 1–123 PubMed
Cabello, G, Valenzuela, M, Vilaxa, A et al. A rat mammary tumor model induced by the organophosphorous pesticides parathion and malathion, possibly through acetylcholinesterase inhibition. Environ Health Perspect. 2001; 109: 471–479 CrossRef | PubMed
Waddell, BL, Zahm, SH, Baris, D et al. Agricultural use of organophosphate pesticides and the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among male farmers (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2001; 12:509–517 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (65)
McDuffie, HH, Pahwa, P, McLaughlin, JR et al. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and specific pesticide exposures in men: cross-Canada study of pesticides and health. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.2001; 10: 1155–1163 PubMed
Eriksson, M, Hardell, L, Carlberg, M, and Akerman, M. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer. 2008; 123: 1657–1663 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (32)
Band, PR, Abanto, Z, Bert, J et al. Prostate cancer risk and exposure to pesticides in British Columbia farmers. Prostate. 2011; 71: 168–183 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (31)
Koutros, S, Beane, Freeman, LE et al. Risk of total and aggressive prostate cancer and pesticide use in the Agricultural Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2013; 177: 59–74 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (16)
US Environmental Protection Agency. Peer review of malathion: 18-month carcinogenicity study in mice. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-057701_undated_004.pdf. ((accessed March 6, 2015).)
Alavanja, MC, Hofmann, JN, Lynch, CF et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk and insecticide, fungicide and fumigant use in the agricultural health study. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9: e109332 CrossRef | PubMed
Jones RR, Barone-Adesi F, Koutros S, et al. Incidence of solid tumors among pesticide applicators exposed to the organophosphate insecticide diazinon in the Agricultural Health Study: an updated analysis. Occup Environ Med 2015 (in press).
Hatjian, BA, Mutch, E, Williams, FM, Blain, PG, and Edwards, JW. Cytogenetic response without changes in peripheral cholinesterase enzymes following exposure to a sheep dip containing diazinon in vivo and in vitro. Mutat Res. 2000; 472: 85–92 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (28)
De Roos, AJ, Zahm, SH, Cantor, KP et al. Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men. Occup Environ Med. 2003; 60: E11 CrossRef | PubMed
WHO/FAO. Glyphosate. Pesticides residues in food 2004 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticides Residues. Part II Toxicological. IPCS/WHO 2004; 95–162. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/chemical-risks/jmpr/en/. ((accessed March 6, 2015).)
Bolognesi, C, Carrasquilla, G, Volpi, S, Solomon, KR, and Marshall, EJ. Biomonitoring of genotoxic risk in agricultural workers from five Colombian regions: association to occupational exposure to glyphosate. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2009; 72: 986–997 CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (25) NB: content above added by — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) note by me Jytdog ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The lead has a section that explicitly points out the IARC report. Their conclusion is at odds with other meta-analysis. I am clueless to why this report should be so explicitly mentioned in the lead section. WHO analyses are not published in scientific magazine, and WHO work groups have in the past also concluded that acupuncture is an effective treatment. Besides, the conclusion of the work group is criticized by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Not a light-weight: this scientific body advises the German government and the European Union commanded them to conduct a meta-analysis on the topic. I suggest to move all that from the lead to the appropriate section 'toxicity' and just write about the current scientific consensus in the lead. Kind regards, Timelezz ( talk) 12:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see this. Now the link to the Lancet study is broken. I will leave someone else to fix it for reasons I dare not talk about here. David Tornheim ( talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I got the full Lancet article. You just have to register at no charge. Here's the link: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8/fulltext
Could we have another source, please, for this material in the lead?
However, the same data had been analyzed by the German Institute for Risk Assessment in a report also published in 2014, which found that "the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing" with regard to correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers including NHL. [1]: Volume 1, p64-66
Many thanks, Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Formerly 98 ( talk) 19:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we please have a source that discusses the German study so that we know how to summarize it?
Jytdog added to the lead: "The German Institute for Risk Assessment published a toxicology review in 2014, which found that 'the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing' with regard to correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers including NHL."
His source is the study itself, but it is long, and we don't know whether this is the best way to summarize it. There is a link to it here. The quote Jytdog uses is on p. 65. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following content is being edit warred into the article by 5.12.55.41 and 188.25.223.185 dif
On 26 march 2015 in a preview of an interview it was revealed that Monsanto lobbyist Dr. Patrick Moore said the chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer is safe for humans but then refused to drink it when the journalist offered him a glass.
He said that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, was not increasing the rate of cancer in Argentina and insisted that “You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you” but these arguments have been invalidated by his own behavior. [1]
References
- ^ french interviewer (2015-03-26). "Lobbyist claims Monsanto weed killer is safe to drink, then bolts when TV host offers him a glass". Raw Story. Retrieved 2015-03-26.
{{ cite news}}
:|author=
has generic name ( help)
Does anybody find this content to be encyclopedia worthy? In my view: it is WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and it also doesn't describe what happened accurately. See here. Jytdog ( talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)As Spydoo points out, there is a contradiction in the article. It reads, "...the UN World Health Organization have all concluded pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic." which is at odds with "...the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans"". There is no source provided for the former claim, while IARC is tradionally the workgroup that classifies this for the WHO. The IARC indeed did a review years ago in which it found that glyphosate was not carcinogenic. Thus, Spydoo "Removed WHO from list of organisations that have found glyphosate to not be harmful, considering the upcoming release of study with adverse findings against the chemical." But Sjgknight undid this arguing "An org can find both things, complete removal doesn't make sense". While that is obviously possible, the article does not need 'whatever is possible', but what can be verified and substantiated. I support Spydoo's edit and enforced it again, noting in the summary, "that was probably based on the IARC review years ago. IARC redid exactly that review. WHO opinion IS changed on the matter." But Sarr Cat undid that with exactly the same argument as Sjgknight gave. I now request a source to substantiate the claim that WHO conclude that pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic, because it is very likely that opinion is based on a former review by the IARC. Which is now superseded by their latest review. Kind regards, Timelezz ( talk) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The new findings contradict their previous ones, correct? I see no mention of this fact in the article. (which could just be me being stupid, ill admit). I get where you're going in that the new review supersedes the old ones though. However, i don't like how the new report is mentioned right in the lead section without at least some mention of it's controversial status. SarrCat ∑;3 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
change formula as it shows the Phosporus atom on the left where the pictures have it on the right
The following ref was used to support the claim that glyphosate is taken up by roots. Kuklinsky-Sobral, Julia, et al. "Isolation and characterization of endophytic bacteria from soybean (Glycine max) grown in soil treated with glyphosate herbicide." Plant and soil 273.1-2 (2005): 91-99. I read that ref and i do not find where it says that. Where does it say that? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 13:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
So, the secondary sources all make it clear that in actual use, glyphosate is primarily taken up by leaves. there is uptake by roots but it is minimal, as glyphosate that doesn't stick to leaves or otherwise enters the soil, binds tightly to the soil. in my edit to the body yesterday, i added content about that, with sourcing (please do check that sourcing and if you disagree I am interested in hearing about that). because root uptake is minimal, i just removed "roots" from the lead here, since the lead is a summary and doesn't deal with small details generally. Since this is important to SageRad I went ahead and made the lead match the body in this dif. Unsure why this is so important to you, SageRad. Can you explain? thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 13:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SageRad_and_User:Jytdog_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29 Jytdog ( talk) 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I added this sentence to note that EPSPS sensitivity to glyphosate varies by species among microbes and plants. "Glyphosate inhibits the EPSPS enzymes of different species of plants and microbes at different rates." I hope you find that the reference to Shulz 1985 is reliable and supports the statement that i added. I also hope you find it relevant to the basic biochemistry of glyphosate in its main mode of action as competitive inhibitor to EPSPS. I would also like to add a statement on the lower limits of sensitivity of microbial cells and plants to glyphosate, as that seems relevant to describing the biochemical interactions of the subject of this article. SageRad ( talk) 17:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
SageRad added this content, which i reverted.
In April 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Monsanto alleging false advertising for the claim they made that Roundup herbicide (containing glyphosate as the active ingredient) acts on an enzyme that is not found in people. [1] The plaintiff claims that because the EPSP synthase enzyme is found in microbes of the human gut microbiome, it is therefore found in people. The outcome of the case is pending.
First, this is sourced to the website of the people bringing the suit, so is essentially spam for the attorneys bringing it. This is not a reliable source. It is also not independent of the topic. (Again please see the essay WP:Controversial articles for the kind of sourcing that should be used on controversial topics). Finally, WP is WP:NOTNEWS. We don't "report" lawsuits being initiated (especially not via the lawyer's website); filing of lawsuits isn't noteworthy. Settlements/verdicts reported in reliable source are noteworthy. See WP:UNDUE. Jytdog ( talk) 12:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The other problem, which was described above, is notability. If the NYTimes runs a story on this, it may be worth adding. But as editors, we are dependent on reliable secondary sources to inform us whether events are noteworthy. Right now, the silence of these sources is telling us that this event is not. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement `
Yes, I've heard this before. For the record, verifiable lawsuits are acceptable content, I note the "not usually included" and "normally don't cover" as indications that this particular lawsuit is not deemed noteworthy by some editors at this time. As I have stated, I for one do consider the filing noteworthy, and awaiting further developments. That said, since the article is about glyphosate, and the suit is against Monsanto, I am inclined not to argue this position (with continued discussion or an RfC) here. However, over at Monsanto legal cases, a daughter article obviously devoted to Monsanto legal cases, this seems germane to the topic and noteworthy at this time. Jytdog directed the inclusion discussion there, to here, so I wonder what is the best way to proceed now? (If other editors continue to argue for inclusion here, I support that.) -- Tsavage ( talk) 13:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Kingofaces43: "Lawsuits happen all the time, so just mentioning that one occurred is unencyclopedic and fits WP:INDISCRIMINATE pretty well" Your application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is as far as I can see is completely off-point, although I've seen it used like this by some editors, apparently relying on the word "indiscriminate" itself, rather than the actual policy section. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about large, undifferentiated data sets. Its other shortcuts are WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:NOTLYRICS, WP:NOT#LYRICS, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:PLOT, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:RAWDATA, and WP:WHIM. It is about groups and collections, not single instances, like a particular lawsuit. The four specific examples given are: "1. Summary-only descriptions of works; 2. Lyrics databases; 3. Excessive listings of statistics; 4. Exhaustive logs of software updates." The entire instructional content is: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." How does WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply here? -- Tsavage ( talk) 14:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)