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 10 |
How strange that there is an edit war going over this statement, and no one has opened a Talk section on this. Sad. If anybody reads the article from which that quote was taken, you will find plenty of support for the statement there, and elsewhere in the scientific literature. I know that plenty of folks who are opposed to Monsanto and/or GMOs think that glyphosate is just nasty stuff, but anybody familiar with herbicides (from using them, which I have not, or researching them, which I have done) knows that the contested statement is true. The statement compares glyphosate to other herbicides - it is not comparing glyphosate to, say, apples. Even if you eat all organic food and are opposed to the use of all herbicides, this should not effect your view on the validity of a statement comparing herbicides. Looking forward to the discussion! Jytdog ( talk) 11:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Mark Marathon, User:ImperfectlyInformed, and User:Jusdafax I hope you come and discuss the reasons for the edits you made during edit war you conducted, so when the lockdown is over we can go back to editing productively and collaboratively. I am copying this note to your Talk pages. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 14:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Since productive discussion is underway, I have removed the protection ahead of time. Please reach consensus before making any likely controversial edits. Thanks! — EncMstr ( talk) 01:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
In the course of researching claims of a "broad scientific consensus" on the comparative safety of genetically modified foods, I came across a substantial range of sources that discuss Roundup. These are compiled here. Please see in particular that there are numerous studies distinguishing between Roundup and glyphosate. Indeed, it is other ingredients in Roundup (particularly the surfactant TN-20) which give Roundup its particular toxicity. At minimum this should be discussed at this page. However, I think it warrants an undoing of the merge between Roundup and Glyphosate. Roundup is a substantially different chemical formulation, and furthermore is notable unto itself due to associated media coverage and marketing. I have seen past discussions on the issue and I do agree that care should be taken to avoid editing "Roundup" as if it were "Glyphosate". Aloha, groupuscule ( talk) 19:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
One way this could be done, and it'd be my preference, would be to start to develop the product-specific information in this article and see if the content for any one product does need to be broken off into its own article. I'd guess that there might be enough non-glyphosate-specific information available about Roundup in particular, like society and culture information, sales history, Roundup and Roundup-ready crops, critical reaction, and the various formulations available, that might warrant having a separate article for that product. In breaking off Roundup to its own article, there should be a brief summary of the glyphosate ingredient with a link back here. The important thing would be to avoid having too much duplication about the details of glyphosate between the two articles. It might be the case that all the other knock-off brands would not warrant their own articles. Another way to do this would be to leave
glyphosate to focus on just that one ingredient and then to create a new article, something along the lines of
Glyphosate-based herbicides, and put all the products there. Just some suggestions.
Zad
68
03:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
hey folks an unmerge proposal has opened on the former Roundup page, with no notice placed here.. here is the discussion Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)#RfC:_Un-merge_from_Glyphosate.3F Jytdog ( talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The Toxicity section is divided into Glyphosate toxicity, Additive toxicity and Formulation toxicity; a reasonable division at first sight. However, I'm not clear that it works. For example, the Glyphosate toxicity section says "Acute fatal toxicity has been reported in deliberate overdose.[2 refs] Epidemiological studies have not found associations between long term low level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.[3 refs]" However, the two sources used for deliberate overdose both specify that it's a formulation that has been taken. Also it's hard to see that any epidemiological study can distinguish between exposure to glyphosate alone, the added agent(s) in the formulation, and the combination. Thus the Mink et al. (2012) paper used as a source explicitly notes the need for better recording of the formulation. Are there studies which relate to glyphosate-only toxicity in humans? If not, this subsection should be merged into Formulation toxicity. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
just went source hunting - leaving here for content-building tomorrow or thereafter:
Hi User:Gandydancer - nice set of edits you are making, thanks. Only objection I have is that you deleted the content about worms. People who study soils, and the "health" of soil, care a lot about the ecosystem in soils; this is one of the big concerns of the organic movement, too. Worms are a key player in those ecosystems; hence the content about the effect of glyphosate and formulations on worms. I thought it was worthwhile to include; you've taken it out.... Jytdog ( talk) 19:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
A laboratory study published in 1992 indicated that glyphosate formulations could harm earthworms(ref) 1992 Springett JA, Gray RAJ (/ref) and beneficial insects.(ref)omitted(/ref) However, the reported effect of glyphosate on earthworms has been criticized.(ref name=Giesy2000 /) The results conflict with results from field studies where no effects were noted for the number of nematodes, mites, or springtails after treatment with Roundup at 2 kilograms active ingredient per hectare.(ref)1989 Preston & Trofymow(/ref)
The key source is the very excellent Giesy 2000 book. If you look at it page 77] (I have added the page ref to the article) you will see that they criticize the 1992 study by Springett and Gray for too small an N to mean anything, and for not characterizing what they did. Jytdog ( talk) 22:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Gandydancer requested I list " reviews on toxicity of glyphosate per se; some reviews on adjuvants/additives, and some on formulations... Specifically, I meant effects on fish and amphibians". When I agreed, I didn't especially have fish and amphibians in mind. But here is a list
Glyphosate alone:
specific additives (pretty much just POEA
formulations
still underway.. Jytdog ( talk) 23:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (added more Jytdog ( talk) 15:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC))
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf This newer study seems to list human health effects that should be included.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
New York Times, another study.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
A proposal was made to undo the merge of Roundup and Glyphosate and split them; the discussion is here; Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)#RfC:_Un-merge_from_Glyphosate.3F. It was closed in early October 2013; the closer indicated that a split is appropriate. Nobody has done it yet. I removed the split tag since the discussion is long over. Jytdog ( talk) 13:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
today
User:Jfortier added the following content in
this dif, with edit note " add recent information":
"New evidence, however, suggests that Glyphosate residues persist into the food chain. Cereal bars tested in 2012 were found to contain glyphosate at levels approaching 100%
"Harmful weedkiller in your bread and cereal bars \ author = Andrew Wasley I". Backgrounder. The Ecologist. 2013-31-12. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |title=
(
help)" (ref markup removed)
I reverted in this dif with edit note "revert content based on source noncompliant with WP:MEDRS (even the scientific study is a primary source; not valid to generate content from it)" That is enough a basis, but I also wanted to note that the content itself doesn't reflect the source nor does it make sense, where it says "were found to contain glyphosate at levels approaching 100%". I don't know what that means. The source says "According to GM Freeze, 100% of the Jordans cereal bars tested were found to contain glyphosate. The group also says that at least 85% of tested products made by Warburtons – the well known bread company – contained traces of the herbicide." So if the "at levels approaching 100%" is referring to what percentage of samples tested contained glyphosate residues, the proposed wikipedia content is not accurate. (it could also be read to mean, bizarrely, that each sample was composed of 100% glyphosate, which really makes no sense) More importantly, the source says "The weedkiller residues were present in small quantities - between 0.1 and 0.8 mg/kg. This is well below the permitted EU maximum residue levels (MRLs) for cereal crops, which currently span 10 - 20 mg/kg." Everybody knows that food contains glyphosate residues; that is the reason that regulators establish legal limits for trace amounts in food, in the first place. And indeed the amounts found are below the legal limits. So this study says nothing that is new or interesting, in any case. But it does provide the opportunity for the authors of the Ecologist to bring up the already discredited Seneff publications, once again. argh. Jytdog ( talk) 15:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Two points:
1) Why does this section exist in an article about Glyphosate? Do we have sections on alternative treatments in drug articles? Or alternatives to household electricity in that article? What is the reader who is interested in Glyphosate expected to glean from this material? It seems completely inappropriate.
2) In what sense are these alternatives. Glyphosate is a broad spectrum, highly translocatable systemic. Both 2,4-D and Dicamba only work on broad leaf plants and both, but especially 2,4-D, have limited translocation ability. I find it hard to believe that anybody has ever suggested them as alternatives to glyphosate. Of the references given, one does not use the word Glyphosate anywhere that I can find, and the other notes specifically that "These additional practices add cost to the production system. Often, there are no effective herbicides that are easily available..." and that "This provides “unique” tools for managing our current list of herbicide-resistant weeds". It then goes on to list a host problems associated with Dicamba and not Glyphosate, including off-site movement and the need for application during early season growth periods, specific spray patterns and so forth. IOW these are not alternatives to Glyphosate, but unique treatment regimes used where Glyphosate is not an option. It's only an alternative in the sense that amputation is an alternative to penicillin. Sure, they both cure infection, but nobody considers one an alternative to the other.
So, can anyone find reliable sources touting these substances as alternatives to Glyphosate, rather than herbicides to be sued where Glyphosate is specifically not an option? IF not I'm inclined to remove the section as original research and for a lack of notability. Mark Marathon ( talk) 22:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest we give it 24 hours for others to respond, then turf it. Mark Marathon ( talk) 23:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
<< A 2012 study found that over the 16 year period since genetically modified crops were introduced, "herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds)"[124] Bt crops have been genetically engineered to express a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis, which kills certain insects. This study's results, however, are contradicted by another study published in 2013, which reported that the adoption of GM technology "has reduced pesticide spraying by 474 million kg..."[125] >>
Seems that "increase in herbicide use" in one research is compared to "reduced pesticide spraying" in another research. Herbicides and pesticides are two different things, am I right? This section should be improved with more facts and more references to research. I am not specialist in this, please help!
87.110.179.146 ( talk) 11:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there's a reasonably persuasive argument that glyphosate when used in paddy fields and similar situations causes fatal kidney disease:
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-roundup-kidney-disease-921/
Basically, the farmers are splashing it around and standing up to their knees in it, and drinking the run-off into aquifers as well. It's not immediately toxic, but it looks like the chemical is reacting with metal ions and eventually taking out the kidneys.
There's been huge number of deaths.
I'm somewhat reluctant to add it right now though, RT is not the most unbiased source (similar reliability to Fox news I guess). There were earlier stories on the BBC website about this disease, but they didn't mention glyphosate by name.
What do other people think? GliderMaven ( talk) 16:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is the article that the press is writing about. The authors write "Here, we have hypothesized the association of using glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the disease endemic area and its unique metal chelating properties" There is no data in the paper nor is there a review of other papers with data. This is noodling - armchair biology. we do not include such things in wikipedia at all as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. definitely does not pass WP:MEDRS. sheesh. Jytdog ( talk) 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to tie the captions in to the article because Some readers look at the pictures and captions first before diving into an intimidating amount of text. Formerly 98 reverted this work because I had also added a new picture and that was considered WP:UNDUE. No argument with that but if 5 of 9 pictures is undue, perhaps 4 of 9 is also?
How about we take the sub-headings out of the section and discuss different plants in different paragraphs and include a gallery of the plants somewhere in the section? ~ KvnG 14:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
glyphosate is the active ingredient in many formulations. it has been off-patent in the US for 14 years now (and even longer outside the US), and there are many many formulations on the market. Chinese companies produce the majority of glyphosate today; the market place is very complex (sees this for some flavor). We have almost no information about these other formulations. Another issue is the additives that are in all these different formulations. Glyphosate formulations are much more toxic than glyphosate itself, and it is the formulations that are actually used in the real world, and are the actual source of toxic effects. This article is incomplete without discussion of the various additives that are used and what their toxicities are. so, that is why the tags are there. Jytdog ( talk) 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:) Jytdog ( talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned that some recent edits appear to delete information that may be seen as negative and replace it with more positive information. For instance this recently added information related to a recent review:
According to the authors, the use of glyphosate-based pesticides cannot be considered the major cause of amphibian decline, the bulk of which occurred prior to the widespread use of glyphosate or in pristine tropical areas with minimal glyphosate exposure. The authors recommended further study of species- and development-stage chronic toxicity, of environmental glyphosate levels, and ongoing analysis of data relevant to determining what if any role glyphosate might be playing in worldwide amphibian decline, and suggest including amphibians in standardized test batteries.[87]
Using this summary: " Solomon article - pulled more representative quotes from paper". All of the previous information was deleted. I'll quote the previous information.
According to the authors, because little is known about environmental concentrations of glyphosate in amphibian habitats and virtually nothing is known about environmental concentrations of the substances added to the herbicide formulations, if and how glyphosate-based herbicides contribute to amphibian decline is not yet answerable due to missing data on how natural populations are affected. They concluded that the impact on amphibians depends on the herbicide formulation with different sensitivity of taxa and life stages while effects on development of larvae are seen as the most sensitive endpoints to study. The authors recommend "better monitoring of both amphibian populations and contamination of habitats with glyphosate-based herbicides, not just glyphosate," and suggest including amphibians in standardized test batteries.
I am wondering why the editor would suggest that his/her edit was superior to the previous information. In suggesting that his/her decision to include information from the article that they thought was a good summation rather than the abstract of the researchers that wrote the review, couldn't it be reasonable to conclude that this editor rather than the researchers had done the review, or in other words, OR?
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/06/14/groundbreaking-study-links-monsantos-glyphosate-to-cancer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.147.2 ( talk) 20:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope, that's exactly the sort of primary, in vitro research that MEDRS forbids, because so much primary research is not reproducible, especially primary research published in politically contentious fields. Formerly 98 ( talk) 00:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Today in these edits, User:Timpo added content based on the Entropy article. As mentioned above, this article has been examined on the MEDRS board and found not acceptable for use in supporting any content in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_7#Review_of_Monsanto.27s_Roundup_herbicide. Jytdog ( talk) 14:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Would like to know more about this citing article which seems confirmatory. I am unwilling to exclude the possibility that there is a negative reputation influence which makes publishing in off-topic journals more likely for this work. I would ask for the opinion of @ Jmh649: as a trusted generalist (and also ask him how the the request for pre-registered studies from Medline/Pubmed approval went when he visited NIH?) 109.70.142.36 ( talk) 02:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You lost me. Jytdog ( talk) 07:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Further reading:
Cheers, 193.5.216.100 ( talk) 15:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not have time right now to dissect these papers and work out what might be worth adding to this article. Perhaps another editor might? Djapa Owen ( talk) 13:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. [http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-herbicide-125-times-more-toxic-regulators-say Roundup Herbicide 125 Times More Toxic Than Regulators Say]
Formerly 98 ( talk) 14:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
New article in HuffPo: [3]. Leaving it here for anyone's use in the article. Softlavender ( talk) 00:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The use of GMO roundup ready crops is hotly debated in societies worldwide ie: labeling laws, yet this article fails to mention any debate. Anyone against adding the social side? Dougmcdonell ( talk) 14:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like us to explain how best to use it. Roundup says to apply when weeds are "actively growing". This, in my experience is not just not-dormant-in-winter. This means that, say stinging nettles are green and nominally growing in the summer, but you have to cut them down and let them regrow if you want them to be "actively growing" enough to die from Glyphosate- hence Roundup's reference to Spring. Can't find any references to this but the proffesionals know this.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 10:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There are several studies relating the use of Glyphosate to cancer and other deceases, which should be mentioned in the article. The latest coming from Argentina, a 8 year study strongly relating its use with genetic damage. [4] [5] [6] Mariano( t/ c) 11:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Glyhosate was invented by Swiss chemist Henry Martin for Swiss compnay Cilag. In 1959, Swiss company Cilag was sold to American company Johnson & Johnson. Only in 1970, the herbicidal activity was discovered by American chemist Franz, who worked for Monsanto. 47.64.143.232 ( talk) 01:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Under the Formulations and Tradenames → Monsanto section, the article states that "their(Monsanto's) Roundup products (which include GM seeds) represented about half of Monsanto's yearly revenue;" however, the cited reference, an article from Forbes [1] states that "...the seed producer improved gross margins from 55.6% to 58% last quarter..." This refers to Monsanto's overall gross profit margin, and not the percentage of their profit which comes from the sale of seeds. 76.199.147.212 ( talk) 06:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Calh077 introduced the following text in this dif: " Monsanto discovered the genes for glyphosphate tolerance by studying a bacteria growing on the waste at a Roundup factory." The source provided was this newspaper article which says: "This pesticide-resistant enzyme was taken from a bacteria growing on the waste at a Roundup factory."
Seems to be a good match! Right?
The source links to its source - an article in PNAS, where you find: "The Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, isolated from a waste-fed column at a glyphosate production facility, yielded a glyphosate-resistant, kinetically efficient EPSP synthase suitable for the production of transgenic, glyphosate-tolerant crops."
The newspaper reporter read too fast or doesn't have a clue what a "column" is, or what the scientific effort looks like to try to drive evolution. Here is the patent application cited in the PNAS paper, about CP4 was found: "The Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 was initially identified by its ability to grow on glyphosate as a carbon source (10 mM) in the presence of 1 mM phosphate. The strain CP4 was identified from a collection obtained from a fixed-bed immobilized cell column that employed Mannville R-635 diatomaceous earth beads. The column had been run for three months on a waste-water feed from a glyphosate production plant. The column contained 50 mg/ml glyphosate and NH3 as NH4CI. Total organic carbon was 300 mg/ml and BOD's (Biological Oxygen Demand - a measure of "soft" carbon availability) were less than 30 mg/ml. This treatment column has been described (Heitkamp et al., 1990). Dworkin-Foster minimal salts medium containing glyphosate at 10 mM and with phosphate at 1 mM was used to select for microbes from a wash of this column that were capable of growing on glyphosate as sole carbon source" and blah blah blah.
Does that sound even a little bit like the bullshit that was in the newspaper article and that was introduced into WP? Hell no. Jytdog ( talk) 05:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks everybody for the discussion. i replaced the current content about the discovery of ESPS CP4 with new content based on the discussion above, with Boghog's source and an additional one i found. Jytdog ( talk) 02:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
EPSP synthase sequence alignment
|
---|
SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC MSHGASSRPATARKSSGLSGTVRIPGDKSISHRSFMFGGLASGETRITGLLEGEDVINTG 60 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ MSHGVALKPARSLKSADLKGTVRIPGDKSISHRSFMFGGLASGETRITGLLEGEDVINTG 60 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP MSHGVALKPARSLKSADLRGTVRIPGDKSISHRSFMFGGLAAGETRITGLLEGEDVINTG 60 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ MSHGVALKPARSLKSADLKGTVRIPGDKSISHRSFMFGGLASGETRITGLLEGEDVINTG 60 ****.: :** : **: * **********************:****************** 7 8 9 0 1 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC KAMQAMGARIRKEGDTWIIDGVGNGGLLAPEAPLDFGNAATGCRLTMGLVGVYDFDSTFI 120 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ KAMQAMGAKIEKVGAEWIIQGTGNGALLAPEAPLDFGNAGTGCRLTMGLVGVYDFDSTFI 120 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP KAMHAMGARIEKVGDEWIIQGTGNGALLAPEAPLDFGNAGTGCRLTMGLVGVYDFESTFI 120 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ KAMQAMGAKIEKVGAEWIIQGTGNGALLAPEAPLDFGNAGTGCRLTMGLVGVYDFDSTFI 120 ***:****:*.* * ***:*.***.*************.***************:**** SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC GDASLTKRPMGRVLNPLREMGVQVKSEDGDRLPVTLRGPKTPTPITYRVPMASAQVKSAV 180 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ GDASLSKRPMGRVLAPLREMGVQVTAAEGDRLPVTLRGPATPNPITYRVPMASAQVKSAV 180 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP GDASLTKRPMGRVLNPLREMGVQVKAAEGDRLPVTLRGPSIPNPITYRVPMASAQVKSAV 180 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ GDASLSKRPMGRVLAPLREMGVQVTAAEGDRLPVTLRGPATPNPITYRVPMASAQVKSAV 180 *****:******** *********.: :*********** *.***************** SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC LLAGLNTPGITTVIEPIMTRDHTEKMLQGFGANLTVETDADGVRTIRLEGRGKLTGQVID 240 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ LLAGLNTPGTTTVIEPVMTRDHTEKMLQGFGADLTVETDADGVRTIRLQGRGRLTGQVID 240 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP LLAGLNTPGVTTVIEPVMTRDHTEKMLQGFGANLMVELDADGVRTIRLEGRGQLIGQVID 240 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ LLAGLNTPGTTTVIEPVMTRDHTEKMLQGFGADLTVETDADGVRTIRLQGRGRLTGQVID 240 ********* ******:***************:* ** **********:***:* ***** SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC VPGDPSSTAFPLVAALLVPGSDVTILNVLMNPTRTGLILTLQEMGADIEVINPRLAGGED 300 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ VPGDPSSTAFPLVAALLVPGSEVTIENVLMNPTRTGLILTLQEMGADIEVLNARLAGGED 300 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP VPGDPSSTAFPLVAALLVPGSDVTIENVLMNPTRTGLILTLQEMGADIEVINPRLAGGED 300 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ VPGDPSSTAFPLVAALLVPGSEVTIENVLMNPTRTGLILTLQEMGADIEVLNARLAGGED 300 *********************:*** ************************:* ******* SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC VADLRVRSSTLKGVTVPEDRAPSMIDEYPILAVAAAFAEGATVMNGLEELRVKESDRLSA 360 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ VADLRVRHSQLKGVTVPAERAPSMIDEYPVLAVAAAFAEGTTTMLGVEELRVKESDRLSA 360 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP VADLRVRHSELKGVTVPADRAPSMIDEYPVLAVAAAFAEGATTMLGLEELRVKESDRLSA 360 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ VADLRVRHSQLKGVTVPAERAPSMIDEYPVLAVAAAFAEGTTTMLGVEELRVKESDRLSA 360 ******* * ******* :**********:**********:*.* *:************* SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC VANGLKLNGVDCDEGETSLVVRGRPDGKGLGNASGAAVATHLDHRIAMSFLVMGLVSENP 420 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ TAAGLKLNGVDCDEGEDTLTVRGRPGGKGYGNAAGEAVATHLDHRIAMSFLVLGLVSEHP 420 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP VADGLKLNGVDCDEGEDTLVVRGRPGGKGYGNATGSSVVTHLDHRIAMSFLVMGLVSEHA 420 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ TAAGLKLNGVDCDEGEDTLTVRGRPGGKGYGNAAGEAVATHLDHRIAMSFLVLGLVSEHP 420 .* ************* :*.***** *** ***:* :*.*************:*****. SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC VTVDDATMIATSFPEFMDLMAGLGAKIELSDTKAA 455 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ VTVDDAGIIATSFPEFMDLMAGLGARIEAVESRAA 455 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP VTVDDAGIIATSFPEFMDLMTGLGARIEPVESRAA 455 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ VTVDDAGIIATSFPEFMDLMAGLGARIEAVESRAA 455 ****** :************:****:** :::** |
Ponydepression has reverted this content [7] a couple times now, but the issue isn't particularly clear. The wikilink goes to the pesticide resistance article, which is exactly what glyphosate resistance plants are. Given, the article itself does need an addition for non-pest resistance, but we still call it pesticide resistance regardless of what is resistant. Could you explain what you're seeing as the issue is here? Thanks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Came across this review: [8] whose abstract includes " B cell lymphoma was positively associated with phenoxy herbicides and the organophosphorus herbicide glyphosate." Should this go in? Lfstevens ( talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_7#Review_of_Monsanto.27s_Roundup_herbicide Jytdog ( talk) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I support
this diff by @
49.184.30.180:. I have been meaning to come back and delete that sentence. There is nothing in the study that says anything about "industrial formulations."
David Tornheim (
talk) 06:28, 22 March 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 10 |
How strange that there is an edit war going over this statement, and no one has opened a Talk section on this. Sad. If anybody reads the article from which that quote was taken, you will find plenty of support for the statement there, and elsewhere in the scientific literature. I know that plenty of folks who are opposed to Monsanto and/or GMOs think that glyphosate is just nasty stuff, but anybody familiar with herbicides (from using them, which I have not, or researching them, which I have done) knows that the contested statement is true. The statement compares glyphosate to other herbicides - it is not comparing glyphosate to, say, apples. Even if you eat all organic food and are opposed to the use of all herbicides, this should not effect your view on the validity of a statement comparing herbicides. Looking forward to the discussion! Jytdog ( talk) 11:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Mark Marathon, User:ImperfectlyInformed, and User:Jusdafax I hope you come and discuss the reasons for the edits you made during edit war you conducted, so when the lockdown is over we can go back to editing productively and collaboratively. I am copying this note to your Talk pages. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 14:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Since productive discussion is underway, I have removed the protection ahead of time. Please reach consensus before making any likely controversial edits. Thanks! — EncMstr ( talk) 01:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
In the course of researching claims of a "broad scientific consensus" on the comparative safety of genetically modified foods, I came across a substantial range of sources that discuss Roundup. These are compiled here. Please see in particular that there are numerous studies distinguishing between Roundup and glyphosate. Indeed, it is other ingredients in Roundup (particularly the surfactant TN-20) which give Roundup its particular toxicity. At minimum this should be discussed at this page. However, I think it warrants an undoing of the merge between Roundup and Glyphosate. Roundup is a substantially different chemical formulation, and furthermore is notable unto itself due to associated media coverage and marketing. I have seen past discussions on the issue and I do agree that care should be taken to avoid editing "Roundup" as if it were "Glyphosate". Aloha, groupuscule ( talk) 19:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
One way this could be done, and it'd be my preference, would be to start to develop the product-specific information in this article and see if the content for any one product does need to be broken off into its own article. I'd guess that there might be enough non-glyphosate-specific information available about Roundup in particular, like society and culture information, sales history, Roundup and Roundup-ready crops, critical reaction, and the various formulations available, that might warrant having a separate article for that product. In breaking off Roundup to its own article, there should be a brief summary of the glyphosate ingredient with a link back here. The important thing would be to avoid having too much duplication about the details of glyphosate between the two articles. It might be the case that all the other knock-off brands would not warrant their own articles. Another way to do this would be to leave
glyphosate to focus on just that one ingredient and then to create a new article, something along the lines of
Glyphosate-based herbicides, and put all the products there. Just some suggestions.
Zad
68
03:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
hey folks an unmerge proposal has opened on the former Roundup page, with no notice placed here.. here is the discussion Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)#RfC:_Un-merge_from_Glyphosate.3F Jytdog ( talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The Toxicity section is divided into Glyphosate toxicity, Additive toxicity and Formulation toxicity; a reasonable division at first sight. However, I'm not clear that it works. For example, the Glyphosate toxicity section says "Acute fatal toxicity has been reported in deliberate overdose.[2 refs] Epidemiological studies have not found associations between long term low level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.[3 refs]" However, the two sources used for deliberate overdose both specify that it's a formulation that has been taken. Also it's hard to see that any epidemiological study can distinguish between exposure to glyphosate alone, the added agent(s) in the formulation, and the combination. Thus the Mink et al. (2012) paper used as a source explicitly notes the need for better recording of the formulation. Are there studies which relate to glyphosate-only toxicity in humans? If not, this subsection should be merged into Formulation toxicity. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
just went source hunting - leaving here for content-building tomorrow or thereafter:
Hi User:Gandydancer - nice set of edits you are making, thanks. Only objection I have is that you deleted the content about worms. People who study soils, and the "health" of soil, care a lot about the ecosystem in soils; this is one of the big concerns of the organic movement, too. Worms are a key player in those ecosystems; hence the content about the effect of glyphosate and formulations on worms. I thought it was worthwhile to include; you've taken it out.... Jytdog ( talk) 19:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
A laboratory study published in 1992 indicated that glyphosate formulations could harm earthworms(ref) 1992 Springett JA, Gray RAJ (/ref) and beneficial insects.(ref)omitted(/ref) However, the reported effect of glyphosate on earthworms has been criticized.(ref name=Giesy2000 /) The results conflict with results from field studies where no effects were noted for the number of nematodes, mites, or springtails after treatment with Roundup at 2 kilograms active ingredient per hectare.(ref)1989 Preston & Trofymow(/ref)
The key source is the very excellent Giesy 2000 book. If you look at it page 77] (I have added the page ref to the article) you will see that they criticize the 1992 study by Springett and Gray for too small an N to mean anything, and for not characterizing what they did. Jytdog ( talk) 22:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Gandydancer requested I list " reviews on toxicity of glyphosate per se; some reviews on adjuvants/additives, and some on formulations... Specifically, I meant effects on fish and amphibians". When I agreed, I didn't especially have fish and amphibians in mind. But here is a list
Glyphosate alone:
specific additives (pretty much just POEA
formulations
still underway.. Jytdog ( talk) 23:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (added more Jytdog ( talk) 15:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC))
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf This newer study seems to list human health effects that should be included.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
New York Times, another study.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
A proposal was made to undo the merge of Roundup and Glyphosate and split them; the discussion is here; Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)#RfC:_Un-merge_from_Glyphosate.3F. It was closed in early October 2013; the closer indicated that a split is appropriate. Nobody has done it yet. I removed the split tag since the discussion is long over. Jytdog ( talk) 13:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
today
User:Jfortier added the following content in
this dif, with edit note " add recent information":
"New evidence, however, suggests that Glyphosate residues persist into the food chain. Cereal bars tested in 2012 were found to contain glyphosate at levels approaching 100%
"Harmful weedkiller in your bread and cereal bars \ author = Andrew Wasley I". Backgrounder. The Ecologist. 2013-31-12. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |title=
(
help)" (ref markup removed)
I reverted in this dif with edit note "revert content based on source noncompliant with WP:MEDRS (even the scientific study is a primary source; not valid to generate content from it)" That is enough a basis, but I also wanted to note that the content itself doesn't reflect the source nor does it make sense, where it says "were found to contain glyphosate at levels approaching 100%". I don't know what that means. The source says "According to GM Freeze, 100% of the Jordans cereal bars tested were found to contain glyphosate. The group also says that at least 85% of tested products made by Warburtons – the well known bread company – contained traces of the herbicide." So if the "at levels approaching 100%" is referring to what percentage of samples tested contained glyphosate residues, the proposed wikipedia content is not accurate. (it could also be read to mean, bizarrely, that each sample was composed of 100% glyphosate, which really makes no sense) More importantly, the source says "The weedkiller residues were present in small quantities - between 0.1 and 0.8 mg/kg. This is well below the permitted EU maximum residue levels (MRLs) for cereal crops, which currently span 10 - 20 mg/kg." Everybody knows that food contains glyphosate residues; that is the reason that regulators establish legal limits for trace amounts in food, in the first place. And indeed the amounts found are below the legal limits. So this study says nothing that is new or interesting, in any case. But it does provide the opportunity for the authors of the Ecologist to bring up the already discredited Seneff publications, once again. argh. Jytdog ( talk) 15:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Two points:
1) Why does this section exist in an article about Glyphosate? Do we have sections on alternative treatments in drug articles? Or alternatives to household electricity in that article? What is the reader who is interested in Glyphosate expected to glean from this material? It seems completely inappropriate.
2) In what sense are these alternatives. Glyphosate is a broad spectrum, highly translocatable systemic. Both 2,4-D and Dicamba only work on broad leaf plants and both, but especially 2,4-D, have limited translocation ability. I find it hard to believe that anybody has ever suggested them as alternatives to glyphosate. Of the references given, one does not use the word Glyphosate anywhere that I can find, and the other notes specifically that "These additional practices add cost to the production system. Often, there are no effective herbicides that are easily available..." and that "This provides “unique” tools for managing our current list of herbicide-resistant weeds". It then goes on to list a host problems associated with Dicamba and not Glyphosate, including off-site movement and the need for application during early season growth periods, specific spray patterns and so forth. IOW these are not alternatives to Glyphosate, but unique treatment regimes used where Glyphosate is not an option. It's only an alternative in the sense that amputation is an alternative to penicillin. Sure, they both cure infection, but nobody considers one an alternative to the other.
So, can anyone find reliable sources touting these substances as alternatives to Glyphosate, rather than herbicides to be sued where Glyphosate is specifically not an option? IF not I'm inclined to remove the section as original research and for a lack of notability. Mark Marathon ( talk) 22:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest we give it 24 hours for others to respond, then turf it. Mark Marathon ( talk) 23:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
<< A 2012 study found that over the 16 year period since genetically modified crops were introduced, "herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds)"[124] Bt crops have been genetically engineered to express a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis, which kills certain insects. This study's results, however, are contradicted by another study published in 2013, which reported that the adoption of GM technology "has reduced pesticide spraying by 474 million kg..."[125] >>
Seems that "increase in herbicide use" in one research is compared to "reduced pesticide spraying" in another research. Herbicides and pesticides are two different things, am I right? This section should be improved with more facts and more references to research. I am not specialist in this, please help!
87.110.179.146 ( talk) 11:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there's a reasonably persuasive argument that glyphosate when used in paddy fields and similar situations causes fatal kidney disease:
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-roundup-kidney-disease-921/
Basically, the farmers are splashing it around and standing up to their knees in it, and drinking the run-off into aquifers as well. It's not immediately toxic, but it looks like the chemical is reacting with metal ions and eventually taking out the kidneys.
There's been huge number of deaths.
I'm somewhat reluctant to add it right now though, RT is not the most unbiased source (similar reliability to Fox news I guess). There were earlier stories on the BBC website about this disease, but they didn't mention glyphosate by name.
What do other people think? GliderMaven ( talk) 16:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is the article that the press is writing about. The authors write "Here, we have hypothesized the association of using glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the disease endemic area and its unique metal chelating properties" There is no data in the paper nor is there a review of other papers with data. This is noodling - armchair biology. we do not include such things in wikipedia at all as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. definitely does not pass WP:MEDRS. sheesh. Jytdog ( talk) 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to tie the captions in to the article because Some readers look at the pictures and captions first before diving into an intimidating amount of text. Formerly 98 reverted this work because I had also added a new picture and that was considered WP:UNDUE. No argument with that but if 5 of 9 pictures is undue, perhaps 4 of 9 is also?
How about we take the sub-headings out of the section and discuss different plants in different paragraphs and include a gallery of the plants somewhere in the section? ~ KvnG 14:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
glyphosate is the active ingredient in many formulations. it has been off-patent in the US for 14 years now (and even longer outside the US), and there are many many formulations on the market. Chinese companies produce the majority of glyphosate today; the market place is very complex (sees this for some flavor). We have almost no information about these other formulations. Another issue is the additives that are in all these different formulations. Glyphosate formulations are much more toxic than glyphosate itself, and it is the formulations that are actually used in the real world, and are the actual source of toxic effects. This article is incomplete without discussion of the various additives that are used and what their toxicities are. so, that is why the tags are there. Jytdog ( talk) 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:) Jytdog ( talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned that some recent edits appear to delete information that may be seen as negative and replace it with more positive information. For instance this recently added information related to a recent review:
According to the authors, the use of glyphosate-based pesticides cannot be considered the major cause of amphibian decline, the bulk of which occurred prior to the widespread use of glyphosate or in pristine tropical areas with minimal glyphosate exposure. The authors recommended further study of species- and development-stage chronic toxicity, of environmental glyphosate levels, and ongoing analysis of data relevant to determining what if any role glyphosate might be playing in worldwide amphibian decline, and suggest including amphibians in standardized test batteries.[87]
Using this summary: " Solomon article - pulled more representative quotes from paper". All of the previous information was deleted. I'll quote the previous information.
According to the authors, because little is known about environmental concentrations of glyphosate in amphibian habitats and virtually nothing is known about environmental concentrations of the substances added to the herbicide formulations, if and how glyphosate-based herbicides contribute to amphibian decline is not yet answerable due to missing data on how natural populations are affected. They concluded that the impact on amphibians depends on the herbicide formulation with different sensitivity of taxa and life stages while effects on development of larvae are seen as the most sensitive endpoints to study. The authors recommend "better monitoring of both amphibian populations and contamination of habitats with glyphosate-based herbicides, not just glyphosate," and suggest including amphibians in standardized test batteries.
I am wondering why the editor would suggest that his/her edit was superior to the previous information. In suggesting that his/her decision to include information from the article that they thought was a good summation rather than the abstract of the researchers that wrote the review, couldn't it be reasonable to conclude that this editor rather than the researchers had done the review, or in other words, OR?
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/06/14/groundbreaking-study-links-monsantos-glyphosate-to-cancer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.147.2 ( talk) 20:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope, that's exactly the sort of primary, in vitro research that MEDRS forbids, because so much primary research is not reproducible, especially primary research published in politically contentious fields. Formerly 98 ( talk) 00:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Today in these edits, User:Timpo added content based on the Entropy article. As mentioned above, this article has been examined on the MEDRS board and found not acceptable for use in supporting any content in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_7#Review_of_Monsanto.27s_Roundup_herbicide. Jytdog ( talk) 14:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Would like to know more about this citing article which seems confirmatory. I am unwilling to exclude the possibility that there is a negative reputation influence which makes publishing in off-topic journals more likely for this work. I would ask for the opinion of @ Jmh649: as a trusted generalist (and also ask him how the the request for pre-registered studies from Medline/Pubmed approval went when he visited NIH?) 109.70.142.36 ( talk) 02:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You lost me. Jytdog ( talk) 07:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Further reading:
Cheers, 193.5.216.100 ( talk) 15:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not have time right now to dissect these papers and work out what might be worth adding to this article. Perhaps another editor might? Djapa Owen ( talk) 13:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. [http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-herbicide-125-times-more-toxic-regulators-say Roundup Herbicide 125 Times More Toxic Than Regulators Say]
Formerly 98 ( talk) 14:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
New article in HuffPo: [3]. Leaving it here for anyone's use in the article. Softlavender ( talk) 00:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The use of GMO roundup ready crops is hotly debated in societies worldwide ie: labeling laws, yet this article fails to mention any debate. Anyone against adding the social side? Dougmcdonell ( talk) 14:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like us to explain how best to use it. Roundup says to apply when weeds are "actively growing". This, in my experience is not just not-dormant-in-winter. This means that, say stinging nettles are green and nominally growing in the summer, but you have to cut them down and let them regrow if you want them to be "actively growing" enough to die from Glyphosate- hence Roundup's reference to Spring. Can't find any references to this but the proffesionals know this.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 10:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There are several studies relating the use of Glyphosate to cancer and other deceases, which should be mentioned in the article. The latest coming from Argentina, a 8 year study strongly relating its use with genetic damage. [4] [5] [6] Mariano( t/ c) 11:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Glyhosate was invented by Swiss chemist Henry Martin for Swiss compnay Cilag. In 1959, Swiss company Cilag was sold to American company Johnson & Johnson. Only in 1970, the herbicidal activity was discovered by American chemist Franz, who worked for Monsanto. 47.64.143.232 ( talk) 01:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Under the Formulations and Tradenames → Monsanto section, the article states that "their(Monsanto's) Roundup products (which include GM seeds) represented about half of Monsanto's yearly revenue;" however, the cited reference, an article from Forbes [1] states that "...the seed producer improved gross margins from 55.6% to 58% last quarter..." This refers to Monsanto's overall gross profit margin, and not the percentage of their profit which comes from the sale of seeds. 76.199.147.212 ( talk) 06:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Calh077 introduced the following text in this dif: " Monsanto discovered the genes for glyphosphate tolerance by studying a bacteria growing on the waste at a Roundup factory." The source provided was this newspaper article which says: "This pesticide-resistant enzyme was taken from a bacteria growing on the waste at a Roundup factory."
Seems to be a good match! Right?
The source links to its source - an article in PNAS, where you find: "The Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, isolated from a waste-fed column at a glyphosate production facility, yielded a glyphosate-resistant, kinetically efficient EPSP synthase suitable for the production of transgenic, glyphosate-tolerant crops."
The newspaper reporter read too fast or doesn't have a clue what a "column" is, or what the scientific effort looks like to try to drive evolution. Here is the patent application cited in the PNAS paper, about CP4 was found: "The Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 was initially identified by its ability to grow on glyphosate as a carbon source (10 mM) in the presence of 1 mM phosphate. The strain CP4 was identified from a collection obtained from a fixed-bed immobilized cell column that employed Mannville R-635 diatomaceous earth beads. The column had been run for three months on a waste-water feed from a glyphosate production plant. The column contained 50 mg/ml glyphosate and NH3 as NH4CI. Total organic carbon was 300 mg/ml and BOD's (Biological Oxygen Demand - a measure of "soft" carbon availability) were less than 30 mg/ml. This treatment column has been described (Heitkamp et al., 1990). Dworkin-Foster minimal salts medium containing glyphosate at 10 mM and with phosphate at 1 mM was used to select for microbes from a wash of this column that were capable of growing on glyphosate as sole carbon source" and blah blah blah.
Does that sound even a little bit like the bullshit that was in the newspaper article and that was introduced into WP? Hell no. Jytdog ( talk) 05:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks everybody for the discussion. i replaced the current content about the discovery of ESPS CP4 with new content based on the discussion above, with Boghog's source and an additional one i found. Jytdog ( talk) 02:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
EPSP synthase sequence alignment
|
---|
SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC MSHGASSRPATARKSSGLSGTVRIPGDKSISHRSFMFGGLASGETRITGLLEGEDVINTG 60 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ MSHGVALKPARSLKSADLKGTVRIPGDKSISHRSFMFGGLASGETRITGLLEGEDVINTG 60 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP MSHGVALKPARSLKSADLRGTVRIPGDKSISHRSFMFGGLAAGETRITGLLEGEDVINTG 60 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ MSHGVALKPARSLKSADLKGTVRIPGDKSISHRSFMFGGLASGETRITGLLEGEDVINTG 60 ****.: :** : **: * **********************:****************** 7 8 9 0 1 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC KAMQAMGARIRKEGDTWIIDGVGNGGLLAPEAPLDFGNAATGCRLTMGLVGVYDFDSTFI 120 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ KAMQAMGAKIEKVGAEWIIQGTGNGALLAPEAPLDFGNAGTGCRLTMGLVGVYDFDSTFI 120 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP KAMHAMGARIEKVGDEWIIQGTGNGALLAPEAPLDFGNAGTGCRLTMGLVGVYDFESTFI 120 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ KAMQAMGAKIEKVGAEWIIQGTGNGALLAPEAPLDFGNAGTGCRLTMGLVGVYDFDSTFI 120 ***:****:*.* * ***:*.***.*************.***************:**** SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC GDASLTKRPMGRVLNPLREMGVQVKSEDGDRLPVTLRGPKTPTPITYRVPMASAQVKSAV 180 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ GDASLSKRPMGRVLAPLREMGVQVTAAEGDRLPVTLRGPATPNPITYRVPMASAQVKSAV 180 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP GDASLTKRPMGRVLNPLREMGVQVKAAEGDRLPVTLRGPSIPNPITYRVPMASAQVKSAV 180 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ GDASLSKRPMGRVLAPLREMGVQVTAAEGDRLPVTLRGPATPNPITYRVPMASAQVKSAV 180 *****:******** *********.: :*********** *.***************** SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC LLAGLNTPGITTVIEPIMTRDHTEKMLQGFGANLTVETDADGVRTIRLEGRGKLTGQVID 240 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ LLAGLNTPGTTTVIEPVMTRDHTEKMLQGFGADLTVETDADGVRTIRLQGRGRLTGQVID 240 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP LLAGLNTPGVTTVIEPVMTRDHTEKMLQGFGANLMVELDADGVRTIRLEGRGQLIGQVID 240 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ LLAGLNTPGTTTVIEPVMTRDHTEKMLQGFGADLTVETDADGVRTIRLQGRGRLTGQVID 240 ********* ******:***************:* ** **********:***:* ***** SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC VPGDPSSTAFPLVAALLVPGSDVTILNVLMNPTRTGLILTLQEMGADIEVINPRLAGGED 300 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ VPGDPSSTAFPLVAALLVPGSEVTIENVLMNPTRTGLILTLQEMGADIEVLNARLAGGED 300 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP VPGDPSSTAFPLVAALLVPGSDVTIENVLMNPTRTGLILTLQEMGADIEVINPRLAGGED 300 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ VPGDPSSTAFPLVAALLVPGSEVTIENVLMNPTRTGLILTLQEMGADIEVLNARLAGGED 300 *********************:*** ************************:* ******* SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC VADLRVRSSTLKGVTVPEDRAPSMIDEYPILAVAAAFAEGATVMNGLEELRVKESDRLSA 360 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ VADLRVRHSQLKGVTVPAERAPSMIDEYPVLAVAAAFAEGTTTMLGVEELRVKESDRLSA 360 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP VADLRVRHSELKGVTVPADRAPSMIDEYPVLAVAAAFAEGATTMLGLEELRVKESDRLSA 360 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ VADLRVRHSQLKGVTVPAERAPSMIDEYPVLAVAAAFAEGTTTMLGVEELRVKESDRLSA 360 ******* * ******* :**********:**********:*.* *:************* SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC VANGLKLNGVDCDEGETSLVVRGRPDGKGLGNASGAAVATHLDHRIAMSFLVMGLVSENP 420 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ TAAGLKLNGVDCDEGEDTLTVRGRPGGKGYGNAAGEAVATHLDHRIAMSFLVLGLVSEHP 420 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP VADGLKLNGVDCDEGEDTLVVRGRPGGKGYGNATGSSVVTHLDHRIAMSFLVMGLVSEHA 420 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ TAAGLKLNGVDCDEGEDTLTVRGRPGGKGYGNAAGEAVATHLDHRIAMSFLVLGLVSEHP 420 .* ************* :*.***** *** ***:* :*.*************:*****. SP|Q9R4E4|AROA_AGRSC VTVDDATMIATSFPEFMDLMAGLGAKIELSDTKAA 455 TR|A0A081MDT9|A0A081MDT9_9RHIZ VTVDDAGIIATSFPEFMDLMAGLGARIEAVESRAA 455 TR|L0NN29|L0NN29_RHISP VTVDDAGIIATSFPEFMDLMTGLGARIEPVESRAA 455 TR|A0A081MM49|A0A081MM49_9RHIZ VTVDDAGIIATSFPEFMDLMAGLGARIEAVESRAA 455 ****** :************:****:** :::** |
Ponydepression has reverted this content [7] a couple times now, but the issue isn't particularly clear. The wikilink goes to the pesticide resistance article, which is exactly what glyphosate resistance plants are. Given, the article itself does need an addition for non-pest resistance, but we still call it pesticide resistance regardless of what is resistant. Could you explain what you're seeing as the issue is here? Thanks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Came across this review: [8] whose abstract includes " B cell lymphoma was positively associated with phenoxy herbicides and the organophosphorus herbicide glyphosate." Should this go in? Lfstevens ( talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_7#Review_of_Monsanto.27s_Roundup_herbicide Jytdog ( talk) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I support
this diff by @
49.184.30.180:. I have been meaning to come back and delete that sentence. There is nothing in the study that says anything about "industrial formulations."
David Tornheim (
talk) 06:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)