Info about Round Up

Discussion in 'Pesticide & Herbicide Application' started by phasthound, Aug 20, 2009.

  1. phasthound

    phasthound LawnSite Platinum Member
    Posts: 4,564

    I'm sure I'll get blasted for this by a few of the members here, but I think this info is important to know for applicators.

    Popular herbicide more deadly to liver cells than its active chemical alone.
    Aug 18, 2009


    Gasniera C, C Dumontb, N Benachoura, E Claira, MC Chagnonb and GE Séralini. 2009. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology doi:10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006.

    Synopsis by Negin P. Martin, Ph. D


    Very low doses of some types of the herbicide Roundup can disrupt human liver cell function; the formulations' toxicity may be tied to their "inactive" ingredients rather than the active weed-killing ingredient glyphosate.


    French scientists report that a number of Roundup formulations tested at very dilute concentrations can alter hormone actions and cause human liver cells to die within 24 hours of treatment.

    The toxicity of some of the formulations was independent of how much glyphosate – the active herbicide in Roundup – they contained, suggesting it is other "inert" ingredients that may alone – or in combination with each other and/or the weedkiller – assault the cells. This study's results are similar to prior studies – as reported in a recent Environmental Health News article – that find human embryo cells are affected more by the Roundup formulations and an inert ingredient than by the active ingredient.

    The levels of Roundup used in this study are similar to what is typically found in food crops or animal feed treated with Roundup. Because of this, it is possible that people, livestock and wildlife may be exposed to levels of the herbicide mix that can damage cells.

    Glyphosate is harmful to humans and animals even at a very low dose. It is often tested by itself in regulatory studies to determine if the Roundup formulation is toxic.

    However, according to this study, levels of glyphosate in Roundup formulations are not good indicators of toxicity.

    The ingredients responsible for the increased potency of Roundup formulations seen in this study – as compared to purified glyphosate – remain unknown. The chemical formulas of herbicide additives are generally protected as trade secrets, and the researchers did not try to chemically identify them. Therefore, their effects cannot be easily investigated and they remain undetected in the environment.

    Roundup was developed as a weapon against weeds. Many genetically modified (GM) plants have been developed to tolerate Roundup. Today, Roundup is the most widely used weedkiller in the world and 75 percent of all GM plants are engineered to resist the herbicide. Monsanto agricultural company produces both Roundup and Roundup-resistant GM plants.

    Four Roundup formulations – Roundup Express 7.2 (R7.2), Bioforce (R360), Grands Travaux (R400) and Grands Travaux Plus (R450) – were tested in this study. All formulations were more potent than purified glyphosate (at similar levels to R360) in causing cell death. Surprisingly, R400 containing less glyphosate was more toxic to human liver cells than R450.

    In the study, exposure of a single gene regulated by either estrogen or androgen hormones demonstrated that all formulations disrupt hormone function more efficiently than purified glyphosate. The findings show that the formulations act against the hormones to produce anti-estrogenic and anti-androgenic effects.
     
  2. RigglePLC

    RigglePLC LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 11,904

    What? Referring to inert ingredients, "...the researchers did not try to identify them."
    These guys do not sound like scientists--research with chemicals--without identifying the chemicals...tsk...tsk.

    "Glyphosate is harmful to humans and animals even at a very low dose. It is often tested by itself in regulatory studies to determine if the Roundup formulation is toxic." This statment contradicts itself--why would you test glyphosate by itself to see if the formulation was toxic? First line is an assertation--there is no evidence to back it up--on the contrary their evidence (if it could be called that) points toward the unknown (to them) inert ingredients.

    They talk about Roundup and then test something called "Bioforce". They seem confused about what is Roundup and what is glyphosate.

    "Levels of glyphosate were not good indicators of cell toxicity." In other words, higher levels did not cause more cell damage. Is this logical? Does the term "French scientists" include unqualified non-science majors?
     
  3. phasthound

    phasthound LawnSite Platinum Member
    Posts: 4,564

    I could post a 2 page list of scientific studies that suggest Round Up is not as "safe" as the manufacturers would like us to believe. Big Money holds a lot of sway in D.C. and the media.

    I hope this discussion doesn't deteriorate into a series of attacks.
     
  4. grassman177

    grassman177 LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 9,795

    intersting and it would not suprise me, but i agree, sounds fishy and not very conclusive to me
     
  5. Runner

    Runner LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 13,496

    I can find "studies" that will say the same thing ablout shampoo and dishwashing liquid.
     
  6. phasthound

    phasthound LawnSite Platinum Member
    Posts: 4,564

  7. lawnspecialties

    lawnspecialties LawnSite Silver Member
    Posts: 2,513

    From what I've read, aspirin is more toxic to humans than Glyphosate.
     
  8. hughmcjr

    hughmcjr LawnSite Member
    from Oregon
    Posts: 183

    Europe has about a 1000 products/chemicals, banned that we allow in the US. The products have already been proven to be unhealthy, ie cause cancer, toxic, cell disrupters, etc. We have strong lobbies in the US to keep certain products and certain chemicals in products even though many are questionable.

    I brought this up about Dimension EW a while back. It is replacing Dimension EC and has a lower odor due to removing some of the carriers. The carriers that reek bad often contain napthate and other chemicals/petroleums that have been proving to be toxic or cancer causing in humans. Dimension EW in Australia seems to be the same except it has less crap in it than ours does and I bet works just the same.

    Dimension 2EW in the US:
    http://www.cdms.net/LDat/mp7ND001.pdf

    Dimension EW in Australia:
    http://www.nuturf.com.au/new design/turfmsds/herbicides/Dimension EW Nuturf 2008.pdf

    It is like anything in life. Just because we are part of it, do it for a living and know what we do, doesn't mean we have to be in denial or play down the reality that long term chemical exposure is NOT healthy for humans and many times is contrary or at odds with our chemical makeup and metabolism, organs, etc.

    There is NO conflict about being in the chem business and also knowing and stating that overall chemicals while safe are also dangerous and inherently unhealthy. I know there are some that want to down play those truths and label some as environmental whackos, but those who claim chemicals are completely safe and have no negative health affects, short or long term are either lying or in denial.

    In fact I think it is good business diplomacy to walk the middle and play both sides of the fence. I tell my customers exactly this:

    Chemicals work and do what they are meant to do and I could never do what I do and give the results without using the chemicals I do, but at the same time I know the chemicals overall are not good for us or the environment, but I use them safely and properly and don't use more than is necessary to get the results my customers and I want.

    Most if not all people hear that and respect it, because then they know you aren't a careless applicator who doesn't give a damn about people or the environment and at the same time you are selling and promoting your work and the results. The only ones who won't listen or care are hardcore environmentalists who in a perfect world are probably right, no chems would be better, but in the world we live in and how we live, removing all chems immediately would have disastrous consequences both economically and with regards to our health, ie. letting pests like roaches, mice etc, get out of control in domestic living areas.
     
  9. hughmcjr

    hughmcjr LawnSite Member
    from Oregon
    Posts: 183

    Yeah, while true, those are those anecdotes about how taking aspirin is bad for kids or certain people. Usually those stories are told by guys in the chem biz to try to justify how safe the products we use are by claiming something we use everyday and ingest is worse. Well sure it is worse or can be if you are brainless, just like anything natural doesn't mean it is safe, like arsenic.
     
  10. LIBERTYLANDSCAPING

    LIBERTYLANDSCAPING LawnSite Bronze Member
    from Indiana
    Posts: 1,283

    Well, when you post crap from whacked out so called "scientists" in the pesticide forum, what do you expect?:confused: Anybody can make up and do any study they want-doesn't mean it is accurate. Many have agendas-Just like the global warming eco nuts:hammerhead:
     

Share This Page