Subject: Re: RoundUp (tm)
From: [email-masked] (Larry London)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 16:53:17 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.gardens

From thread in rec.gardens:

>>This is confused.  Roundup (glyphosate) blocks an enzyme that appears
>>only in plants.  It has low toxicity for animals, and has not
>>been shown to be carcinogenic or mutagenic.  Moreover, it is not
>>persistent; it is inactivated in soil in a short time, by binding
>>to clay and bacterial breakdown.  One can plant in Roundup-treated
>>soil without waiting a year.  It is used as a pre-planting
>>herbicide in agriculture.

>This is exactly correct.  Roundup is a post-emergent herbicide.  It soaks
>into the plant through the leaves (or needles) and inhibits the
>some rather important bio-chemical processes.  It is non-selective, and will
>kill any plant.  It is least effective on plants with waxy leaves (or
>needles) only because of the wetting agents used.  The leaf coating
>reduces absorption of the glyphosphate.  If you up the concentration,
>the plant will die.
>It binds with the soil and becomes inert.
>You can plant in roundup areas immediately.
>Incidentally, the patent for glyphosphate has recently expired, and several
>clone products have appeared. CIL Clear-It-2 is glyphosphate based
>as well. (CIL is now owned by ICI)

[from previous threads on Roundup (tm)]:

Article 5620 (4 more) in rec.gardens:
From: [email-masked]
ubject: Re: Killing Ivy
Date: 5 Mar 92 17:14:37 GMT

[email-masked] (Karen Vahtra) writes:
> I have about 1,000 square feet of ivy that needs killing along the back fence  of my 
> property.   

I agree with the folks who suggested Roundup (or Kleenup, or some other
brand of glyphosate).  It is a non-selective herbicide, meaning that it
kills almost anything it touches, but it has VERY low toxicity to anything
that doesn't photosynthesize (like birds, insects, mammals...)

Glyphosate is sprayed on the leaves, but is translocated to the roots,
killing them too.  You'll have to wait until the plants are beginning to
show some new growth (almost any herbicide works better on actively 
growing plants) -- you might even want to fertilize and water your ivy
to get it growing well before you kill it!  Spray the leaves with the
recommended concentration of glyphosate, then wait.  As soon as the leaves
start dying back (maybe 10 days?), you can assume that enough has hit the 
roots that you can cut out the top growth and remove it.  At this point, 
I'd leave the soil bare for about a month and continue to water -- that
way you can spot any new ivy shoots that might have accidentally survived
the first dose, and hit'em again.  After a month you can replant with
whatever.

When I spray with glyphosate, I wear gloves and a long sleeved shirt and
long pants because some of the "inert" ingredients in most formulations
can give you a skin rash.  I wear a mask, too, since I'm asthmatic, and
just about any particulates can set me coughing.  Even a bandana over my
nose is enough.  I also mix up a bucket of water and a shovel full of soil,
and keep it handy.  Why?  Glyphosate binds so tightly to soil particles 
that you can save any plant that gets hit accidentally by throwing some
muddy water on it immediately.

You can replant an area that has been treated with glyphosate immediately,
since it does irreversibly bind to soil particles.  And it breaks down 
to glycine (an amino acid) and phosphate (fertilizer component) in the
soil fairly quickly -- how fast depends on which soil microorganisms you
have in abundance.

Glyphosate can also be applied with a paintbrush or cloth glove over a 
rubber glove if you're worried about spray drift.  Just takes longer.

Kay Klier     Biology Dept  UNI

PS  I'm pretty cautious about herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.
The only herbicides I will use are glyphosate or boiling water (or hoes, 
etc.)  I don't have the toxicity information immediately at hand, but
you can poison yourself with aspirin 5x more easily than with glyphosate. 

Article 5682 (6 more) in rec.gardens:
From: [email-masked] (Andy Burgess)
ubject: Re: Killing Ivy
Date: 7 Mar 92 17:37:31 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
>PS  I'm pretty cautious about herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.
>The only herbicides I will use are glyphosate or boiling water (or hoes, 
>etc.)  I don't have the toxicity information immediately at hand, but
>you can poison yourself with aspirin 5x more easily than with glyphosate. 

Ingesting Roundup has killed people. I seems that the surfactant is more
toxic than the glyphosate itself. There was a lengthy article posted here
many months ago. I'll try to dig it up and repost.
Andy

Article 5683 (5 more) in rec.gardens:
From: [email-masked] (Andy Burgess)
ubject: Roundup Toxicity, was Re: Killing Ivy
Date: 7 Mar 92 17:46:02 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked] (Andy Burgess)

Here is the previously posted article on Roundup.
Andy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
>From: [email-masked] (Pete Brokaw)
>Newsgroups: rec.gardens
>Subject: Re: Is Roundup safe? (LONG reply)
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>Date: 29 Apr 91 20:58:41 GMT
>References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
>Sender: [email-masked]
>Organization: Weeg Computing Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
...
I recently asked a friend the same questions and she gave me copies of some 
magazine articles.  One deals primarily with the issue of "inert" ingredients
in chemical concoctions like Roundup.  This was printed in the "Journal of
Pesticide Reform."

A second article was very anti-Roundup but had very little in the way of facts,
relying on anecdotal accounts. (e.g., "A twenty-eight-year-old laborer who had
sprayed weeds with the recommended dosage of Roundup developed an itchy rash,
nausea, and swelling of the limbs and joints."  No evidence was provided to
back up this or the other claims made.)

The third article came from the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to
Pesticides (NCAP).  Written in 1987, it defines Roundup and lists 8 problems
that "warrent concern when [it] is considered for use."

At the time, I was looking for good reasons NOT to use Roundup (my last 
alternative to elminating creeping charlie--I decided to let it grow and start
calling it "ground ivy" :-).  

Here are some excerpts from 2 articles.  If people are interested, I can 
post the complete articles at a later date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From NCAP's handout entitled "ROUNDUP". Written by Mary H. O'Brien, September
16, 1987.

Roundup is a post-emergence herbicide that kills annual and perennial
broadleaf plants and grasses.  Roundup is widely used on sites where
nonselective vegitation removal is wanted by some people...  Its "active
ingredient," glyphosate, also appears in Rodeo, a formulation designed for
use in aquatic settings.  Produced by Monsanto, glyphosate is a farily new
herbicide, first registered for use in 1974.

Glyphosate is primarily absorbed by plant foliage, but may be taken up by
roots in soils that minimize adsorption to soil particles.  It apparently
kills plants by inhibiting synthesis of an essential amino acid, thereby
resulting in a reduction of protein synthesis and an inhibition of growth.
Glyphosate is readily translocated within the plant, inhibiting sprouting in
perennial species.

The following ... problems warrant concern when Roundup is considered for
use:

 1. PERSISTENCE.  Although the claim is often made that Roundup is
inactivated rapidly in soil, it is more accurate to say that it is usually
absorbed to soil components.  A sandy loam trated with glyphosate at
recommended application rates (e.g., 2, 5, and 10 ug/g soil) was found to
drastically reduce nitrogen fixation, growth, and nodulation of subterranean
clover/Rhizobium trifolium/ planted 120 days after glyphosate treatment.
Glyphosate clearly remains active in soils that do not adsorb it readily.

Damage to vine maple and bigleaf maple was found to increase during the
second year following treatment with glyphosate, indicating that glyphosate
persists for extended periods in plants.

 2. PHYTOTOXICITY.  Because glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide, any
desired vegetation must be completely protected from glyphosate drive, mist,
or drip.  As Monsanto notes in its Rounup label guide, "...minute quantities
of this herbicide can cause severe damage or destruction to the crop, plants,
or other areas on which treatment was not intended."

 3. TOXICITY OF 'INERT' INGREDIENTS.  [see next article -ed]

 4. TESTING. [The article explains that testing on glyphosate by itself is
inadequate since the inert ingredients are very important to making Roundup
work.  Most test results are "unpublished and developed by Monsanto or
laboratories hired by Monsanto."

[  
   Other points are made about lack of cancer testing and links to "human
   damage" including "conjunctivitis (inflammation oft he eyelid and eyeball
   mucous membrane), dermatitis (inflammation of the skin), and severe flu-like
   symptoms following exposure to glyphosate.  Of 143 pesticides reported for
   causing human illness in California in 1986, glyphosate was fourth in the
   number of incidents reported."  No further details on this statistic are
   given. -ed
]

A "Roundup Information Packet" containing a series of articles on Roundup is
available for $10.50 postpaid from NCAP; P.O. Box 1393; Eugene OR 97440.  A
file of these and additional glyphsate/Roundup articles is maintained at
NCAP; these can be copied at 10 cents/page.

[
   These prices may not be current considering the article is nearly four
   years old.  -ed
]
[ five years now -andy ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "Roundup, Vision, POEA, and 1,4-Dioxane: Why Full Formulations Are the
Problem." Written by Mary O'Brien--a staff scientist for NCAP.  Vol. 9, No. 4
of the Journal of Pesticide Reform.

When a letter by four Japanese emergency medicine professionals appeared in
the February 6, 1988 issue of the American medical journal, The Lancet, a
Washington toxicology conultant, David Monroe, took note.  The Japanese
authors were noting that an "inert ingredient" in the herbicide Roundup
(rather than the identified "active" ingredient, glyphosate) accounts for the
acute toxicity they had found in patients poisoned (some fatally) by Roundup
(JPR 8(1):30).  Symptoms included gastrointestinal ("GI" -ed) pain and
vomiting, swelling of the lungs and pneumonia, reduction of blood pressure,
clouding of consciousness, and red blood cell destruction.

The so-called "inert ingredient," polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), actually
refers to a family of chemicals.  It is added to Roundup and Vision herbicide
formulations  as a surfactant, an ingredient that will help evenly spread
the active ingredient, glyphosate, on target plants.

The Japanese researchers noted that the acute lethal dose of POEA is less
than one-third (i.e., POEA is three times as toxic) that of Roundup, and that
POEA belongs to a class of surfactants that have been reported to cause
adverse GI and central nervous system effects and damage to red blood cells.

As POEA does not appear on the Roundup label (supposedly protected, as an
inert, from public disclosure under the U.S. pesticide law...), Monroe first
learned of its presense in Roundup through the Lancet letter. 

Monroe recalled a U.S. EPA memorandum that discussed the presence of
1,4-dioxane in two polyalkoxylated polyamine products ... manufactured by
the Henkel Corporation.  Knowing that POEA is a polyalkoxylated amine, Monroe
suspected that 1,4-dioxane might be present as a contaminant of POEA.

[ the article now describes the side effects of 1,4-dioxane, which include
  liver and kidney damage, and cancer in laboratory animals.  "The liver and
  kidney damage can occur regardless of the route of 1,4-dioxane exposure
  (inhalation, oral ingestion, and/or skin application)."   This section
  concludes with this statement: 'The International Agency for Research on
  Cancer indicates that evidence is "sufficient" to know that 1,4-dioxane
  causes cancer in animals and the U.S EPA regards 1,4-dioxane as a probable
  human carcinogen.' 

  Researchers in British Columbia went on to test Vision (Canada's version of
  Roundup) checking for 1,4-dioxane contamination.  From a 250ml sample, the
  CANTEST lab detected 350 parts per million 1,4-dioxane using a purge and  
  trap method.  That level is equivalent to .35 percent.  

  Now quoting again from the article: ]

A 1982 EPA memo ... also discussed 1,4-dioxane as being present in
dichloroethyl ether.  The 1982 EPA memo ... had been prompted by concern that
1,4-dioxane had been found in dichloroethyl ether at 0.42 percent and 0.55
percent.  Under "comments/recommendations" in the memo, the EPA noted that
the manufacturer of the contaminated dichloroethyl ether "reported that its
employees and cutomers were being notified of the presence of 1,4-dioxane in
dichloroethyl ether.  In addition, the company reported that its current
safety precautions inclue 'body-protective clothing and boots, eye
protection, and monitoring of air levels of dichloroethyl ether.'"

Users of Roundup and Vision are not informed that the formulation contains
either POEA or 1,4-dioxane.  Roundup is widely used by homeowners wearing no
particular protective clothing, and the label merely states, "Avoid contact
with eyes, skin, and clothing because of possible (eye and skin) irritation."

The presence of 1,4-dioxane in Vision (and presumably in Roundup) is a
classic example of the following:

 1. Full formulations, "inert" ingredients, and contaminants, not merely the
so-called "active" ingredient, can cause cancer and other adverse chronic
effects; their exemption from testing for chronic toxicity is indefensible.

 2. The current classification by the EPA of POEA as a "List 3" inert
ingredient  ("inert of unknown toxicity"), subject neither to listing on the
label nor toxicological testing requirements, is indefensible.

 3. Estimating the toxicity of glyphosate alone is meaningless when a full
formulation (e.g., Roundup, Vision) containing POEA, 1,4-dioxane, and other
unlisted ingredients and contaminants is the mixture to which people and the
environment will be exposed.

What you don't know can hurt you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Pete Brokaw, Weeg Computing Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242
>[email-masked]  319-335-5453

>Disclaimer: I am not associated with Monsanto, or NCAP. I am merely an
>interested party to this discussion.

-- 
From: [email-masked]
ubject: Re: Killing Ivy
Date: 9 Mar 92 00:38:51 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

[email-masked] (Andy Burgess) writes:
> [email-masked] writes:
>>PS  I'm pretty cautious about herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.
>>The only herbicides I will use are glyphosate or boiling water (or hoes, 
>>etc.)  I don't have the toxicity information immediately at hand, but
>>you can poison yourself with aspirin 5x more easily than with glyphosate. 
> 
> Ingesting Roundup has killed people. I seems that the surfactant is more
> toxic than the glyphosate itself. There was a lengthy article posted here
> many months ago. I'll try to dig it up and repost.

True.  The toxicity info I gave was for _glyphosate_, not Roundup.  That's
why I wear gloves when working with the commercial formulations.

Kay

Article 6061 in rec.gardens:
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Roundup continued
Date: 23 Mar 92 01:07:59 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

brianb@sprintcom (Brian Bailey) writes:
> The discussion on round-up was a very interesting thread which just
> seemed to stop without conclusion. If the active ingredient is harmless
> which Kay says she can get, then is it commercially available to us
> phlebes. If not is round-up worth the risk, or are there other viable
> alternatives that are less toxic and still work.

Straight glyphosate is available for investigational use, at about 
$20/gram for 96% purity.  The "pure" stuff I used was part of a 
research study -- and we had some left over, so I got permission
to use it up on a natural area that needed selective weed control.

I don't know of any broad-spectrum herbicide that is any safer than
glyphosate.  The various commercial formulations add adjuvants and
surfactants that increase the herbicidal activity.  These are not
considered to be "active" ingredients, so they do not have to be
on the label.  This is a major problem, IMHO, with current labeling
laws.

I did a quick search of the last five years of the AGRICOLA data base
(National Ag. Library), without turning up any information on human
toxicity of glyphosate or glyphosate preparations -- other than the
mention of skin irritation.   This correlates to the information in the
1990 herbicide handbooks that are on my reference shelf.

I believe someone mentioned the possibility of dioxin contamination -- 
can you please give us a citation, because I'm not turning anything up
on that.  

When dealing with any chemical or mixture of chemicals, you have to 
assess the risk on the basis of knowledge and (more often than not)
on gut feeling.   Any chemical -- including pure water -- is hazardous
when taken in quantity.  The Ames test for probable carcinogens
is OK, but not perfect.  The various animal tests are likewise OK,
but not perfect -- there's just too much variation in toxic threshholds
from one species to another.   

The best we can do is gather all the data we can, then take a deep
breath and try to make a good decision.

Barring startling new data turning up, I believe that the amount of
Roundup or other glyphosate preparations I've used are a negligible
risk to me and the environment, especially when compared to other
risks that I take all the time without thinking about them:
driving a car, eating peanut butter sandwiches, visiting cities,
breathing exhaust fumes, sitting in the sun, drinking tap water....

Yes, I try to be careful in how I handle and apply it.  If I spray,
I use a coarse spray to minimize drift, and wear a mask and long sleeves
and wash up afterwards.  If I'm using a wipe applicator (gloves or
"stamp licker", I've got a couple of pairs of gloves on of different
materials (usually latex and vinyl) to prevent skin contact.
Should I accidentally spill some on my pant legs (and I haven't yet),
I doubt very much if I'd tear my clothes off and run screaming for
the nearest source of water: instead I'd dump some muddy water on the
spot, and change my jeans when I got back to wherever I stashed my 
pack.  

These are choices I've made after evaluating all the information
I have available to me, and weighing the possible risks against the
other choices: an impossible amount of hand labor, or using other
chemicals of possibly greater toxicity.  Each of us must decide
these things for ourselves.  Life is never risk-free.

Kay Klier    Biology Dept   UNI
:
:
:
:
-
Lawrence
[email-masked]
-

From [email-masked] Thu Jul  7 03:34:36 1994
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 22:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabriel Hegyes <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: SANET-mg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Round)Up Breaking Down in Water

>From [email-masked] Wed Jul  6 22:53:11 1994
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 94 22:52:01 EDT
From: Gabriel Hegyes <[email-masked]>
Subject: glyphosa.osu

                         E X T O X N E T

                  Extension Toxicology Network

A Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices
of Cornell University, The University of California,  Michigan
State University, and Oregon State University

Extoxnet is a collaborative educational project intended to
convey pesticide-related information in easily understood terms. 
Information is provided in two types of documents:  Pesticide
Information Profiles (PIPs) on the health and environmental
effects of specific pesticides, and Toxicology Information Briefs
(TIBs), short descriptions of a variety of issues that pertain to
pesticides, such as carcinogenicity, ecological effects, and
epidemiology.  The TIBs are intended to assist in the
understanding and interpretation of information in the PIPs. 
Data presented through EXTOXNET documents are not based on an
exhaustive literature search.
                              E X T O X N E T
                       Extension Toxicology Network

                     Source:  Oregon State University
                           January, 1989

GLYPHOSATE

[7mRoundup[m, Rodeo

     A broad-spectrum, non-selective systemic herbicide which is highly 
active on essentially all annual and perennial plants. Glyphosate is 
usually formulated as an isopropylamine salt. While glyphosate can be 
described as an organophosphorus compound, it is not an organophosphate 
ester but a phosphanoglycine, and does not inhibit acetylcholinesterase 
activity(5).

TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS

Acute:

     The toxicity of the technical product (glyphosate) and the 
formulated product ([7mRoundup[m) is reported as almost the same value, even 
though the formulated product is only 41% glyphosate. This is unusual. 
For instance, one study of rat oral LD50s showed 4300 to 5600 mg/kg for 
the technical material, 5400 mg/kg for [7mRoundup[m and greater than 4900 
mg/kg for isopropylamine salt. Other oral LD50s for the technical 
material were 1538 to greater than 10,000 mg/kg for mice, rabbits 3500 
mg/kg, and goats 3530 to 5400 mg/kg (1,5).

     The dermal LD50 for [7mRoundup[m to rats is greater than 17,600 mg/kg 
and greater than 5000 in rabbits. In 50 human volunteers, patch tests 
produced no visible skin changes or sensitization. Inhalation LC50 for 
rats after a four-hour exposure was 3200 mg/cubic meter; there was no 
response at 1600 mg/cubic meter(1,5).

Chronic:

     Subchronic and chronic tests with glyphosate have been conducted 
with rats, dogs, mice, and rabbits in studies lasting from 21 days to 
two years. With few exceptions there were no treatment-related gross or 
cellular changes. Rats on levels greater than 5000 ppm for 90 days had 
some lung weight differences which were of uncertain significance in the 
absence of adverse cellular finding in the lungs of the animals(5). Mice 
on diets of 50,000 ppm for 90 days had reduced body weight gains and 
lifetime administration of 300,000 ppm (5400 mg/kg/day) produced a 
slight reduction of body weight and equivocal, microscopic liver and 
kidney changes. Blood chemistry and cellular components, and organ 
function were not effected.

     Neurotoxicity tests with hens fed 7.5 g/kg over three days and 
repeated 21 days later produced no effects. There was no microscopic 
evidence of nerve damage.

Reproductive:

     Two three-generation studies on rats have been performed. In the 
first study there was some reduction of fertility at the 300 ppm 
level(4). However this could not be reproduced in the second study and a 
NOEL of 10 mg/kg/day was established for reproductive effects. Wild deer 
mice suffered no apparent reproductive effects when a coniferous forest 
was sprayed at 2 lbs/acre(4).

Teratogenicity:

     Rabbits receiving 30 mg/kg/day by stomach tube on days 6 through 15 
of gestation had offspring with fetotoxic or teratogenic effects. At 
doses of 350 mg/kg/day on days 6 through 27, the dams suffered numerous 
toxic effects and some death, but no teratogenic effects were noted in 
the offspring.

     Rats given doses up to 3500 mg/kg on days 6 to 19 of gestation had 
offspring with no teratogenic effects but there were maternal and 
fetotoxic effects. No fetotoxic effects occurred at 1000 mg/kg/day.

Mutagenicity:

     Dominant lethal, host-mediated, or rec-assay tests were negative, 
as were tests in seven bacterial and one yeast systems. In human 
lymphocytes, the formulated product may be weakly active(5).

Carcinogenicity:

     Rats and dogs fed 300 ppm in their diets for two years had no 
increase in occurrence, type, or number of benign or malignant tumors. 
Rats showed some increase in microscopic lipid droplets in the liver(5). 
This effect was not seen in a later study at levels up to 600 ppm(4).

     Mice on diets containing up to 3% glyphosate (5400 mg/kg/day) had 
reduced body weights and equivocal liver and kidney changes but no 
carcinogenic effects. Blood samples were taken periodically and a series 
of functions evaluated. All tissues and organs were examined for cancer 
upon death or sacrifice.

Organ Toxicity:

     A disputed study where glyphosate was administrated into the 
stomach cavity of rats at doses up to 60 mg/kg for 28 days showed weight 
gain effects and blood effects. These are effects similar to those 
caused by materials which alter mitochondrial energy transformation(1).

Fate in Humans and Animals:

     Glyphosate is poorly absorbed from the digestive tract and is 
excreted unchanged by mammals. Rats excreted 99% and rabbits excreted 
about 90% of a single oral dose in 120 hours. Ten days after treatment 
there was 0.1 ppm or less in the tissues of rats fed 100 ppm for 19 
days. No single tissue showed accumulated(3).

     Cows, chickens, and pigs fed up to 75 ppm had undetectable levels 
(less than 0.05 ppm) in muscle tissue and fat. Levels in milk and eggs 
were also undetectable (less than 0.025 ppm).

ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

     Mallards and bobwhite quail both had an LC50 of greater than 4640 
ppm. Hatchability or time to hatch of domestic chicken eggs dipped in a 
solution of 5% had no effect. The bioaccumulation factor in chicken 
muscle, fat, eggs, and liver was as low as 1/10,000 of the environmental 
concentration(4).

     In fish the formulated product, [7mRoundup[m, was more toxic than 
glyphosate. In rainbow trout, for instance, the 96-hour LC50 was 8.3 ppm 
with [7mRoundup[m and 38 ppm with glyphosate. For bluegill the 96-hour LC50 
was 5 ppm, 78 ppm for glyphosate. The surfactant used in the [7mRoundup[m 
formulation (a modified tallow amine) is apparently somewhat more toxic 
to fish than many common surfactants. For this reason, the formulation 
for use in aquatic situations (Rodeo) omits the surfactant. There is a 
bioconcentration factor of 0.1 to 0.3 (fish/water).

     Bees have both an oral and dermal LD50 of greater than 100 ug/per 
bee.

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE

     Glyphosate is highly adsorbed on most soils especially those with 
high organic content. One study showed 7% of the applied material in the 
leachate from 30 centimeter columns. Microbial action is responsible for 
degradation with a half-life of 3 to 130 days. The primary metabolite 
aminomethyl phosphonic acid (AMPA), degrades somewhat slower than the 
parent.

     Glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to both organic and mineral matter 
and is degraded primarily by microorganisms in water to AMPA. Half-lives 
in ponds range from 12 days to 10 weeks. Because glyphosate is so 
tightly bound to the soil, not much is picked up by rain or irrigation 
water. One estimate had 1.85% of the applied chemical lost to runoff(4). 
Photodecomposition plays a minor role in environmental breakdown.

     The prime mode of action in plants is on the shikimic acid pathway. 
It appears that glyphosate may be extensively metabolized by some plants 
while remaining intact in others(2). Once in the plant tissue, the 
chemical is translocated throughout the plant including the roots. The 
half-time in forest vegetation is less than four weeks.

BASIC MANUFACTURER

Monsanto Company         Telephone: 314/694-1000
800 N Lindbergh Blvd
St Louis, MO 63167       Emergency: 314/694-4000

                                <continued>
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Common name               glyphosate
CAS # 1071-83-6           N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine
Chemical class/use        phosphanoglycine compound/herbicide
Solubility in water       10,000 ppm
Solubility in solvent     insoluble in common organics
Melting Point             200 degrees C
Vapor Pressure            "negligible" (Monsanto)
Dissociation values       2.27 (pKa)
Partition Coefficient     0.17 X 10 to the minus 2 at 20 ppm
                          0.6 X 10 to the minus 3 at 100 ppm

Exposure Guidelines
  NOEL
     rat                  10 mg/kg (ppm); renal; three generation
  HA                      700 ug/l (ppb) (lifetime)
  ADI                     0.03 mg/kg (ppm) (EPA)
                          0.3 mg/kg (ppm) (WHO)

                                <continued>
REFERENCES

1. National Library of Medicine (1987). Hazardous Substances Databank.
   TOXNET, Medlars Management Section, Bethesda, MD.

2. Grossbard, E. and D. Atkinson, Editors (1985). The Herbicide
   Glyphosate, Butterworths, Boston, MA.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987). Health Advisory, Office
   of Drinking Water.

4. Forest Service, (1984). Pesticide Background Statements, Vol. I
   Herbicides. United States Dept.of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook
   No. 633.

5. Monsanto Company (1985). Toxicology of Glyphosate and [7mRoundup[m
   Herbicide, Department of Medicine and Environmental Health, St.
   Louis, MO.

DISCLAIMER:  The information in this profile does not in any way replace 
or supersede the information on the pesticide product label/ing or other 
regulatory requirements.  Please refer to the pesticide product 
label/ing.
------------------
Gabriel A. Hegyes
Sustainable Agriculture Network
[email-masked]

 

On Wed, 6 Jul 1994 [email-masked] wrote:

> If this request does not follow proper netiquette, please let me
> know:  Does anyone have any information as to whether or not
> Round-Up breaks down in water?  Thanks very much :)
> 
> 
> 
> 

From [email-masked] Tue Jul 12 23:02:44 1994
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 94 11:47:10 CST
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Glyphosate & Surfactants

SANet,
Dr. Tom Hoogheem of Monsanto asked me to post the following response to Jim 
Dixon's comments on SANet for him. (Tom does not subscribe to Sanet and did not 
know the e-mail address.)
--
Larry Holden
Monsanto AG
[email-masked]

==== ===== ====

In a previous posting questioning the saftey of glyphosate surfactants, Jim 
Dixon, [email-masked], concluded with:
 
>I invite Mr. Hoogheem to get the facts by writing to me at 1476 Water Street,
>Kelowna, B.C., Canada V1Y 1J5.  In my opinion, it is incumbent upon the
>manufacturer when providing details of their product to include _all_ of
>the information and not just the lose data.

------
 
          Jim, give me your telephone number and I will be glad to 
          call you. I do not sidestep anything. First, the surfactant 
          DOES NOT BREAK DOWN INTO 1,4-DIOXANE. No one but you has 
          EVER made that accusation. The surfactant is POEA, 
          polyethoxylated tallow amine. Animal fat is ethoxylated to 
          make the surfactant, the same as is done for soap, 
          detergents, and shampoos, among over thousands of such goods 
          registered in the world. 1,4-dioxane is a contaminant formed 
          in the ethoxylation process; the contaminant is also 
          contained in these thousands of such goods. Regardless, when 
          you and your group made this an issue when you analyzed 
          Vision a number of years ago, I went to our surfactant 
          suppliers and asked if they could remove the contaminant. 
          They said they could and have done so.

          Thus when you talk about being responsible just remember- on 
          this issue regulatory agencies said 1,4- dioxane was not a 
          problem and it remains in many products most people 
          intentional put all over them regularly. However when groups 
          such as yours make it an issue with my product, we tried and 
          fixed it.

          Next, we have told people about our surfactant for a number 
          of years now. The information was sent to a number of 
          people, including by registered mail to your friends down at 
          NCAP. Interesting that they felt they should sue EPA to get 
          that same information.....

          Next, Rodeo does not even have a surfactant in it. Again- 
          who has the facts?

          To say the facts ain't straight sounds strange coming from 
          someone who claims the surfactant breaks down into 
          1,4-dioxane and that Rodeo has a surfactant in it. If you 
          want the facts on Roundup and glyphosate, simply write or 
          call EPA. They have just issued a document that is called 
          "The Reregistration Eligibility Document for Glyphosate". 
          Guess what? Their review is based solely on non IBT and 
          Craven data and we are ready to be reregistered and meet all 
          current data requirements. You also might write the World 
          Health Organization. Check and see what they say.
          
          When you talk about the surfactant being more toxic, what 
          type are you referring to? The surfactant does have a higher 
          acute oral LD50 than glyphosate, not surprising when you 
          think what soap would do to the walls of your stomach. Also, 
          the surfactant is more acutely toxic to fish. Again not 
          surprising when you think what soap does to a fish's gills 
          and it's ability to transfer oxygen.

          Sorry Jim, but you are going to have to come up with a lot 
          more FACTS when you are dealing with this product. And if 
          you use INTERNET, I'll be watching to make sure you are 
          indeed factual.

          Thomas J. Hoogheem
          [email-masked]

From [email-masked] Wed Jul 13 17:18:41 1994
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 11:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Angela Griffiths <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Glyphosate & Surfactants

Regarding Monsanto response to questions about surfactants.

The surfactants used in commercial preparations probably are similar to 
soap- this does not make them safe! In addition, it has often been argued 
that Glyphosate is no more toxic than table salt. This is probably true, 
but what would happen if we sprayed salt solutions on our fields in in 
waterways?

For groups questioning the safety of pesticides- I think it is important 
to acknowledge that in most cases the information provided by the 
companies is true. Most of the chemicals being produced today are an 
improvement on previous products- but this does NOT by definition make 
them safe. The baseline used by chemical companies to compare their 
products to is whats already out there. For those interested in 
sustainability, what is already there is not acceptable- so a slight 
improvement doesnt mean much!

Medicine provides a good analogy for this situation. A patient with 
cancer is told he has 2 days to live. Suddenly the doctor rushes in and 
says "great news- theres a new drug, it will prolong your life for 1 more 
monteh- it has a few side effects though and is very expensive". The 
patient still has the cancer, but now he will live a little longer. What 
the doctor neglects to tell the patient is that there is another 
unproven, perhaps risky treatment that may cure the cancer.
Note that if the patient trys the alterntaive treatment, he does not need 
the doctor or the drug! On other words, the drug probably does work to 
prolong the patients life for 1 month- but is that good enough?

_________________________________________________________________________
Angela Griffiths                                tel: (604) 822-5927                       
Resource Management and                         fax: (604) 822-9250
Environmental Studies                           email: [email-masked]   
436E-2206 East Mall
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, B.C. Canada, V6T 1Z3
__________________________________________________________________________

Article 38228 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!inxs.concert.net!taco.cc.ncsu.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!atria.com!argon!scd
From: [email-masked] (Steve Daukas)
Subject: Re: How Does Roundup Work?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Nntp-Posting-Host: argon.atria.com
Organization: Atria Software, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 18:18:36 GMT
Lines: 19

Bob Klebba ([email-masked]) wrote:

[...]

: Given the choice between a gallon
: of gasoline and a gallon of Roundup, the choice is pretty
: clear.  People seem to forget how dangerous and toxic yet
: acceptable some of the chemicals we use everyday are.

Here here!  One would do more damage dumping a gallon of paint
that a gallon of round-up!

: "Submit to Barney"
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         ;-)

Regards,
Steve

Article 38188 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ar367
From: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Subject: Re: How Does Roundup Work?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked] (Usenet News Admin)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 16:50:15 GMT
Lines: 29

The choice is not between a gallon of roundup and a gallon of
gasoline. It is between working with nature or against nature.
At the risk of starting another roundup round I, that is a big 
capital I, and it is not intended to try to make some one use
or not use roundup, whether they believe or dont believe that
roundup is safe or not, I would rather garden with nature.

What that means is that some of my veggies are going to get
eaten by bugs, my solution plant a few more, interplant and
provide a healthy soil.

Some exotic plants will not be grown in my garden if they are
not suited to Ottawa's climate, and there may be a weeds in
my lawn, thank goodness for the diversity.

What I enjoy about my garden is not that I have a prize plant
or a perfect lawn but that I know that it does not degrade
the environment, in fact enhances it. If you use chemical
fertilizers and pesticides in your garden you are contributing
to the destruction of our planet not helping, you might as well
be playing nintendo.
###]
-- 
Ken Toews    *                In life, effects are a certainty
[email-masked]  *  while causes, however conspicuous
                              are always harder to pin down.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Article 38542 of rec.gardens:
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!kestrel!hunter
From: [email-masked] (Kate Hunter)
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: How Does Roundup Work?
Date: 15 Jul 1994 15:08:06 GMT
Organization: C.C.S.O., University of Illinois
Lines: 11
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
NNTP-Posting-Host: kestrel.inhs.uiuc.edu

All of you avid gardeners out there might wish to avoid Roundup for reasons other
than your own safety - please consider the welfare and fate of animals which are
used for the testing of these and many other garden, household and personal products.
Surely the suffering caused to these animals is not worth the small convenience of
zapping the weeds and/or grass you want to get rid of in your garden.

I have a sizeable garden and have never found a need to use Roundup or any other
herbicide.  Weeding is actually a pleasurable way to get rid of frustrations built
up during the day while I'm at my job.  Everything I pull up winds up in my compost
and is then cycled back into the garden the next year.

Article 38438 of rec.gardens:
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!darwin.sura.net!news.larc.nasa.gov!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!rmcdanie
From: [email-masked] (Rae McDaniel)
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: sick kittens and poison
Date: 14 Jul 1994 19:57:38 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: beauty.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Hi gardening friends,

I'm writing to remind all of us how dangerous some of our pesticides and 
weed-killers are. We recently took in a stray kitten which had been poisoned 
(probably accidently). The vet said the symptoms looked like weed-killer or 
pesticide poisoning. The end result after three days of vet care is one kitten 
still alive, but with permanent brain damage.

Please, everybody, be careful when spraying where your children or pets hang 
out. This is a sad incident for us, and I hope none of your kids or kits 
suffer.

Article 38556 of rec.gardens:
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!news.byu.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.unomaha.edu!crcnis1.unl.edu!engvms.unl.edu!merddl
From: [email-masked]
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: How does Roundup work?
Date: 15 Jul 94 12:38:32 CST
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: engvms.unl.edu

I am not an organic gardening extremist. But I don't like the idea
of using Roundup myself. If there are couple weeds growing on the
lawn, so what? The lawn looks more natural. If you really hate it,
use a shavel or knife. It' won't take one minute to kill a weed.
I saw some lawn service people dumping one bag of chemicals on
the lawn to PREVENT WEEDS (the weeds not there yet!!). Farmers
uses Roundup, because they have no choice. They cannot hand weeding
100 acres of crops. For homeowners and backyard farmers, it's
better leave chemicals alone according to my opinion. At least
I don't like the smell of Roundup.

Article 38666 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!trent
From: [email-masked] (laura J Trent)
Subject: Re:How Does Roundup Work?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 22:45:16 GMT
Lines: 9

SO, How DOES Roundup Work??  I am against using herbicides and I garden 
completely organically.  I would like to know more about the toxicity of 
Roundup and what supposedly innocuous chemicals it leaves in the weed 
matter and the soil.  Perhaps the data would convince more gardeners to 
grow organically; the diatribes don't make much of an impact.

Thanks to anyone who van answer my queries.

Laura

From [email-masked] Mon Jul 18 18:21:41 1994
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 13:36:41 EDT
From: Larry London <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!newsdist.tc.umn.edu!dawn.mmm.com!horta.mmm.com!DUERR
From: duerr@horta
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Question about RoundUp use
Date: 18 Jul 1994 14:13:46 GMT
Organization: 3M, St. Paul, MN  USA
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: duerr@horta
NNTP-Posting-Host: horta.mmm.com

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Giovanni Resta) writes:
>I'm sorry if this was debated recently, I was away for a while.
>Recently became an householder, I have a very little garden 
>crowded with common and less common plants.
>My garden is infested by couch-grass (Triticum repens ?) and other
>difficult to eliminate weeds. In particular I can't dig out weeds' roots
>because weeds grow tangled with my plants. So I  bougth RoundUp,
>also if I'm not in general a chem fan.
>
>Few questions:
>1) on the bottle the diluition is not specified !!! Help !

	Some formulations do not require dilution.  You may have purchased
	the formulation that does not need diluting.  Read the bottle
	VERY carefully, and it should say if it is "ready to use" or 
	something like that.

>2) is it really sufficient to wet some leaves of the weed ?
>   (Due to the crowding I can't spray safely!)

	Perhaps you (or they) are talking about watering the plants first?
	Roundup works best on growing plants, and so if you water the plants
	first, then the Roundup will work better and faster.  If you do water
	allow all the plants to dry out so that the Roundup will not "wick"
	over to the plants you do not want to effect.

>2') Using stronger concentrations does allow me to treat a smaller part of
>the
>    weed, or a strong concentration will just kill the treated leaves but
>    not the plant ?

	Use EXACTLY what they say or LESS.  Get a rubber glove that goes
	up to your elbow and a cloth glove.  Put the rubber glove on first
	and then put the cloth glove on over it....you are now double  
	gloved.  Hold the gloved hand over a *dedicated* bucket (do NOT use
	this bucket for ANYTHING but catching Roundup) and put a small amount 
	of Roundup on the glove.  Now you can wipe just the plants you want to
	kill.  Washing with water any plants that you accidently touch will
	eliminate the Roundup that "got away".  Do not put so much on that the
	glove drips, or you will have little dead spots everywhere.  If some
	does drop remember to wash it with lots of water (if you wash it off
	the leaves then it cannot work on the plant).  Roundup will  work as
	a growth hormone, but not in any where near the concentrations that
	most people have around (very dilute).  When Roundup starts to do its
	thing the plant is history....the roots die first, and then the top
	buys the farm.

>3) In general how many hours or days must I wait to be able to see if
>   the application worked ?
	This depends on how actively growing the plant is.  I used some
	yesterday on weeds that had been rained on (1") about 6 hours 
	before I put on the Roundup.  Within hours I saw the weeds dying.
	During other dry times I have seen it take a week.  Be patient, a
	little goes a long way.>

>Many thanks
>Giovanni.

Soapbox On:  Roundup is a tool.  It has a specific purpose, and it will make
your life a lot easier.  It is just like a car.  When used properly a car
is a valuable tool, but in the hands of a drunk....it is a weapon.

You have nothing to fear if you use chemicals in the purposes for which they
were designed, and if you follow the directions and exercise due care.  
Chemicals are everywhere and you yourself (and EVERY other person, plant
and animal) could NOT exist without chemicals and chemical reactions.  WATER
is a chemical.  Oxygen is a chemical!  BOTH are POISONOUS!  But you don't
hear people screaming about eliminating the use of water or O2.
Soapbox off.

Brook
Internet: [email-masked]
Opinions expressed here are those of a rationally thinking person.  Many if
not most will not agree with those opinions.  If you do not agree with those
opinions, than one will be appointed for you at no cost.

From [email-masked] Mon Jul 25 02:40:52 1994
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 21:23:23 -0600 (MDT)
From: Anthony C Tweedale <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Glyphosate & Surfactants

On Tue, 12 Jul 1994 [email-masked] wrote:
> SANet,
> Dr. Tom Hoogheem of Monsanto asked me to post the following response to Jim 
> Dixon's comments on SANet for him. (Tom does not subscribe to Sanet and did
> not know the e-mail address.)
> --
> Larry Holden
> Monsanto AG
> [email-masked]

some serendipitous things cause me to respond. first, i don't recognize 
the node of the cc: address that is involved in this discussion even tho 
it's at my university. second, a friend here videotaped the proceedings 
of the '94 ntl. coalition against the misuse of pesticides (ncamp) conference,
and one of the workshops, on inerts, involved rodeo in the context of
contaminants. as i rememnber, the msds for rodeo listed dichloroethene or 
some such 2 carbon aliphatic organochlorine) at 0.45% but the label did 
not, despite epa's requirement that list A inerts be listed on the label 
(the organochlorine was on that list). monsanto explained to the nw 
coaltn for alternatives to pesticides (ncap, which was leading the workshop)
that it wasn't on the label because it's a contaminant (presumably 
of monochlorbenzene, which is on the label). i have a real problem visualizing
how an aromatic organochlorine could ever produce that much of an 
aliphatic one in its production process. can you clarify?

> In a previous posting questioning the saftey of glyphosate surfactants, Jim 
> Dixon, [email-masked], concluded with:
>  
> >I invite Mr. Hoogheem to get the facts by writing to me at 1476 Water Street,
> >Kelowna, B.C., Canada V1Y 1J5.  In my opinion, it is incumbent upon the
> >manufacturer when providing details of their product to include _all_ of
> >the information and not just the lose data.
> ------
>           Jim, give me your telephone number and I will be glad to 
>           call you. I do not sidestep anything. First, the surfactant 
>           DOES NOT BREAK DOWN INTO 1,4-DIOXANE. No one but you has 
>           EVER made that accusation. The surfactant is POEA, 
[snip]
>           Next, Rodeo does not even have a surfactant in it. Again- 

but it does recommend several to use it with, including one that has
nonylphenols (potent hormone disrupter), again from my memory of watching 
the tape of the workshop (no, rodeo was not the only subject discussed!).

[snip]
>           call EPA. They have just issued a document that is called 
>           "The Reregistration Eligibility Document for Glyphosate". 
>           Guess what? Their review is based solely on non IBT and 
>           Craven data and we are ready to be reregistered and meet all 
>           current data requirements. You also might write the World 

[snip]

and for how many formulations did monsanto use either of these 2 fradulent
(yes, convicted of fraud, on an absolutly massive scale in the case of 
ibt) in the past?

>           Sorry Jim, but you are going to have to come up with a lot 
>           more FACTS when you are dealing with this product. And if 
>           you use INTERNET, I'll be watching to make sure you are 
>           indeed factual.
>           
>           Thomas J. Hoogheem
>           [email-masked]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
tony tweedale, grad		TEMPERATE BUT ENDANGERED PLANET.  ENJOYS
env. studies program (evst)	WEATHER, NORTHERN LIGHTS, CONTINENTAL
rankin hall u. montana		DRIFT.  SEEKS CARING RELATIONSHIP WITH
missoula mt 59812		INTELLIGENT LIFEFORM. (f.o.e.)
406-542-1709	internet: [email-masked]

Article 49027 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!theo!news-server.ncren.net!taco.cc.ncsu.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ar367
From: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Subject: Re: Round Up,  Hurting Soil?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Reply-To: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
References: <[email-masked]>  
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 20:47:08 GMT
Lines: 177

In a previous posting, Thomas Mulally ([email-masked]) writes:
> I want to get rid of Bermuda grass that has taken over parts of my 
> vegetable gardem.  People have suggested Round Up.  My concern is that 
> this chemical will also kill the micro-organisms in my soil.  I have 
> spent alot of time with the composting threads and do not want to 
> destroy the work I have done.  Will Round Up kill the soil?
> 
> 
> Thanks  Tom M.

The following is from a Monsanto flyer
-Microbes break down the active ingredient of roundup in the soil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>note: active ingredient<<<<<<<<
-Roundup wont leach into the soil.....because it binds tightly to
soil particles
-Roundup does not give off fumes or odours.
-Roundup works by stopping the formulation of certain amino acids
(protein building blocks) found only in plants.
>>>>>>>>>>>Roundup is still readily absorbed thru the skin, and
excreted thru the urine. If you like roundup you will say it causes
no problems on the way, if you dont like roundup this will concern
you<<<<<<<<<
-Roundup is safe to humans, pets and wildlife when used as
directed.

The following problems warrant concern when Roundup is considered
for use: 
 
 1. PERSISTENCE.  Although the claim is often made that Roundup is
inactivated rapidly in soil, it is more accurate to say that it is
usually absorbed to soil components.  A sandy loam treated with
glyphosate at recommended application rates (e.g., 2, 5, and 10
ug/g soil) was found to drastically reduce nitrogen fixation,
growth, and nodulation of subterranean clover/Rhizobium trifolium/
planted 120 days after glyphosate treatment. 
Glyphosate clearly remains active in soils that do not adsorb it
readily. 
 
Damage to vine maple and bigleaf maple was found to increase during
the second year following treatment with glyphosate, indicating
that glyphosate persists for extended periods in plants. 
 
2. PHYTOTOXICITY.  Because glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide,
any desired vegetation must be completely protected from glyphosate
drive, mist, or drip.  As Monsanto notes in its Rounup label guide,
"...minute quantities of this herbicide can cause severe damage or
destruction to the crop, plants, 
or other areas on which treatment was not intended." 
 
3. TOXICITY OF 'INERT' INGREDIENTS. 

There is no way of knowing what you are applying when you use
roundup. According to the 1994 Solaris Product Label guide
published
by Monsanto available at 1-800-225-2883, its free, page 150
Round up weed and grass killer is 99.04% Inert ingredients.

For a complete rundown on what that 99.04% of the product could be
get: The Secret Hazards of Pesticides: Inert Ingredients. It is
available for free from the New York State Department of Law.
1-518-474-5481

4. TESTING. [The article explains that testing on glyphosate by
itself is inadequate since the inert ingredients are very important
to making Roundup work.  Most test results are "unpublished and
developed by Monsanto or laboratories hired by Monsanto."  
Other points are made about lack of cancer testing and links to
"human damage" including "conjunctivitis (inflammation oft he
eyelid and eyeball mucous membrane), dermatitis (inflammation of
the skin), and severe flu-like symptoms following exposure to
glyphosate.  Of 143 pesticides reported for causing human illness
in California in 1986, glyphosate was fourth in the number of
incidents reported."  No further details on this statistic are 
given.  

A "Roundup Information Packet" containing a series of articles on
Roundup is available for $10.50 postpaid from NCAP; P.O. Box 1393;
Eugene OR 97440.  A file of these and additional glyphsate/Roundup
articles is maintained at NCAP; these can be copied at 10
cents/page. 
 
From "Roundup, Vision, POEA, and 1,4-Dioxane: Why Full Formulations
Are the Problem." Written by Mary O'Brien--a staff scientist for
NCAP.  Vol. 9, No. 4 of the Journal of Pesticide Reform. 
 
When a letter by four Japanese emergency medicine professionals
appeared in the February 6, 1988 issue of the American medical
journal, The Lancet, a Washington toxicology consultant, David
Monroe, took note.  The Japanese authors were noting that an "inert
ingredient" in the herbicide Roundup (rather than the identified
"active" ingredient, glyphosate) accounts for the 
acute toxicity they had found in patients poisoned (some fatally)
by Roundup 

(JPR 8(1):30).  Symptoms included gastrointestinal ("GI" -ed) pain
and vomiting, swelling of the lungs and pneumonia, reduction of
blood pressure, clouding of consciousness, and red blood cell
destruction. 
 
The so-called "inert ingredient," polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA),
actually refers to a family of chemicals.  It is added to Roundup
and Vision herbicide formulations  as a surfactant, an ingredient
that will help evenly spread the active ingredient, glyphosate, on
target plants. 
 
The Japanese researchers noted that the acute lethal dose of POEA
is less than one-third (i.e., POEA is three times as toxic) that of
Roundup, and that POEA belongs to a class of surfactants that have
been reported to cause adverse GI and central nervous system
effects and damage to red blood cells. 
 
As POEA does not appear on the Roundup label (supposedly protected,
as an inert, from public disclosure under the U.S. pesticide
law...), Monroe first learned of its presence in Roundup through
the Lancet letter.  
 
Monroe recalled a U.S. EPA memorandum that discussed the presence
of 1,4-dioxane in two polyalkoxylated polyamine products ...
manufactured by the Henkel Corporation.  Knowing that POEA is a
polyalkoxylated amine, Monroe suspected that 1,4-dioxane might be
present as a contaminant of POEA.  
[ the article now describes the side effects of 1,4-dioxane, which
include liver and kidney damage, and cancer in laboratory animals. 
"The liver and kidney damage can occur regardless of the route of
1,4-dioxane exposure 
  (inhalation, oral ingestion, and/or skin application)."   This
section  concludes with this statement: 'The International Agency
for Research on   Cancer indicates that evidence is "sufficient" to
know that 1,4-dioxane  causes cancer in animals and the U.S EPA
regards 1,4-dioxane as a probable human carcinogen.'  
 
  Researchers in British Columbia went on to test Vision (Canada's
version of Roundup) checking for 1,4-dioxane contamination.  From
a 250ml sample, the  CANTEST lab detected 350 parts per million
1,4-dioxane using a purge and trap method.  That level is
equivalent to .35 percent.   now quoting again from the article: ] 
 
A 1982 EPA memo ... also discussed 1,4-dioxane as being present in
dichloroethyl ether.  The 1982 EPA memo ... had been prompted by
concern that 1,4-dioxane had been found in dichloroethyl ether at
0.42 percent and 0.55 percent.  Under "comments/recommendations" in
the memo, the EPA noted that 
the manufacturer of the contaminated dichloroethyl ether "reported
that its employees and customers were being notified of the
presence of 1,4-dioxane in dichloroethyl ether.  In addition, the
company reported that its current safety precautions include
'body-protective clothing and boots, eye protection, and monitoring
of air levels of dichloroethyl ether.'" 
 
Users of Roundup and Vision are not informed that the formulation
contains either POEA or 1,4-dioxane.  Roundup is widely used by
home owners wearing no particular protective clothing, and the
label merely states, "Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing
because of possible (eye and skin) irritation." 
 
The presence of 1,4-dioxane in Vision (and presumably in Roundup)
is a classic example of the following: 
 
 1. Full formulations, "inert" ingredients, and contaminants, not
merely the so-called "active" ingredient, can cause cancer and
other adverse chronic effects; their exemption from testing for
chronic toxicity is indefensible.  
 2. The current classification by the EPA of POEA as a "List 3"
inert ingredient  ("inert of unknown toxicity"), subject neither to
listing on the label nor toxicological testing requirements, is
indefensible. 
  3. Estimating the toxicity of glyphosate alone is meaningless
when a full formulation (e.g., Roundup, Vision) containing POEA,
1,4-dioxane, and other unlisted ingredients and contaminants is the
mixture to which people and the environment will be exposed. 
 
What you don't know can hurt you. 
--
@-->----

Article 49058 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!bnr.co.uk!bmdhh222.bnr.ca!bcarh8ac.bnr.ca!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ar367
From: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Subject: Re: Round Up,  Hurting Soil?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Reply-To: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 19:34:04 GMT
Lines: 36

In a previous posting, January ([email-masked]) writes:
>>...destroy the work I have done.  Will Round Up kill the soil?
>>
>>Thanks  Tom M.
> 
> As before mentioned, Roundup does consists of glycosate that rapidly
> breakup down.  It inhibits EPSP enzyme in the plant preventing it from
> making tryptophan and any phenolic.  The EPSP enzyme is non-existant
> in animals.  I hope this helps.
> 
> 	Jan

Very True Jan but bordering on irrelevant. What is significant
with the application of roundup and all pesticides is the
nature of not only the active ingredient but the Inert ingredient.

I would suggest that anyone who uses pesticides read
beyond the product monogram and start
with something like 

"The Secret Hazards of Pesticides: Inert Ingredients" it
is published by the New York State Department of Law.

Quite an interesting read, its free and available
from

Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany New York
12224

Phone 1-518-474-5481

--
@-->----

Article 49298 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ar367
From: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Subject: Re: Round Up,  Hurting Soil?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Reply-To: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 16:22:50 GMT
Lines: 183

In a previous posting, L. R. Fortney ([email-masked]) writes:
>    Round-up comes in several concentrations.  The inert ingredient in the
> weaker ones is water.  I think the key word is "inert"...although come to
> think of it I guess there is plenty of documented proof on the hazards
> associated with too much water.
> 
> -- 
> Lloyd Fortney ---Opinions, just opinions---

Sorry but this is simply not true, now for the facts, just the facts.

Please take the time to reread my origional post

The following is from a Monsanto flyer
-Microbes break down the active ingredient of roundup in the soil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>note: active ingredient<<<<<<<<
-Roundup wont leach into the soil.....because it binds tightly to
soil particles
-Roundup does not give off fumes or odours.
-Roundup works by stopping the formulation of certain amino acids
(protein building blocks) found only in plants.
>>>>>>>>>>>Roundup is still readily absorbed thru the skin, and
excreted thru the urine. If you like roundup you will say it causes
no problems on the way, if you dont like roundup this will concern
you<<<<<<<<<
-Roundup is safe to humans, pets and wildlife when used as
directed.

The following problems warrant concern when Roundup is considered
for use: 
 
 1. PERSISTENCE.  Although the claim is often made that Roundup is
inactivated rapidly in soil, it is more accurate to say that it is
usually absorbed to soil components.  A sandy loam treated with
glyphosate at recommended application rates (e.g., 2, 5, and 10
ug/g soil) was found to drastically reduce nitrogen fixation,
growth, and nodulation of subterranean clover/Rhizobium trifolium/
planted 120 days after glyphosate treatment. 
Glyphosate clearly remains active in soils that do not adsorb it
readily. 
 
Damage to vine maple and bigleaf maple was found to increase during
the second year following treatment with glyphosate, indicating
that glyphosate persists for extended periods in plants. 
 
2. PHYTOTOXICITY.  Because glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide,
any desired vegetation must be completely protected from glyphosate
drive, mist, or drip.  As Monsanto notes in its Rounup label guide,
"...minute quantities of this herbicide can cause severe damage or
destruction to the crop, plants, 
or other areas on which treatment was not intended." 
 
3. TOXICITY OF 'INERT' INGREDIENTS. 

There is no way of knowing what you are applying when you use
roundup. According to the 1994 Solaris Product Label guide
published
by Monsanto available at 1-800-225-2883, its free, page 150
Round up weed and grass killer is 99.04% Inert ingredients.

For a complete rundown on what that 99.04% of the product could be
get: The Secret Hazards of Pesticides: Inert Ingredients. It is
available for free from the New York State Department of Law.
1-518-474-5481

4. TESTING. [The article explains that testing on glyphosate by
itself is inadequate since the inert ingredients are very important
to making Roundup work.  Most test results are "unpublished and
developed by Monsanto or laboratories hired by Monsanto."  
Other points are made about lack of cancer testing and links to
"human damage" including "conjunctivitis (inflammation oft he
eyelid and eyeball mucous membrane), dermatitis (inflammation of
the skin), and severe flu-like symptoms following exposure to
glyphosate.  Of 143 pesticides reported for causing human illness
in California in 1986, glyphosate was fourth in the number of
incidents reported."  No further details on this statistic are 
given.  

A "Roundup Information Packet" containing a series of articles on
Roundup is available for $10.50 postpaid from NCAP; P.O. Box 1393;
Eugene OR 97440.  A file of these and additional glyphsate/Roundup
articles is maintained at NCAP; these can be copied at 10
cents/page. 
 
From "Roundup, Vision, POEA, and 1,4-Dioxane: Why Full Formulations
Are the Problem." Written by Mary O'Brien--a staff scientist for
NCAP.  Vol. 9, No. 4 of the Journal of Pesticide Reform. 
 
When a letter by four Japanese emergency medicine professionals
appeared in the February 6, 1988 issue of the American medical
journal, The Lancet, a Washington toxicology consultant, David
Monroe, took note.  The Japanese authors were noting that an "inert
ingredient" in the herbicide Roundup (rather than the identified
"active" ingredient, glyphosate) accounts for the 
acute toxicity they had found in patients poisoned (some fatally)
by Roundup 

(JPR 8(1):30).  Symptoms included gastrointestinal ("GI" -ed) pain
and vomiting, swelling of the lungs and pneumonia, reduction of
blood pressure, clouding of consciousness, and red blood cell
destruction. 
 
The so-called "inert ingredient," polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA),
actually refers to a family of chemicals.  It is added to Roundup
and Vision herbicide formulations  as a surfactant, an ingredient
that will help evenly spread the active ingredient, glyphosate, on
target plants. 
 
The Japanese researchers noted that the acute lethal dose of POEA
is less than one-third (i.e., POEA is three times as toxic) that of
Roundup, and that POEA belongs to a class of surfactants that have
been reported to cause adverse GI and central nervous system
effects and damage to red blood cells. 
 
As POEA does not appear on the Roundup label (supposedly protected,
as an inert, from public disclosure under the U.S. pesticide
law...), Monroe first learned of its presence in Roundup through
the Lancet letter.  
 
Monroe recalled a U.S. EPA memorandum that discussed the presence
of 1,4-dioxane in two polyalkoxylated polyamine products ...
manufactured by the Henkel Corporation.  Knowing that POEA is a
polyalkoxylated amine, Monroe suspected that 1,4-dioxane might be
present as a contaminant of POEA.  
[ the article now describes the side effects of 1,4-dioxane, which
include liver and kidney damage, and cancer in laboratory animals. 
"The liver and kidney damage can occur regardless of the route of
1,4-dioxane exposure 
  (inhalation, oral ingestion, and/or skin application)."   This
section  concludes with this statement: 'The International Agency
for Research on   Cancer indicates that evidence is "sufficient" to
know that 1,4-dioxane  causes cancer in animals and the U.S EPA
regards 1,4-dioxane as a probable human carcinogen.'  
 
  Researchers in British Columbia went on to test Vision (Canada's
version of Roundup) checking for 1,4-dioxane contamination.  From
a 250ml sample, the  CANTEST lab detected 350 parts per million
1,4-dioxane using a purge and trap method.  That level is
equivalent to .35 percent.   now quoting again from the article: ] 
 
A 1982 EPA memo ... also discussed 1,4-dioxane as being present in
dichloroethyl ether.  The 1982 EPA memo ... had been prompted by
concern that 1,4-dioxane had been found in dichloroethyl ether at
0.42 percent and 0.55 percent.  Under "comments/recommendations" in
the memo, the EPA noted that 
the manufacturer of the contaminated dichloroethyl ether "reported
that its employees and customers were being notified of the
presence of 1,4-dioxane in dichloroethyl ether.  In addition, the
company reported that its current safety precautions include
'body-protective clothing and boots, eye protection, and monitoring
of air levels of dichloroethyl ether.'" 
 
Users of Roundup and Vision are not informed that the formulation
contains either POEA or 1,4-dioxane.  Roundup is widely used by
home owners wearing no particular protective clothing, and the
label merely states, "Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing
because of possible (eye and skin) irritation." 
 
The presence of 1,4-dioxane in Vision (and presumably in Roundup)
is a classic example of the following: 
 
 1. Full formulations, "inert" ingredients, and contaminants, not
merely the so-called "active" ingredient, can cause cancer and
other adverse chronic effects; their exemption from testing for
chronic toxicity is indefensible.  
 2. The current classification by the EPA of POEA as a "List 3"
inert ingredient  ("inert of unknown toxicity"), subject neither to
listing on the label nor toxicological testing requirements, is
indefensible. 
  3. Estimating the toxicity of glyphosate alone is meaningless
when a full formulation (e.g., Roundup, Vision) containing POEA,
1,4-dioxane, and other unlisted ingredients and contaminants is the
mixture to which people and the environment will be exposed. 
 
What you don't know can hurt you. 
--
Wisdom                                  *  
Knowledge<------offline                 *  Ken Toews
Information<----available online        *  Nepean Ontario Canada
Data<-----------commonly found online   *

From [email-masked] Apr  9 21:18:21 1995
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 19:01:34 -0800
From: Allyn Weaks <[email-masked]>
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Is "Roundup" Safe Way To Kill A Lawn

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (John Tusciuk)
wrote:

> Bill Dill ([email-masked]) wrote:
[...snip...]
> : Can anyone tell me anything about Roundup?  Is there any truly safe way to
> : kill off a lawn?
> 
> I've never heard of Roundup causing any problems, but if you are
> worried about it, ask the landscaper for the chemical data sheets
> (there's some acronym for these, but I can't remember it).  These list
> all of the possible hazards associated with use of a given chemical
> and employers (at least in Michigan) have to have these someplace
> accessible to any employees that may be exposed to the chemical, so
> I'm sure he's at least got a copy.

Material Safety Data Sheet.  Indeed, you should obtain and read these for
any herbicide/pesticide etc before you use it.  But be aware that it
doesn't tell the whole story; only the 'active' ingredients need to be
disclosed in the ingredients list.  Many companies manage to hide
hazardous materials as 'inert' ingredients.  Roundup is one of the (many)
offenders.   Glyphosate is fairly safe to animals - it quickly binds
tightly to many soils (n.b. it may take months or years to actually
degrade, and it doesn't bind well to sands and coarse silt, where it can
remain active to retard new plant growth until it does degrade), and is
not very toxic if you get it on your skin, or even breathe it.  But one of
the 'inert' ingredients is a surfactant polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) which
often contains 1,4-dioxane (a carcinogen) as a contaminent.  POEA is
easily absorbed through the skin and has caused acute poisoning on its own
- it is much more toxic than glyphosate.  This surfactant is one of the
main reasons that Roundup sometimes works better than its clones with the
same active ingredients; it causes more of the glyphosate to be absorbed
by the plant.  Of course, a lack of POEA in a clone doesn't necessarily
make a clone safer - depends on what _they_ hide in their 'inert'
ingredients...

So use Roundup (or clone) where non-toxic solutions are impractical (I'll
be attacking my bindweed with it this year) but make sure you don't
breathe it or get it on your skin, and keep it away from kids and pets. 
Gloves and long sleeves are a good idea, as is painting it on instead of
spraying when possible (hard to do to a lawn...).  And if you lack clay in
your soil, you should probably wait a while before you replant.  But don't
be too paranoid; drinking the stuff outright will only kill you about 10%
of the time... and if you do spill a bit of the stuff on you, most will
wash off with *soap* and water.

Meanwhile, complain to your congress critters about the appalling laxity
in labelling requirements.

A reference:

Author:        Martinez-T-T.  Brown-K.
Author Affil.: Department of Pharmacology, St. Louis College of Pharmacy,
               Missouri 63110.
Title:         Oral and pulmonary toxicology of the surfactant used in
               roundup herbicide.
Source:        Proc-West-Pharmacol-Soc.  1991.  34.  P 43-6.
Journal Title: PROCEEDINGS-OF-THE-WESTERN-PHARMACOLOGY-SOCIETY.
-- 
Allyn Weaks
[email-masked]

From [email-masked] Apr  9 21:29:56 1995
Date: 9 Mar 95 14:48:26 -0600
From: [email-masked]
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Is "Roundup" Safe Way To Kill A Lawn

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Martha Frost) writes:
>
> The name of the "right-to-know" list of exposure hazard is "Material Safety 
> Data Sheet" which is provided by the manufacturer upon request. "MSDS" is 
> probably the common acronym. Incidentally, Glyphosate is the active 
> ingredient, I believe, and is one of the compounds that water purveyors (ie, 
> public utilities) must test the drinking water supply for.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is strongly bound to soil
particles.  It degrades there fairly quickly (days to a few weeks), and
does not pose much of a threat to water supplies.

I think you're confusing Lasso and Roundup (*where* do they get these
names??)  Lasso has atrazine as a main ingredient, and it does indeed
get into groundwater (and the drinking water system).

I'm willing to use glyphosate on a controlled basis.  I'm not willing
to use atrazine at all.

Kay Klier  [email-masked]

From [email-masked] Apr  9 22:47:56 1995
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 20:44:09 GMT
From: Ken Toews <[email-masked]>
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Is "Roundup" Safe Way To Kill A Lawn

The following is from a Monsanto flyer

-Microbes break down the active ingredient of roundup in the soil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>note: active ingredient<<<<<<<<

-Roundup wont leach into the soil.....because it binds tightly to
soil particles

-Roundup does not give off fumes or odours.

-Roundup works by stopping the formulation of certain amino acids
(protein building blocks) found only in plants.
>>>>>>>>>>>Roundup is still readily absorbed thru the skin, and
excreted thru the urine. If you like roundup you will say it causes
no problems on the way, if you dont like roundup this will concern
you<<<<<<<<<

-Roundup is safe to humans, pets and wildlife when used as
directed.

The following problems warrant concern when Roundup is considered
for use: 
 
 1. PERSISTENCE.  Although the claim is often made that Roundup is
inactivated rapidly in soil, it is more accurate to say that it is
usually absorbed to soil components.  A sandy loam treated with
glyphosate at recommended application rates (e.g., 2, 5, and 10
ug/g soil) was found to drastically reduce nitrogen fixation,
growth, and nodulation of subterranean clover/Rhizobium trifolium/
planted 120 days after glyphosate treatment. 
Glyphosate clearly remains active in soils that do not adsorb it
readily. 
 
Damage to vine maple and bigleaf maple was found to increase during
the second year following treatment with glyphosate, indicating
that glyphosate persists for extended periods in plants. 
 
2. PHYTOTOXICITY.  Because glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide,
any desired vegetation must be completely protected from glyphosate
drive, mist, or drip.  As Monsanto notes in its Rounup label guide,
"...minute quantities of this herbicide can cause severe damage or
destruction to the crop, plants, 
or other areas on which treatment was not intended." 
 
3. TOXICITY OF 'INERT' INGREDIENTS. 

There is no way of knowing what you are applying when you use
roundup. According to the 1994 Solaris Product Label guide
published
by Monsanto available at 1-800-225-2883, its free, page 150
Round up weed and grass killer is 99.04% Inert ingredients.

For a complete rundown on what that 99.04% of the product could be
get: The Secret Hazards of Pesticides: Inert Ingredients. It is
available for free from the New York State Department of Law.
1-518-474-5481

4. TESTING. [The article explains that testing on glyphosate by
itself is inadequate since the inert ingredients are very important
to making Roundup work.  Most test results are "unpublished and
developed by Monsanto or laboratories hired by Monsanto."  
Other points are made about lack of cancer testing and links to
"human damage" including "conjunctivitis (inflammation oft he
eyelid and eyeball mucous membrane), dermatitis (inflammation of
the skin), and severe flu-like symptoms following exposure to
glyphosate.  Of 143 pesticides reported for causing human illness
in California in 1986, glyphosate was fourth in the number of
incidents reported."  No further details on this statistic are 
given.  

A "Roundup Information Packet" containing a series of articles on
Roundup is available for $10.50 postpaid from NCAP; P.O. Box 1393;
Eugene OR 97440.  A file of these and additional glyphsate/Roundup
articles is maintained at NCAP; these can be copied at 10
cents/page. 
 
>From "Roundup, Vision, POEA, and 1,4-Dioxane: Why Full Formulations
Are the Problem." Written by Mary O'Brien--a staff scientist for
NCAP.  Vol. 9, No. 4 of the Journal of Pesticide Reform. 
 
When a letter by four Japanese emergency medicine professionals
appeared in the February 6, 1988 issue of the American medical
journal, The Lancet, a Washington toxicology consultant, David
Monroe, took note.  The Japanese authors were noting that an "inert
ingredient" in the herbicide Roundup (rather than the identified
"active" ingredient, glyphosate) accounts for the 
acute toxicity they had found in patients poisoned (some fatally)
by Roundup 

(JPR 8(1):30).  Symptoms included gastrointestinal ("GI" -ed) pain
and vomiting, swelling of the lungs and pneumonia, reduction of
blood pressure, clouding of consciousness, and red blood cell
destruction. 
 
The so-called "inert ingredient," polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA),
actually refers to a family of chemicals.  It is added to Roundup
and Vision herbicide formulations  as a surfactant, an ingredient
that will help evenly spread the active ingredient, glyphosate, on
target plants. 
 
The Japanese researchers noted that the acute lethal dose of POEA
is less than one-third (i.e., POEA is three times as toxic) that of
Roundup, and that POEA belongs to a class of surfactants that have
been reported to cause adverse GI and central nervous system
effects and damage to red blood cells. 
 
As POEA does not appear on the Roundup label (supposedly protected,
as an inert, from public disclosure under the U.S. pesticide
law...), Monroe first learned of its presence in Roundup through
the Lancet letter.  
 
Monroe recalled a U.S. EPA memorandum that discussed the presence
of 1,4-dioxane in two polyalkoxylated polyamine products ...
manufactured by the Henkel Corporation.  Knowing that POEA is a
polyalkoxylated amine, Monroe suspected that 1,4-dioxane might be
present as a contaminant of POEA.  
[ the article now describes the side effects of 1,4-dioxane, which
include liver and kidney damage, and cancer in laboratory animals. 
"The liver and kidney damage can occur regardless of the route of
1,4-dioxane exposure 
  (inhalation, oral ingestion, and/or skin application)."   This
section  concludes with this statement: 'The International Agency
for Research on   Cancer indicates that evidence is "sufficient" to
know that 1,4-dioxane  causes cancer in animals and the U.S EPA
regards 1,4-dioxane as a probable human carcinogen.'  
 
  Researchers in British Columbia went on to test Vision (Canada's
version of Roundup) checking for 1,4-dioxane contamination.  From
a 250ml sample, the  CANTEST lab detected 350 parts per million
1,4-dioxane using a purge and trap method.  That level is
equivalent to .35 percent.   now quoting again from the article: ] 
 
A 1982 EPA memo ... also discussed 1,4-dioxane as being present in
dichloroethyl ether.  The 1982 EPA memo ... had been prompted by
concern that 1,4-dioxane had been found in dichloroethyl ether at
0.42 percent and 0.55 percent.  Under "comments/recommendations" in
the memo, the EPA noted that 
the manufacturer of the contaminated dichloroethyl ether "reported
that its employees and customers were being notified of the
presence of 1,4-dioxane in dichloroethyl ether.  In addition, the
company reported that its current safety precautions include
'body-protective clothing and boots, eye protection, and monitoring
of air levels of dichloroethyl ether.'" 
 
Users of Roundup and Vision are not informed that the formulation
contains either POEA or 1,4-dioxane.  Roundup is widely used by
home owners wearing no particular protective clothing, and the
label merely states, "Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing
because of possible (eye and skin) irritation." 
 
The presence of 1,4-dioxane in Vision (and presumably in Roundup)
is a classic example of the following: 
 
 1. Full formulations, "inert" ingredients, and contaminants, not
merely the so-called "active" ingredient, can cause cancer and
other adverse chronic effects; their exemption from testing for
chronic toxicity is indefensible.  
 2. The current classification by the EPA of POEA as a "List 3"
inert ingredient  ("inert of unknown toxicity"), subject neither to
listing on the label nor toxicological testing requirements, is
indefensible. 
  3. Estimating the toxicity of glyphosate alone is meaningless
when a full formulation (e.g., Roundup, Vision) containing POEA,
1,4-dioxane, and other unlisted ingredients and contaminants is the
mixture to which people and the environment will be exposed. 
 
What you don't know can hurt you. 
--
Ken Toews                     Yes son, when I was a boy, if you wanted to talk
Nepean Ontario Canada         to someone you actually looked them in the eye,
                              not that anyone actually liked it, but yup,
                              those rumours were true, people touched too....

Article 69901 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ar367
From: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Subject: Re: How dangerous is Roundup?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked] (Ken Toews)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 18:21:07 GMT
Lines: 169

The following is from a Monsanto flyer
-Microbes break down the active ingredient of roundup in the soil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>note: active ingredient<<<<<<<<
-Roundup wont leach into the soil.....because it binds tightly to
soil particles
-Roundup does not give off fumes or odours.
-Roundup works by stopping the formulation of certain amino acids
(protein building blocks) found only in plants.
>>>>>>>>>>>Roundup is still readily absorbed thru the skin, and
excreted thru the urine. If you like roundup you will say it causes
no problems on the way, if you dont like roundup this will concern
you<<<<<<<<<
-Roundup is safe to humans, pets and wildlife when used as
directed.

The following problems warrant concern when Roundup is considered
for use: 
 
 1. PERSISTENCE.  Although the claim is often made that Roundup is
inactivated rapidly in soil, it is more accurate to say that it is
usually absorbed to soil components.  A sandy loam treated with
glyphosate at recommended application rates (e.g., 2, 5, and 10
ug/g soil) was found to drastically reduce nitrogen fixation,
growth, and nodulation of subterranean clover/Rhizobium trifolium/
planted 120 days after glyphosate treatment. 
Glyphosate clearly remains active in soils that do not adsorb it
readily. 
 
Damage to vine maple and bigleaf maple was found to increase during
the second year following treatment with glyphosate, indicating
that glyphosate persists for extended periods in plants. 
 
2. PHYTOTOXICITY.  Because glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide,
any desired vegetation must be completely protected from glyphosate
drive, mist, or drip.  As Monsanto notes in its Rounup label guide,
"...minute quantities of this herbicide can cause severe damage or
destruction to the crop, plants, 
or other areas on which treatment was not intended." 
 
3. TOXICITY OF 'INERT' INGREDIENTS. 

There is no way of knowing what you are applying when you use
roundup. According to the 1994 Solaris Product Label guide
published
by Monsanto available at 1-800-225-2883, its free, page 150
Round up weed and grass killer is 99.04% Inert ingredients.

For a complete rundown on what that 99.04% of the product could be
get: The Secret Hazards of Pesticides: Inert Ingredients. It is
available for free from the New York State Department of Law.
1-518-474-5481

4. TESTING. [The article explains that testing on glyphosate by
itself is inadequate since the inert ingredients are very important
to making Roundup work.  Most test results are "unpublished and
developed by Monsanto or laboratories hired by Monsanto."  
Other points are made about lack of cancer testing and links to
"human damage" including "conjunctivitis (inflammation oft he
eyelid and eyeball mucous membrane), dermatitis (inflammation of
the skin), and severe flu-like symptoms following exposure to
glyphosate.  Of 143 pesticides reported for causing human illness
in California in 1986, glyphosate was fourth in the number of
incidents reported."  No further details on this statistic are 
given.  

A "Roundup Information Packet" containing a series of articles on
Roundup is available for $10.50 postpaid from NCAP; P.O. Box 1393;
Eugene OR 97440.  A file of these and additional glyphsate/Roundup
articles is maintained at NCAP; these can be copied at 10
cents/page. 
 
From "Roundup, Vision, POEA, and 1,4-Dioxane: Why Full Formulations
Are the Problem." Written by Mary O'Brien--a staff scientist for
NCAP.  Vol. 9, No. 4 of the Journal of Pesticide Reform. 
 
When a letter by four Japanese emergency medicine professionals
appeared in the February 6, 1988 issue of the American medical
journal, The Lancet, a Washington toxicology consultant, David
Monroe, took note.  The Japanese authors were noting that an "inert
ingredient" in the herbicide Roundup (rather than the identified
"active" ingredient, glyphosate) accounts for the 
acute toxicity they had found in patients poisoned (some fatally)
by Roundup 

(JPR 8(1):30).  Symptoms included gastrointestinal ("GI" -ed) pain
and vomiting, swelling of the lungs and pneumonia, reduction of
blood pressure, clouding of consciousness, and red blood cell
destruction. 
 
The so-called "inert ingredient," polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA),
actually refers to a family of chemicals.  It is added to Roundup
and Vision herbicide formulations  as a surfactant, an ingredient
that will help evenly spread the active ingredient, glyphosate, on
target plants. 
 
The Japanese researchers noted that the acute lethal dose of POEA
is less than one-third (i.e., POEA is three times as toxic) that of
Roundup, and that POEA belongs to a class of surfactants that have
been reported to cause adverse GI and central nervous system
effects and damage to red blood cells. 
 
As POEA does not appear on the Roundup label (supposedly protected,
as an inert, from public disclosure under the U.S. pesticide
law...), Monroe first learned of its presence in Roundup through
the Lancet letter.  
 
Monroe recalled a U.S. EPA memorandum that discussed the presence
of 1,4-dioxane in two polyalkoxylated polyamine products ...
manufactured by the Henkel Corporation.  Knowing that POEA is a
polyalkoxylated amine, Monroe suspected that 1,4-dioxane might be
present as a contaminant of POEA.  
[ the article now describes the side effects of 1,4-dioxane, which
include liver and kidney damage, and cancer in laboratory animals. 
"The liver and kidney damage can occur regardless of the route of
1,4-dioxane exposure 
  (inhalation, oral ingestion, and/or skin application)."   This
section  concludes with this statement: 'The International Agency
for Research on   Cancer indicates that evidence is "sufficient" to
know that 1,4-dioxane  causes cancer in animals and the U.S EPA
regards 1,4-dioxane as a probable human carcinogen.'  
 
  Researchers in British Columbia went on to test Vision (Canada's
version of Roundup) checking for 1,4-dioxane contamination.  From
a 250ml sample, the  CANTEST lab detected 350 parts per million
1,4-dioxane using a purge and trap method.  That level is
equivalent to .35 percent.   now quoting again from the article: ] 
 
A 1982 EPA memo ... also discussed 1,4-dioxane as being present in
dichloroethyl ether.  The 1982 EPA memo ... had been prompted by
concern that 1,4-dioxane had been found in dichloroethyl ether at
0.42 percent and 0.55 percent.  Under "comments/recommendations" in
the memo, the EPA noted that 
the manufacturer of the contaminated dichloroethyl ether "reported
that its employees and customers were being notified of the
presence of 1,4-dioxane in dichloroethyl ether.  In addition, the
company reported that its current safety precautions include
'body-protective clothing and boots, eye protection, and monitoring
of air levels of dichloroethyl ether.'" 
 
Users of Roundup and Vision are not informed that the formulation
contains either POEA or 1,4-dioxane.  Roundup is widely used by
home owners wearing no particular protective clothing, and the
label merely states, "Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing
because of possible (eye and skin) irritation." 
 
The presence of 1,4-dioxane in Vision (and presumably in Roundup)
is a classic example of the following: 
 
 1. Full formulations, "inert" ingredients, and contaminants, not
merely the so-called "active" ingredient, can cause cancer and
other adverse chronic effects; their exemption from testing for
chronic toxicity is indefensible.  
 2. The current classification by the EPA of POEA as a "List 3"
inert ingredient  ("inert of unknown toxicity"), subject neither to
listing on the label nor toxicological testing requirements, is
indefensible. 
  3. Estimating the toxicity of glyphosate alone is meaningless
when a full formulation (e.g., Roundup, Vision) containing POEA,
1,4-dioxane, and other unlisted ingredients and contaminants is the
mixture to which people and the environment will be exposed. 
 
What you don't know can hurt you. 
--
Email From:        |   Support the Sea Sheperd Conservation Society
Ken Toews          |   Email [email-masked] to subscribe to listserv
Nepean Ontario     |   SSCS P.O. Box 48446 Vancouver BC V7X 1A2
Canada              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WHALES    FOREVER<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From [email-masked] Thu Mar  5 01:05:11 1998
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 22:03:14 EST
From: MojaveByrd <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Roundup in Schools

Hi - I don't know anything at all about Permaculture.  I saw it on the
Gardening boards and my curiousity led me to join the mailing list.  But, I do
have some information on RoundUp weed killer.  Here, in the States, I've had
no less than 3 veterinarians warn me that no matter how safe RoundUp says it
is, it has been proven that it is the NUMBER ONE cause of LEUKEMIA in dogs.
From [email-masked] Sat Mar  7 13:28:46 1998
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:54:39 -0800
From: Jeff Owens <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Roundup in Schools

Here are some old posts regarding Roundup that may have something
useful.

For good information on Roundup and court cases go to Pesticide Action
Network North America.  Web site
http://www.gks.com/library/pesticide/panna.html

Then go down to PESTIS Database and do a search for roundup.  ( Submit
query to PESTIS now) you will find things such as this:

Gopher Menu

    Score: 100  Pages:  18  Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology. Caroline
    Score:  64  Pages:  19  Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and 
    Score:  53  Pages:   2  SECOND ROUNDUP BEAUTIFICATION EFFORT,
    Score:  53  Pages:   2  Walter Epp is Wrong on Roundup. Thomas
    Score:  28  Pages:   3  PANUPS: Weeds Could Develop Resistance
    Score:  23  Pages:   2  PANUPS: Monsanto and Biotech Company
    Score:  23  Pages:   2  Monsanto and Biotech Company Join
    Score:  20  Pages:   2  Proposed Glyphosate Plant Could Become
    Score:  20  Pages:   4  Opposition Grows to Genetically
    Score:  20  Pages:  27  Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 70,
    Score:  17  Pages:   3  PANUPS: Australian Ryegrass Resists 
    Score:  17  Pages:   3  PANUPS: Monsanto Agrees to Change Ads
    Score:  15  Pages:   8  Farming In Good Taste. Mark Arax. Farmer
    Score:  15  Pages:   9  Lodi's Dynamic Duo Cuts Chemicals by
    Score:  15  Pages:   1  Substantial Reductions in Glyphosate.
    Score:  15  Pages:   3  PANUPS: Latin American Pesticide Market 
    Score:  15  Pages:   3  PANUPS: Opposition Grows to Genetically 
    Score:  15  Pages:   3  PANUPS: U.S. Court Rules Inert
    Score:  12  Pages:   2  More Pesticide Study Fraud? Global
    Score:  12  Pages:   1  Spraying Damages Crops in Brazil. 
    Score:  12  Pages:   3  South African Police Spray Paraquat In
    Score:  12  Pages:   9  Government Pesticide Policy in Nicaragua
    Score:  12  Pages:   4  Deadly Deceit: Secret Pesticide
    Score:  12  Pages:   3  Beyond Banning Paraquat. Angus Wright
    Score:  12  Pages:   2  Pesticide-Testing Lab Investigated for
    Score:  12  Pages:   1  Headlines, Michelle Thom,
    Score:  12  Pages:   2  Europeans Commercialize Genetically
    Score:  12  Pages:   3  Pesticides Cause Massive Bird Kills.
    Score:  12  Pages:   1  Monsanto Sued Over Herbicide Resistance
    Score:  12  Pages:   8  Biological Farming in Hilmar. Mark Arax.
    Score:  12  Pages:   7  Leafhoppers in Retreat at Savage Island
    Score:  12  Pages:   5  Organic Cotton Monitor, Volume 1, Number
    Score:  12  Pages:   2  PANUPS: EPA Approves Bromoxynil on
    Score:  12  Pages:   2  MORE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
    Score:  12  Pages:   3  PANUPS: Worldwide Pesticide Sales
-- 

Ten reasons to "NOT" use roundup.

Compiled by Caroline Cox, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to
Pesticides- (NCAP)

	Roundup, and related herbicides with glyphosate as an active
ingredient, are advertised as products that can "eradicate weeds and
unwanted grasses effectively with a high level of environmental safety."
However, an independent, accurate evaluation of their health and
environmental hazards can draw conclusions very different from those
presented in the ads.  Consider these facts:

1.    Glyphosate can be persistent.  In tests conducted by Monsanto,
manufacturer of
glyphosate-containing herbicides, up to 140 days were required for half
of the applied glyphosate to break down or disappear from agricultural
soils.  At harvest, residues of glyphosate were found in lettuce,
carrots, and barley planted one year after glyphosate treatment.
2.     Glyphosate can drift.  Test conducted by the University of
California, Davis, found that glyphosate drifted up to 400 meters (1300
feet) during ground applications and 800 meters 12600 feet) during
aerial applications.
3.     Glyphosate is acutely toxic to humans.  Ingesting about 3/4 of a
cup can be lethal.  Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, lung
congestion, and erosion of the intestinal tract.  Between 1984 and 1990
in California, glyphosate was the third most frequently reported cause
of illness elated to agricultural pesticide use.

4.     Glyphosate has shown a wide spectrum of chronic toxicity in
laboratory tests.  The National Toxicology Program found that chronic
feeding of glyphosate caused salivary gland lesions, reduced sperm
counts, and a lengthened estrous cycle (how often an individual comes
into heat).  Other chronic effects found in laboratory tests include an
increase in the frequency of lethal mutations in fruit flies, an
increase in frequency of pancreas and liver tumors in male rats along
with an increase in the frequency of thyroid tumors in females, and
cataracts. (ne fruit fly study used Roundup; the other studies used
glyphosate.)

5.     Roundup contains toxic trade secret ingredients.  These include
polyethoxylated tallowamines, causing nausea and diarrhea, and
isopropylamine, causing chemical pneumonia, laryngitis, headache, and
bums.

6.     Roundup kills beneficial insects.  Tests conducted by !he
International Organization for Biological Control showed that Roundup
caused mortality of live beneficial species: a Thrichgramma, a predatory
mite, a lacewing, a ladybug, and a predatory beetle.

7.     Glyphosate is hazardous to earthworms, Tests using New Zealand's
most common earthworm showed that glyphosate, in amounts as low as 1/20
of standard application rates, reduced it- growth and slowed its
development.

8.     Roundup inhibits mycorrhizal fungi.  Canadian studies have shown
that as little as 1 part per million of Roundup can reduce the growth or
colonization of mycorrhizal fungi.

9.     Glyphosate reduces nitrogen fixation.  Amounts as small as 2
parts per million have had significant effects, and effects have been
measured up to 120 days after treatment.  Nitrogen- fixing bacteria
shown to be impacted by glyphosate include a species found on soybeans
and several species found on clover.

10.     Roundup can increase the spread or seventy of plant diseases. 
Treatment with roundup  increased the severity of Rhizoctonia root rot
in barley, increased the amount and growth of take-all fungus, a wheat
disease), and reduced the ability of bean plants to defend themselves
against anthracnose.

	These facts about Roundup are taken From a two-part article about the
health and environmental hazards of glyphosate published in NCAP's
Journal of Pesticide Reform.  Copies of the article, with complete
references for all of .the information presented, are available from
NCAP for $2.00. NCAP,  PO Box 1391; Eugene, OR 97440; (541) 344-5044.

  ------------------------------------------
A farmer responds to the above list.
> 
> Support organic farmers!!!!
> 
> Ten reasons to "NOT" use roundup.
> 
> Compiled by Caroline Cox, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to
> Pesticides- (NCAP)
> 

Sorry John but its time for a little balanced scientific reasoning (of
which you appear to have very little).
<snip>
> 
> 1.    Glyphosate can be persistent.  

You quote residues....parts per million or billion are harmless. 

> 2.     Glyphosate can drift.  

Again...but in what concentration?

> 3.     Glyphosate is acutely toxic to humans.  Ingesting about 3/4 of a
> cup can be lethal. 

So is 3/4 cup of table salt but should we ban it too?
 
> 4.     Glyphosate has shown a wide spectrum of chronic toxicity in
> laboratory tests.  

again....out of context and irrelevant
> 
> 5.     Roundup contains toxic trade secret ingredients.  

The dose makes the poison...see above
> 
> 6.     Roundup kills beneficial insects.  

Don't confuse lab tests with field studies...lab tests are notoriously
impractical.

> 
<snip>

I have no experience with your other points, thus am unqualified to
comment.  However, I would like to point out that glyphosate will
probably  go down in history as  modern farming's safest and most
effective single product.  End of story.  Why do you people have such a
problem with organic chemicals, but will happily use seaweed extract etc
which is usually untested and occasionally full of arsenic, selenium
etc?

From [email-masked] Tue Jun 29 14:16:35 1999
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:58:33 EDT
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Roundup "the environmentally friendly herbicide"

Subject: Roundup and Cancer

PRESS RELEASE - 22 JUNE - New Study Links Monsanto's Roundup to Cancer

A recent study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael
Eriksson of Sweden [1], has revealed clear links between one of the world's
biggest selling herbicide, glyphosate, to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of
cancer [2].

In the study published in the 15 March 1999 Journal of American Cancer
Society, the researchers also maintain that exposure to glyphosate 'yielded
increased risks for NHL.' They stress that with the rapidly increasing use
of glyphosate since the time the study was carried out, 'glyphosate
deserves further epidemiologic studies.'

Glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, is the world's most widely used
herbicide. It is estimated that for 1998, over a 112,000 tonnes of
glyphosate was used world-wide. It indiscriminately kills off a wide
variety of weeds after application and is primarily used to control annual
and perennial plants.

71% of genetically engineered crops planted in 1998 are designed to be
resistant to herbicides such as glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto as
Roundup. Companies developing herbicide resistant crops are also increasing
their production capacity for the herbicides such as glyphosate, and also
requesting permits for higher residues of these chemicals in genetically
engineered food. For example, Monsanto have already received permits for a
threefold increase in herbicide residues on genetically engineered soybeans
in Europe and the U.S., up from 6 parts per million (PPM) to 20 PPM.

According to Sadhbh O' Neill of Genetic Concern, 'this study reinforces
concerns by environmentalists and health professionals that far from
reducing herbicide use, glyphosate resistant crops may result in increased
residues to which we as consumers will be exposed in our food.'

'Increased residues of glyphosate and its metabolites are already on sale
via genetically engineered soya, common in processed foods. However no
studies of the effects of GE soya sprayed with Roundup on health have been
carried out either on animals or humans to date,' she continued.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics from 1997
show that expanded plantings of Roundup Ready soybeans (i.e. soybeans
genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide) resulted in a 72%
increase in the use of glyphosate. According to the Pesticides Action
Network, scientists estimate that plants genetically engineered to be
herbicide resistant will actually triple the amount of herbicides used.
Farmers, knowing that their crop can tolerate or resist being killed off by
the herbicides, will tend to use them more liberally.

O' Neill concluded: 'The EPA when authorising Monsanto's field trials for
Roundup-ready sugar beet did not consider the issue of glyphosate. They
considered this to be the remit of the Pesticides Control Service of the
Department of Agriculture. Thus nobody has included the effects of
increasing the use of glyphosate in the risk/benefit analysis carried out.
It is yet another example of how regulatory authorities supposedly
protecting public health have failed to implement the 'precautionary
principle' with respect to GMOs.'

ENDS

Further information: Sadhbh O' Neill at 01-4760360 or 087-2258599 or
(home) 01-6774052
Notes

[1] Lennart Hardell, M.D., PhD. Department of Oncology, Orebro Medical
Centre, Orebro, Sweden and Miikael Eriksson, M.D., PhD, Department of
Oncology, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, 'A Case-Control Study of
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides', Cancer, March 15, 1999/
Volume 85/ Number 6.

The findings are based on a population-based case-control study conducted
in Sweden between 1987 - 1990. The necessary data was ascertained by a
series of comprehensive questionnaires and follow-up telephone interviews.
Dr. Hardell and Dr. Eriksson found that 'exposure to herbicides and
fungicides resulted in significantly increased risks for NHL'.

[2] Lymphoma is a form of cancer that afflicts the lymphatic system. It
can occur at virtually any part of the body but the initial symptoms are
usually seen as swellings around the lymph nodes at the base of the neck.
There are basically two main kinds of lymphoma, i.e. Hodgkin's disease and
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The incidence of NHL has increased rapidly in most Western countries over
the last few decades. According to the American Cancer Society, there has
been an alarming 80% increase in incidences of NHL since the early 1970's.

To Unsubscribe:  Email [email-masked] with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".  If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email [email-masked] with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail

From [email-masked] Fri Jul 23 12:16:57 1999
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:16:35 -0400
From: Alex McGregor <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Glyphosates and NHL

To all those who wanted more references to studies linking glyphosate
exposure to non-Hodgkins lynphoma. This is from a recent Rachel's
Weekly:

One of the herbicides linked to NHL by the most recent Hardell
study is glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the trade name
Roundup. A previous study of human subjects in 1998 had
implicated Roundup in hairy cell leukemia (cancer of the
blood-forming organs), a rare kind of NHL.[5] Several animal
studies have shown that Roundup can cause gene mutations and
chromosomal aberrations.[3]

[5] M. Nordstrom and others, "Occupational exposures, animal
exposure, and smoking as risk factors for hairy cell leukaemia
evaluated in a case-control study," BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Vol. 77 (1998), pgs. 2048-2052.
[3] Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson, "A Case-Control Study
of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides," CANCER Vol.
85, No. 6 (March 15, 1999), pgs. 1353-1360.

What's even more eye-opening is the studies listed which link atrazine
to NHL Check it out at:

 http://www.rachel.org.

Alex

To Unsubscribe:  Email [email-masked] with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".  If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email [email-masked] with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail

From [email-masked] Fri May 19 14:53:52 2000
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:20:06 -0400
From: Chris McCullum <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Roundup Ready

>
>"Research is already suggesting that Roundup may not be as safe as we are 
>being led to believe.
>Roundup has now been linked to several types of cancer, including 
>non-Hodgkins' Lymphoma."
>
>Yes, I've heard similar reports. Although I don't have all my references 
>off hand, here are a few
>that I do have:
>
>Research has shown that the application of glyphosate can increase the 
>level of plant estrogens in
>the bean, Vicia faba (Sanderman and Wellman, 1988).  More research is 
>needed to understand the significance of these findings as well as to 
>better understand the neurological, immunological,
>developmental, and reproductive effects of herbicides, including glyphosate.
>
>Although adverse effects of herbicide-resistant soybeans have not been 
>observed on certain feeding animals, genotoxic effects have been 
>demonstrated in other non-target organisms (Cox, 1995 a,b).Earthworms have 
>been shown to be severely damaged by the glyphosate herbicide at 2.5-10 
>1/ha (Rebanova et al., 1996). In addition, aquatic organisms, including 
>fish, can sometimes be severely damaged as well (Henry et al., 1994; WHO, 
>1994).
>
>Cox, C. 1995a. Glyphosate, part 1: Toxicology. J Pest. Ref. 15(3):14-20
>Cox, C. 1995 b. Glyphosate, part 2: Toxicology. J. Pest. Ref. 15(4):14-20.
>Henry et al. 1994. Acute toxicity and hazard assessment of Rodeo, 
>Spreader, and Chem-Trol to
>aquatic invertebrates Act. Environ.Contam. Toxicol. 27:3):392-399.
>Rebanova et al. 1996. Effect of the herbicide Roundup on earthworms of the 
>family Lumbricidae in the
>mountainous meadow ecosystems. Zootechnicka Rada, Ceske Budejovice 
>13(2):63-70.
>Sanderman, H. and Wellman, E. 1988 Biologische Sicherheit 1:285-292.
>WHO, 1994. Glyphosate. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 11:54 PM 05/18/00 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>>I farmed conventionally for 20 years before becoming an organic farmer.
>>I used all the "right" chemicals and put them on properly and carefully
>>recorded the results.  I was poisoned by those chemicals and will NEVER
>>use them again!  Fortunately we farm organically now.  Experience has
>>shown that weeds don't pay any attention to herbicide labels.  Follow-up
>>applications of herbicides are often needed when unusual weather occurs (
>>when is the weather ever normal anyway? )  Weeds will adapt to any new
>>chemical eventually either by developing resistance or by new species
>>coming that are already resistant.  Roundup is no different.  Because it
>>has no residual activity, any weed that comes up after a field is sprayed
>>with Roundup will be unaffected.  If spraying is delayed too long,
>>serious yield loss will occur due to early competition from weeds.
>>Smaller weeds will be physically shielded from the Roundup by the canopy
>>of larger weeds and crop.  We will see herbicide use increase steadily
>>with Roundup Ready crops  every year they are used as the weed
>>populations adjust.  Studies and data from the first few years of use are
>>irrelevant in predicting long-term herbicide performance.  I have noticed
>>that whenever chemical weed control fails, it is blamed on the weather,
>>the timing, new weeds, the farmer etc.  When organic weed control fails,
>>it's because it was organic.
>>
>>About 60 years ago Dr. Bernard Rademacher said that:
>>"    Cultural methods take the foremost place among the means of
>>controlling weeds
>>in arable land. Efforts must be made, by all kinds of measures which are
>>at the same
>>time beneficial to the crop plants, to keep the growth of weeds as small
>>as possible
>>from the very outset. Cultural measures form the basis of all weed
>>control, while
>>the various chemical means should be regarded as auxiliary only.
>>     The necessary condition of any successful weed control is the
>>promotion of
>>growth in the crop plants. Vigorous plant stands are among the best means
>>of
>>eradicating weeds. "
>>
>>I have found his statement to be as true today as it was then.  In
>>general, our weed control is better now that we are farming organically
>>than it was when we used chemicals.  We use various cultural weed control
>>techniques, supplemented with mechanical cultivation - and we are farming
>>over 1100 acres.
>>
>>With the direct application of Roundup to crops and with second
>>applications becoming more common, Roundup residue levels in food are
>>sure to rise signifigantly.  Research is already  suggesting that Roundup
>>may not be as safe as we are being led to believe.  Roundup has now been
>>linked to several types of cancer, including non-Hodgkins' Lymphoma.  I
>>guess I wouldn't argue which herbicide is safer, I wouldn't use any
>>herbicide.
>>
>>I'm sure better educated people than I can easily explain why I'm wrong
>>on all counts, but time will tell.
>>Klaas Martens
>>
>>To Unsubscribe:  Email [email-masked] with the command
>>"unsubscribe sanet-mg".  If you receive the digest format, use the command
>>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>>To Subscribe to Digest: Email [email-masked] with the command
>>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>>
>>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
>>http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail

To Unsubscribe:  Email [email-masked] with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".  If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email [email-masked] with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail

From [email-masked] Fri May 26 00:57:41 2000
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:43:45 -0700
From: William Evans <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: good ole weed killer- spin

http://www.reninet.com/catz/round.htm
Product: ROUNDUP
            Active ingredient: GLYPHOSATE 41%
            Type: HERBICIDE, (Systemic)
            Other ingredients: 59% includes polyethoxethyleneamine
(POEA) and isopropylamine
            (amount undisclosed); identity of remaining ingredients
withheld by manufacture as
            trade secrets.
            Mode of Action: Inhibits enzymatic activity necessary for
aromatic amino acid
            biosynthesis, a process specific to plants. Other enzyme
systems in plants and animals not
            specific to this biosynthetic pathway are affected by
glyphosate. (Heitanen et. al. 1983)

               Of pesticides used during 1994, glyphosate was #7 for
overall total pounds of active
            ingredient applied in California. Of the total glyphosate
used in California in 1994, 10%
            was used in grape production, yet grapes were the number one
crop associated with
            glyphosate- related illnesses from 1984 to1990 (Pease1995). 

            TOXICOLOGY 
               In California agriculture, Roundup's active ingredient,
glyphosate, ranked 3rd for
            reported pesticide related skin and eye acute illnesses,
15th for reported systemic and
            respiratory acute illnesses and 3th for reported pesticide
related acute illnesses of any
            kind from 1984 to 1990 (Pease 1993). It ranked eighth in
acute illnesses per million
            pounds applied.
               Roundup inhibits enzymes involved in the detoxification
of chemicals in the body.
            Test animals injected with glyphosate showed depressed
function of cytochrome P450
            and two other enzymes which are vital to the body's
processing of toxicants (Heitanen
            1983). At least two enzymatic steps are involved in the
processing of toxicants in the liver
            of humans; the first involves cytochrome P450 enzymes and
the second involves
            glutathione S tranferases (GSTs). People who do not possess
certain GSTs due to genetic
            variation (estimated at approximately 50% of the Caucasian
population), may have a
            greater risk of some types of cancer (Perera 1996). 
               U.S. EPA has recently reclassified glyphosate as a Group
E chemical, meaning that
            evidence exists that the compound is not a human carcinogen.
Studies submitted to the
            California Department of Pesticide Regulation have shown
possible adverse cancer
            effects, with rare tumor formation in the kidneys and
adrenal cortex of test animals.
            Other studies found an increase of testicular tumors,
thyroid cancer in females, and a
            rare kidney tumor (U.S.EPA 1982;1983;1985;1991). 
               Metabolites and breakdown products of glyphosate include
the known carcinogen
            formaldehyde (Lund 1986). Formaldehyde is listed as a
carcinogen by California's Office
            of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment under Proposition
65. It also causes gene
            mutations and is a reproductive toxicant (MBTOC 1995). 
               N- nitrosoglyphosate, a contaminant of glyphosate, is a
member of a chemical
            family of which approximately 75% are known carcinogens
(Lijinsky 1974; Sittig 1980). 
               Glyphosate is a severe eye irritant. Symptoms of external
exposure to glyphosate
            products include eye and skin irritation, which is sometimes
quite severe and can persist
            for months (Temple and Smith 1992). 
               A study in humans documented a greater incidence of
impaired lung function,
            throat irritation, coughing and breathlessness in workers
exposed to dust of flax treated
            with Roundup, as compared to those exposed to untreated flax
dust. (Jamison 1986) 
               A low dose exposure study in experimental animals
demonstrated salivary gland
            abnormalities related to changes in adrenalin levels when
the animals were exposed to
            glyphosate. Changes were also observed in the kidney, liver,
and thymus of the animals
            (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 
               An unknown percentage of Roundup's formulation is
composed of
            Polyethoxethyleneamine (POEA), which is a surfactant added
to enhance the
            performance of glyphosate. POEA is three times as acutely
toxic as glyphosate (Sawada
            1988), is irritating to eyes and skin, and causes
gastrointestinal problems(Monsanto
            1992). POEA is contaminated by 1,4 dioxane during the
manufacturing process (NCAP
            1990). U.S.EPA regards 1,4 dioxane as a probable human
carcinogen. OEHHA recognizes
            1,4 dioxane as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. 
               In animal tests, a mixture of glyphosate and POEA caused
cardiac arrest
            (UNEP/WHO/ILO 1994). The amount of Roundup, which is
composed of glyphosate and
            POEA, required to kill rats is about 1/3 of a lethal dose of
either compound separately
            (Martinez 1990,1991), suggesting that synergism of the two
chemicals may enhance
            toxicity. 
               Another portion of Roundup's formula is composed of
isopropylamine, a neutralizing
            agent. It is extremely destructive to tissue of the mucous
membranes and upper
            respiratory tract (Sigma Chemical 1994). 

            ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS 
               Glyphosate is a candidate for evaluation as a toxic air
contaminant by the California
            Department of Pesticide Regulation. Formaldehyde, one of
glyphosate's breakdown
            products, is listed as a toxic air contaminant. (DPR 1994) 
               Between 14% and 78% of glyphosate applied as a ground
spray drifts off site
            (Freedman 1990, 1991). It has been documented to affect
plants as far as 131 feet away,
            and residues have been detected 1,312 feet downwind (Marrs
1993; Yates 1978). 
               Glyphosate is highly persistent in soil, taking from 24
to 249 days for one- half of it to
            transform or biodegrade (Lappe 1996). 
               Glyphosate has been found in surface water as the result
of agricultural run-off (Frank
            1990; Edwards 1980) and in ground water (U.S.EPA 1992). 
               Roundup is highly toxic to fish and aquatic organisms
(Product label). Juvenile fish
            are particularly sensitive to the toxic effects of Roundup.
Physical and chemical factors
            such as temperature, pH and solute concentration in aquatic
ecosystems influence the
            acute toxicity of glyphosate to aquatic organisms (Caltrans
1991). 
               Glyphosate was shown in one study to inhibit the growth
of mycorrhizal fungi,
            organisms which are essential to ecosystems and enhance
plant survival (Cummins
            1991). 
               Acute toxicity to mammals, birds, and bees is low, but no
information is available
            regarding long term effects to these organisms. No data is
available regarding the
            toxicity of glyphosate to soil invertebrates, reptiles or
amphibians. (Caltrans 1991) 

            FRAUD AND PROFIT 
               Laboratories contracted by the manufacturer to conduct
toxicological analysis on
            glyphosate have twice been documented as falsifying data for
these tests (U.S. Congress
            1984; EPA 1994).
               Public perception of Roundup has largely been shaped by
high profile advertising
            campaigns of its manufacturer, Monsanto, which has a high
economic stake in its
            continued use. According to The Wall Street Journal (1/2/96)
Roundup accounts for one
            half of Monsanto's earnings. Monsanto's advertises that
Roundup can be used, "where
            pets and kids play" and that it, "breaks down into natural
materials when its work is
            done." But in 1996 the New York Attorney General fined
Monsanto $50,000 for these false
            claims and extracted a promise from Monsanto to never again
advertise in the state
            that Roundup is safe. 

                                            References

                                     Californians for Alternatives to
Toxics
                       P.O. Box 1195, Arcata, CA 95518 USA (707)
822-8497(fax 7136) [email-masked]

To Unsubscribe:  Email [email-masked] with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".  If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email [email-masked] with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail

<><>

Rodale's Organic Gardening website:

Roundup Kills More Than Weeds

http://www.organicgardening.com/watchdog/roundup.html

<><><><>

From: "paul" <[email-masked]>
Newsgroups: alt.permaculture
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:08:32 GMT

Although Roundup is marketed as benign, it isn't. The US Environmental
Protection Agency has called glyphosphate "extremely persistent." Lab
studies have found adverse effects in all standard categories of
toxicological testing. Some examples include salivary gland lesions,
inflamed stomach linings, genetic damage to human blood cells, reduced
sperm count in rats, increased frequency of abnormal sperm in rabbits,
increased frequency of liver tumors in male rats and thyroid cancer in female
rats. Glyphosphate has been measured to have a half life of over 100 days in
field tests in Iowa and New York. My source for this information is the Fall
1998 issue of the Journal of Pesticide Reform, who admittedly is against
the use of pesticides.

<><><>

Date:         Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:53:26 -0500
 Reply-To:     Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group
               <[email-masked]>
 Sender:       Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group
               <[email-masked]>
 From:         Mary-Howell and Klaas Martens <[email-masked]>
 Subject:      Collateral Roundup effects
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

 Hi Sanet folks -
 I'm looking for scientific information, anecdotal information, names of
 researchers working on the topic, and internet links for 'collateral'
 information concerning Roundup use and Roundup Ready crop use.
 This could concern -

 1. well documented animal and human health effects from Roundup

 2. effects on soil microbial activity following soil Roundup applications

 3. information on Roundup residues in harvested RR crops

 4. unusual performance or physiological differences in RR crops

 5. the actual physiological effect that Roundup has on plants - both
 susceptible and RR crops, what biochemical     pathways are affected,
 what chemical byproducts are produced in sprayed plants, how to do these
 byproducts affect the plant's physiology and the physiology of animals
 that eat the plants?

 6. effects from surfactants or other adjuvants in Roundup

 7. specific weed problems seen in RR crops sprayed with Roundup - either
 due to weed genetic resistance or weed avoidance strategies

 8. altered susceptibility of RR-plants to diseases like white mold and
 SDS in soybeans

 Thanks for your help!

 Please respond on or off-Sanet.
 Mary-Howell Martens

<><><><><><><><><><>

Date:         Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:21:25 -0500
 Reply-To:     [email-masked]
 Sender:       Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group
               <[email-masked]>
 From:         Greg Bowman <[email-masked]>
 Subject:      Animal effects of aerial Round-up in Colombia
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 Herbicide specialists:
 Below is another report from an NGO in Colombia reporting catastrophic
 ecological "collateral" damage from what is called "aerial fumigation"
 of alleged coca growing-plots. This is part of the joint U.S.-Colombian
 "Plan Colombia" efforts at eradicating coca exports (to meet the U.S.
 demand), and to stabilize the politically and economically unstable
 nation.

 This report centers damage to FARC-held areas that are rich in oil
 resources. The writers say the coca crops in paramilitary-controlled
 areas have yet to be so attacked. 
 Their report tells of whole communities losing any hope of growing the
 alternative crops they had planted under U.N. and even
 Colombian-government programs, pushing them into the 2 million-plus
 group of internally displaced persons already plaguing the country.

 Question: Are the water and animal damage reports listed here consistent
 with massive doses of Roundup-Ultra?

 Snip...
 >From December 22, 2000 to January 11, 2001, 1,791 people were directly
 sprayed regardless of whether they were under the shelter of their homes
 or out in their fields.  96,222 head of livestock died on impact of the
 Roundup Ultra spraying or soon thereafter as a result of grazing on
 poisoned pastures or drinking toxic water.

 Nine thousand seven hundred and forty six (9746) acres of crops such as
 corn, potatoes, beans, fruit trees, yucca, sugarcane, coca, pineapple,
 chocolate, plantains, and bananas have dried out and died from the
 spraying of Glyphosate (produced by Monsanto) and the surfactants mixed
 with it, leaving the land barren and unfertile.  

 The sales of Roundup Ultra count for 40% of Monsanto’s sales equaling
 $1.5 billion annually.  In the United States it is prohibited to apply
 Glyphosate by aerial spray.  Some areas were sprayed by up to 5 planes
 at a time and up to three days in a row.  The doses were increased by
 between 4-10 times the recommended doses, up to 44 litres per acre.
 (Accion Andina, 2001)
 =================end of excerpt, dated 2/26/01============

 Thanks for any perspective. 

 -- 
 Greg Bowman
 -- Food, Faith & Farming Initiative of the Mennonite Resources Network
 Souderton, Pa                             http://www.MRN.org/FFFI.
 -- Indian Creek Community Farm, Harleysville, Pa.
 P.O. Box 490 (504 Main St.) Bally PA 19503   610.845.2436   
 <[email-masked]>
 --Communicating for whole farms...for whole communities...for the whole
 world.--

<><><><><><><><><><>