Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - FW: RW roundup

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "McLaren, Kaya" <McLareK@morrow.k12.or.us>
  • To: "'SHoughton@aol.com'" <SHoughton@aol.com>, "'MojaveByrd@aol.com'" <MojaveByrd@aol.com>, "'permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu'" <permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: FW: RW roundup
  • Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:03:27 -0800

Thank-you so much for this information!!!!! I really appreciate your
time and effort. Maybe one day this will all make a difference. Funny
how sometimes the smallest act can set into motion an entirely different
chain of events. Thanks again. How do I contact the rural womyn?

> ----------
> From: Halvorsen, Cathy
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 9:37 AM
> To: McLaren, Kaya
> Subject: FW: RW roundup
>
>
>
> ----------
> From: SHoughton@aol.com[SMTP:SHoughton@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 8:12 PM
> To: HalvorC@morrow.k12.or.us
> Subject: Fwd: RW roundup
>
>
> There are several articles here - not sure any answer your question or
> solve
> the problem. Guess the real message is to read the label on the
> container -
> and follow those directions
>
> Susan Houghton - Organic Growers of Michigan
>
> << ...
> 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 vegetation 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 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 Roundup 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 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 US 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
> >brokaw@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu 319-335-5453
>
> >Disclaimer: I am not associated with Monsanto, or NCAP. I am merely
> an
> >interested party to this discussion.
>
> --
> From: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
> ubject: Re: Killing Ivy
> Date: 9 Mar 92 00:38:51 GMT
> Organization: University of Northern Iowa
>
> aab@cichlid.com (Andy Burgess) writes:
> > klier@iscsvax.uni.edu 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: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
> 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
> From MojaveByrd@aol.com Thu Mar 5 01:02:16 1998
> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 22:03:14 EST
> From: MojaveByrd <MojaveByrd@aol.com>
> Reply-To: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu
> To: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu >>
>
>
>
--- Begin Message ---
  • From: "zone @plains.net" <zone@plains.net>
  • To: ruralwomyn@plains.net
  • Subject: RW roundup
  • Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:32:11 -0800
I stumbled across this on a message board online. I won't vouch for
any of the information contained here and it's probably more than
anyone wanted to know.

Lynda


...
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
>brokaw@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu 319-335-5453

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

--
From: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
ubject: Re: Killing Ivy
Date: 9 Mar 92 00:38:51 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

aab@cichlid.com (Andy Burgess) writes:
> klier@iscsvax.uni.edu 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: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
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
>From MojaveByrd@aol.com Thu Mar 5 01:02:16 1998
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 22:03:14 EST
From: MojaveByrd <MojaveByrd@aol.com>
Reply-To: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu
To: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu
Subject: Re: Roundup in Schools



--- End Message ---


  • FW: RW roundup, McLaren, Kaya, 02/18/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page