Protagoras, I suggest you go back and read the abstract again. It uses the following abbreviations: 'G' for glyphosate (the active ingredient) and 'R' for the various brands of Roundup (the commercial formulation). All Roundup formulations contain surfactants, such as polyethoxylated tallowamine.

If you are in the habit of regularly bathing your internal organs in solutions of Roundup, then you have every right to feel concerned. Otherwise, I suggest you are just displaying your ignorance.

Thank you Rojo. The adjuvants which are claimed to be inert surfactants (by the manufacturers) in Roundup, are anything but inert:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/tx800218n

"G is claimed by the manufacturer to be the active ingredient,
and it is claimed to be not toxic for human cells but toxic for
vegetable ones when mixed with inert components. Our study
demonstrates for the first time that all products including AMPA
and POEA provoke SD and AK effects in human cells, and
thus mortality (Figure 3), but at different concentrations.

"Astonishingly, the supposed inert product POEA is the most
potent one. From 1 ppm, it begins to alter SD in HUVEC and
AK in 293 and JEG3. The mixture R is then more poisonous
than G or AMPA. The metabolite AMPA itself destroys the
cell membrane (AK release), whatever the cell type. This is
not observed with G, which is, however, 3-8 times more
inhibitory on SD than AMPA, with some differences between
cells.

"However, because the cell membrane damage is generally
more sensitive, the metabolite AMPA is finally more toxic than
G on human cells. POEA is the most toxic; if it was the only
adjuvant of R360, its maximal concentration would be around
1-24 ‰, according to the cells. Thus, POEA could be
considered as the active ingredient on human cell death and
more damaging than G. As R is more viscous than 1‰ POEA
plus G, it is obvious that other compounds are in the mixture."

Agronomist – there is little damage if in fact I am “ignorant” as you claim. Far better that I am ignorant than you who’s intent on flogging this stuff to unwitting nations around the planet. I suspect that researchers currently engaged in analysing G, R and adjuvants in the formula would be highly amused by your post.

However, I doubt the Vietnamese would find you amusing since some of the progeny of the progeny of the victims of Monsanto, who knowingly flogged Agent Orange to the US military, are still being born without eyes and gross deformities.

contd...

Protagorus, same paper. Nothing is changed, bathing cells in Roundup formulations has zero applicability to real world situations, unless you were going to drink the formulated herbicide or take it intravenously.

By the way, there is no AMPA in glyphosate formulations. AMPA is a metabolite of glyphosate that is mostly produced by microbes when glyphosate is in the soil. Legumes produce a bit, but most other plant species cannot metabolise glyphosate.

You are pretty quick on the draw aren’t you Protagorus? If I don’t agree with you, I must be evil huh?

For the record I don’t sell glyphosate. I am an agronomist (hence the moniker), I advise farmers about farming. I also take the time to keep up on agricultural research. So, no I don’t think those who study glyphosate would find my post particularly exceptional.

Protagoras, running short of time at the moment, a link to some discussion I've had on this topic recently, some good(and bad) links for and against Glyphosate. Just be aware who is writing the articles.

My take on Glyphosate is it should be respected as any farm chemical is, and when used accordingly is one of the safest chemicals out there.
Don't forget water is one of the most dangerous chemicals there is- ie drowning. Depends how you spin it.

The world can't afford to lose glyphosate, particularly if the campaign against it is based on rubbery science.

The current anti-glyphosate campaign seems to be a pseudo anti-GM push.

Hi Rojo

“Rubbery science?” Why are you and Agronomist obfuscating the evidence on glyphosate, published by reputable researchers over some three decades?

Agronomist’s pretence, that the information I provide is drawn from my own presumptions cannot conceal the scientific evidence emerging and re-emerging from different scientists, different nations, different eras and all with the same conclusions. I avoid peddling information from WHO which takes its advice from Monsanto et al.

Earlier independent scientific studies reveal:

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).

http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/archives/glywb.htm

Scientific evidence in more recent years suggests that glyphosate formulations have the ability to cause multiple myeloma, lymphoma, miscarriages, endocrine disruption, ADD, nerve and brain disorders. I am not referring to those who have intentionally consumed this poison.

http://www.hindawi.com/getarticle.aspx?doi=10.1155/2009/308985&e=ref

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=932046

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14661781

Monsanto et al's "revolutionary" pesticides have fouled every ecosystem on the planet, maiming and killing off the planet's biodiversity and are held responsible for unknown numbers of human and animal mortalities and illnesses over 6 or 7 decades.

Protagorus, it is always important to look at the facts and not just accept the ones that support your previously decided point of view. It is also worthwhile mentioning sources when you cut and paste from the internet. Most of your post can be found word for word here http://www.alternatives2toxics.org/catsoldsite/round.htm and several other places. Many of the references you copied are actually not in the reference list given at any of the sites where the document resides, so I can’t work out whether they are right or not. A quick search of PubMed database fails to find many of these references either. However, the material that I can find does not fill me with confidence about the rest. Several are cited out of context. For example, glyphosate does persist in the soil for a long time (average half life 32 days). However, it spends that time tightly bound to divalent cations and so is not available to do anything. When it is released it is quickly broken down by fungi, which is why farmers can sow crops immediately after applying the herbicide.

The three papers you link to force fed large amounts of glyphosate to animals at up to 1 g per kg body weight (or in one case injected the herbicide into the animals). The amount of glyphosate consumed by these animals was the equivalent of a human drinking a cup (200 mL) of neat herbicide per day or 10 L per day of what a farmer would spray on their land. Clearly, this bears no relationship to real life exposure unless you were trying to commit suicide with Roundup.