Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Glyphosate spraying


Recommended Posts

Just a little heads up to dog owners. As I was walking my dog up Hacienda (?) into Villa Nova I saw a 'gardener' masked up and spraying glyphosate (Roundup) on the road's edge so I turned around. I cannot present any dog specific studies right now but there are numerous studies presenting evidence of harm to humans. I do know as a soil microscopist that it does not dissipate as rapidly as claimed by manufacturers. I suggest keeping your eyes open for this if walking your dog.

I believe it will be banned in Mexico effective January 2023. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dichosalocura said:

I used to know a husband and wife team that sprayed for a living.  They both mysteriously died of cancer about at the same time 6 months or so apart in their early 60's.  Now we know it was most likely the glyphosate.

Exactly how do you know it was glyphosate that caused the cancer they had?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess to he honest we don't know with 100 % accuracy.  But they did spray glyphosate as a career together for many many years.  And they shockingly and mysteriously (to us at least) died in the same time frame from a rapidly forming cancer.  I think its pretty clear that it has the potential to give people cancer.  Look at the many law suits against the Round Up company from people who are getting cancer.  Exposing yourself to poison on a daily basis is not wise even if the company swears its safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, John Shrall said:

To the OP, can you point to a notice that says Faena will be banned in 2023? I still see Paraquat at the chemical store which is far more dangerous.

Looks like I got the year wrong or it was altered since I read about it - 2024

https://www.agricensus.com/Article/Mexico-s-Supreme-Court-ratifies-glyphosate-and-GMO-corn-ban-18938.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how this ban plays out since it was done by a presidential decree by Obrador (executive order), not a law passed by the legislature. The next presidential election is in 2024 so it is possible that the next president could rescind it, especially if the farmers most affected take to the streets. Look at Holland and Sri Lanka although those countries banned certain fertilizers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dichosalocura said:

Well I guess to he honest we don't know with 100 % accuracy.  But they did spray glyphosate as a career together for many...

People who spray for a living use various chemicals depending on the need. A man used to come to spray avocado trees in our yard (pre-2009) with some toxic soup he mixed up himself in 55 gal drums, and used a  fuel-powered pump to create a total misting effect. I was APPALLED that not only did he not wear protective gear, long sleeves, or goggles,  he didn't even wear a hat..... as he looked directly up at the stuff that was falling all over him.  I DO know this man died of cancer (can't remember about his wife tho' she disappeared a while later too) and I definitely know he was NOT using glyphosate because he was treating diseases and not trying to kill anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the US Environmental Protection Agency:

EPA scientists performed an independent evaluation of available data for glyphosate and found:

  • No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate. Glyphosate products used according to label directions do not result in risks to children or adults.
  • No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans. The Agency concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. EPA considered a significantly more extensive and relevant dataset than the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC). EPA’s database includes studies submitted to support registration of glyphosate and studies EPA identified in the open literature. For instance, IARC only considered eight animal carcinogenicity studies while EPA used 15 acceptable carcinogenicity studies. EPA does not agree with IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Don't confuse the various studies with recent court rulings, where the manufacturer was held liable. 

 

Link:  https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No risks of concern to human health from current uses,are more sensitive to glyphosate.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NoVaDamer said:

From the US Environmental Protection Agency:

EPA scientists performed an independent evaluation of available data for glyphosate and found:

  • No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate. Glyphosate products used according to label directions do not result in risks to children or adults.
  • No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans. The Agency concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. EPA considered a significantly more extensive and relevant dataset than the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC). EPA’s database includes studies submitted to support registration of glyphosate and studies EPA identified in the open literature. For instance, IARC only considered eight animal carcinogenicity studies while EPA used 15 acceptable carcinogenicity studies. EPA does not agree with IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Don't confuse the various studies with recent court rulings, where the manufacturer was held liable. 

 

Link:  https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No risks of concern to human health from current uses,are more sensitive to glyphosate.

Of course they did. There are arguments and studies pro and con the industry. Causing cancer is the main thing looked at but there is also ecological harm to soil to consider.

A review concerning cancer;  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26883814/

The debate and a myriad of studies;

 https://usrtk.org/pesticides/new-analysis-glyphosate-studies/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, timjwilson said:

Of course they did. There are arguments and studies pro and con the industry. Causing cancer is the main thing looked at but there is also ecological harm to soil to consider.

A review concerning cancer;  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26883814/

The debate and a myriad of studies;

 https://usrtk.org/pesticides/new-analysis-glyphosate-studies/ 

In your original post, you only mentioned "numerous studies presenting evidence of harm to humans." I was simply pointing out what the US EPA states. I appreciate your addtion of the NIH study; US Right to Know is an advocacy group, not a scientific or medical enterprise. Lest anyone think the US EPA is out on a limb here, I would add this, also from the EPA:

"EPA’s cancer classification is consistent with other international expert panels and regulatory authorities, including the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, and the Food Safety Commission of Japan and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)."

That makes the US, Canada, Japan, the EU, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, and the WHO in agreement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NoVaDamer said:

In your original post, you only mentioned "numerous studies presenting evidence of harm to humans." I was simply pointing out what the US EPA states. I appreciate your addtion of the NIH study; US Right to Know is an advocacy group, not a scientific or medical enterprise. Lest anyone think the US EPA is out on a limb here, I would add this, also from the EPA:

"EPA’s cancer classification is consistent with other international expert panels and regulatory authorities, including the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, and the Food Safety Commission of Japan and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)."

That makes the US, Canada, Japan, the EU, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, and the WHO in agreement.

Just so you know, my reason for posting the 2nd link/article is that it lists and links many (myriad) studies on both sides of the cancer debate.

Personally I've observed changes in soil microbial populations following glyphosate application to associated plants [however never recorded data]. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I googled "IARC glyphosate" and found something that might clarify the reason for the different findings.  In the IARC report, the studies they reviewed were from "17 experts from 11 countries" written by "independent experts, free from vested interests".   In contrast, the EPA reviewed a database of "studies submitted to support registration of glyphosate (working for the glyphosate industry perhaps rather than independent?) and studies EPA identified in (cherry-picked from?) the open literature.

If it's so harmless, that begs the question of why the EPA set "a tolerance or limit on how much pesticide residue can legally remain on food and feed".

In any case, widespread use of it poisons bees, other pollinators, Monarch butterflies, and other insect species--some helpful and some harmful--which will lead to further degradation of the environment.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CactusMike, That's the EPA's job. I think you're questioning why ANY pesticide residue is legal. My guess is scientists have found some minimal amount is "safe" (granted, that's a relative thing). I recall that the US FDA has a limit for how many "insect parts" and "rodent hiars" can be in some prepared foods. Yum.

@timjwilson, I already checked out your links, and thanks for that. The first was very good. The second was from an advocacy organization, so I decided not to do their verify their links. I'm happy to stay with the lineup of governments and experts saying one thing, some other governments/experts saying another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NoVaDamer said:

@CactusMike, That's the EPA's job. I think you're questioning why ANY pesticide residue is legal. My guess is scientists have found some minimal amount is "safe" (granted, that's a relative thing). I recall that the US FDA has a limit for how many "insect parts" and "rodent hiars" can be in some prepared foods. Yum.

@timjwilson, I already checked out your links, and thanks for that. The first was very good. The second was from an advocacy organization, so I decided not to do their verify their links. I'm happy to stay with the lineup of governments and experts saying one thing, some other governments/experts saying another.

You misunderstand. They listed everybody's studies; not their's. This just saved me listing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, timjwilson said:

You misunderstand. They listed everybody's studies; not their's. This just saved me listing them.

Yes, you stated this in the post when you first cited the link. I opened the link, did not recognize the organization, so I opened their "About" link and found this: 

U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit investigative research group focused on promoting transparency for public health. We are working globally to expose corporate wrongdoing and government failures that threaten the integrity of our health, our environment and our food system.

They are an advocacy group, with a specific objective. I admit they list many studies on both sides of this issue, but since they have a built-in bias, I don't trust them to be objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NoVaDamer said:

Yes, you stated this in the post when you first cited the link. I opened the link, did not recognize the organization, so I opened their "About" link and found this: 

U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit investigative research group focused on promoting transparency for public health. We are working globally to expose corporate wrongdoing and government failures that threaten the integrity of our health, our environment and our food system.

They are an advocacy group, with a specific objective. I admit they list many studies on both sides of this issue, but since they have a built-in bias, I don't trust them to be objective.

Reference-List-of-Glyphosate-Studies-submitted-for-the-Renewal-of-Approval-AIR5-of-Glyphosate-in-2020-EN

European Assessment Group on Glyphosate report on glyphosate renewal

Evaluation of the scientific quality of industry studies of genotoxic properties of glyphosate

Comments concerning the mutagenic/genotoxic properties of glyphosate

Toxicological and Metabolism Studies summary by industry

Albaugh 2014 glyphosate reverse mutation assay Switzerland

Syngenta 2012 glyphosate technical micronucleus assay in bone marrow cells of the mouse

Dow Chemical 2012 Micronucleus test of glyphosate TGAI in mice

Industrias Afrasa 2012 reverse mutation with glyphosate

Helm 2010 Reverse Mutation Assay glyphosate using bacteria

Helm 2010 reverse mutation assay 

Helm 2010 mutagenicity of glyphosate testing

Helm 2009 mutagenicity study of glyphosate Germany

Helm 2009 Micronucleus test of glyphosate in bone marrow cells of rat

Syngenta 2009 glyphosate reverse mutation

Jingma Chemicals China 2008 evaluation of the mutagenic potential of glyphosate by reverse mutation assay 

Jingma 2008 evaluation of mutagenic potential of glyphosate by micronucleus assay in mice

Syngenta 2008 glyphosate micronucleus assay in bone marrow cells of the mouse

Helm 2007 Mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test for glyphosate

Helm Do Brasil 2007 Bacterial reverse mutation test glyphosate

Nufarm 2007 reverse mutation glyphosate technical 05068

Nufarm 2007 1061403 reverse mutation glyphosate technical 05067

Nufarm 2007 1061402 reverse mutation glyphosate technical 05070 

Nufarm 2005 glyphosate technical micronucleus test in the mouse

Monsanto 1998 Mouse micronucleus screening assay of MON-0818

Zeneca Glyphosate 1998 acid Invitro 

Cheminova 1996 reverse mutation glyphosate Brazil

Cheminova 1996 A micronucleus study in mice for the product GILFOS

Zeneca 1996 glyphosate mutagenicity potential

Zeneca 1996 Glyphosate acid mouse bone marrow micronucleus test

Zeneca 1996 glyphosate acid mouse lymphoma gene mutation assay

Sanko 1995 glyphosate in vitro cytogenetics

Sanko 1995 glyphosate DNA Repair Test

Sankyo 1995 reverse mutation study 

Mastra and Maruzen Kako 1995 Technical glyphosate

Mastra and Maruzen Kako 1995 reverse mutation assay glyphosate

Agrichem 1995 Evaluation of ability of glyphosate to induce chromosome aberrations

Feinchemie Schwebda 1994 DNA repair test with primary rat hepatocytes

Feinchemie Schwebda 1994 in vivo mammalian bone marrow cytogenetic test

Feinchemie Schwebda 1993 Mutagenicity-micronucleus glyphosate test in swiss albino mice

Feinchemie Schwebda 1992 Dominant lethal test in Wistar rats

Monsanto 1992 Mouse micronucleus study of Roundup

Monsanto 1992 glyphosate mutagenicity assay on Roundup

Monsanto 1992 Mouse micronucleus study of RODEO glyphosate formulation

Monsanto 1992 glyphosate mutagenicity assay on RODEO herbicide

Monsanto 1992 mouse micronucleus study of DIRECT formulation

Monsanto 1992 glyphosate mutagenicity potential DIRECT brand

Hoechst Dodigen 4022 1992 study of mutagenic potential in strains of salmonella and E Coli

Hoechst Dodigen 4022 1992 Chromosome aberrations in vitro in V79 Chinese hamster cells

Cheminova 1991 #12323 glyphosate mutagenicity test

Cheminova 1991 #12324 Mutagenicity test micronucleus glyphosate

Cheminova 1991 #12325 glyphosate mutagenicity test in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation test

Monsanto 1990 Ames Salmonella mutagenicity assay of MON 0818

Monsanto 1983 In vivo bone marrow cytogenetics study of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats

Monsanto 1983 glyphosate gene mutation assay

Monsanto 1981 Ames salmonella mutagenicity assay of MON 8080

Monsanto 1980 Dominant lethal mutagenicity assay with technical glyphosate in mice

Institute of Environmental Toxicology 1978 Glyphosate report of mutagenic study with bacteria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 3:58 PM, timjwilson said:

Just a little heads up to dog owners. As I was walking my dog up Hacienda (?) into Villa Nova I saw a 'gardener' masked up and spraying glyphosate (Roundup) on the road's edge so I turned around. I cannot present any dog specific studies right now but there are numerous studies presenting evidence of harm to humans. I do know as a soil microscopist that it does not dissipate as rapidly as claimed by manufacturers. I suggest keeping your eyes open for this if walking your dog.

I believe it will be banned in Mexico effective January 2023. 

My next to my neighbour used this carcinogen last year profusely, but stopped after getting weird and freakish looking algae growth. I moved to MX in part because of fewer rules and regulations, but I am saddened to say there ought to be law forcing users to post warning about using this sh*t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...