Weed killer found in human urine across Europe

For anyone wanting to dig into this more, here are some interesting links I've found to research more. There is a lot of info out there, but not enough (imo) to make any judgment calls

PITT.edu - THE IMPACT OF INSECTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ON THE BIODIVERSITY AND PRODUCTIVITY OF AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

USGS.gov - GLYPHOSATE, OTHER HERBICIDES, AND TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTS IN MIDWESTERN STREAMS, 2002

NIH.gov - Glyphosate poisoning

NIH.gov - Surfactant volume is an essential element in human toxicity in acute glyphosate herbicide intoxication.

NIH.gov - Determination of glyphosate and AMPA in blood and urine from humans: about 13 cases of acute intoxication.

TrentU.ca - The Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Glyphosate-Based Pesticides in Northern Leopard Frogs

EPA.gov - Risks of Glyphosate Use to Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog



I'm still skeptical on the safety of glyphosate compounds with surfactants (maybe the surfactants are the problem with glyphosate toxicity). Perhaps innately it is safe for human consumption. I am concerned about the surfactants formulated into the glyphosate compound that could be a concern to the environment health and of course human health (short term and long term.)

This is a pretty complex issue when you dig into it imo, and politics are involved (a lot)

reply to post by Philippines



Ginko biloba extract is a potent protector against glyphosate-induced toxicity, and its protective role is dose-dependent.

SOURCE
online.liebertpub.com...

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
reply to post by Philippines

 

Ginko biloba extract is a potent protector against glyphosate-induced toxicity, and its protective role is dose-dependent.

SOURCE
online.liebertpub.com...

Thanks for that link. It's interesting that Seralini's name is attached to that as well in the citations.

As for the report:

Each dose of G. biloba provided significant protection against glyphosate-induced toxicity, and the strongest effect was observed at a dose of 150 mg/kg of body weight.

This would mean if I weighed 100 kg (which I don't), then I would need to ingest 15000mg of G. biloba to protect myself from glyphosate toxicity?

reply to post by Philippines


Thats the dose for mice. It is hard to directly translate that into a human dose. My estimation is that you'd need at least 3 or 4 grams per day based on other studies with natural compounds in mice.

Reading on glyphosate here about glyphosate.

Glyphosate is practically non-toxic to fish. However, Roundup was more toxic to fish than was glyphosate. In rainbow trout, for instance, the 96-hour LC50 was 8.3 mg/l with Roundup and 38 ppm with glyphosate. The LC50 for glyphosate was 120 mg/l for bluegill sunfish. An additive used in the Roundup formulation (modified tallow amine used as a surfactant) is apparently more toxic to fish than many common surfactants. For this reason, the formulation for use in aquatic situations (Rodeo) omits this ingredient.

Did you see that thing about Roundup? Modified tallow amine. What's that? It sounds like animal product to me, that it comes from animal fat. This may mean that Roundup isn't vegan, sorry. And I can't see yet what sort of tallow it is; it could be pig tallow, which could make Roundup not kosher or halal, if you want to get specific, sorry.

Let's look at this polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).

There's the "etho" part that is the needs-a-carcinogenic-looksee part. Not the main ingredient, but the surfactant.

So not all glyphosate herbicides are created equal.

So the study says that glyphosate isn't so bad. Well okay, but don't conclude that because of this Roundup is decent. At the end the entire study misdirects attention from that surfactant which might be the actual problem.

So, how much study focus was made on the POEA surfactant? None I can see in this thread.

This is about general physical health on a good day in studies that weren't polluted by the real world. All they did was give the chemical and then measure then amounts, not noting behaviors. And it's not lifetime studies.

So the glyphosate is being excreted, but what remains?

Originally posted by Sandalphon
Reading on glyphosate here about glyphosate.

Glyphosate is practically non-toxic to fish. However, Roundup was more toxic to fish than was glyphosate. In rainbow trout, for instance, the 96-hour LC50 was 8.3 mg/l with Roundup and 38 ppm with glyphosate. The LC50 for glyphosate was 120 mg/l for bluegill sunfish. An additive used in the Roundup formulation (modified tallow amine used as a surfactant) is apparently more toxic to fish than many common surfactants. For this reason, the formulation for use in aquatic situations (Rodeo) omits this ingredient.

Did you see that thing about Roundup? Modified tallow amine. What's that? It sounds like animal product to me, that it comes from animal fat. This may mean that Roundup isn't vegan, sorry. And I can't see yet what sort of tallow it is; it could be pig tallow, which could make Roundup not kosher or halal, if you want to get specific, sorry.

Let's look at this polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).

There's the "etho" part that is the needs-a-carcinogenic-looksee part. Not the main ingredient, but the surfactant.

So not all glyphosate herbicides are created equal.

So the study says that glyphosate isn't so bad. Well okay, but don't conclude that because of this Roundup is decent. At the end the entire study misdirects attention from that surfactant which might be the actual problem.

So, how much study focus was made on the POEA surfactant? None I can see in this thread.

This is about general physical health on a good day in studies that weren't polluted by the real world. All they did was give the chemical and then measure then amounts, not noting behaviors. And it's not lifetime studies.

So the glyphosate is being excreted, but what remains?

Thank you for bringing up POEA surfactant =) I read that stuff before in a study to find there are more unknowns as the variables increase. Naturally.

In itself Glyphosate does not seem bad, however glyphosate also is not very effective without a surfactant present. Naturally, this surfactant interacts with just about every other cell membrane it interacts with, somehow.

To what extent? Who knows, there is some (objective/criticized) science out there, but nothing full spectrum and any definitive, long term study that has conclusive results.

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
reply to post by Philippines

 

Thats the dose for mice. It is hard to directly translate that into a human dose. My estimation is that you'd need at least 3 or 4 grams per day based on other studies with natural compounds in mice.

Ok for mice, but 3-4 grams per day is quite a lot imo. Especially for a plant that probably does not grow in most places, meaning you would take 3-4 dried, processed plant parts - leaf? - to protect against something in the water that is not naturally there?

That would be like taking 6-8 500mg pills a day to protect for that, if it even conclusively works.

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
reply to post by Philippines

 

Thats the dose for mice. It is hard to directly translate that into a human dose. My estimation is that you'd need at least 3 or 4 grams per day based on other studies with natural compounds in mice.

Ok for mice, but 3-4 grams per day is quite a lot imo. Especially for a plant that probably does not grow in most places, meaning you would take 3-4 dried, processed plant parts - leaf? - to protect against something in the water that is not naturally there?

That would be like taking 6-8 500mg pills a day to protect for that, if it even conclusively works.

Yes, thats too high for mice. I was explaining the human dose. Please read fully what I wrote.

Originally posted by LastStarfighter

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
reply to post by Philippines

 

Thats the dose for mice. It is hard to directly translate that into a human dose. My estimation is that you'd need at least 3 or 4 grams per day based on other studies with natural compounds in mice.

Ok for mice, but 3-4 grams per day is quite a lot imo. Especially for a plant that probably does not grow in most places, meaning you would take 3-4 dried, processed plant parts - leaf? - to protect against something in the water that is not naturally there?

That would be like taking 6-8 500mg pills a day to protect for that, if it even conclusively works.

Yes, thats too high for mice. I was explaining the human dose. Please read fully what I wrote.

I think I read what you wrote:

My estimation is that you'd need at least 3 or 4 grams per day based on other studies with natural compounds in mice.

3 grams = 3000 mg
4 grams = 4000 mg

So 6x 500 mg pills = 3 grams

etc.

What didn't I understand with your post, or maybe I am wrong, it's late here

Originally posted by markosity1973

I could argue the point by saying things like if we let nature run it's course we'd probably all starve and certain native species would become extinct.

Please do, because it only proves my point. Are you implying that humanity would go extinct without its artificial methods of sustenance production and forest management? If human beings are no longer capable of surviving on this planet without raping and cannibalizing it, that's probably a pretty big red flag wouldn't you say?

The language itself ("let nature run its course") presumes we have control over something we're ultimately powerless to do anything about, and that's a big part of the problem. We can't truly control it because we are not separate from it; but as with any living thing, when any part becomes infected an autoimmune response is triggered in the whole. If humanity has turned into nothing more than a planetary tumor, you can bet the planet will do something about it... and that probably involves killing the cancer. And that's the way it should be if indeed that's what we've become.

But instead I'd like to share with you a story of 2 acres if forest that my mother and I have saved from the brink of dying out on her farm to show how our control and weed sprays can do positive things.

When we purchased the property we were both enamored with the little patch of native bush it had in the middle of one of the fields. From a distance the block of trees looked perfectly innocent, grand and majestic trees with a variety of native birds living in them. However on closer inspection I quickly realised that there was no regrowth - when these mature trees died off, there would be nothing to take their place. Even worse, the forest floor was littered with weeds that did not belong there and the bottoms of the trees had been damaged by livestock. This patch of paradise was critically ill.

So nature is most important to you for its aesthetic qualities? I won't necessarily disagree with you on that, but it illustrates the prevailing tendency of human beings to manipulate ecosystems for emotional considerations.

The first thing we did was to put a fence around the bush to keep the livestock out so they could not cause any more damage to the mature trees. Then we set to the weeds. We identified ragwort, californian and scots thistles, gorse, wooly nightshade, deadly nightshade and blackberry as being the worst and most problematic weeds.

Where'd you get the fence? The metal comprising the nails that hold it together was pulled out of a mine somewhere. A forest was cleared to dig that hole. Then the metal was smelted in a foundry somewhere. A forest was cleared to build it. Then the metal was shaped into skinny pointy things at a different factory somewhere else. A forest was cleared to build that. The transportation of this metal of course requires fuel, so a forest was cleared somewhere to extract the raw materials for those fuels (by "forest" I mean any uncultivated environment, not just ones with lots of trees). Is all the damage caused by these industrial processes worth your little slice of "paradise"?

Technology doesn't grow on trees. There is a price we have to pay for all of this. Just because we can't see the smokestacks from our backyards (most of us, anyway) doesn't mean they don't exist. The fact that they exist means massive ecological disruption has taken place. Buying organic produce doesn't negate the fact that you pulled petroleum out of the ground and burned it in order to go to the store, you know?

I'm fully aware of my own hypocrisy in typing all of this on a computer, by the way. I could go live in a cave somewhere and masturbate all day I suppose, but human beings are pack animals. Social creatures. What's a guy gonna do? It's a dilemma.

Originally posted by NthOther
Please do, because it only proves my point. Are you implying that humanity would go extinct without its artificial methods of sustenance production and forest management? If human beings are no longer capable of surviving on this planet without raping and cannibalizing it, that's probably a pretty big red flag wouldn't you say?

Simple fact is that when the first tractor went on to the land and the first chemical fertiliser was applied, we created a monster. Humanity simply cannot feed itself at the current population level without all of these farming techniques. I know this, and I am sure you do to. The contentious UN agenda 21 knows this and has a plan to address it, but everyone finds it offensive as humans have this silly notion that we absolutely must populate or face perishing.

The language itself ("let nature run its course") presumes we have control over something we're ultimately powerless to do anything about, and that's a big part of the problem. We can't truly control it because we are not separate from it; but as with any living thing, when any part becomes infected an autoimmune response is triggered in the whole. If humanity has turned into nothing more than a planetary tumor, you can bet the planet will do something about it... and that probably involves killing the cancer. And that's the way it should be if indeed that's what we've become.

Yes, we are living out of balance with nature. I'm not denying that. I grew up on the land and I have seen things change in subtle ways that city dwellers do not and cannot comprehend. Calling humanity a cancer is a bit of an overstep though. We just need to stop having so many damned babies and voluntarily reduce our numbers or nature really will run it's course and it will not be pretty.

So nature is most important to you for its aesthetic qualities? I won't necessarily disagree with you on that, but it illustrates the prevailing tendency of human beings to manipulate ecosystems for emotional considerations.

Most certainly not. If I wanted aesthetic qualities, I would have planted exotic trees, landscaped and put a manmade stream through it. I was sharing my love of the native and original flora and fauna on the farm as it has a unique beauty and the land we are on also is very near a big forest reserve. We wanted to preserve the forest so that it gives the original wildlife and plants a little bit more space to co-exist naturally with us.

Where'd you get the fence? The metal comprising the nails that hold it together was pulled out of a mine somewhere. A forest was cleared to dig that hole. Then the metal was smelted in a foundry somewhere. A forest was cleared to build it. Then the metal was shaped into skinny pointy things at a different factory somewhere else. A forest was cleared to build that. The transportation of this metal of course requires fuel, so a forest was cleared somewhere to extract the raw materials for those fuels (by "forest" I mean any uncultivated environment, not just ones with lots of trees). Is all the damage caused by these industrial processes worth your little slice of "paradise"?

Technology doesn't grow on trees. There is a price we have to pay for all of this. Just because we can't see the smokestacks from our backyards (most of us, anyway) doesn't mean they don't exist. The fact that they exist means massive ecological disruption has taken place. Buying organic produce doesn't negate the fact that you pulled petroleum out of the ground and burned it in order to go to the store, you know?

I'm fully aware of my own hypocrisy in typing all of this on a computer, by the way. I could go live in a cave somewhere and masturbate all day I suppose, but human beings are pack animals. Social creatures. What's a guy gonna do? It's a dilemma.

Now you're just ranting.

I was merely trying to illustrate that farmers can and do try very hard in some areas to strike a balance between maintaining the natural order and human activity. The simple fact that every single person living in the cities, where nature really has been strangled off, needs to accept is that without farming every single one of you would starve.

This little patch of bush would have otherwise just died off if we did not fence it off. Cattle need fences, if we did not have them they would just wander off into the very large forest reserve only a couple of km away and thoroughly ruin that too.