4 ms·

According to this[1], 51% of one of their roundup products is "Other Chemicals", so less than half is Glyphosate. It says to try and keep it off skin etc. Would

According to this[1], 51% of one of their roundup products is "Other Chemicals", so less than half is Glyphosate. It says to try and keep it off skin etc. Wouldn't surprise me if most formulations have... other ingredients. [1] http://www.monsanto.ca/products/Documents/roundup_transorb_msds_en.pdf http://www.monsanto.ca/products/Documents/roundup_transorb_m... It also says: Skin irritation Rabbit, 3 animals, OECD 404 test: Days to heal: 14 Primary Irritation Index (PII): 2.2/8.0 Moderate irritation. FIFRA category III.

searine 10y ago
I agree. The primary component of that "Other Chemicals" are surfactants. Surfactants, such as (POEA used in roundup) are known skin irritants. They are used to help absorption of glyphosate in plants. Skin irritation is a very well characterized reaction to contact with any kind of surfactant.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  You appear to be making a false equivocation, stating that Monsanto's Roundup is safe because glyphosate is safe. On the other hand there are lots of studies showing that Roundup appears to cause health problems, which are likely to be based on the additives. The study from the University of Caen: >POEA was recognized as a common inert ingredient in herbicides in the 1980s, when researchers linked it to a group of poisonings in Japan. Doctors there examined patients who drank Roundup, either intentionally or accidentally, and determined that their sicknesses and deaths were due to POEA, not glyphosate. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herb... cf http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx200072k http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx200072k) // So presumably you consider POEA to be completely safe as you said Roundup is safe and that, what, the medical authorities reported of here are either misreported or mistaken?
  - searine 10y ago
    See the following review : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 "There is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternative surfactants" Surfactants, in general, are toxic. There is nothing special about POEA. Used properly, surfactants can be of good use and result in safe improvement of agriculture.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >Surfactants, in general, are toxic. // But you said, did you not, that Roundup - which is about 50% surfactants - was safe, safe to drink even. You compared it to drinking coffee IIRC. How is Roundup not toxic then?
      - danielweber 10y ago
        The trace amounts of roundup left on food crops is below any measured harm level. People who work with it in fields should be careful. Consumers have a thousand other things more dangerous to worry about.
      - searine 10y ago
        >surfactants were safe, Safe when used properly. >safe to drink even. Never said that.
        pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        >"All studies thus far point to roundup/glyphosate being incredibly safe." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715481, searine) FWIW the context was ability to harm humans in any way; you were responding to a person saying they'd been given a rash after using Roundup. >>"A good portion of which can do serious harm to life. Therefore "unknown" is the issue." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715508, goda90) >"Your daily coffee is probably an order of magnitude more carcinogenic than any glyphosate/roundup exposure." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715557, searine) Which I'll accept was not quite what I thought you'd said. Will you admit that you've claimed roundup to be "incredibly safe"? Also that in response to someone claiming it was harmful that your response, in context, suggested that coffee was more harmful?
briandear 10y ago
Skin irritant != causing cancer. Poison Ivy is a skin irritant but that doesn't make it a cancer agent.
- lstamour 10y ago
  I did not suggest it caused cancer, I merely provided a spec sheet to back up the earlier claims about a rash.
SigmundA 10y ago
This doesn't seem to prove it's unsafe unless you consider irritated skin a safety issue. In that case don't go outside as there are many things more irritating like say the sun (which actually causes cancer).
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  I don't know why one would consider skin irritation not to be a safety issue, you wear gloves when using such chemicals. Just claiming it is "safe" means people don't know they need to wear gloves. The sun is cancer causing, but knowing that means we can take precautions. Claiming exposure to UV rays in the sun is not harmful would be foolishly misleading. Just because there are greater harms doesn't mean something is "safe", yes people have different cut-offs, so comparatives are good (which toxicologists seem quite capable of using; median lethal dose, etc.).
  - SigmundA 10y ago
    I consider sandpaper safe, yet it's also a skin irritant and I would not eat it. "Safe" does not convey anything about wearing gloves or not, and the term should not be thrown around without understanding what is meant by it. I think most people would say going outside in the sun is "safe", but most also know there is more to that than a binary "good" or "bad", "safe" or "toxic". You however seem to be using the term in binary form.

searine 10y ago

I agree. The primary component of that "Other Chemicals" are surfactants. Surfactants, such as (POEA used in roundup) are known skin irritants. They are used to help absorption of glyphosate in plants. Skin irritation is a very well characterized reaction to contact with any kind of surfactant.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
You appear to be making a false equivocation, stating that Monsanto's Roundup is safe because glyphosate is safe. On the other hand there are lots of studies showing that Roundup appears to cause health problems, which are likely to be based on the additives. The study from the University of Caen: >POEA was recognized as a common inert ingredient in herbicides in the 1980s, when researchers linked it to a group of poisonings in Japan. Doctors there examined patients who drank Roundup, either intentionally or accidentally, and determined that their sicknesses and deaths were due to POEA, not glyphosate. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herb... cf http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx200072k http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx200072k) // So presumably you consider POEA to be completely safe as you said Roundup is safe and that, what, the medical authorities reported of here are either misreported or mistaken?
- searine 10y ago
  See the following review : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083 "There is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternative surfactants" Surfactants, in general, are toxic. There is nothing special about POEA. Used properly, surfactants can be of good use and result in safe improvement of agriculture.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >Surfactants, in general, are toxic. // But you said, did you not, that Roundup - which is about 50% surfactants - was safe, safe to drink even. You compared it to drinking coffee IIRC. How is Roundup not toxic then?
    - danielweber 10y ago
      The trace amounts of roundup left on food crops is below any measured harm level. People who work with it in fields should be careful. Consumers have a thousand other things more dangerous to worry about.
    - searine 10y ago
      >surfactants were safe, Safe when used properly. >safe to drink even. Never said that.
      - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        >"All studies thus far point to roundup/glyphosate being incredibly safe." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715481, searine) FWIW the context was ability to harm humans in any way; you were responding to a person saying they'd been given a rash after using Roundup. >>"A good portion of which can do serious harm to life. Therefore "unknown" is the issue." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715508, goda90) >"Your daily coffee is probably an order of magnitude more carcinogenic than any glyphosate/roundup exposure." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715557, searine) Which I'll accept was not quite what I thought you'd said. Will you admit that you've claimed roundup to be "incredibly safe"? Also that in response to someone claiming it was harmful that your response, in context, suggested that coffee was more harmful?

briandear 10y ago

Skin irritant != causing cancer. Poison Ivy is a skin irritant but that doesn't make it a cancer agent.

lstamour 10y ago
I did not suggest it caused cancer, I merely provided a spec sheet to back up the earlier claims about a rash.

SigmundA 10y ago

This doesn't seem to prove it's unsafe unless you consider irritated skin a safety issue. In that case don't go outside as there are many things more irritating like say the sun (which actually causes cancer).

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
I don't know why one would consider skin irritation not to be a safety issue, you wear gloves when using such chemicals. Just claiming it is "safe" means people don't know they need to wear gloves. The sun is cancer causing, but knowing that means we can take precautions. Claiming exposure to UV rays in the sun is not harmful would be foolishly misleading. Just because there are greater harms doesn't mean something is "safe", yes people have different cut-offs, so comparatives are good (which toxicologists seem quite capable of using; median lethal dose, etc.).
- SigmundA 10y ago
  I consider sandpaper safe, yet it's also a skin irritant and I would not eat it. "Safe" does not convey anything about wearing gloves or not, and the term should not be thrown around without understanding what is meant by it. I think most people would say going outside in the sun is "safe", but most also know there is more to that than a binary "good" or "bad", "safe" or "toxic". You however seem to be using the term in binary form.