Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 chromedog wrote:
Glyphosate works on plant cell WALLS though, not membranes and animal cell membranes are not affected by it - and animal cells do NOT contain cell walls.

It's been extensively studied, and is LESS toxic than caffeine (although even with caffeine, the toxic dose is so high, you will die from "water toxicity" (hyponatremia, brain swelling, etc) before the caffeine kills you.

Strikes me, as the man in the street with no particular knowledge in this area, that The Main Effect being ruled out, does not rule out Side Affects?

Very little in life comes without side-effects, even riding the Clapham omnibus.

That causes piles, apparently.

And indeed, Cockernee Knee, where one’s kneecaps become riddled with tiny Danny Dyers.

Cancer is a very complex collection of diseases. It is very difficult to directly find a causal link between many carcinogens and substances correlated with increased levels of cancer. Hence the very long list of things the Daily Mail has told us cause cancer or cure cancer, sometimes the same thing appears on both lists multiple times.

Roundup has been linked with a specific type of cancer, Lymphoma afaik. There has been a lot of work done to try and establish a pretty good correlation excluding confounding factors as needed.

Someone made the point that the main action of glysophate is to attack the cell walls of certain plants, which would have no effect on human cells. Fair enough. I am less clear on how glysophate is metabolised and whether all the products of that process are also safe.

The EU operates on the precautionary principle, where companies have to prove something is safe beyond reasonable doubt if it is going to be introduced into the environment, rather than only banning things that are found to cause harm. The EU is not perfect in this regard and is heavily lobbied by industry in some cases or bows to popular hysteria in others. But generally care is taken and decisions are not made particularly lightly.

It's AFAIK also not true that the EU banned the stuff. IIRC, there was a lot of talk about banning it, but the license was renewed for 5 years despite public pressure.

jouso wrote:
LD50 of glyphosate is less than that of vinegar. You can kill yourself faster by drinking vinegar than with glyphosate.

That doesn't mean it tastes good or won't give you a stomach ache. It's meant for spraying weeds, not to be drunk.

chromedog wrote:Glyphosate works on plant cell WALLS though, not membranes and animal cell membranes are not affected by it - and animal cells do NOT contain cell walls.

It's been extensively studied, and is LESS toxic than caffeine (although even with caffeine, the toxic dose is so high, you will die from "water toxicity" (hyponatremia, brain swelling, etc) before the caffeine kills you.

People have died from ingesting all three.

Roundup/Glyphosate comes in a range of strengths- the most significant poisonings come from the concentrates, which are typically 41% glyphosate or higher. This is strong enough to have killed some of those who have ingested it. Sure, it is less toxic, by Ld50, than caffeine, but caffeine generally only comes in forms that are impossible to toxic-overdose on. Just because it works on cell walls in plants does not mean it does not have a different (or more likely, multiple) mechanism of toxicity in humans.

That is due to caffeinated drinks being sufficiently dilute to pee out the caffeine as quick as it can be ingested. However, people have died ingesting caffeine tablets, because you can take a much larger dose in a smaller volume. The estimated lethal dose of coffee is something like 80-100 cups, which would kill you through fluid overload before it killed you through caffeine intake.

Vinegar has also killed people (well, technically synthetic vinegar, which legally should not be labelled vinegar in the UK, tastes indistinguishable from vinegar, and is used interchangeably). The synthetic form is stored in concentrates, and people have died from the acid burns when drinking the concentrate (usually accidentally).

So yeah, the lobbyist refused to drink it not just because it is unpleasant, but because it is dangerous. He had no idea what specific form of Roundup the interviewer had- whilst 0.5% glyphosate solution would almost certainly be safe, 41% or more has a real chance of causing significant toxicity and potentially death.


As an aside, it is nearly impossible to separate the toxicity and carcinogenicity of glyphosate by itself from the other products used in the weedkiller solutions. The surfactants in particular likely have some toxicity and/or carcinogenicity. However, there are definitely examples of concentrated glyphosate being more toxic than dilute glyphosate, and both are commercially available.



Study abstract about glyphosate toxicity.

Accidental ingestion of glyphosate formulations is generally associated with only mild, transient, gastrointestinal features. Most reported cases have followed the deliberate ingestion of the concentrated formulation of Roundup (The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.) (41% glyphosate as the IPA salt and 15% POEA). Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally.

I wouldn't drink it, if given the choice.

Bran: Thanks, I had a feeling that was the case (after all, Monsanto is now a German company...) but I saw people talking about it so I thought maybe it had happened and was too lazy to check.

On the LD50 thing, I mean okay, but is that not a massive red herrng when we are talking about it being a carcinogen? something can be a carcinogen without being directly toxic. I assume people know that but stating it just in case.

 Da Boss wrote:
Bran: Thanks, I had a feeling that was the case (after all, Monsanto is now a German company...) but I saw people talking about it so I thought maybe it had happened and was too lazy to check.

On the LD50 thing, I mean okay, but is that not a massive red herrng when we are talking about it being a carcinogen? something can be a carcinogen without being directly toxic. I assume people know that but stating it just in case.

I think that is just a related tangent coming from the video of the lobbyist stating it is completely safe to drink then refusing to drink it.

Carcinogenic potential and toxic potential are generally unrelated- smoking is a great example.

 Haighus wrote:


Roundup/Glyphosate comes in a range of strengths- the most significant poisonings come from the concentrates, which are typically 41% glyphosate or higher.

Most commont glyph is 36% concentration .

An average 70kg human would have to drink 1000 litres of the stuff (1088 actually) to reach the LD50 (which in any case is tested on rats, so who knows)

You're right though that LD is just a measure of acute toxicity (i.e. drop dead right here), there's also an interesting measure which is the NOAEL or Non Observed Adverse Effect Levels which are long-term studies (usually in rabbits).

NOAEL for glyph is 50mg/kg, which means that, again, the average human would have to drink almost 10 litres of 36% glyphosate before adverse effects are felt.

Of course those studies are for pure glyphosate active ingredient, and commercially available glyphosate has a number of solvents, surfactants, etc. which are probably more toxic that the glyphosate proper.

Also, those are studies on rabbits or rats, which means that the allowed actual doses are corrected by a factor of 10 to 100, just to be safe.

The carcinogenic thing is a whole different thing. But studies (and there are a lot of them) place them on the same "probable" level as coffee or BBQ.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
While I don't know the specifics of this case, most of the famously 'bonkers' damage awards that come out of the U.S. are i) a result of their tendency to hear civil trials before a jury ill-equipped to handle civil litigation; and ii) only half the story.

They're almost always massively reduced - and often overturned - on appeal.

They're also often massively mis-represented by a media that lacks the technical skills to convey a nuanced judgment to a lay audience.

The "McCoffee" case, for example, ticks all these boxes.

EDIT - In terms of the actual question, the answer is that the plaintiff/claimant's lawyer(s) convinced a factfinder, be it judge or jury, that it was more likely than not that Monsanto was liable for whatever harm was alleged, despite any and all evidence presented as to its effects by Monsanto's lawyer(s).

A plaintiff/claimant prevails in civil litigation if the balance of probabilities is in their favour, even by as little as 1%.

No, you are completely wrong on the mccoffee case. The coffee was dangerously hot, other peolle had suffered burns from it and had told McDonald's about it, it inflicted serious injury on an old woman and she required SURGERY because of it. McDonald's lawyers waged a smear campaign against the victim and her family and too may peopel bought into it, fortunately the courts did not.

None of which disputes anything I said.

You made statements. I showed facts proving they were wrong. There is no dispute.

Uffda.

Cryptek Keeper wrote:

The coffee was dangerously hot

I didn't say otherwise.

Cryptek Keeper wrote:
other peolle had suffered burns from it and had told McDonald's about it

I didn't say otherwise.

Cryptek Keeper wrote:
it inflicted serious injury on an old woman

I didn't say otherwise.

Cryptek Keeper wrote:
she required SURGERY because of it.

I didn't say otherwise.

Cryptek Keeper wrote:
McDonald's lawyers waged a smear campaign against the victim and her family

I didn't say otherwise.

I said it was a result of a jury trial, which is true. I said the award was reduced on appeal, which is true. I said it was misrepresented in the media, which is true.

You appear to be reading an impassioned defence of McDonalds into my post that simply isn't there.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

You appear to be reading an impassioned defence of McDonalds into my post that simply isn't there.

To be somewhat fair, you called it the "McCoffee Case", which to many in this thread suggested certain views on the case.



I think the difference between a jury making judgement on coffee and medical issues vs. Round-Up are huge. . . . Firstly, I think even the most average person understands what "boiling hot" means. And I think they can grasp an understanding of "melting point of paper cup", and while they may not have experienced it, they can have some understanding of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree burns. Contrast that with Round-Up. Here, we're talking about alphabet soup chemical ingredients and further scientific "cell wall" mumbo jumbo (as outlined elsewhere in this thread), and as demonstrated by many "advocacy" groups (ie, anti-vaxxers), there is a real risk that an inability to pronounce an ingredient leads to unnatural fear of said ingredient.

It is called "the McCoffee case" in the media and in the minds of many people.

Google 'McCoffee case'. 1.3m results.

Google 'Liebeck v. McDonalds'. 41,600 results.

I repeat, it simply isn't there.

Juries are ill-equipped to sit in civil litigation because of procedural issues with the way civil litigation is conducted, IMO, not because they must necessarily have a problem understanding the evidence as presented.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/03/27/no-its-not-safe-to-drink-weed-killer-on-camera-but-who-cares/#6226ac2d4073


https://www.newsweek.com/patrick-moore-scientist-who-offered-and-then-refused-drink-glyphosate-weed-317289

for those who still share the "Monsanto lobbyist" bit

 soundwave591 wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/03/27/no-its-not-safe-to-drink-weed-killer-on-camera-but-who-cares/#6226ac2d4073


https://www.newsweek.com/patrick-moore-scientist-who-offered-and-then-refused-drink-glyphosate-weed-317289

for those who still share the "Monsanto lobbyist" bit

Not paid by Monsanto. He gets his money from the Koch brothers.

He works for the Heartland institute, a right-wing think tank that worked with tobacco companies in the 1990s to attempt to discredit the science showing the links between secondhand smoke and cancer. After losing that it switched to climate change denial.

In short, he's a fethhead.