Regulars of HI board:

There is some interest from the COVID forum to have a scientific discussion about roundup and Monsanto. I figured it was semi relevant here as many of us use it around the house. I am directing that discussion to this thread so not to clog up that other forum. I am far from an expert on these things but I have a masters degree in agronomy/chemical weed control and have done a lot of environmental pesticide fare work. Worked for 7 years at Monsanto as a field rep and have been involved in ag for 20 years in one form or fashion. For those interested please feel free to ask anything and I'll try to get to it or hopefully some of my Colleagues can. AgResearch and I were in grad school together and his resume is better than mine on this stuff. CenterPole90 is very experienced in this realm as a farmer. Farmersfight09 is also versed in this as I'm sure are many others.

Please don't troll here with typical BS regarding Monsanto or roundup but if you have legitimate questions we can have a science and fact based discussion about it. Thanks

My family has been in agriculture for years and until recently used Roundup. We've moved away from it in the vineyard, mainly due to community pressure and the fact that it is almost too effective... people out here will drag out out in public if they see you using it or think you are. They tar and feather folks out here saying that it poisons the ground water, kills wildlife, and gives folks cancer.

There's a lot of buzz in the wine industry about the impact it has on the vines long term despite them being dormant when the application is put down. There's also some debate on the impact it has on the wine, but i havent seen anything concrete on that. There's also a lot of discussion on aspects of the compound building up in the soil and being bad for overall vine health.

I'm afraid the story has already been written for Roundup. It's only a matter of time before usage is banned or the tide of public opinion turns against it so much that Monsanto is forced to reformulate, rebrand and rerelease. That's just my opinion. We farm in CA, so we're kind of the tip of the spear in terms of public outrcy.

I use it heavily on the farm and ranch. I've always treated it the same as my other chemicals, some of which are controlled. I've always treated it the same way I do guns.

Don't put it in your mouth. Check.
Don't put it in your nose. Check.
Don't point it at stuff you don't want to kill. Check.

I have zero clue about the health aspects related to it as I've always read and followed the label. That's what it's for.

If you compare glyphosate to something like Grazon....it's pretty reserved.

From everything I have read and studied it seems the glyphosate itself is incredibly safe. And when used according to the label there is virtually zero risk. However roundup used on the farm is different than roundup sold in the store for consumer use. There is a secondary chemical in premixed roundup that the big box stores sell. That chemical is diquat and I know for sure it's cousin chemical is extraordinarily toxic. Prolonged and repeated exposure to that chemical could certainly cause issues. I still think it is at least a stretch but Id deem it as plausible. However I believe the lawsuits specifically mention glyphosate instead of diquat which is junk lawsuits in my opinion that is playing off of hot button issues

Seven, I wonder if you and I were in school at the same time. E fate was one of my committee members specialty, and that guy was a friggin genius, plus overall great guy. Anyway, i do believe the product in question in these lawsuits is plain ol 41% ai, not the Lowes / Home Depot homeowner version. To date there is zero evidence in the literature proving glyphosate is a carcinogen or likely carcinogen. Even the EPA has come forward in a friend of the court brief stating that the verdicts be reversed.

Bachelors in 09 masters in 11 with Senseman as major professor

One thing I learned in school in looking at various herbicides in a chemistry class, the chemicals themselves are generally safe and fine. You could technically eat some and not get sick. But most chemicals are hydrophobic.

To get them in a water solution that's easy to spray and easy for plants to uptake... that's a different story. Those chemicals are what get you. Soaps, solvents and other stuff help keep the herbicide in solution but can cause major side effects. And since most are only listed as "inactive ingredients", you don't always know what you're getting.

To me, I think that's the bigger issue with roundup; you need the full chemical cocktail to know what's going on.

~egon

Although I don't know how much light I can shed on the science end of the discussion. I can speak from the perspective of someone who has had extensive experience with the product in a retail nursery, a major wholesale nursery, and in a commercial landscaper setting. I do have an Ag degree and I am a Texas Certified Nursery Professional, but I won't try to compare that to a graduate degree in any chemical or soil/crop science.

I have seen it used literally hundreds of times. I have recommend and sold it to retail users. Most of the people I sold to were educated professionals, but not all. I am a real stickler for reading and following label directions, and regularly conveying how important it is to do this. I always liked to share information with the people I interact with. Many were MDs, technical people, engineers, etc., so I've found a lot of them really tried to 'drill down' on the technical side of why chemicals do what they do. In all of my experience and in all the interactions I've had with thousands of folks, I've never even had a hint of any kind of danger or risk of the kind and type being pushed by these interests. Quite frankly, I don't get where the product went south in the public perception, other than the publicity around these personal injury trials. I also saw it used in an R&D setting in a large commercial grower setting so we could evaluate where it would work and where it wouldn't. I just haven't seen any negative effects, and I feel like I have had plenty of opportunity to have seen it if it were going to happen.

I haven't read the trial transcript but I heard from someone that one of the defendants was practically swimming in it. I don't think it's reasonable to think someone misusing it to this extent should be given the kind of credibility as an example of why you lay blame on Monsanto.

There's just so many people in 10s of thousands of settings who benefit by using it. It's really good for what it does.

Hope that helps.

Are you saying that the surfactants, even in those very small concentrations, could cause problems? Or maybe the combination might pose a risk?

Not saying I doubt either one, just something I never thought about.

The surfactants are there to make something water soluble that isn't. And generally your body can defend against fat soluble things with skin and such.

But once you start ingesting things that will solubilize things, chemistry and biochemistry can go haywire.

For example, my old lab has angiotensin, which is a peptide that causes blood constriction. Can touch the powder no problem. Could try to ingest it and wouldn't cause an issue because the stomach acid should degrade it. But...

Put a little DMSO with it and it will go straight to your blood stream and potentially cause a heart attack, depending on your dose. Oh, and DMSO will go through nitrile gloves and your skin. So you better have chemical gloves or double up on nitrile gloves and if you spill any on you, take off both gloves and wash your hands quickly.

That's my overall premise with roundup and other herbicides.

~egon

Seven said:

---

Bachelors in 09 masters in 11 with Senseman as major professor

---

I was several years ahead of you. Senseman was my co-chair. Dude is brilliant and one of the nicest guys you'll meet.

The first trial case was a grounds keeper in California who was spraying RU out of his truck window since the stuff came on the market without PPE.

Farmers and all pesticide handlers have to be trained, post very specific signage, provide PPE, and provide safety showers for their employees or it is a major violation, at least in Texas. So my question is, if RU caused non Hoskins and if he was working for the school, why isn't the school liable for the damages since they didn't provide him with the correct PPE and make sure he wore it? Maybe he sued them too but I doubt it

Seven said:

---

The first trial case was a grounds keeper in California who was spraying RU out of his truck window since the stuff came on the market without PPE.

Farmers and all pesticide handlers have to be trained, post very specific signage, provide PPE, and provide safety showers for their employees or it is a major violation, at least in Texas. So my question is, if RU caused non Hoskins and if he was working for the school, why isn't the school liable for the damages since they didn't provide him with the correct PPE and make sure he wore it? Maybe he sued them too but I doubt it

---

Who has deeper pockets?

Ding, ding, ding!