Look what EPA says about Roundup/Glyphosate:

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/glyphosa.html

What are the Health Effects?
Short-term: EPA has found glyphosate to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: congestion of the lungs; increased breathing rate.

Long-term: Glyphosate has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL: kidney damage, ++++reproductive effects+++++.

http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effects/glyphosate-analysis.pdf

C. Chemical Use: The following is based on the currently registered uses of glyphosate:
‘ Type of Agent: Non-selective herbicide
‘ Classification: General Use
‘ Summary of Sites:
< Aquatic uses: agricultural drainage systems, irrigation systems, lakes/ponds, reservoirs, streams, rivers, channeled water.
< Forestry: conifer release, forest plantings, forest trees.
< Food: acerola, apricot, artichoke, asparagus, atemoya, avocado, banana, beech nuts, blackberry, boysenberry, brazil nut, breadfruit, broccoli, brussels sprouts, butternut, cabbage, carambola, carrot, cashew, cauliflower, celery, chard, cherimoya, cherry, chestnut, chicory, cocoa, coffee, collards, cranberry, cress, cucumber, currant, date, dewberry, eggfruit tree, eggplant, elderberry, endive,fig, filbert, garlic, gooseberry, gourds, ground cherry, guava,
hickory nut, horseradish, huckleberry, jaboticaba, jackfruit, kale,
kitembilla, kiwi fruit, kohlrabi, leek, lettuce, litchi nut, loganberry,
logan, loquat, macadamia nut, mamey, mango, marmalade box,
mayhaw, melons, mustard, nectarine, okra, olive, onion, papaya,
parsley, passion fruit, peach, pear, pecan, pepper, persimmon,
pistachio, plantain, plum, pomegranate, prune, pumpkin, quince,
radish, raspberry, rhubarb, rutabaga, sapodilla, sapota, soursop,
spinach, squash, sugar apple, sweet potato, tamarind, taro, tea,
walnut, yam.
<
Feed Crops: alfalfa, barley, beans, buckwheat, corn,
grass/fodder/hay, lentils, millet, nongrass/forage/fodder/straw/hay,
oats, pastures, rye, sorghum, wheat.
<
Food + Feed Crops: almond, anole, barley, beans, beets,
buckwheat, calamodin, citron, citrus hybrids other than tangelo,
corn, cotton, grapefruit, grapes, kumquat, lemon, lentils, lime,
millet proso, mustard, orange, parsnip, peanuts, peas, pineapple,
potato, pummelo, rape, rice, wild rice, rye, sorghum, soybeans,
sugar beet, sugarcane, tangelo, tangerines, tomato, tritricale, turnip,
wheat.
<
Other Non-Food/Feed Use: agricultural fallow/idleland, rights-of-
way/fences/hedgerows, agricultural uncultivated areas,
airports/landing fields, Christmas tree plantations, golf course turf,
industrial sites (outdoor), nonagricultural outdoor buildings and
structures, ornamental and/or shade trees, ornamental lawns and
turf, ornamental woody shrubs and vines, paths/patios, paved
areas, recreational sites, urban areas.
<
Residential: ornamental and/or shade trees, ornamental herbaceous
plants, ornamental lawns and turf, ornamental shrubs and vines.
==================
Drinking water info from US Geological Service:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5027/section6.html

The two most commonly detected pesticides were the triazine herbicides simazine and atrazine, which occurred in about one-half of samples. Deethylatrazine (a degradate of atrazine) commonly was detected along with atrazine in about 30 percent of samples. The active ingredients in the common household herbicides RoundUP™ (glyphosate) and Crossbow™ (triclopyr and 2,4-D) also were frequently detected together. These three herbicides often made up most of the total pesticide concentration in tributaries throughout the study area.

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/glyphosate_wastewater.html

Glyphosate Found in Wastewater Discharged to Streams

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and is widely used to control weeds in both agricultural fields and in urban and suburban settings. In 2002, USGS scientists sampled the wastewater discharged into streams from 10 wastewater treatment plants. Although the observed concentrations were small, these results are the first to demonstrate that the discharge from wastewater treatment plants serving urban areas is a source of glyphosate to streams. Samples were collected from the treated wastewater and from the stream water—both upstream and downstream of the wastewater discharge. Glyphosate was more frequently detected in the wastewater (27%) and in the downstream samples (20%) than it was in the upstream samples (12%). No detections were observed in two reference streams located in areas with little human influence. The discharge of the streams and the wastewater outfalls in this study were generally lower when compared to the discharge of the streams in a study of the occurrence of glyphosate in streams draining agricultural areas, so further research is needed to determine the relative loads (mass) of glyphosate from various sources.
As with many studies on the occurrence of herbicides in streams, the degradates of the herbicide were more common than the parent compound. In this study of glyphosate, AMPA (aminomethyl phosphonic acid), a degradate of glyphosate, was found in higher concentrations and more frequently (68%) in wastewater than was glyphosate (18%). The results of this study can be used to assist water-resource managers make informed decisions regarding the environmental fate and effects of herbicides (and their degradates) that are applied in different land-use settings.

+++++++++++++++++++++
I want to know if it is harmful. It seems to have some known risks according to:
VERMONT ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY’S
NORTHWEST RELIABILITY PROJECT,
WEED MANAGEMENT HERBICIDES
AND
ALTERNATIVES
A REPORT
FOR
PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
DOCKET #6860

In one study, glyphosate and AMPA were both still detectable in leaf litter 100 days after an application. A study in Finland found glyphosate and AMPA in reindeer lichens 270 days after application (Mensink, H. & P.Janssen, 1994).
Concerns for plant communities on land: Because of its behavior in soil and ability to drift, glyphosate use holds dangers for plant communities. Researchers have found that glyphosate can drift as much as 130 feet and do harm to sensitive native species (Marrs, R.H. et al, 1993). Glyphosate can do damage to non-target plant species because it moves easily within the plant, damaging even unexposed parts of the plant. “Drift of herbicide can affect natural vegetation by damaging sensitive species and thereby altering the structure of the community in the long term.” Of four herbicides studied, wild plants were at a much greater risk of damage from glyphosate drift, in amounts as low as .1 micrograms per plant (Breeze, V. et al, 1992). Endangered plant species and viability of plant communities could be jeopardized because glyphosate can prevent calcium uptake by plant roots, increase plants’ susceptibility to pathogens, and inhibit growth of various soil micro-organisms (Carlisle, S.M. and J.T.Trevors, 1988). Glyphosate treatment made plants more susceptible to colonization of plant roots by pathogens because of complex plant /chemical interactions (Brammall, R.A. and V.J.Higgins, 1988).
Several modes of glyphosate’s behavior raise concerns for maintaining the integrity of Charlotte’s sensitive plant communities, including wetlands.
Concerns for aquatic ecosystems: Since glyphosate is the herbicide allowed for use close to water and is used in wetlands, the nontarget dangers of the herbicide in aquatic ecosystems need to be considered.

Glyphosate is toxic to tadpoles and to frogs, although Roundup is more toxic than technical grade glyphosate because of the surfactant’s effects on the gills and skin of amphibians (Bidwell, J.R. and J.R.Gorrie, 1995).

The adsorption of glyphosate to suspended clay particles in water can lengthen its persistence in the aquatic systems (Bowner, K.H., 1982) keeping it available to aquatic invertebrates that live in sediment and filter it through their bodies.

*** Glyphosate can act as a nutrient in water because of its phosphate content, even amounts below detectable level, indirectly affecting fish habitat, and can cause mortality to larvae of an aquatic invertebrate species (Austin, A.P.,1991). [eutrophication, the Dead Zone comes back to mind]

Concentrations of glyphosate below the detection limit may contain enough glyphosate to be available for adsorption to sediment (Newton, M.et al, 1984). Because glyphosate can drift off-target, bind to sediment and erode into streams, populations of invertebrates such as fresh-water mussels (some listed as Endangered or Threatened in Vermont) in affected streams could face additional risks to their survival.

Concerns for animal life: Glyphosate is directly toxic to some beneficial insects, and can reduce the population of others through habitat reduction (Cox, C., 1998). Populations of voles and shrews were reduced for two to three years in Maine studies (Santillo, D.J., 1989. One researcher found that low chronic doses of glyphosate reduced the ability of rabbits to reproduce successfully because sperm were less viable, either because of the toxicity of glyphosate to cells or because reproductive hormones were disrupted (Yousef, M.I.et al, 1995).

Concerns for humans: Humans are exposed from utility uses through occupational use of glyphosate, via drift or off-target from applications, through contact with contaminated soil, or drinking or bathing in contaminated water. In California where statistics on pesticide-related illness are recorded, glyphosate caused 28 reported systemic and respiratory acute illnesses, and 151 reported skin and eye acute illnesses between 1984 and 1990 (Pease, W.S. et al, 1993, p.8). Most injuries were associated with ground or hand application as well as with mixing and loading (Pease, W.S.et al, 1993, p.18). Other effects of glyphosate on human health include burning of eyes or skin, blurred vision, peeling of skin, nausea, headache, vomiting, numbness, burning of the genitals, and wheezing (California. EPA. DPR. 1993-95).

New research indicates that glyphosate and its formulations cause DNA-damaging activity in the liver and kidney of mice. No significant difference is seen between the active ingredient and its formulation (Bolognesi, C.et al, 1997).
++++++++++++++++++
It looks to like Seralini et al concluded that more in vivo studies are warranted based on the in vitro tests. As a consumer and resident of this Finite Earth, I sure want to know and soon:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/tx800218n?cookieSet=1
All cell types, including primary cultures, react similarly at the membrane and mitochondrial level, justifying the hypothesis that the cell lines used provide excellent models to study human cell toxicity, for instance in placental cells (18). We show for the first time that embryonic and umbilical cells also have comparable sensitivity. The most reactive level reached appears to be the cell membrane level for the different formulations, but not for G. The supposed “inert ingredients” play obviously and differently the role of cell membrane disruptors, independently to G, as we have previously proposed (14), and this was suggested in fish, amphibians, and microorganisms (27, 45) or in plants (46)

We now demonstrate that in human cells.The second level is the mitochondrial membrane and the enzymatic reaction in it, SD, localized in the internal membrane in complex II of the respiratory chain (47). It is altered in a comparable way, not proportional to G but relatively to the nature and the quantity of the adjuvants that we have previously listed (15). This means that the toxicity of G clearly varies with formulations that must imperatively now be used in in vivo tests to study any toxicity (45); this also means that the ADI of G must take into account its formulation, since 7.2 or 360 g/L of G may have comparable effects, considerably different to 400 g/L. It would even be more correct to use precisely an ADI of R instead of G. It may also be time-dependent. These ideas are not taken into account yet for regulatory legislation.The necessity to study combined effects also appears from our results. In fact, the body is always exposed to mixtures and not to single compounds. We have previously demonstrated that mixtures could amplify toxicity for other widely spread pollutants (2). For embryonic or neonatal cells, POEA, the major adjuvant, has the highest toxicity, either by itself or amplified 2−5 times in combination with G or AMPA. It has already been shown that POEA is highly toxic for sea urchin embryos, impinging on transcription (28). It is also known that in an aquatic environment, POEA has higher effects than R and G on bacteria, microalgae, protozoa, and crustaceans (12). In addition, the known metabolism of G in the soil or plants is supposed to detoxify it in AMPA (11); however, here, we demonstrate that AMPA is more toxic than G in human cells, especially on cell membrane. AMPA is also more stable in soil (48), in plants, and in food or feed residues (49), and more present in wastewater (2−35 ppm) than G [0.1−3 ppm; (50)]. It is not toxic alone at these concentrations in our experiments, but it amplifies G or POEA toxicity in combination. The synergic toxicity of all of these compounds is now more obvious.

Therefore, even granting these studies merit, they are not granted enough merit to make health claims about roundup – this requires in vivo studies – in vivo studies which have all shown roundup and its various formulations to be relatively harmless (aswell as 30 years of general useage without evidence of adverse effects) (sure Dr. Dan can add a lot more than this…)

In a comment by you posted in 2005, you and Donna R. Farmer remark:
http://www.biotechknowledge.com/BIOTECH/knowcenter.nsf/ID/D373597C16175DED86256FBD005A5735?OpenDocument
“The cells used in this study were taken from a human placental tumor, put into a Petri dish, and covered with culture media containing Roundup or other test materials. This direct exposure to high concentrations is vastly different than what would occur in a human or animal body, i.e. – the concentration of Roundup reported to have caused a reduction in aromatase activity was orders of magnitude greater than would result from the highest possible human exposure under real conditions. The direct exposure used in this study intentionally bypasses normal processes limiting absorption and cellular exposure and avoids normal metabolism, digestion and excretion that would protect cells from the minute amounts of chemical. These cell lines are used as mechanistic research tools and are not recognized or accepted by any regulatory agency or other scientific body in the world for the assessment of human health risks.”
************************************************
At first, I thought you were criticizing his choice of cell lines as inappropriate for the study. So I looked up different methods and found many studies that use the JEG3 cell line. As a science-lay person, I ask you to explain your disagreement with this scientific protocol? For pesticide screening, isn’t it advisable and standard to check aromatase effects in vitro? To see if regulatory agencies recognize usage of JEG3, I searched EPA files for toxicological methods and found this Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

How does Seralini’s use of the JEG3 cell line differ from the methods described here in EPA policy?:

http://epa.gov/endo/pubs/edmvs/aromatase_drp_final_3_30_05.pdf

“FINAL DETAILED REVIEW PAPER
ON AROMATASE
EPA CONTRACT NUMBER 68-W-01-023
WORK ASSIGNMENTS 2-7 AND 5-5, TASK 2
March 2005
PREPARED FOR
GARY E. TIMM
WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING PROGRAM
WASHINGTON, D.C.
PREPARED BY
BATTELLE
505 KING AVENUE
COLUMBUS, OH 43201

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING THE ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING PROGRAM (EDSP)

In 1996, the passage of the two laws, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandated the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to screen pesticides and authorized the EPA to screen chemicals found in drinking water to determine whether they possess estrogenic or other endocrine activity (Federal Register, 2001). The U. S. EPA is required to “develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effect…” (Federal Register, 2001). The U.S. EPA established the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), to provide recommendations regarding a strategy for developing a testing paradigm for compounds that may have activities similar to naturally-occurring hormones. Following the recommendations made by EDSTAC in its final report (EDSTAC, 1998), the EPA established the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). The program’s
aim is to develop a two-tiered approach, e.g., a combination of in vitro and in vivo mammalian and ecotoxicological screens (Tier 1) and a set of in vivo tests (Tier 2) for identifying and characterizing endocrine effects of pesticides, industrial chemicals, and environmental contaminants. This Detailed Review Paper was prepared for the U.S. EPA in 2002 to review the scientific basis of the aromatase assay and examine assays reported in the literature used to measure the effect of chemical substances on aromatase.
An in vitro aromatase assay could easily be utilized as an alternative screening method in
the Tier 1 Screening Battery to assess the potential effects of various environmental toxicants on aromatase activity. Both in vitro subcellular (microsomal) assays and cell-based assays are available for measuring aromatase activity. The in vitro subcellular assay using human placental microsomes, is commonly used to evaluate the ability of pharmaceuticals and environmental chemicals to inhibit aromatase activity. In addition, human JEG-3 and JAR choriocarcinoma cell culture lines, originally isolated from cytotrophoblasts of malignant placental tissues, have been used as in vitro systems for measuring the effects of compounds on aromatase activity. These cell lines are also utilized for investigations on the effects of agents in placental toxicology.
Various organochlorine contaminants have been examined in the JEG-3 and/or JAR cell
line systems. The contaminants 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 3,3′,4,4′,5-pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB126) caused concentration-dependent decreases in the aromatase activity of up to 4.9-fold in the JEG-3 cells.104 The IC50 values for aromatase inhibition were 52 pM and 13 nM for TCDD, and 75 nM and 48 nM for PCB126 in the presence and absence of serum, respectively. These studies were further extended to twenty-one organochlorine PCB derivatives tested in both JEG-3 and JAR cell lines.105 Aromatase inhibition was observed, but cytotoxicity was also significant. These observations led to the conclusion by the authors that the JEG-3 and JAR cells “appear too sensitive” to the cytotoxic effects of organochlorines for use in evaluating effects on aromatase activity. The fungicide fenarimol was also evaluated in JEG-3 cells,95 exhibiting an IC50 value for aromatase inhibition of 2.0 μM. In general, the results on aromatase inhibition for a wide variety of chemical compounds that have been obtained from an intact cell system such as the JEG-3 or JAR cell culture lines are similar to the results from the human placental microsomal system.
Test Method Performance and Test Method Reliability.

An active test compound is evaluated in a full dose-response study (1.0 nM to 1.0 mM) with quadruplicate samples at each dose concentration tested. The full dose-response studies will be analyzed by nonlinear regression analysis, and dose-response curves will be generated. The IC50 values are determined from dose-response studies, and the log IC50 values, standard error of the log IC50 values, and the correlation coefficient will also be obtained in this analysis. This assay endpoint, i.e., measurement of aromatase activity, is accurate and reproducible.

The JEG-3 cell culture assay is a common in vitro assays used for measuring aromatase and aromatase inhibition.25-38 The assay has been utilized extensively and performed reproducibly since the late 1980’s. It continues to be used in academic labs and pharmaceutical firms for aromatase inhibition and for investigations on the effects of agents in placental toxicology. The endpoint of the measurement of aromatase activity by the radiometric assay (3H2O method) is accurate as the assay measurement and is in agreement with the product isolation method. The relative inhibitory activities of aromatase inhibitors in JEG-3 cell culture assay are similar to the activities observed in human placental microsomal assays. However, the actual IC50 values can vary from lab to lab due to variable experiment conditions, such as substrate concentrations, cell number, and culture conditions, employed in the particular laboratory.”

************************
If the goal is to test for endocrine disruption, how is Seralini’s method not standard? Does the method Seralini used differ from the EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening model? If so, how?

July 9, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Concerning séralini, I have just noticed today that he still insist in his mistake about the MON863. He claims he was using “appropriate statistical methodology”…
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm
He cite Doull et al but forget to mention his “re-analysis” was properly repudiated by Afssa, EFSA and FSANZ.

————————-
GFP, can you please show us where and why Seralini’s reanalyis is “properly repudiated?”

You raised the “Precautionary Principle,” so permit me to comment. I believe this to be a red herring, and misused by those opposed to new technologies as if it were a principle by which we live all other parts of our lives. Balderdash! If you really believe in the PP,you would never get out of bed in the morning.

There are levels of risk associated with all human activity. This does mean that we stop in our tracks and do nothing. In many of our everyday, mundane tasks, there is risk (slipping in the shower, crossing the street, driving the car, etc.). However, if we applied the PP as you say, we would never do anything.

But all of a sudden, the PP becomes a guiding light when the subject is genetic modification?

Such thought is not rational.

“John, you can access almost any foreign media online these days.”

Yes, we CAN, but very few US residents DO. I will leave it as an exercise for the interested reader as to why this is the case.

_________________________

Sometimes the two overlap in Democracy. Not often enough, but sometimes:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/24/07-16458.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/feed/feed-latest.html#3
Monsanto loses again: GE alfalfa banned nationwide
A federal court has upheld a ban on the planting of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa in the United States. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its previous ruling that the alfalfa, which is engineered to tolerate the herbicide Roundup, could contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa and thus cause “irreversible harm” to the farmers whose livelihoods depend on these crops and to the environment. In the original lawsuit, the Center for Food Safety, other nonprofit organizations, and two alfalfa seed producers sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for approving GE alfalfa without preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) as required by federal law. After the district court issued its original ruling in 2008 to ban the alfalfa, Monsanto and another biotechnology company appealed the ban, but their appeal was denied in this final ruling. The ban will remain in place until the USDA completes the EIS. Read more from Reuters, or read the decision (pdf).

“We hope the USDA finally gets the message that it must fully evaluate the public health, environmental, and economic risks of GE crops before allowing them to be widely planted.” ~ Jane Rissler, Deputy Director/Senior Scientist

July 8, 2009 at 8:22 am
Merci, GFP, for a non-American (US) viewpoint on the topic. “We” here don’t typically get exposed to “foreign” media, and it is good to be reminded there are other opinions out there.

+++++++++++++++++
John, you can access almost any foreign media online these days.