This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: Glyphosate and pets

>According to the pamphlet that comes with RoundUP - Hazards to Humans and
>animals says "Harmful if swallowed."  I would interpret that to mean if your
>cat walked across the area you sprayed, went on to lick itself a bit later
>that it would ingest some the product which would be harmful. Elsewhere I
>have read that you should not let cattle into an area you have sprayed with
>RoundUp for 24 hours. Cannot recall the source at the moment. Roundup is a
>great product. I use it, but with caution and have had no fatalities among
pets.
>June Taylor
>Biggs, Ca
__________________________________________________________________________

>You may want to know that glyphosate, ie Roundup is not as harmless as
>previously thought.
>Check out http://www.greenpeace.org/~usa/reports/biodiversity/glyp.html
>for a good article about it.
>Or browse the archives of rec.gardens ( Usenet) through Dejanews.
>
>In short it can be said that it is an organophosphate but it doesn't affect
>our nervous system as most organophosphates do. It can affect pets, but
>only in very high doses.
>However, it does kill the bacteria in the ground..the micro life or micro
>organisms of the soil. It affects the wild flora.
>
>Here in Sweden, Roundup has been found to have contaminated the ground
>water and wells in certain areas. The manufacturer claims that the
>glyphosate is bound to the particles of the soil. But recent finds indicate
>this is not so.
>
>The most dangerous about Roundup and similar brandnames isn't the
>glyphosate, it is the additional compunds. They are carcinogenic, and act
>as serious irritants of the respitory tracts, eyes and skin.
>And if it gets out in the water, it kills frogs and fish.
>
>However, it is less toxic than a lot of other herbicides.
>
>Ingrid
__________________________________________________________________________

>
>The LD50 is an indication of acute toxicity, not long term.
>I elect to minimize exposure all possible.
>Clark
___________________________________________________________________________

To all:

IN REVERSE ORDER,

A few more words about Roundup.  I'm not concerned about chronic effects,
since it is a simple compound that breaks up into phosphoric acid,
formaldehyde, and glycine very quickly.  All three of these compounds are
naturally-occurring metabolites.  Yes, formaldehyde is bad, but in large
quantities.  It really is the initial carbohydrate, a one-carbon sugar
(CH2O), and as such, doesn't last very long in vivo.  

The highly toxic insecticides (and nerve gases) have very reactive
phosphorus-sulfur or phosphorus-fluorine bonds that IRREVERSIBLY alter
vulnerable and critical groups on enzymes and other key bodily compounds,
making them unable to function.  Since only a few enzyme molecules are
needed by the body, it doesn't take much of a potent toxin to cause severe
effects.  The chemical bonds in glyphosphate are relatively inert this way.

The secondary components are indeed of greater concern.  I'm not sure, but I
think one of them is diethanolamine.  This is biodegradable, but at a much
lower rate.  I think it is added to stabilize and disperse the glyphosphate.
I believe it acts as a wetting agent, allowing the solution to cover the
waxy cuticle of green leaves and stems.

Since either sunlight or a suitable mold is needed to break it down, once it
has gotten below the organically active surface soil into an inactive
subsoil, I would expect that it would persist longer.  The secondary
compounds would certainly last longer here.  It would be good to know if it
was the glyphosphate or the secondary components were detected in the well
water.

In the water, there is no surface area exposed to air as in soil, which has
gas, liquid, and solid phases that can thus provide greater varieties of
supporting environments for microflora than water.  While water may be
brimming with microorganisms, I would expect that fewer mechanisms for
activity to be present.

Finally, Rod is right.  The dose does indeed make the poison.  I used to
work in an organic synthesis group for a tobacco company, and one of our pet
peeves was that modestly as well as dangerously toxic compounds were labeled
as harmful.  We were grateful for MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) when
they appeared, since they gave us some sense of the magnitude and action of
toxicity. Some compounds are relatively harmless, and others are quite
insidious.  It was always necessary to check out the nature of these
materials before handling them and to take adequate precautions.
 
Does anyone know of a Web site that posts MSDS orHazmat (Hazardous Material)
info on agricultural compounds?  It would be of enormous value for resolving
discussions as this one.

Rich Dufresne
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index