What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Roundup main ingredient Glyphosate

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,435
Reaction score
8,616
Points
900
"Roundup Ready" for what? Who is rounding up the a cash cow at the expense of everyone's health and land? I spent the day searching through each and every ingredient, piece of information, reports and studies today on Glyphosate (there is a new name for it comin out as it morphs into a different but the same product). I'm not a scientist but it really does not seem that hard to understand that gold cyanide left overs and all the other made up blended in ingredients just are not healthy for animal or people. And did you know that agribiz can file for an exception to go over the limits on pesticides, herbicides and fungicides in your veggies, grain products, meat, eggs and milk products? I realized that big chemical companies, industrial companies and sewage facilities did this sometimes but I had no idea that EPA would grant leniency on stuff that actually grows into the food.

Glyphosate products were a big deal when Starlink corn came out until people started learning that the corn caused all types of health problems including cancer and birth defects.
Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine) is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds, especially perennials. "Toxicity to humans, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and acute toxicity."


United States Patent 3927080

Filing Date: 09/03/1974 Monsanto Company (St. Louis, MO) - 1975 N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine is produced by the acid hydrolysis of ... N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine is useful as a post-emergent broad spectrum herbicide.

United States Patent 3954848

Assignee: Monsanto Company (St. Louis, MO) JE Franz - 05/31/1972 - N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine is produced by the acid hydrolysis of ... N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine is useful as a post-emergent broadspectrum herbicide .

Chemical Name:N-(Carboxymethyl)-N-(phosphonomethyl)-glycine

N-(Carboxymethyl)-N-(phosphonomethyl)-glycine Structure

Raw materials IMINODIACETIC ACID DISODIUM SALT HYDRATE (Disodium, Hydrate)


IMINODIACETIC ACID DISODIUM SALT HYDRATE Structure


Preparation Products Iminodiaceticacid-->N-(Carboxymethyl)-N-(phosphonomethyl)-glycine

U. S. Production :

(1972) PROBABLY GREATER THAN 4.54X10+5 GRAMS


Iminodiaceticacid is identified as probable, possible or confirmed human carcinogen by IARC.


EPA Substance Registry System:


Glycine, N-(carboxymethyl)-N-(phosphonomethyl)- (5994-61-6)


Raw materials

IMINODIACETIC ACID DISODIUM SALT HYDRATE Diethylamine hydrochloride Preparation Products Glyphosate


Glyphosate Structure

Glyphosate


Glyphosate Preparation Products And Raw materials Raw materials

Ammonium hydroxide Chloroacetic acid Hydrogen peroxide METHYLAMINE Formaldehyde Paraformaldehyde Glycine Triethylamine 2,2'-Iminodiethanol Phosphorus trichloride Phosphorous acid Trimethyl phosphite N-(Carboxymethyl)-N-(phosphonomethyl)-glycine HYDROGEN CYANIDE Hydrochloric acid 3-Amino-4-chlorobenzenesulfonic acid Methanol Sodium hydroxide METHYLPHOSPHONIC ACID Iminodiacetic acid Hexamethylenetetramine SURFACTANT Dimethyl phosphonate Sulfuric acid Calcium hydroxide Ammonia
Glyphosate also known as AURORA KA-2968

Ammonium hydroxide Chemical Properties

Health HazardTOXIC; inhalation, ingestion or skin contact with material may cause severe injury or death. Contact with molten substance may cause severe burns to skin and eyes. Avoid any skin contact. Effects of contact or inhalation may be delayed. Fire may produce irritating, corrosive and/or toxic gases. Runoff from fire control or dilution water may be corrosive and/or toxic and cause pollution.

Ammonium hydroxide Preparation Products And Raw materials Raw materials
Sodium chloride Hydrochloric acid MethanolSodium hydroxide Ammonia
Preparation Products__ cytochrome C, solution Neomycin sulfate, 2-Amino-3,6,8-naphthalenetrisulfonic acid, N,1,3-Trimethyl-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide , 97% Ferric ammonium oxalate, 2-ANTHRACENECARBOXYLIC ACID, (1-METHYL-1H-BENZIMIDAZOL-2-YL)METHYLAMINE, 1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one 1,1-dioxide, ammonium salt, 2-AMINO-3-PYRIDINECARBOXALDEHYDE HCL, 2,4-Dimethylimidazole, 2,6-DIMETHYL-3-HYDROXYPYRIDINE, FOSAMINE AMMONIUM, Glufosinate-ammonium Ethyl, 3-amino-4,4,4-trifluorocrotonate, aluminium oxide sol, Methocarbamol, 6-Chloropyridazin-3-amine Hydrofining catalyst FH-5, adhesive for electrostatic flocking EX-1, N,1,5-Trimethyl-1H-pyrazole-3-carboxamide ,97%, Isepamicine, 2,4-Dichlorobenzonitrile, Doxycycline monohydrate, 4-Nitrobenzenesulfonamide, 2-CHLORO-6-METHYLPYRIMIDIN-4-AMINE, polyalumium sulfate chloride, (6-BROMO-2-PYRIDINYL)-CARBAMIC ACID,1,1-DIMETHYLETHYL ESTER, 1,3-DIMETHYL-1H-PYRAZOLE-5-CARBOXAMIDE, DL-Cystine, 2,4,5-TRIMETHYL-3-OXAZOLINE, L-GLUTAMIC ACID, MONOAMMONIUM SALT, AMMONIUM PHOSPHOMOLYBDATE, synthetic thickener KG-201, Direct Blue 199, Potassium gold(III) cyanide, emulsifier SOPE-15, L(-)-Epinephrine 1,5-Dimethyl-1H-pyrazole-3-carboxamide ,97%, 5-methylquinolin-8-ol, 2-Amino-6-bromonaphthalene
+N- +phosphonomethyl

Advances in Phytoremediation

Advances in Phytoremediation, hazardous wastes, hazardous wastes remediation, organic chemicals, phytoremediation, phytotoxicity, plants, plant metabolism, Advances in Phytoremediation, Annette C. Dietz and Jerald L. ...

Advances in Phytoremediation dietz-full.html- 68.5KB


31%


||||||||||||||||||||

13 Mar 10

Find Similar

Highlight

Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health ..

... financial interests. Received 21 June 2004 ; accepted 3 November 2004. Introduction Glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine], commonly sold in the commercial formulation named Roundup (Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO), ...

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/7340/7340.html- 69.6KB


22%


||||||||||||||||||||

13 Mar 10

Find Similar

Highlight

Roundup Inhibits Steroidogenesis by Disrupting Steroidogenic Acute Regulatory (StAR) ..

Roundup Inhibits Steroidogenesis by Disrupting Steroidogenic Acute Regulatory (StAR) Protein Expression, chemical mixtures, cytochrome P450 side chain cleavage, environmental endocrine disruptor, 3ß-hydroxysteroid ...

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2000/108p769-776walsh/walsh-full.html- 83.6KB


22%


||||||||||||||||||||

13 Mar 10

Find Similar

Highlight

Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase

... well-characterized mammalian model (Auvray et al. 1998). Materials and Methods Chemicals.N-(Phosphonomethyl)glycine (glyphosate) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Saint Quentin Fallavier, France), and the pesticide Roundup ...

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7728/7728.html- 68.1KB


22%


||||||||||||||||||||

13 Mar 10

Find Similar

Highlight

Glyphosate Biomonitoring for Farmers and Their Families: Results from the Farm Family ..

... financial interests. Received 12 August 2003 ; accepted 3 December 2003. Introduction Glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] is the active ingredient in the Roundup (Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO) brand of agricultural ...

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2003/6667/6667.html- 62.7KB


20%


||||||||||||||||||||

13 Mar 10

Find Similar

Highlight



"The brain is particularly vulnerable to hypoxia, and exposure to toxins that interfere with the intake, transport and utilization of oxygen provoke rapid and major neuronal damage. Compounds crossing the blood-brain barrier may induce both general and extremely localized neurotoxic effects."

(Kyvik KR, Morn BE, 1995. Environmental poisons and the nervous system. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1995. June 10; 115(15):1834-8.)
According to both the EPA and the World Health Organization in 1993 and 1994, glyphosate appears to mimic adrenaline. This would explain the sleeping problems encountered by many persons exposed to RoundUp, as for them, cortisol appears to no longer be properly regulated by their bodies' adrenal glands.

(US EPA, 1993. EPA Reregistration Eligibility Document, Glyphosate, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C., September 1993.)

(IPCS, 1994. Environmental health criteria 159: Glyphosate. International Programme of Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Geneva.)

Reported by Marie Trigona | July 13, 2009

A study released by Dr. Andres Carrasco earlier this year reports that glyphosate causes birth defects. Argentina has seen an explosion in genetically modified (GM) soy bean production with soy exports topping $16.5 billion in 2008. The fertile South American nation is now the world's third largest producer of soy, trailing behind the United States and Brazil. However, this lucrative industrial form of farming has come under fire with environmental groups, local residents, and traditional farmers reporting that GM soy threatens biodiversity, the nation's ability to feed itself, and health in rural communities.


Criticism of the soy farming model intensified recently when research released by Argentina's top medical school showed that a leading chemical used in soy farming may be harmful to human health. The study has alarmed policy makers in the South American nation.

A study released by an Argentine scientist earlier this year reports that glyphosate, patented by Monsanto under the name "Round Up," causes birth defects when applied in doses much lower than what is commonly used in soy fields. The study was directed by a leading embryologist, Dr. Andres Carrasco, a professor and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires. In his office in the nation's top medical school, Dr. Carrasco shows me the results of the study, pulling out photos of birth defects in the embryos of frog amphibians exposed to glyphosate. The frog embryos grown in petri dishes in the photos looked like something from a futuristic horror film, creatures with visible defects—one eye the size of the head, spinal cord deformations, and kidneys that are not fully developed. Story Continued at Americas Program, Center for International Policy (CIP).

Roundup is not water soluble.

Other studies show that Glyphosate and commercial herbicides containing Glyphosate cause a range of cell mutations and damage to cell DNA. These types of changes are usually regarded as precursors to cancer and birth defects.

Studies show that the commercial products, such as Round Up, can be three times more toxic than pure glyphosate. In California, where there is a mandatory system of reporting pesticide poisoning, Glyphosate is the third most common cause of pesticide illness in farm workers. It is the most common form of reported pesticide poisoning in landscape gardeners.


Two separate studies in Sweden have linked exposure to Glyphosate to Hairy Cell Leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. These types of cancers were extremely rare, however non-Hodgkins lymphoma is the most rapidly increasing cancer in the Western world. It has risen by 73% in the USA since 1973. Another study has found a higher incidence of Parkinson disease amongst farmers who used herbicides, including Glyphosate.

Residues of glyphosate have been found in a variety of fruits and vegetables. This is because it readily moves into all parts of a plant. As it is inside the plant tissues, it cannot be washed off.

Residues can be detected long after glyphosate treatments have been made. One study showed that lettuces contained residues five months after the field was treated with glyphosate. The disturbing thing about this research is that the lettuce seedlings were planted four months after the field was sprayed for weeds. The seedlings absorbed the glyphosate from the soil residues. World Health Organization study revealed significant Glyphosate residues in wheat after harvest. Milling did not remove the Glyphosate, as it moves into the plant and the wheat seed. The study showed that cooking does not break down Glyphosate.
Environmental Effects

Glyphosate is very toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. Concentrations as low as 10 parts per million can kill fish. Daphnia, a very important part of the aquatic food chain, especially for fish, can be killed by as little as three parts per million. This is an important reason why it should not be used near waterways or in drains.


Glyphosate is extremely toxic to the soil life. One application can cause a dramatic plunge in the number of beneficial soil microorganisms and arthropods. Studies show a reduction in the species that build humus, thus it contributes to the decline in soil organic matter. Currently Canada and other nations are suffering the effects of former GMO crops.

Glyphosate significantly reduces the activity of nitrogen-fixing bacteria. These bacteria transform soil nitrogen into forms that plants can use. Studies of Soybeans grown for nitrogen fixation showed a reduction in the number of rhizobium bacteria and the nitrogen they produce when Glyphosate was used for weed control.

Other studies show that Glyphosate herbicides increase the susceptibility of plants to diseases. This is partly because it reduces the growth of mycorrhizal fungi and other beneficial fungi that help plants absorb nutrients and help fight disease. However, plants suffer more disease, as there is an increase in the soil pathogens and a decrease beneficial species that control diseases after an application Glyphosate.

Glyphosate exposure damages or reduces the populations of earthworms. A New Zealand study showed that 5% of the usual application rate caused delayed development and increased death in earthworms.

Glyphosate reduces populations of small mammals and birds by damaging the vegetation that provides food and shelter for these animals.

The populations of all of these living organisms can take years to recover due to Glyphosate’s persistence in the soil.

The dangers of the herbicides known as Ammo, Ambush and Cyclone, Dual, Roundup, Cotoran, and Banvil were well known in prior to 2000 and long before that. Not one of our bureaucrats or legislators has stopped this tragedy in the United States, not one. For the love of money all have turned a blind eye to the dangers these products would have on people, animals and nature. Even today no one that has the power within our government to stand up and say enough has done it. One billion tons plus a year of these dangerous chemicals and several times the amount their inert ingredients have been dumped onto this nation. We have dead people, dead animals, injured people and injured animals plus a dead zone growing daily in the Gulf.

Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase

Sophie Richard, Safa Moslemi, Herbert Sipahutar, Nora Benachour, and Gilles-Eric Seralini

Laboratoire de Biochimie et Biologie Moleculaire, USC-INCRA, Université de Caen, Caen, France

Abstract
Roundup is a glyphosate-based herbicide used worldwide, including on most genetically modified plants that have been designed to tolerate it. Its residues may thus enter the food chain, and glyphosate is found as a contaminant in rivers. Some agricultural workers using glyphosate have pregnancy problems, but its mechanism of action in mammals is questioned. Here we show that glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants. Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient. We tested the effects of glyphosate and Roundup at lower nontoxic concentrations on aromatase, the enzyme responsible for estrogen synthesis. The glyphosate-based herbicide disrupts aromatase activity and mRNA levels and interacts with the active site of the purified enzyme, but the effects of glyphosate are facilitated by the Roundup formulation in microsomes or in cell culture. We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals. We suggest that the presence of Roundup adjuvants enhances glyphosate bioavailability and/or bioaccumulation.

Roundup Revelation
Weed Killer Adjuvants May Boost Toxicity

Although the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup is generally thought to be less toxic to the ecosystem than other pesticides, concerns about its effects on human reproduction persist. In a study in Ontario, Canada, exposure of male farmers to glyphosate-based herbicides was associated with an increase in miscarriage and premature birth in farm families. Seeking an explanation for these pregnancy-related problems, researchers at France's Université de Caen investigated the effects of the full Roundup formulation and glyphosate alone on cultured human placental cells [EHP 113:716-720]. The herbicide, they found, killed the cells at concentrations far below those used in agricultural practice. Surprisingly, they also found that Roundup was at least twice as toxic as glyphosate alone.

Virtually all previous testing of Roundup for long-term health damage has been done on glyphosate rather than on the full herbicide formulation, of which glyphosate makes up only around 40%. The remainder consists of inactive ingredients including adjuvants, chemicals that are added to improve the performance of the active ingredient. Roundup's main adjuvant is the surfactant polyethoxylated tallowamine, which helps glyphosate penetrate plant cells.

The Roundup concentration recommended for agricultural use is 1-2% in water. The authors incubated placental cells with various concentrations of Roundup (up to 2.0%) or equivalent concentrations of glyphosate. The viability of the cells was measured after 18, 24, and 48 hours. No one is sure how Roundup interferes with reproduction, so the team also tested whether it, like other pesticides, would disrupt the activity of aromatase (an enzyme that regulates estrogen synthesis) in placental cells. Aromatase activity was measured after 1 hour and 18 hours.

The researchers found that a 2.0% concentration of Roundup and an equivalent concentration of glyphosate killed 90% of the cultured cells after 18 hours' incubation. The median lethal dose for Roundup (0.7%) was nearly half that for glyphosate, meaning Roundup was nearly twice as toxic as the single chemical alone. Further, the viability of cells exposed to glyphosate was considerably reduced when even minute dilutions of Roundup were added.

After an hour's incubation with Roundup, estrogen synthesis in placental cells (as shown by aromatase activity) was enhanced by about 40%. After 18 hours, however, synthesis was inhibited, perhaps reflecting an effect on aromatase gene expression. This effect was not seen with glyphosate alone.

The study showed that the effect of Roundup on cell viability increased with time and was obtained with concentrations of the formulation 10 times lower than those recommended for agricultural use. Roundup also disrupted aromatase activity at concentrations 100 times lower than those used in agriculture. The researchers suspect that the adjuvants used in Roundup enhance the bioavailability and/or bioaccumulation of glyphosate.http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/113-6/ss.html


Recent reports demonstrate that many currently used pesticides have the capacity to disrupt reproductive function in animals.

Roundup Inhibits Steroidogenesis by Disrupting Steroidogenic Acute Regulatory (StAR) Protein Expression

http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-12212009-31295016596529/unrestricted/31295016596529.pdf


According to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate.
 

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0
Fuck off loser, you can't even make your own argument, just copy/paste nonsense. Get a life, stop spamming us with your anti science bullshit, and stop using all the technology gained from science
 
OP
RodISHI

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,435
Reaction score
8,616
Points
900
Fuck off loser, you can't even make your own argument, just copy/paste nonsense. Get a life, stop spamming us with your anti science bullshit, and stop using all the technology gained from science
Tsk, tsk, I can copy and paste from my own site and don't even have to put in the links. Cool stuff, eh?
 
OP
RodISHI

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,435
Reaction score
8,616
Points
900
EPA continues a review of requirement for listing inert ingredients on pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. In August of 2006 the Northwest Coalition Of Pesticide Alternatives filed a petition with EPA for Rulemaking to coincide with the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodentcide Act (FIFRA) 7 U.S.C. - 136w and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. - 553(e). Petitioners request was that EPA issue a determination within 60 days of the filing to amend its labeling regulations, 40 C.F.R. - 156.10, to require that pesticide product labels clearly list any inert ingredients that EPA regulates as a hazardous chemical under other statutory provisions..... The request goes into specifics for promulgating EPA rules to match with health and safety standards that are in any other EPA requirements. That sounds reasonable to me. I mean who in the world wants pesticide and herbicide ingredients in their food products? Legislation has been placed to protect the public from dangers and if you do not know what is being grown into and put on your food in the fields you cannot avoid these extreme health hazards.
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/petition_ncap.pdfEPA does not currently identify inert ingredients on pesticide labels

Pesticide manufacturers often claim as confidential the identities of inert ingredients in their products. Federal confidentiality regulations (40 CFR part 2, subpart B) require EPA to protect information claimed as confidential by companies. One exception is when EPA provides inert ingredient information to medical professionals treating persons in connection with exposure to a pesticide [FIFRA § 12(a)(2)(D) Exit EPA disclaimer ].[/QUOTE]

EPA requires registrants to identify to the Agency all ingredients in their pesticide products. A challenge for inerts disclosure by registrants is that their pesticides may include proprietary products whose contents are held confidential by the manufacturer. EPA knows the composition of those proprietary products, but does not disclose it to registrants.
I am going to write EPA and ask the about this. I am unsure why companies can use products that they have morphed into the various names over the years and are being used as inert ingredients that are clearly not healthy for the environment and would be illegal to dump anywhere in the US except for a farmers field under the auspice of being a herbicide, fungicide or pesticide.
Stakeholder involvement in inert disclosure

EPA has actively engaged the regulated community and other stakeholders on the topic of inerts disclosure. The Office of Pesticide Programs’ Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) considered disclosure options, information needs of the medical community, and other topics. PPDC’s discussions and final report continue to inform the Agency as EPA contemplates rulemaking to increase public availability of inert ingredients. The Agency will continue to involve stakeholders and the regulated community throughout any rulemaking process.
I'm wondering if "stakeholders" are the final consumers or if that phrase only includes "industry". It also makes me wonder if EPA like FDA considers "industry our customer".
September 2009 EPA responds to the petitioner (1) and the State petitioner (3). EPA agrees with petitioner (1) that the public should have a means to learn the identities of hazardous inert ingredients. Then EPA talks about how "transparency could lead to better informed decision-making...." Cool stuff as I read along here EPA agrees with NCAP that a product by product and case by case basis should be performed for labeling requirements.

EPA, can choose to require labeling but it does not say specifically that they will require all inert ingredients be listed in pesticides. This may be a sticker because EPA first has to determine if they can legally require a manufacturer to list specific product ingredients. Looks to me like these chemical companies have been playing the system way too long and getting away with morphing from one issue and one product line into another to try to stay ahead of the petitioners asking for legal notification to prevent the poisoning of the general public via the chemical manufacturers products.

EPA goes on to say in its response that it "is not committing and legally cannot commit, to any particular outcome for rulemaking." I want to say her what a bunch of whimps. If EPA can't protect the public from these chemical companies who the heck can? While the chemical companies have jacked around in the system millions of people have been affected negatively and their health suffers and the poor unsuspecting public has no clue as to what is happening to them. They don't know that their food and water is contaminated with this crap. Farmers have been told the stuff is safe and even most of them know better than that but these giants have such a foothold on Agribiz they have very little choice but to accept what is approved by our government!
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/petitionresponse.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/petition_states.pdf
While everyone is pussy foot around this issue the makers of Glyphosate are morphing once again into another chemical product line and renaming the chemicals to keep ahead of the public and rule making. They are removing any trace of the ingredients in the products by renaming the chemicals so people cannot search them out and expose them for what they truly are.
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
"Iminodiaceticacid is identified as probable, possible or confirmed human carcinogen by IARC."

Ok which is it?

Cell phones and high power lines seem to occupy the same category
 
OP
RodISHI

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,435
Reaction score
8,616
Points
900
Rulemaking Underway Related to Disclosure of All Pesticide Ingredients
Quick Resources


* Inert Ingredients Permitted in Pesticide Products
* Reassessment Status List
* Contact: Inert Ingredient Assessment Branch,
PV Shah, Branch Chief XXXXXXX,
XXXXXXX

EPA is seeking comment on options for increasing public disclosure of all inert ingredients in pesticides registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2009, and is available in the Public Docket (docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0635). EPA received and granted two requests, from Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment and Sygenta Crop Protection, for a 90-day extension of the comment period from February 22, 2010, to April 23, 2010. For further information: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-3415.pdf

EPA Seeks to Disclose Pesticide Inert Ingredients

Release date: 12/22/2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 22, 2009

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is requesting public comment on options for disclosing inert ingredients in pesticides. In this anticipated rulemaking, EPA is seeking ideas for greater disclosure of inert ingredient identities. Inert ingredients are part of the end use product formulation and are not active ingredients. Revealing inert ingredients will help consumers make informed decisions and will better protect public health and the environment.

“Consumers deserve to know the identities of ingredients in pesticide formulations, including inert ingredients,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “Disclosing inert ingredients in pesticide products, especially those considered to be hazardous, will empower consumers and pesticide users to make more informed choices.”

EPA believes public disclosure is one way to discourage the use of hazardous inert ingredients in pesticide formulations. The agency is inviting comment on various regulatory and voluntary steps to achieve this broader disclosure.

Pesticide manufacturers usually disclose their inert ingredients only to EPA. Currently, EPA evaluates the safety of all ingredients in a product’s formulation when determining whether the pesticide should be registered.

On October 1, 2009, EPA responded to two petitions (one by Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and a second by several state attorneys general), that designated more than 350 inert pesticide ingredients as hazardous. The petitioners asked EPA to require that these ingredients be identified on the labels of products that include them in their formulations.

EPA will accept comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for 60 days after it has been published in the Federal Register.

More information: Rulemaking Underway Related to Disclosure of All Pesticide Ingredients | Office of Pesticide Programs | US EPA
 

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0
Yup, just what I expected Rodishi would answer, copy and paste more irrelevant bullshit. WTF is you problem Rodishi, you even have a clue about anything you copy and paste? Doesn't appear so
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
12,404
Reaction score
1,936
Points
0
Fuck off loser, you can't even make your own argument, just copy/paste nonsense. Get a life, stop spamming us with your anti science bullshit, and stop using all the technology gained from science
Where's your concern for the planet? The environment?
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
I support full disclosure on pesticides, food products, etc.
Full contents and country of origin, etc.

I want to know where all the fresh foods were grown that I buy.
 
OP
RodISHI

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,435
Reaction score
8,616
Points
900
"Iminodiaceticacid is identified as probable, possible or confirmed human carcinogen by IARC."

Ok which is it?

Cell phones and high power lines seem to occupy the same category
Cell phones and high power lines are not planted where they can be carried in runoff into the water ways. From what I have been reading so far it appears that studies sometimes can be led away from the subject that needs to be addressed first. Certain chemicals have always been known carcinogens. Iminodiaceticacid is a compound mixture of known carcinogenic compounds.

Due to the fact that certain posters have brought attention to my uneducated status and have labeled me as an idiot I feel that there may be others more capable than me to form an opinion which will more effectively pave the way for these matters to be more discreetly looked into. I am trying to help others gather the information that are more capable of disseminating this information by those who are more educated and are not "idiots" or "losers" like me.



Process of producing phenolic chelate resin using iminodiacetic acid
United States Patent 3936399
Inventors:
Hirai, Masahide (Uji, JA)
Fujimura, Mikio (Kamo, JA)
Kazigase, Masahiro (Uji, JA)
Saito, Minoru (Uji, JA)
Publication Date:
02/03/1976

Filing Date:
01/21/1974
Patent US3936399

Conversion of hydroxymethyl-iminodiacetic acid to phosphonomethyl-iminodiacetic acid
United States Patent 5312972

Inventors:
Cullen, Barry A. (Lyndeborough, NH)
Application Number:
07/969705
Publication Date:
05/17/1994
Filing Date:
10/29/1992
Assignee:
Hampshire Chemical Corp. (Lexington, MA)
Patent US5312972
Patent application title: Control of N-(Phosphonomethyl)Iminodiacetic Acid Conversion in Manufacture of Glyphosate
Inventors: James P. Coleman Donald D. Soleta David R. Eaton Peter E. Rogers Eduardo A. Casanova John Wagenknecht Leonard Aynardi David Z. Becher Robert E. Byrd Walter K. Gavlick Eric A. Haupfear Oliver Lerch Carl Mumford Alfredo Oba Stephen D. Prosch Bart Roose Mark D. Scaia Lowell R. Smith
Agents: SENNIGER POWERS LLP
Assignees: MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC
Origin: ST LOUIS, MO US
IPC8 Class: AG01N3300FI
USPC Class: 436104
Abstract:
This invention relates to the preparation of N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine ("glyphosate") from N-(phosphonomethyl)iminodiacetic acid ("PMIDA"), and more particularly to methods for control of the conversion of PMIDA, for the identification of reaction end points relating to PMIDA conversion and the preparation of glyphosate products having controlled PMIDA content.
Variations of labels or names on the ingredients depend on the manufacturer which the provider secures the 'Glyphosate' to make their final product before it hits the market. Same basic chemical compounds different names.
Glyphosate Preparation Products And Raw materials
Raw materials
Ammonium hydroxide Chloroacetic acid Hydrogen peroxide METHYLAMINE Formaldehyde Paraformaldehyde Glycine Triethylamine 2,2'-Iminodiethanol Phosphorus trichloride Phosphorous acid Trimethyl phosphite N-(Carboxymethyl)-N-(phosphonomethyl)-glycine HYDROGEN CYANIDE Hydrochloric acid 3-Amino-4-chlorobenzenesulfonic acid Methanol Sodium hydroxide METHYLPHOSPHONIC ACID Iminodiacetic acid Hexamethylenetetramine SURFACTANT Dimethyl phosphonate Sulfuric acid Calcium hydroxide Ammonia
Bronco - SigmaAldrich

Raw materials Sodium hydroxide-->Hydrochloric acid-->Methanol-->Sulfuric acid -->Triethylamine-->Ammonium hydroxide-->Ammonia-->Hydrogen peroxide-->Formaldehyde-->Phosphorus trichloride-->METHYLAMINE-->Glycine-->Paraformaldehyde-->Chloroacetic acid-->Hexamethylenetetramine-->Calcium hydroxide -->2,2'-Iminodiethanol-->HYDROGEN CYANIDE-->Trimethyl phosphite-->SURFACTANT-->Iminodiacetic acid-->Dimethyl phosphonate-->Phosphorous acid-->3-Amino-4-chlorobenzenesulfonic acid-->METHYLPHOSPHONIC ACID-->N-(Carboxymethyl)-N-(phosphonomethyl)-glycine
 

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0
Bullshit Rodishi, you are spreading lies and misinformation in an attempt to bastardize science and make it a big conspiracy theory, all while you benefit from the products brought to you by science.

Anybody corrects you, you just copy and paste more irrelevant bullshit and never respond to them. YOu don't care about facts, you just want to spread your own little warped version of facts. I've torn many of your bogus copy and pastes apart and you never once responded to that. Don't act like you are here for anything other than being a misinformation troll
 
OP
RodISHI

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,435
Reaction score
8,616
Points
900
Bullshit Rodishi, you are spreading lies and misinformation in an attempt to bastardize science and make it a big conspiracy theory, all while you benefit from the products brought to you by science.

Anybody corrects you, you just copy and paste more irrelevant bullshit and never respond to them. YOu don't care about facts, you just want to spread your own little warped version of facts. I've torn many of your bogus copy and pastes apart and you never once responded to that. Don't act like you are here for anything other than being a misinformation troll
Bug off "loser" you simply don't know when shit is nasty. You must revel in it. Too many people are onto the crap that has been spread around the world by greedy people and sellout slime balls like you that could care less about the health and well being of other people. Tides turning and not you or anyone else will be able to keep it from coming ashore and cleaning up and taking everyone of you nasty spirited little bastards away with the tide when it goes back out. All your whining and moaning does not mean jack to me or most anyone else that see the truth of what has been transpiring as Lukemia, Renal failure, cancers, asthma, heart problems, allergies, birth defects and every other nasty immune defect that this shit has caused comes into the light where all can see it for what it is and see the people who promote it for what they actually are.
 
Last edited:

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0
Bullshit Rodishi, you are spreading lies and misinformation in an attempt to bastardize science and make it a big conspiracy theory, all while you benefit from the products brought to you by science.

Anybody corrects you, you just copy and paste more irrelevant bullshit and never respond to them. YOu don't care about facts, you just want to spread your own little warped version of facts. I've torn many of your bogus copy and pastes apart and you never once responded to that. Don't act like you are here for anything other than being a misinformation troll
Bug off "loser" you simply don't know when shit is nasty. You must revel in it. Too many people are onto the crap that has been spread around the world by greedy people and sellout slime balls like you that could care less about the health and well being of other people. Tides turning and not you or anyone else will be able to keep it from coming ashore and cleaning up and taking everyone of you nasty spirited little bastards away with the tide when it goes back out. All your whining and moaning does not mean jack to me or most anyone else that see the truth of what has been transpiring as Lukemia, Renal failure, cancers, asthma, heart problems, allergies, birth defects and every other nasty immune defect that this shit has caused comes into the light where all can see it for what it is and see the people who promote it for what they actually are.


Says the loser that doesn't know anything about science except what some interwebs site says. GIve me a break, you are completely ignorant of science. You take shit out of context, talk about how they are toxic, but totally ignore the levels in which tests show they are toxic, far above anything anybody is exposed to.

If you think copy and pasting a bunch of misleading bullshit is a good way to spread information, you really are a moron.

You bug off, we have enough people ignorant of science without bozos like you spreading lies and misinformation.
 
OP
RodISHI

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,435
Reaction score
8,616
Points
900
Bullshit Rodishi, you are spreading lies and misinformation in an attempt to bastardize science and make it a big conspiracy theory, all while you benefit from the products brought to you by science.

Anybody corrects you, you just copy and paste more irrelevant bullshit and never respond to them. YOu don't care about facts, you just want to spread your own little warped version of facts. I've torn many of your bogus copy and pastes apart and you never once responded to that. Don't act like you are here for anything other than being a misinformation troll
Bug off "loser" you simply don't know when shit is nasty. You must revel in it. Too many people are onto the crap that has been spread around the world by greedy people and sellout slime balls like you that could care less about the health and well being of other people. Tides turning and not you or anyone else will be able to keep it from coming ashore and cleaning up and taking everyone of you nasty spirited little bastards away with the tide when it goes back out. All your whining and moaning does not mean jack to me or most anyone else that see the truth of what has been transpiring as Lukemia, Renal failure, cancers, asthma, heart problems, allergies, birth defects and every other nasty immune defect that this shit has caused comes into the light where all can see it for what it is and see the people who promote it for what they actually are.


Says the loser that doesn't know anything about science except what some interwebs site says. GIve me a break, you are completely ignorant of science. You take shit out of context, talk about how they are toxic, but totally ignore the levels in which tests show they are toxic, far above anything anybody is exposed to.

If you think copy and pasting a bunch of misleading bullshit is a good way to spread information, you really are a moron.

You bug off, we have enough people ignorant of science without bozos like you spreading lies and misinformation.
:blahblah:

You are calling the Patent office, EPA, FDA, CDC, HHS, NIOSH, NIEHS and various other associated health agencies and scientist who have done the studies on these chemicals a bunch of "ignorant losers". You really are a pathetic case.
 

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0
Bug off "loser" you simply don't know when shit is nasty. You must revel in it. Too many people are onto the crap that has been spread around the world by greedy people and sellout slime balls like you that could care less about the health and well being of other people. Tides turning and not you or anyone else will be able to keep it from coming ashore and cleaning up and taking everyone of you nasty spirited little bastards away with the tide when it goes back out. All your whining and moaning does not mean jack to me or most anyone else that see the truth of what has been transpiring as Lukemia, Renal failure, cancers, asthma, heart problems, allergies, birth defects and every other nasty immune defect that this shit has caused comes into the light where all can see it for what it is and see the people who promote it for what they actually are.


Says the loser that doesn't know anything about science except what some interwebs site says. GIve me a break, you are completely ignorant of science. You take shit out of context, talk about how they are toxic, but totally ignore the levels in which tests show they are toxic, far above anything anybody is exposed to.

If you think copy and pasting a bunch of misleading bullshit is a good way to spread information, you really are a moron.

You bug off, we have enough people ignorant of science without bozos like you spreading lies and misinformation.
:blahblah:

You are calling the Patent office, EPA, FDA, CDC, HHS, NIOSH, NIEHS and various other associated health agencies and scientist who have done the studies on these chemicals a bunch of "ignorant losers". You really are a pathetic case.

\No, you are taking shit out of context and unable to form an argument other than copy and paste nonsense. You are the pathetic one, everybody can see that in every copy paste wall of bullshit you post.

and showing a patent contains a chemical doesn't mean shit. You haven't showed its toxic and has lead to bad effects in people, at doses they would be exposed to. Maybe if you were able to do more than copy and paste instead of just copy and paste a bunch of info with no argument, you may have a point. And from your past posts, I"m pretty sure its to spread lies about the evil scientist. Another god damn USMB troll that wouldn't know of an argument or rationality if it hit them across their forhead.
 
Last edited:
OP
RodISHI

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,435
Reaction score
8,616
Points
900
Says the loser that doesn't know anything about science except what some interwebs site says. GIve me a break, you are completely ignorant of science. You take shit out of context, talk about how they are toxic, but totally ignore the levels in which tests show they are toxic, far above anything anybody is exposed to.

If you think copy and pasting a bunch of misleading bullshit is a good way to spread information, you really are a moron.

You bug off, we have enough people ignorant of science without bozos like you spreading lies and misinformation.
:blahblah:

You are calling the Patent office, EPA, FDA, CDC, HHS, NIOSH, NIEHS and various other associated health agencies and scientist who have done the studies on these chemicals a bunch of "ignorant losers". You really are a pathetic case.

\No, you are taking shit out of context and unable to form an argument other than copy and paste nonsense. You are the pathetic one, everybody can see that in every copy paste wall of bullshit you post.

and showing a patent contains a chemical doesn't mean shit. You haven't showed its toxic and has lead to bad effects in people, at doses they would be exposed to. Maybe if you were able to do more than copy and paste instead of just copy and paste a bunch of info with no argument, you may have a point. And from your past posts, I"m pretty sure its to spread lies about the evil scientist. Another god damn USMB troll that wouldn't know of an argument or rationality if it hit them across their forhead.

Okay numb nuts, since you say I don't know anything and all I am doing is copy and paste, then what is your problem? As I said before, there are others besides myself who can use this information. You seem lost. There is good money, big money available to you as a biotech worker, engineer or whatever it is you do in the natural sciences which evidently it appears that you do not believe in. You seem to want to deny all the benefits which are readily available to us here on earth in their natural state. Now, I don't understand why what is here in the natural you are rejecting. You seem to want to take what is here in the natural, bend it, blend it, fuck with it, copy it or what the hell ever it is you are trying to do with it. It doesn't matter what I say to you. It would not matter what my education is. You have abandoned all of what was given to you in the natural on the day you were born. Otherwise you would be using your talents to delve into all that is available to you in its natural state. Most natural chemicals here in the world are mined or harvested in their natural state. You do not appear to be interested in exploring, studying or understanding the benefits available to mankind which are here. You want to change it, manipulate it and control it for a benefit that your own science is now beginning to reveal is very risky and dangerous to all. Why is this? One word comes to my mind. VANITY Whether it be for money, power, social status, recognition, whatever it is that you are doing it for it is all vanity on your part.
 

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0
I'm lost, yet you can't even type out an argument, just throw out irrelevant copy and paste, and then when challenge, respond with irrelevant copy and paste. How about go to the other bullshit thread of yours where you were shown to be full of shit.

You are attempting to mislead idiots by claiming this chemical is toxic, and then show its in pesticides or other patented materials, all while never mentioning dosage, and actual evidence to support that the product is killing anybody.
Kind of what you did in all your other threads.
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,584
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Glyphosate fails to gain EU approval...
icon14.png

EU nations fail to approve weed-killer glyphosate
Tuesday 7th June, 2016 - EU nations refused to back a limited extension of the pesticide glyphosate's use on Monday, threatening withdrawal of Monsanto's Roundup and other weed-killers from shelves if no decision is reached by the end of the month.
Contradictory findings on the carcinogenic risks of the chemical have thrust it into the centre of a dispute among EU and U.S. politicians, regulators and researchers. The EU executive, after failing to win support in two meetings earlier this year for a proposal to renew the licence for glyphosate for up to 15 years, had offered a limited 12 to 18 month extension to allow time for further scientific study.

It hopes a study by the European Union's Agency for Chemical Products (ECHA) will allay health concerns. Despite the compromise, the proposal failed to win the qualified majority needed for adoption, an EU official said. Seven member states abstained from Monday's vote, 20 backed the proposal and one voted against, a German environment ministry spokeswoman said. European Commissioners will discuss the issue at a meeting on Tuesday, a Commission spokesman said.

Failing a majority decision, the EU executive may submit its proposal to an appeal committee of political representatives of the 28 member states within one month. If, again, there is no decision, the European Commission may adopt its own proposal. The controversy overhangs German chemicals group Bayer's US$62 billion offer in May to buy U.S. seeds company Monsanto. Germany was among those which abstained from Monday's vote and has in the past opposed Monsanto's genetically modified seeds.

EU nations fail to approve weed-killer glyphosate
 
OP
RodISHI

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,435
Reaction score
8,616
Points
900
"Congressional Staff Briefing on the Harmful Impacts of Glyphosate on Health, and the Climate Crisis Change, and Zika Virus, and Necessary Actions to Protect Humans, Animals and the Environment

June 14, 2016 from 9:30 am to 11:30

Room 304 in the Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Congressman Ted Lieu will introduce Independent Scientists including Dr. Anthony Samsel (Research Scientist-NH); Dr. Stephanie Seneff (Research Scientist-MA); Dr. Thierry Vrain (Genetic Engineer & Soil Biologist-B.C., Canada); Dr. Stephen Frantz (Pathobiologist Research Scientist-CA); Cynthia L. Smith (Clinical Nutritionist-IL); Sterling Hill (DNA Research Scientist-LA); Ben Dobson (Regenerative Biological Agriculture Practitioner-NY) and Science Advocates including Zen Honeycutt (Moms Across America-CA); and Jay Feldman & Nichelle Harriott (Beyond Pesticides-DC) who wish to brief Congressional Staff about the harmful effects of glyphosate and the necessary action needed to protect the public, animals, and the environment. We will conclude with a question and answer session."


https://www.eventbrite.com/e/congressional-staff-briefing-t
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top