Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 10

On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.
As far as I can see ther was no wrongdoing in the study of glyphosate, or have I missed something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There was apparently serious wrongdoing on the part of two laboratories, as far as i can tell, if that answers your question. SageRad (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ...but unrelated to Glyphosate. What is that statement doing in this article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not directly answering your question, but just noting that two of the sources  don't contain any mention of glyphosate or roundup. SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You have missed something. There are three sources in that section, a Monsanto backgrounder on IBT and Craven is one of them, and it specifically mentions RoundUp and glyphosate regarding IBT (in the third sentence of the first paragraph of that report), and "pesticide residue" regarding Craven. A quick web search indicates a number of reliable sources specifically relating Craven to RoundUp and glyphosate. including the New York Times, in 1991: "a spokesman for Monsanto, said Craven has performed analytical chemistry studies for the company for 10 years and conducted 9 of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup". Apparently these were huge cases as far as lab fraud. Perhaps more detail is required if the content is not clear in the article. --Tsavage (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article you refer to says, immediately after the mention of the invalid Roundup results, 'As a result, Monsanto repeated all the studies in accordance with applicable EPA testing guidelines. Today, no IBT-generated data are used to support glyphosate registration anywhere in the world'. So Monsano have done no wrong and there are no invalid Roundup results being used. The whole paragraph should go as it has nothing to to with Glyphosate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's part of the subject's history: from reading sources, these were major cases, and Monsanto held exclusive US rights during that period, so Monsanto was in effect glyphosate (in the US, at least) at that time - what is the argument for deleting well-sourced historical fact directly about the article topic? --Tsavage (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Because it has nothing to do with glyphosate. I.e., it's coat-racking. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Then argue to remove the entire section it's in, "Legal cases," because it seems to fit in that section, as much as ad controversies and trade issues. And if this isn't about glyphosate, and it's "coat-racking," what's the tangential point that's being made by including it? I understand the general concern, and I think it's arbitrary - if editors want to include legal issues related to glyphosate, and the material is well-sourced, what's the policy-based objection? --Tsavage (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is no mention of glyphosate in the sources of this statement as SmartSE says, then the statement should be removed from the article. This article is about glyphosate, not Mosanto's legal issues. It looks to me as if the statement is intended to imply that current research funded by Monsanto is invalid. --Iamozy (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The sentence seems to an attempt to improperly discredit Monsanto.  I shall remove it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources do talk about glyphosate and this is part of the history of the chemical that is the subject of this article. I think the removal was not with consensus. SageRad (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Martin Hogbin: If you are reading this discussion, which you started, I have indicated that all of the information in that piece has RS. In light of that, your deletion of content that you know is verifiable is against core policy:
 * "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. ... When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. (WP:CHALLENGE in WP:V)
 * Given this discussion, you are aware that the content is (easily) sourced where an existing source may be lacking, in part simply by duplicating one of the existing citations to apply it to another statement - this is literally spelled out above, directly in reply to your original post. And there is no consensus for removing a section of this article, just your opinion.


 * I will restore the section, and update citations, in a bit, if it remains deleted. If editors are concerned with the wording, well, address that. This move to summary deletion is against the spirit and letter of core policy, and only leads to unnecessary strife. This article is under Discretionary Sanctions, and as much as I personally dislike sanctions and appeals to authority, this sort of aggressive editing is, I believe, exactly what DS is meant to address. --Tsavage (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is not in sourcing but in relevance. As far as can be determined from the cited sources, the deleted material has nothing to do with glyphosate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your query about sources was answered above, twice now. Deleting content as unsourced in the midst of ongoing discussion, and a discussion that clearly indicates sourcing, is counter to the recommendation of verifiability policy, and as we can see here, is disruptive.
 * "Monsanto was one of several pesticide manufacturers who had used IBT test results. The audit found some toxicology studies conducted with the original Roundup® herbicide1to be invalid. As a result, Monsanto repeated all the studies in accordance with applicable EPA testing guidelines. Today, no IBT-generated data are used to support glyphosate registration anywhere in the world." -, a source already cited in the piece you deleted
 * "Hundreds of residue studies for Monsanto agricultural products, required for product registration by the EPA, have been completed by Monsanto or by one of 16 independent laboratories that are used under contract. Of these, a small fraction were conducted at Craven Laboratories. Monsanto, along with other pesticide manufacturers, repeated the pesticide residue studies conducted at Craven Laboratories.  The repeat studies cost Monsanto approximately $6.5 million.  The damage caused to Monsanto's reputation by discussion of this issue by the media, and then further use by activists to question the integrity of Monsanto’s data, cannot be calculated.  All affected residue studies have been repeated and the data are sound, up-to-date and have been accepted by the EPA."-, a source already cited in the piece you deleted
 * "a spokesman for Monsanto, said Craven has performed analytical chemistry studies for the company for 10 years and conducted 9 of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup" (New York Times 1991), additional clarifying source, already presented above
 * You seem to be studiously ignoring what has been plainly stated, in favor of deleting of well-supported content. In addition, as far as I can make out, you move between three different arguments, making discussion difficult. You variously claim:
 * content is unsupported (content is supported, as has been demonstrated)
 * content is irrelevant to this subject, glyphosate (sources clearly indicates relevance by direct mention of RoundUp and glyphosate)
 * content is intended to discredit Monsanto (irrelevant speculation about editor behavior: reliable sourcing and noteworthiness to the topic determine content)
 * I suggest you self-revert your undue and unsupported content deletion.
 * (A little off-topic, but coincidentally interesting, I just now found that our article for Craven Laboratories is currently up for deletion.) --Tsavage (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And? I still fail to see the relevance. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ArtifexMayhem: Relevance? "Legal cases," an existing section - these are major cases involving glyphosate? History of glyphosate development and regulation? Interesting, well-sourced info about glyphosate? I'm not sure how your seeing the relevance pertains to inclusion: if the content is reliably sourced, and is directly about the subject of the article, you need a significant reason to propose exclusion. Editors determine what is included in articles on this basis. If you have a clear, policy-based objection, please state it. --Tsavage (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be interesting information for an article about the labs that committed the fraud, but we are going to need some actual sources that indicate these are "major cases involving glyphosate." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The subject is glyphosate - have you read the relevant sources, or all of this thread? Speaking to the connection between these major cases and glyphosate (repeating from above):
 * "Craven ... conducted 9 of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup."
 * According to Monsanto: "The repeat studies cost Monsanto approximately $6.5 million. The damage caused to Monsanto's reputation by discussion of this issue by the media, and then further use by activists to question the integrity of Monsanto’s data, cannot be calculated. All affected residue studies have been repeated"
 * In our article, IBT was described at the time as "the most massive scientific scandal in the history of this country and perhaps the world." According to Monsanto, about IDT: "some toxicology studies conducted with the original Roundup® herbicide1 [were found] to be invalid. As a result, Monsanto repeated all the studies in accordance with applicable EPA testing guidelines"

Many products and tests were involved in these cases, and glyphosate was one of them, to the point where tests critical to glyphosate approval had to be redone. Major cases, involving glyphosate. --Tsavage (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary
I second Tsavage's comment. Martin Hogbin's opening statement was immediately replied to and corrected by, further responded to by Tsavage, demonstrating that the section is related to Glyphosate. Hogbin did not counter that argument, but switched the topic arguing, Monsanto had done nothing wrong, quoting from NYT "Today, no IBT-generated data are used to support glyphosate registration anywhere in the world",  and thereby acknowledged that the matter had to do with glyphosate. In summary:
 * there remains no reason why to delete a well-sourced historical fact.
 * this is the third wholesale deletion (first, second) by the same group of editors here: Hogbin, Smartse, echoed by Iamozy, rouge administrator Jzg, KIngofaces, Geogene, and  brandnew contributor ArtifexMayhem with remarkably advanced WP skills, who cast doubt on sourced info WP:FUD, and undermine any info that negatively reflects on glyphosate and or Monsanto.
 * the editors state clearly why they want the section gone: it "discredits Monsanto" (Hogbin); Iamozy speculates an "intention to imply that current research funded by Monsanto is invalid". This is WP:POV editing.  --Wuerzele (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to link Fair use deletion? Regardless, I know what insult you were going for. See WP:SHUN and enjoy your topic ban. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ArtifexMayhem, first please indent your replies. second: looks like you are trying to bait me, -forget it. also you write  totally offtopic stuff above. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you intentionally misinterpreting the arguments stated above? The question of the intent for the inclusion and wording of the info is relevant, because it could be indicative of editing that violates WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. --Iamozy (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Iamoz]] more rhethoric. that is bad. you dont want to earnestly discuss if you use such tactics. You speculated an anonymous intention present in teh article, that is  completely unproven  "intention to imply that current research funded by Monsanto is invalid". I dont see where I misinterpret. you are doing it. but that's the point It is not about me, you just make it so. I watch what  This is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Legitimately discussing bias in an article is the point of this discussion. I am not an advocate for Monsanto as you so rudely suggest. I came here because there was a request for comment, and a bot invited me. My only interest in this discussion is to accurately represent the information in the most neutral way. Don't play the victim when you are the one making ignorant, baseless accusations. --Iamozy (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate implies that Monsanto hires labs to deliberately falsify results. There's also the question of due weight. It's fact that it happened, how important is it to glyphosate? Geogene (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Geogene, pease indent your responses; you come with another speculation ("implies that". ) Tsavage  addressed the importance in detail above. it looks like you WP:I can't hear. This is disearnest behavior and ultimately WP:disruptive.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wuerzele, don't address me again unless you have something of substance. Geogene (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, Iamozy, Geogene: I believe its ok to say what you mean, no need to circle the point. Some of the wording of the section, while factual and accurate, may seem to be trying to present glyphosate and/or Monsanto in as negative a light as possible. For example, an evocative word like "caught" - caught cheating, caught in the act - and"deliberately" used redundantly to emphasize "falsifying" add a certain tone, sure, and it's also not great writing to entertain the humble reader. As I mentioned earlier, reword, then, improve the content, as POLICY suggests. Meanwhile, discussing possible editor bias and bad intentions, and outright deleting the content, is against policy, and doesn't make much practical sense, either. All it does well is create a contentious editing environment. --Tsavage (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that this history has no relevance to the safety of glyphosate, and that the wording is problematic for the reasons I've already given. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and sourcing a fact doesn't mean it must be included. WP:Burden is on the editors that want it included. And finally, there's no policy that says you can't delete sourced information. Geogene (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pointless to argue about arguing. When I get a chance, I'll rewrite and post the section, and if there is a problem, request a formal close on this discussion, where your arguments have been made clear. --Tsavage (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussing bias is directly relevant to the topic at hand. I brought up the possibility in the most gentle way possible, and I made no accusations of any particular user. As you acknowledge, the wording did appear to be biased, and that was exactly my point. --Iamozy (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

FAQ page?
Now that the case has closed and DS imposed, I suggest that this talk page include a FAQ per FAQ page (either on this page or on a linked page, examples: Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ or Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson) here that reflects past consensus on topics that come around again and again but are buried in the archives. This will assist in avoiding misunderstandings and good faith bold editing. Consensus can always change, but it is helpful to know if a prior consensus existed. Montanabw (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't typically have overarching things that would normally be listed in a FAQ (e.g., consensus of saftey on GMOs), but rather smaller more ephemeral making it tough to predict what may be a question in the future. That being said, I did add one template I've found to be a helpful reminder. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, given that you just templated me claiming I was going against a consensus that I didn't see on this page (at the time, though a discussion has now been started), I think it would be well worth doing. Consensus of safety is probably the #1 thing that is in dispute about the topic and an FAQ would help minimize the non-disputes (i.e. things like "why isn't source foo a RS?) The Obama article is actually a really good example of how an FAQ could be used.  I would be glad to assist in creating one here in terms of formatting and phrasing.   Montanabw (talk)  03:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces I have warned you before, and I warn you now. Knock it off! Your templating of regular editors is an offensive tactic designed to create a chilling effect. It will not be tolerated further. Jus  da  fax   06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough warnings, bring this straight to ANI and alert all related editors, thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Might be worth doing if the page ever become stable. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Heh, you think that Barack Obama is ever totally stable? LOL! My take is to do an FAQ that at least touches on the main areas of argument and the basic outlines that have been continually repeated. Even if no real consensus, a summary (short) of the past drahmahz would help new editors avoid minefields.   Montanabw (talk)  10:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Genotoxity
Missing health related info, per EFSA "some studies suggest that certain glyphosate-based formulations may be genotoxic" http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/efsaexplainsglyphosate151112en_1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) 10:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also useful from that source, "...because although some studies suggest that certain glyphosate-based formulations may be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA), others that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect. It is likely, therefore, that the genotoxic effects observed in some glyphosate-based formulations are related to the other constituents or "co-formulants", and "The substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, very important indeed. There are also news article about this topic and ofc the studies, of which some mention dramatic increases of toxicity when used in combination with other agents. prokaryotes (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Separation of concerns
When there are strong disagreements on topics related to a factual subject, it is time to look very carefully at which topics are directly and unavoidably linked and need to be in the same article. If they are not, they should be split into separate articles, even if in the absence of dispute, they could equally well be combined. When we deal with a topic such as a chemical about which there is political or biological dispute and finger pointing, such as in discussing most pesticides, then it very commonly is constructive to put the politics and controversy and their history into a separate (but linked) article. In this case I should put the chemistry, applications, and any technical history into one article (the present one) and create a new article say, Glyphosate (concerns) or possibly Glyphosate (controversy). The result could be two useful articles, instead of one time-wasting mess. JonRichfield (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * JonRichfield: I agree that the separation you suggest is useful when applicable, I believe the whole WP:SUMMARY approach with its spinoff articles is based on essential that principle (minus, and in some cases cautioning against, the disagreement criterion). However, suggesting that article content be separated largely in order to in some way keep the peace is another matter (even if that separation is based on a "careful look" at what really belongs where). One concern your approach raises, as soon as an aspect of an article appears controversial, which can happen rather easily - see the dispute above, the one with the really long section title - then by your reasoning, there is an argument to segregate the problem into its own article, which in turn some might say, effectively buries the controversial information. You say "but linked" - if by that you mean a section that summarizes a separate article, that's fine, and we're back to WP:SUMMARY (which considers the notability requirements for standalone articles, and avoiding POV splits).


 * Until there is sufficient information to suggest a spinoff article, keeping all aspects of a topic together, appropriately sectioned, is our common PAG-based approach, probably for good reason. --Tsavage (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the sentiment as this article is far from providing a balanced view of the available sources, creating a WP:POVFORK would only make this worse. The focus should be on ensuring all content is from high-quality secondary sources. SmartSE (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * SmartSE" "this article is far from providing a balanced view of the available sources" If you can see that that's the case, are aware of what is not balanced, and therefore what is over- or underemphasized, and what is missing or shouldn't be here, I suggest you write a quick point form list or outline. A simple list of the main points should take a few minutes, and certainly a lot less time than arguing just one or two points piecemeal. I would do that in a heartbeat if I had that ready overview of this subject. --Tsavage (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tsavage Well it's mostly a list of bad things about glyphosate - should we list the toxicity to every animal group and note every plant species that has become resistant? While there are two schematics of the synthesis there are no references and no text about them. How much is produced and where is it produced? How has use changed over time? What are the advantages of it over other herbicides e.g. lower toxicity, controlling perennials, allowing Conservation tillage? When did it go on sale? When did Monsanto's patent expire? SmartSE (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SmartSE: That's a step in the right direction! I'll start a new section, with yourlist broken out into handy bullet points.


 * Interestingly, part of your list suggests an idea I've had for a while and only briefly mentioned elsewhere once, a form of usability testing: a simple test to measure an article's comprehensiveness, organization, and overall readability, one that can be performed by anyone and is almost impossible to skew. We create simple basic questions about a subject that readers would likely ask (we can use published FAQs and other sources to augment common sense), and see how easily the article answers them. For example:


 * When did it go on sale?
 * When did Monsanto's patent expire?
 * Did Monsanto have exclusive rights around the world?
 * What are the advantages of it over other herbicides?
 * Is RoundUp the same as glyphosate?
 * ...and so forth.


 * No matter how biased one may be, it's practically impossible not to come to agreement on simple wording, let alone to argue for exclusion of a Talk page QUESTION entirely, and then, to not see whether the article quickly and easily answers the question... Usability testing for the win! --Tsavage (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Trade secrets
The statement Glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) may contain a number of adjuvants, the identities of which are considered trade secrets. was added in this edit. It is implies that the EPA allows holding adjuvant information as trade secrets. What the manual states about confidential business information (CBI): First of all, the source is an EPA document that applies to the US, not to the rest of the world. Second, the statement is misleading since not all adjuvants in pesiticide formulations are treated as trade secrets. The manufacturer must request trade a secret exemption. It is not automatically granted. Third, it appears that only adjuvants that are generally considered as inert (i.e., safe) can be granted this trade secret exemption. According to the Guidance for Requesting the Approval of a New Nonfood Use Inert Ingredient, the EPA makes a determination whether the inert ingredient is safe before approving it. It would be more accurate to state: Glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) may contain a number of inert adjuvants, the identities of which may be held as trade secrets in the United States if the EPA determines that the adjuvant is safe. Boghog (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FIFRA section 10(d)(1) limits the types of data that may be claimed confidential. Safety and efficacy data (such as studies submitted to the Agency) on registered or previously registered pesticides are not considered CBI and must be made available to the public.
 * Certain information is excluded from the definition of safety and efficacy data, and may therefore be claimed as CBI, such as information that discloses the identity or percentage quantity of deliberately added inert ingredients (FIFRA 10(d)(1)(C)).

According to the EPA Basic Information about Pesticide Ingredients, All inert ingredients must be approved by EPA before they can be included in a pesticide.. Boghog (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, that seems like a good idea. I would consider adding the identities of which may be held as trade secrets in the United States if the EPA determines that the adjuvant is safe., but I would like to delete "in the United States" because I do not believe that to be accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * But the source doesn't say anything about the rest of the world. Other countries may have similar regulations, but we need a source that states that. Boghog (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we have any sources that cover real formulations containing secret ingredients, or are we making stuff up? The original source was propaganda. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly US Federal Regulations allow it:
 * and this is a recent source that covers the controversy:
 * Boghog (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Boghog (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Boghog (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, clearly they do allow it. However, my question is how this tidbit of information is germane to the specific topic of this article? I'm not necessarily against inclusion, but I question the relevance. If it is included then it should probably be clarified as suggested above by Gandydancer. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ingredients are generally germane; so the reality that some are not disclosed is also germane. I favor Gandydancer's phrasing and am fine with adding additional sourcing if that will help.   Montanabw (talk)  02:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * At the very least it should be clarified with something along the lines of 's suggestion above, ...the identities of which may be held as trade secrets in the United States if the EPA determines that the adjuvant is safe. Otherwise we risk inferring a total lack of oversight. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How about this: ...the identities of which may be held as trade secrets in the United States and not listed on the product label if the EPA determines the adjuvant to be safe. Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * in the United States Boghog (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I deleted the words in the United States - we don't need them. Gandydancer (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The source supplied only applies to the US and one cannot exptrapolate to the rest of the world based on this one source. I do not believe that to be accurate doesn't cut it. Per WP:V, we need a source that applies to other countries in addition to the US. Boghog (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Current Arbcom case regarding JzG
There is currently an active Arbcom case which includes admin JzG/Guy and his edits on GMO related pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_JzG prokaryotes (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No there isn't, there's an AE request by you. That's a different matter. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit warring on Seralini source
Given that the ArbCom case has just closed, I was hoping people would do their best to avoid edit warring going forward. As a reminder, if newly added content has been disputed by an initial revert (or already been discussed on the talk page already) it should not be re-added, but rather talk page discussion should be started per WP:BRD if someone feels strongly about it. Consensus should then be reached on if or how the content and source should be included before adding anything back. I for one do not want to see us needing to go to WP:AE immediately after the cased closed.

That being said, this source was recently re-added by Gandydancer, which I removed. That was the point for reverts to stop and people to go to the talk page if they felt strongly about including the content. This very same content was edit warred around Sept 9, 2015. I mentioned in edit summary previous talk page discussion that had no consensus for inclusion. Various issues outlined in the past talk page conversation included being authored by Seralini from a WP:FRINGE advocate perspective in terms of being a reliable source to weight concerns as other reviews made no mention of the cited information. Considering there was no consensus in that conversation, the WP:STATUSQUO should stay until there is consensus to include specific content as had been occurring until just a few days ago, especially now that any editor seeing this page knows the edit is controversial. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears that there are a couple existing refs to the Séralini study already,, though not as strongly stated as the edit in question.  I guess my position is that it is a question of Due or undue weight.  I looked at the previous debate, and it appears that it involved most of the people now topic-banned. My take is that it isn't a fringe position so much as mere POV.  The work was peer-reviewed, but also controversial and the study design was questioned. Perhaps the solution is to move some of the material into the article with a brief paragraph that states what the study concluded but that it was questioned, with appropriate links to  Séralini affair. If it keeps coming around, then it's best to just pop in something and address it head-on, that way, future edits can be reverted with an edit summary that says, "already mentioned in article" or some other form of drama-minimizing comment.  Montanabw (talk)  03:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This article has been in flux with some previous edit warring, content either getting in under the radar during other disputes, or being left after the article was locked down. The sections you mentioned are some of the ones in need of major clean up or checking, but there wasn't consensus for many of the edits in there either. That's really more of an article history thing to put behind us, but those sections are probably going to need to be reworked a bit. That's a topic for another day though. I'm going to try to compare the article to a version earlier this summer to check new edits (especially why I'm hoping for a tamer environment when it comes time to work through each piece). Most things should be ok, but we're at a point right now that we can't really assume that a piece of content is actually accepted simply because it's in the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore everything in this discussion other than substantive discussion about the source in question and the content that was edited out several times today. Please respond in kind. Could the editors who have some scientific expertise and who oppose this content please explain whether it is the wording of the content or the source or what exactly it is that has prompted 3 separate editors (two of whom were parties to the Arb case) to systematically remove the content today.

I have seen references to Seralini, but this is not the retracted publication - and there are two other editors of the content besides Seralini. It also appears that the conclusions are published by a US government scientific body, which is about as reliable as you can get. So is it our place to override a high quality reliable source that is peer reviewed and is subject to editorial oversight just because some take issue with one author for a study he conducted over a decade ago? This is a tox study and not meant to be an evaluation of carcinogenic effects.

Seeing as this content and the source do appear to meet WP guidelines, how can we include the information and present it in a way that gives proper weight? And what exactly are the arguments for and against the weight of this content.

Finally, there is no policy that tells us we have to keep an article at status quo ante - this is a developing field with new content being published and evaluated very frequently.

Collaboratively yours, Minor4th  05:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Another question - when was this content originally added. I mean this source exactly, because I was under the impression that it had been around for a couple of months.  Minor<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop reverting. Stop adding the disputed content. We need to sort this out on Talk. Stop punishing our readers with our inability to reach consensus.
 * Present your case (pro and con) for/against making this change.
 * Ask for the opinions of other, uninvolved editors.
 * Stop the madness.

First for background, the content and source was first introduced here (and multiple reverts ). The previous talk page discussion I linked came after that. As a slight aside there was also a big sandbox migration in the middle of that that resulting in the page being locked down with the contested edits included. I only mention that last piece for clarity because it's intermingled a bit in some edits.

As for the current day, I removed the content because that talk page discussion had already occurred, there was no consensus on the source, and the specific edit that Gandydancer made a few days ago was never re-added to the article after the original conversation. Generally, talk page consensus is needed first to re-add something that earlier (just a few months ago) wasn't added due to lack of consensus. That is currently why the content/source were removed by me.

As for your questions on the source, this is not the retracted Seralini paper. It is a separate review published by him (being last author typically means the lab head). It is not published by a US government body (the link is just a search engine), but by Food and Chemical Toxicology. With that context in mind the discussion in the previous talk section on this should outline the issues with it as it was focused on the issues with it as a secondary source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Kingofaces43 you keep saying that I added this review even though I knew or should have known that it is/was controversial. I have not followed this article closely for many months and had no idea that it had been brought up and argued about.  Please stop saying that. Gandydancer (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I never sad anything of the sort. I have said that to others after you that would have read my edit summary, but in your case I assumed there was a chance you weren't aware of the previous talk page conversation, which is why I mentioned there was one in my edit summary to you in the first place as part of a good-faith revert simply saying discussion would be needed to reinstate it. Nothing more than that with respect to you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces43 - I do not see anything in the previous talk page section that says anything about this being a bad secondary source. Could you point me to that?  As I recall, there was not any kind of legitimate consensus to keep this content out of the article - just a bunch of edit wars back and forth.  Food and Chemical Toxicology seems to be a reliable source and peer reviewed journal, and you didn't mention anything about the other authors of the study.  I am still not understanding what argument there is for this not being a reliable source.  And as far as weight goes - it was only one or two sentences at the end of a section - not prominent or presented as the majority or only view. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 06:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the the last conversation on this source here linked in my earlier response. When a new edit doesn't gain talk page consensus it doesn't go in. We can't say because there wasn't consensus that it must go in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, you refer to a banned editor and your buddy Yobol. Also it has been pointed out to you before that consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. Also i notice that you devote a lot of time here to disrupt legit edits and other editors. prokaryotes (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

KOA - that is not how WP works. There doesn't have to be talk page consensus to edit. We follow the PAG - V, N, and RS, and give appropriate weight to all significant viewpoints. We do not exclude a significant minority view completely. I don't think we can agree to not follow policy, even by consensus. I will look at the previous discussion you linked. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 13:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind WP:CONSENSUS is how Wikipedia works and is our overaching policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Study is totally fine, Wikipedia is not a anti science place, or a place to only present a single narrow view. Notice how editor KingOfAces43, above frames the discussion as fringe etc. He is using tactic to discredit other opinions, and everybody who follows KOA43 edits knows that this is always what he does, to try to smear and discredit valid science. prokaryotes (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Study is highly suspect. Clearly the author is highly biased and any conclusions this author makes demands extra scrutiny.  Also several editor have stated that the  publication is a "US government scientific source". This is false. While PubMed is funded by the US government, it is only an abstracting service.  Neither the publisher of the paper Elsevier, nor the researchers that authored this paper received any funding or endorsement from the US government. Boghog (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The author? Apparently you fail to acknowledge the other authors. However, your opinion on an author is irrelevant, what we need is a reliable source which disputes the study. Even then we would add the mention including the dispute (if there is any). prokaryotes (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the coauthors of the 2015 review were also coauthors of the retracted 2012 primary study. Furthermore Séralinia is the senior corresponding author of both papers. It is legitimate to use an author's publication track record as a criteria to judge the reliability of other publications by the same author. In this case, the earlier retracted paper makes all subsequent papers published by the same author immediately suspect. At a bare minimum, if we do cite the 2015 review, we must also mention that an earlier paper by the same author was retracted. Boghog (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The paper has been later republished and later announcements by the WHO or ICAR, and even from EFSA seem to support his findings. prokaryotes (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The paper was later republished without peer review. Also, where did WHO/ICAR and EFSA "seem to support his findings"?  EFSA assement of the assement of the retracted 2012 primary study was very negative. Boghog (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Study meets sourcing PAG and should be included This is a review article, not a primary study, and it is published in a journal that everyone accepts as a reliable source for this type of information. I read the discussion from September that Kingofaces43 linked above, and here's the breakdown:  In favor of including the content and source were Everymorning, prokaryotes, SageRad, and DrChrissy; opposing inclusion were Jytdog and Yobol.  The arguments in favor were more persuasive while the opposition arguments cited only to an older primary study by  Seralini, without any discussion of the 2015 review article.  I would say there was no clear consensus either way. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 13:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment While this article is a review, it would be foolish of us to not take into account that it comes out of the Seralini lab given the controversy surrounding the Seralini affair. The authors themselves state that their findings are contrary to perceived wisdom on glyphosate "it is generally assumed that glyphosate is safe for mammals, including humans". Saying it is FRINGE is probably going too far, but I hope everyone can agree that their views are not shared by the majority of the scientific community and the current wording does not reflect that. The most concerning thing to me about the current content is that it quotes directly from the abstract which suggests whoever first added it couldn't access the full version and assess whether or not the abstract is truly representative of the text. For example, I find the current content very different to: "Drawing any firm conclusion from these studies is not possible at this stage and further work is needed to determine the safety or risk of the herbicide alone or in formulations, especially at levels below the regulatory safe limits and over longer durations". I'm undecided on whether we should include it or not given the authorship, but I think that if we do decide that it merits inclusion, we should at the very least alert our readers to the Seralini affair so that they are able to place the review in context. We should also work on summarising it ourselves rather than copying the abstract and particularly include the author's own uncertainty about conclusions. The current version makes it seem as though they definitely concluded there are negative effects rather than calling for their to be more research. SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and if anyone would like a copy of this or anything else, ping me or ask at WP:REX. SmartSE (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a serious issue with the referencing of the paper being debated. At present, the reference reads:

producing a citation to a web page:

which puts the publisher as Pub Med and has led to comments in edit summaries that the source is from the NIH. This is inaccurate. Look at the link and it is clear it is journal article which is listed in PubMed. The publisher is Elsevier. The reference should be:

producing a proper journal citation:

If the material is to remain in the article, the reference should be corrected. Consequently, I am requesting an edit through full protection. On the substantive point, I notice that the journal article has been cited in a recent paper (http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2015.30.issue-4/reveh-2015-0028/reveh-2015-0028.xml) in Reviews on Environmental Health so maybe looking at what that review says might be helpful. Note: This is not my area of science and I do not know the reputations of journals or authors. EdChem (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need to at least have the proper citation format.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't use it Wikipedia's policy is that articles should be based on reputable published sources. There is no consensus that Séralini is reputable.  In fact there is a rather strong consensus among people who work in the field that he is not. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

was a poor reputation for fact checking associated with the author or expressing views not widely accepted by scientific community. With that scrutiny in mind, weight becomes an issue because the views become an extreme minority view when only expressed in this source. Best to rely on sources with authors with a better reputation for not engaging in advocacy in place of science, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dont use. Summarizing the previous talk discussion that found no consensus

How PubMed works
I have no interest in getting involved here, but there are some very serious, fundamental misconceptions evident in the above section (and in the recent edit-warring) which require correction. Please understand that PubMed is a search engine which accesses biomedical content. This search engine is operated by the National Library of Medicine&mdash;a branch of the NIH and thus of the US government. But I repeat: it is a search engine. The content you locate using PubMed is not published by the NIH nor by US government, just as the content you locate using Google is not published by Google Inc. It is absolutely vital that you all understand this, because it's painful to watch edit-warring and arguing based on ignorance of this basic fact. The Seralini paper in question was not published by or endorsed by the NIH in any way. The Seralini paper is not an "NIH source". It is simply accessible using an NIH-hosted search engine. The reliability of the NIH has absolutely no bearing on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the Seralini paper. If that is not clear, please let me know on my talkpage and I would be happy to discuss further. Again, I have no interest in or opinion on the underlying content question, but I feel compelled to make sure everyone understands how PubMed works, since this basic understanding is crucial to any sort of informed discussion of the source in question. MastCell Talk 07:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that. I did indeed misunderstand the publishing info for the source.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 07:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * At some level, I knew that, but when you see nih.gov, it sort of feels like an override... yes, thank you.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  10:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looking back at my first post, it comes across as harsher than I intended, for which I apologize. This confusion is pretty common and understandable, and has come up before. Cheers. MastCell Talk 01:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct Reference
Replace incorrect reference

with

EdChem (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Correct citation is needed, whether it stays in the long run is a different issue.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 07:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Common sense edit. Jus  da  fax   08:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously needed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support revised citation, with the obvious proviso that the study must only be included at all with the context of prior retraction and the external commentary showing the work to be scientifically worthless, per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. : if the study is scientifically worthless, why did the referees for Food Chem. Toxic. accept it? If it merely repeats a retracted paper, why would the referees not reject it?  Do we have a peer-reviewed source that asserts the paper to be scientifically worthless or fringe?  I am not familiar with this province of the literature, but as a general rule, material recently published by a strong peer-reviewed journal is unlikely to be scientifically worthless, though of course exceptional situations do (very infrequently) arise. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have made the edit request in question as it is uncontroversial and supported by all parties. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Source incorrectly included in glyphosate only section
I'm hoping this will be straightforward - currently ref 69 is to the same source and included at the end of Glyphosate:


 * A 2015 review found that glyphosate may be toxic below the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level that has been assigned to it by regulators, and that its effects may include "teratogenic, tumorigenic and hepatorenal effects."[69]

It's incorrect to list the source there because the source is about glyphosate formulations. Can we agree to remove this and merge with ref 98? SmartSE (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI
WP:AN. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for article addition - California to label G as a carcinogen
California is probably the first state to label Glyphosate as a carcinogen. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/09/glyphosate-roundup-labelled-carcinogen prokaryotes (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, legislative alchemy, the process by which nonsense becomes science after special pleading by committed legislators. In New York, there is such a thing as chronic Lyme disease and it can be cured by long term antibiotics, despite the fact that the medical science rejects the diagnosis and treatment as being without convincing evidential foundation. No doubt we'll see anti-WiFi laws too, in the near future. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * again with this nonsense? Like your previous archaic pronouncements, your latest example of medical science "rejecting" the treatment of chronic Lyme disease is no less than fifteen years out of date. Thank goodness for small things: at least you have finally accepted climate change, forty years after the fact. There is hope for you yet. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a long time since "chronic Lyme" was rejected, hence the quacks using legislation to protect themselves when offering their unethical treatments. 15 years? Not hardly. See NEJM 2007, for example. The "Lyme-literate" quacks have completely given up on science. Obviously post-treatment Lyme syndrome exists, but that's not treated by quacks with long-term antibiotics. As to accepting climate change, feel free to point out any venue where I have made any statement rejecting it, ever. I used to read George Monbiot before the Internet was even a thing. Here's a comment by me from 2000 which mocks climate deniers. I have no idea at all where you got the idea that I have ever been a climate change denier. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject," as it says at the top of the Talk page. JzG/Guy, please strike your opinions or prepare for them to be removed from this page, and refrain from adding your personal views, important as you may feel it is to express them; Wikipedians expect better of an admin. The source is bolstered by this Reuters ref from October, and the fact itself belongs in the article, regardless of editor belief systems. I suggest the information be added to the 'Legal status' section.  Jus  da  fax   15:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's news and therefore notable. So glyphosate joins bacon in the pantheon of carcinogenic substances. I don't think it tastes as good, though. Lfstevens (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What Lfstevens said. And I will add: It's fine to report that California has done this, but the source is insufficient to say in Wikipedia's voice that glyphosate actually is a carcinogen. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Trypto said, but the source is insufficient to say in Wikipedia's voice that glyphosate actually is a carcinogen. Since I'm new to this discussion, please direct me to the previous discussion in which some poorly-informed editors attempted to use this information in that unusual manner.  Thanks.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean it with that kind of specificity. If someone has discussed saying flat-out that it's a carcinogen, then that's a discussion that I haven't followed. What I meant was that it's OK to cite the source, but there is a correct way and an incorrect way to cite it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to see you treat the editors here with a little more respect than to pass out such basic information as though the editors here need a lesson in such fundamental understanding of how we do things here. Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I misunderstood your question then. I thought incorrectly that you were actually asking me. I was trying to treat the question that you asked me with respect. But I realize now that I had made a mistake. If you believe that my original comment violated WP:NPA, then I suggest that you raise it at WP:ANI. Perhaps saying that there is a correct way and an incorrect way to cite a source is a personal attack and I did not realize it. I thought that it was sufficiently non-obvious that it would be helpful for me to point it out. But if I am not as smart as other editors here, then never mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many anti-GMO activists will celebrate this listing by raising a glass of Group 1 carcinogen? ;-) Guy (Help!) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Trypto OK, I will accept in good faith that you believe that some of the editors here are so poorly informed that they need to be made aware that just because CA plans to list GMOs as carcinogenic does not mean that we can now use the Wikipedia voice to say that GMOs are carcinogenic. Gandydancer (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so nice to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Back to the topic, yes, this is newsworthy and as actual legislation that has been passed, it would be irresponsible not to include it. With due weight, proper sources, and all that. Guy, please focus on the issue of inclusion, phrasing and sourcing. Tryptofish is right to not that precise phrasing matters. How about someone posting a small paragraph here, and where they think it needs to go, and once we have a working model (may not yet have consensus, but at least has proper sources and no glaring errors) we can post it as a requested edit down at the bottom of the page. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I was, albeit with a strong wrapper of snark. See the section heading? "California to label G as a carcinogen". Either California is going to label glyphosate as a carcinogen, as the source suggests, in which case they have gone beyond the evidence, or they are going to label it a probable carcinogen, in which case the edit request is tendentious. The truth is, there is no credible evidence that glyphosate has ever caused cancer in any human, or is ever likely to do so in future. Turning it into a carcinogen by adding it to a list, is "legislative alchemy". Guy (Help!) 10:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Include the info and tie into the IARC and EU studies and findings Please see my comment below   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 03:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include the CA infomation Does someone want to write something up? Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources listed only say that they plan to label it, not that they have decided to. If it's included please make sure to frame if like that and link to Proposition 65 as it's important information for the lay reader and both sources mention it. SmartSE (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

E.P.A. Revokes Approval of New Dow Herbicide for G.M.O. Crops
Recently the EPA has revoked approval of a new formula, dubbed Enlist Duo, which includes Glyphosate. It seems this news has not found its way yet into the article. Therefore i propose to add that info. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/business/epa-revokes-approval-of-new-dow-herbicide.html prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Should also include why approval was revoked. According to the source given above it's because the EPA is concerned about a possible synergistic effect from glyphosate and 2,4-D. Geogene (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a mention of Enlist Duo on the 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid page; information on the revocation could be added there as well.Dialectric (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How about doing up a good, solid, properly-sourced paragraph in one of the other articles mentioned and then post the diff here as a proposed addition? It's best to have a working version to discuss.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This information would flow well with the recent glyphosate studies by IARC and EFSA. While it seems they came to opposite conclusions, they really didn't. IARC tested glyphosate formulations and noted that the synergistic effect of glyphosate combined with other pesticides provides evidence of possible human carcinogenicity (is that a word?); the European study tested glyphosate alone and found no carcinogenic effects on humans at the current regulatory limits. It may sound like it's splitting hairs, but it's not. IMO, while the EU study does find that glyphosate is not carcinogenic - that's sort of misleading because glyphosate is never used alone, it is used in formulations such as Roundup and Duo. So the stuff that is actually being sprayed on crops and soil is what poses the risk to humans and other animals (potentially). <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 03:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My reading of the Nature news article was that the IARC intended to test the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, full stop. I think I see what you're saying here, that they used human exposure histories, which implies mixtures. But an emphasis on that aspect would be synthesis. Geogene (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the IARC specifically tested glyphosate formulations (like Roundup), not glyphosate alone, as well as some other formulations. I'm not trying to say anything about human exposure histories or implied mixtures (not even sure what you mean).  The IARC specifically reviewed studies dealing with glyphosate formulations.  I can find some secondary sources discussing it if you like.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 04:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see the Nature source you gave below helps to explain the different conclusions. If you've got anything on cancer-causing properties made worse by synergistic effects, can you post those as well? Geogene (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The nature article discusses it some. I can look for other sources but it starts to get technical and beyond my understanding at a point. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a Nature article that explains it pretty well.  There are other secondary sources out there that discuss the differences in the two reports, including the EFSA's access to Monsanto's own research studies and most importantly the fact that the studies tested different things and even the EFSA did not say glyphosate is "safe."   They recommended that regulates put a cap on what is considered acceptable, non hazardous exposure.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good source, thanks, a very well written and balanced treatment IMO. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, so our article should similarly the studies and their conclusions - and the new California legislation should be included as well because it's the first state to take such action based on the recent glyphosate studies. To some extent the EPA reversal on a glyphosate formula is related as well. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you know that my problem with the CA legislation is a problem with the real world, not with Wikipedia's coverage of it. Some evidence of mutagenicity in rats --> "possibly carcinogenic" despite no evidence a single human has ever been affected, even after carefully studying the most exposed population --> CARCINOGENIC!!!one one shriek eleventy!!!. The world pisses me off that way :-) And actually this is normally more of a problem in quackery, where "kills some cancer cells in petri dish" becomes CURES CANCER! So, ignore me, I'm just being grumpy about the prevalence of scientific illiteracy. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Minor4th: Above you said ...they really didn't. IARC tested glyphosate formulations and noted that the synergistic effect of glyphosate combined with other pesticides provides evidence of possible human carcinogenicity  Is that what you meant to say or did you mean combined with aduvants'?  Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant to say what I said. I don't know anything about adjuvants. What I said is taken directly from the IARC and EU studies. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal - someone could take a stab at including the info about the IARC and ESNA conclusions as well as the EPA revocation and the new CA legislation. I have been sick so am not up to doing it right now. If someone else wants to take a stab at it, feel free. If not I'll look into it when I'm feeling better. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Review article
Should mention of this review be included in the article? Gandydancer (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Seneff S is Stephanie Seneff, she is an activist with no expertise in the field who nonetheless insists on publishing an endless stream of speculative agit-prop. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know and I saw the comment at the article as well. I thought that perhaps it could be noted in the article that the study has not been accepted very well by other researchers.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This source is neither reliable nor notable. This article would quickly be overwhelmed if we mentioned every such source accompanied by an explanation for why we should pay no attention to it. Boghog (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with it being unreliable with a scientist known for advocating such things are the cause of a handful of things. Even disregarding that, this isn't the kind of secondary source we'd reach for summarizing the literature. Instead, this is constructing speculative hypotheses that are not formally being tested (i.e., armchair biology). These kinds of "reviews" pop up every now and then in controversial topics, so it's best to be on the lookout for them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a literature review but not in the typical sense because it is formulating a new theory from existing information. Unless there is evidence that this has become accepted by celiac disease experts it shouldn't be mentioned as it is the definition of a fringe view. SmartSE (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As a coeliac, and one who watches the research, I am pretty confident it hasn't even been noticed by most of them, let alone taken seriously. Most of the current effort is in looking for genetic markers, exploring the role of FODMAPs and working on earlier diagnosis and possible a couple of new treatments. I'd be really interested to hear how GMOs became prevalent in Utrecht in the late 1930s though :-) Guy (Help!) 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that you have that. At least I cannot make fun of you if you decline to eat foods containing gluten. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that it probably should not be included now mainly for the above reasons. I could be swayed <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. The reason I brought it up is because in the past I have wondered about including info about poor information because it was being circulated on the blogs and I thought that it would help to set the record straight.  But it seems that there is agreement to not include anything about it.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Enough already
Some editors were topic banned. There is a small risk of confusion if people reply to them, but only small. I suggest that it is not necessary to flag them as such, but that it is reasonable to archive threads started or dominated by them in order to encourage a fresh start with a less toxic atmosphere. Is that reasonable? Guy (Help!) 19:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to offer my opinion, and please wait and see what other editors say before deciding whether or not you have agreement. But I would lean in favor of such archiving. In any case, there are two things that I will endorse without reservation: a sense of "enough already", and a desire for a less toxic atmosphere. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just let MiszaBot do his thing. Maybe make the archive time smaller, but it is probably best to err on the side of caution and not manually archive. AIR corn (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Chemistry section
I posted to the Teahouse to see advice on 1RR and this article. As a chemist, I can see the desirability of an improved chemistry section for the article, which (I hope) is uncontroversial. However, has advised that I post here seeking comment / feedback, to see if anything is controversial. I have made these changes already and have some more changes in mind, particularly on the ionic states and the reasons for using the iminodiacetic acid pathway. All thoughts welcome. EdChem (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's my impression that there is no controversy about how glyphosate is synthesized by manufacturers. On the other hand, the mode of action in the environment will draw a lot of attention. So EdChem's work seems unlikely to be a problem so long as it's only in the domain of synthesis. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Improving the chemistry section is very unlikely to generate controversy, so please go ahead with your edits. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with that (and with the advice that I just saw when reading the Teahouse discussion). I think that there are two considerations that are applicable here. The first is that it is OK to change content that has been here a long time. The second is that going from the first to the second revert (ie, breaking 1RR) would normally occur only if another editor were to have reverted your first edit, and you then made a second revert after that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Is exact mode of action known or unknown?
Recently, how glyphosate kills plants was revised to be more clear and descriptive, in the first paragraph at Glyphosate. That section doesn't quite explain exactly what causes the plant to die, and reading this, my question is, is the exact killing effect known or unknown?


 * "How glyphosate-induced inhibition of the shikimate pathway actually kills plants is not entirely clear. Many assume that insufficient aromatic amino acid production to maintain necessary protein synthesis is the primary effect, and this is consistent with the slow development of symptoms. Yet others have produced evidence to support the view that the increased carbon flow to the shikimate pathway by deregulation of the pathway by inhibiting EPSPS results in shortages of carbon for other essential pathways.9 The rapid cessation of carbon fixation in glyphosate-treated sugarbeet10 is better explained by this mechanism than by reductions in aromatic amino acid pools"[t]

--Tsavage (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no despute about the molecular mechanism of action (inhibitions of EPSPS). However this molecular mechanism leads to two potential modes of action. Either mode will eventually kill the plant, the only question is which mode acts first. It is entirely possible that the mode of action may differ between plant species or within the same species under different conditions or that both modes of action contribute. The source that you supplied certainly supports mentioning both modes of actions.  Boghog (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)