Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 8

Toxicity expansion
So DrChrissy on the one hand understands that WP readers are ignorant about toxicity to the point that we need to explain what LD50 is (see above) but at the same time, seems to think that these same readers will be able to make any kind of sense out of content like 'In a study of rats and mice fed diets of containing 0%, 0.3125%, 0.625%, 1.25%, 2.5%, or 5.0% glyphosate for 13 weeks, endocrine effects..." or "Pregnant rats given 3,500 mg/kg/day glyphosate by gavage (stomach tube) on gestation days 6-19 suffered effects including both increased maternal mortality and the number of fetal skeletal abnormalities" (3,500 mg/kg/day is a huge amount of glyphosate).  Are we providing readers with baby-step context, or not?  It needs to be one or the other.

Also, making major changes to a controversial article is something that is best discussed before implementing. Not necessary, but best, so we don't end up in this place. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In your massive deletion, you also deleted my very carefully worded statement referencing a recent review article by Kimmel et al. of rabbit feeding studies. I would definitely like to reinstate that part. Do you have any objection to it? I think it's clear and useful in that section as it rounds out toxicity to not only be about acute single exposure:
 * "A review of unpublished short-term rabbit feeding studies reported severe toxicity effects at 150 mg/kg/day and NOAEL doses ranging from 50 to 200 mg/kg/day."


 * I do agree about 3500 mg/kg/day being a massive dose, near to the LD50 dose for rats. I would like to ensure that the toxicity section addresses different aspects of toxicity: acute, short and medium term (like 30 to 90 days), and long term exposures. These tend to produce different results and are all required for a complete toxicity picture of a chemical in relation to a population. SageRad (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We should pay attention to weight, and the toxicity section should contain the best and most recent science about toxicity in relation to each class of organisms, and should survey acute as well as short and long term exposure. We should *not* "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks", but should instead do this somewhat deliberately, so that we give a complete but not overly long picture of toxicity in each subsection. SageRad (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do think the 3,500 mg/kg/day feeding study is extraneous here, and ask Dr Chrissy if it would be ok to remove it. The review i added does speak to toxic effects at much lower levels in short-term feeding studies. SageRad (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced why the content I included should be removed on the basis of your edit. First, one study discusses rats (rodents) and the other uses rabbits (lagamorphs); they have extremely different digestive systems. Second, your review is of unpublished studies, mine is of a published study. Third, the content I inserted gave specific details of the affects, yours is more general.  I'm not suggesting your material be removed, I just do not see how it can replace the material I inserted. DrChrissy (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think you can find research -- hopefully a review article -- that would report on effects on rats at lower doses? The representivity of the dose level is my main concern here. 3,500 mg/kg/day is so close to the LD50 level for rats that it seems superflous to me to show that there are toxicity effects at short-term exposure at that level. By the way, the review article i listed also speaks to rat feeding studies. Let me take a look and see what that reports. SageRad (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, table 3 in the Kimmel review shows NOAEL from 300 mg/kg/dayup to >= 1000 mg/kg/day, and reports "At 1000 mg/kg/day and higher, animals in three of the six studies showed signs of lethargy, as well as respiratory and gastrointestinal distress." Deaths also reported in the 3500 mg/kg/day dose. SageRad (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I also find this dose very strange, limits for humans vary around 10-20mg. However, i did not read the study, but the parts from the article here didn't explained the extremely high dosage.prokaryotes (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good research SageRad. Regarding high amounts, it is OR to dismiss data unless we can verify why this should be done.  The fact is that these doses have been tested (on several occasions) and the reports resulted.  We should report these without inferring our own opinion on them. DrChrissy (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the authors elaborate on these amounts, some more context would be nice.prokaryotes (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ecological relevance of doses is one of the requirements for showing relevance in toxicological literature. I'd be looking comments on how likely specific doses would be reached or in what kind of situations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact sheet does not give further details. Going to the original source will mean we are then using a primary source which several editors on here are opposed to.  These doses must be biologically relevant, otherwise, we have scientists killing animals for no reason. DrChrissy (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Afraid the assumption that the dose must be relevant can get into OR territory. Lab studies can often pick a range of doses in order to see an effect, and that can often go beyond normal exposure (or sometimes under if poorly designed). If that weren't the case, ecological relevance wouldn't be a criteria in assessing the applicability of toxicological findings. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is OR to delete data on the basis - "I have a hunch that the doses were too big". Do not forget that the source I am using is a secondary source and is the National Pesticide Information Center.  Are you suggesting this is an unreliable source. DrChrissy (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent my comments DrChrissy. I never commented on the source. I was responding with basic background on toxicological research in response to Prokaryotes and your discussion on the doses mentioned. Sometimes ecological relevance is mentioned in sources, and other times you can be at the other extreme where someone is just doing a lab assay trying to push the dose as high as they can to reach an LD50. It depends on the scope of the study and was intended to help in figuring out what was going on in this specific instance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I will ask you again, are you writing for experts or the general public? You appeared to start out with WP:TECHNICAL very much in mind, and then turned a corner and started dropping loads of pretty detailed tox study content into the article that takes an expert to make sense of. So who are you writing for? Am not questioning the source which is fine and was already used in the article. Primarily the issues here are WP:TECHNICAL and WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

, i reverted your massive edit and i don't feel at all bad in doing so. How do you think it's ok, at this point where we are actively discussing the toxicity section, and specific references and claims, to completely scramble the whole article and completely delete a subsection, and many references and statements that we've been talking about? You often admonish people to go slower, and now i am asking you to do the same. Please, talk about major changes, as it's clear that we have many eyes on deck here. SageRad (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * SageRad please self-revert. This big expansion of the tox section without prior discussion, and adding all this WP:TECHNICAL detail, in the same breath that we are describing things in babytalk, makes no sense. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear your concerns about oscillating in voice, but i don't think that the wholesale deletion and shuffling of the article is a good way to address it. You even deleted my very simple reference to the 2013 Kimmel review article, and the whole section on effects on non-human animals. Let us please talk together about the big picture of this article and what we want it to look like. I would ask DrChrissy and Prokaryotes and everyone else to take a deep breath and discuss the larger picture, what the article should cover, and with what sort of tone. Let's pretend we're adults sitting around an editorial table, and discuss this like people with a common goal. SageRad (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said SageRad. For my part, the changes in technical/non-technical tone might come about because when I move content that has been in the article for some time, I am often reluctant to change it out of respect for the previous editor.  That is why the complex sentence occurred.  I did not enter this content, I moved it with minor tweaks.  If someone wants a simplification of this, a simple message on here or an appropriate tag is fine.  I just do not get on with the "delete first and ask questions later" approach.  As for the structure of this tox section we appear to have several variables which need to be included.  Glyphosate/glyphosate formulations, acute/chronic toxicity, the range of animals studied (how do we divide this vertebrate/invertebrate, major taxonomic groups) and effects (LD/reproduction problems/carcinogenicity/tetrogenicity).  Might a table be the best way to deal with this? DrChrissy (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and fixed the voicing concerns and updated some of the content from sources just to streamline things for now. That was a perfect opportunity to wikilink to describe a term rather than define it in article. I'm not sure at the moment if/how we should rattle off various LD50's, but that's about all I can do tonight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * sorry gang, was hammered at work today and had no time for this. i see there is a new EWN case.  Will check in there. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Understandable as we're all volunteers and can't always respond to each crisis in a sardine can immediately. I'm out for the evening, otherwise I would have removed a lot of the content added per WP:STATUSQUO so it could be discussed from a weight perspective. I'll see what I can do to chime in once morning rolls around. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I will ask you again. You took into account that people won't know what an LD50 is.  So such a person happens to be pregnant, and reads "Pregnant rats given 3,500 mg/kg/day glyphosate by gavage (stomach tube) on gestation days 6-19 suffered effects including both increased maternal mortality and the number of fetal skeletal abnormalities"   What will she make of that?  (that is a real question).  Let me also ask you, what do you make of that data with regard to human toxicity?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be daft - you know very well that if I make any comment on humans I will almost certainly be in breach of my topic ban. DrChrissy (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me follow up on that. Why did you direct the question about human toxicity at me, rather than at other editors or the Talk page in general (that is a real question)? DrChrissy (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I directed the question at you, because you, specifically, decided to dramatically expand the tox section. You know as well as I do that we do tox studies on animals in order to inform things like minimum exposure levels for humans. So please speak to that. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We conduct many tox studies to look at the toxicity of a substance in the target species, non-target species, and environmental toxicity as a whole. Why else would we examine the LD50 of glysophate in bees? DrChrissy (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Last chance to back away from this. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is going on here? What is this ultimatum about? I recently added the review article that gave results about toxicity assessments in rabbits. The study was done in order to assess health risks in humans, and it did in fact satisfy WP:MEDRS requirements, being a review article in the relevant field, but i used it in the section on toxicity to non-human animals, as it definitely provided that knowledge and was reliable. Other studies do test toxicity to non-human animals solely for the sake of knowing about the effects on those non-human animals, or to study other biological and biochemical dynamics that are not essentially related to human health but may also provide tangential knowledge that will help our understanding of the chemical in relation to human health down the line. There is not a clear distinction on this question, and why is Jytdog's tone that of an ultimatum here and pressing DrChrissy specifically on this? Is Jytdog insinuating that DrChrissy is presenting data on non-human animal toxicity in a way that incorrectly makes a synthesis to human health effects? If so then please directly state that, Jytdog. I sense innuendo in the language and i would much prefer if people have an issue to plainly state it outright. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I too am at a loss as to what I am supposed to back away from. Is this more intimidation? DrChrissy (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Great, folks, now the article is locked out for editing except by admins. Let's really try to be adults here and not edit war like this any more. Let's talk and make incremental changes, and if we want to make sweeping changes, definitely talk about it first, knowing that the article is actively edited by several people who care about it. Anyway, i am glad that the current frozen version is at least acceptable, from the most recent changes by -- i am glad the most recent edits aren't something outlandish or extreme, and didn't delete much material or seem to be partisan. SageRad (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't agree that all the changes are acceptable. DrChrissy (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mean that i think it's all perfect, but at least it's not frozen on the massive deletion by Jytdog yesterday. I think it's at least frozen at a reasonable state. SageRad (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Fair enough.  I can agree with that.  Perhaps we could discuss the structure of the section - I mentioned above that multiple variables will need to be incorporated.  Let's take this slowly.  I suggest the two major headings at == level should be "Acute Toxicity" and "Chronic Toxicity". DrChrissy (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can use this time for discussion, which is a benefit of the freeze, i suppose.
 * I suppose that if we are going to structure it by three levels of variables (glyphosate versus formulation, type of toxicity, and class of organism) then one question is: In what order do we present these variables? To date, the top-level has been glyphosate versus formulation, then organism, and then class of toxicity. You're proposing that class of toxicity should be the top level variable? SageRad (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that the top heading at the moment is "Toxicity". I was suggesting this could be replaced with two headings "Acute Toxicity" and "Chronic Toxicity".  I am easy about this - I can easily see why we might want to have "Glyphosate" and "Formulation", then "Acute" and "Chronic" within both of these, and then animal groups.  In situations such as this (a closed page) I have seen a sandbox set up so that we can edit and discuss without affecting the main article. Should we do this? DrChrissy (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sandbox sounds like a great idea. We have 8 days to play in it. SageRad (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have created the sandbox here. What I did not realise is that because the page is closed, I could not lift the in-line references and markup, only the text as it appears in the article.  So, this might be a bit more difficult than I anticipated. DrChrissy (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DrChrissy. I found a way to copy the source -- there is a new tab called "View Source" now that "Edit" is gone. SageRad (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of page protection is not to continue making edits elsewhere, but to reach consensus on edits by discussion. Just putting that out there for now to make sure the former doesn't preclude the latter. A sandbox is fine for providing example edits for discussion, but it won't necessarily be the consensus version at the end. Just making sure that is clear as page protection begins. I have some ideas for trimming down this new content into a much more concise form that doesn't lose important toxicological information, but I won't be able to revisit this discussion on it until Saturday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with reaching consensus through discussion, but i think the sandbox would give us a way to discuss complex issues more easily by making edits and then asking questions about them. I should be less conflict-causing because the edits are not actually presented to the public. We ought to learn from and talk with each other to reach consensus. I do support talking before making edits even in this sandbox, and that is what we've been doing in the section below. We're starting by discussing overall organization of the section -- the three layers of variables and how to best present them in a concise and even-handed way. SageRad (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protected discussion
Seeing that non one has really attempted discussion since the lock-down, I'll get the ball rolling now that I'm more available for a bit. The contested content is the content added in the section changed from Fish and Amphibians to Non-human mammals.. Various content was added on LD50s, and that was opposed on a WP:TECHNICAL and WP:WEIGHT basis. There was some explanatory language on what an LD50 was, but that has been fixed in the most current version, so those concerns shouldn't need to be addressed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog above that rattling off various LD50s is too technical and unneeded for encyclopedic content. In pesticide articles when we're talking about intended use, we don't start listing what various concentrations are used on account of WP:NOTHOWTO in additional to TECHNICAL. We have a similar parallel here where readers aren't particularly gaining knowledge on the topic with inclusion of LD50 values. WP:NOTJOURNAL also comes to mind as we aren't summarizing the literature as a journal does, but rather describing what's relevant for encyclopedia readers. Common practice in pesticide articles is to list the overall findings of particular sources for readers. If a reader is very toxicological minded, they are a bit outside the scope of the intended audience here and would be expected to dig into the sources if they want specific LD50 values. There are also WP:MEDRS concerns with reporting animal studies used as proxies for human toxicology.

1. With that all in mind, looking at this diff, there are a few easy ways to fix the concerns with the newly added content. The first two paragraphs can be reduced to the conclusion statements from the sources by a summarization is in line with both sources originally used where the more technical information is in the osurce for whoever wants to read it more in-depth: "Mammalian toxicity is considered to be low to very low toxicity due to low LD50s; signs of glyphosate toxicity in animals typically appear within 30 minutes to 2 hours following ingestion of a large enough dose, and include initial excitability and tachycardia, ataxia, depression and bradycardia but severe cases can develop into collapse and convulsions."

2. The carcinogenicity content in the third paragraph is probably best left out for now due to WP:WEIGHT we have multiple high quality sources saying there is not a significant general concern for carcinogenicity, so it's probably best to leave the current events to unfold in the position statements section first. These are rat studies used for human health aspects per WP:MEDRS. If it were more of a ecological impact study I'd be more open to it here, but it's very squarely on medical lab rat testing.

3. The first paragraph of the aquatic life section can be made concise like the mammals section. Just say: "For freshwater fish, glyphosate is generally considered 'slightly toxic to practically non-toxic.'"

4. The second paragraph of wood frogs can probably go. It's not a toxicological effect (belonging in the formulation section if it was), and it looks like a misread of the source as it's listed as an indirect behavior effect. A really interesting lab study (equivalent to in vitro cautions with medical research) when you dig into it, but not really a good fit for this section.

5. The third algae-related paragraph (another lab study from the same lab in the previous paragraph) also doesn't seem to have a good fit with the toxicology section, but rather in a broader ecological effects section.

6. Likewise, the fourth paragraph on persistence belongs in the environmental fate section.

This should take care of any WP:JARGON or weight issues for this section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , note that it is not true that noone has attempted to discuss this section since the lockdown. I have done so, at length, and invited you and Jytdog to do so as well. DrChrissy and i have indeed been editing in the sandbox extensively and asked for the input of others. I hope that you can recognize that for you to say this after all these days, during which you were present in Wikipedia, is kind of not cool, or else you just didn't notice, even though i pinged you about it, so you ought to have noticed. I hope you will work with the sandbox version that we've put so much effort into.
 * As for your comments, on a brief skim, i have to say that i do think that a few LD50 or LC50 values are appropriate in each section. That gives an idea of the relative potency of the chemical or the formulation in relation to the type of organism. Having the hyperlink to the Lethal Dose article gives the reader an easy way to understand what this means, if they are unaware. SageRad (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree the LD50 information is extremely important - this helps us understand how glyphosate may have different adverse effects at different levels of the wildlife food chain. This is why I have very recently included LD50 data on aquatic invertebrates (potentially the lowest food-chain level and therefore arguably the most important level). DrChrissy (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No one was really focusing on a discussion outlining what exactly needed to be worked on, and that was part of my concern with the sandbox approach where people would just go ahead and start adding whatever they want. At this point, can the above edit proposals be considered acceptable for a minimum amount of text? That was the intent to give something instead of the wholesale removal that was originally going on. If someone wants more, we can just keep ratcheting the content more as discussion goes on, but let's at least agree on a minimum first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Headings in this section
Recently, we lost the sub heading "Glyphosate-based formulation toxicity" which appears to have been replaced with "Inert ingredient toxicity". I'm not sure this is an appropriate replacement. If it is, do we still discuss "Roundup" under this sub-heading? The opening statement to "Toxicity" is "Toxicologists have studied glyphosate alone, additives alone, and formulations." This seems like a reasonable approach for the use of headings and content. DrChrissy (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Large removals
I am disturbed by large removals of content such as this one by. There may be some valid changes to the content that would be good to make, but removing such a huge chunk of other people's hard work does not strike me as productive for the article's content. It strikes as a clear-cutting of a section of the article. We really need to be working together.

Please note, primary sources are allowable for content that does not fall under WP:MEDRS. Of course, secondary articles are useful for contextualizing and for helping us as editors to determine what is most relevant in a field, but we do indeed have some discretion in using primary sources and if it's called for in terms of making a better article, it is allowable. Removing content simply with an edit reason that says not to use primary sources is not justifiable. If the concern is about due weight or if a particular point seems irrelevant, then perhaps we could discuss that, point by point.

I would like for us to work from the top down on the toxicity section, deciding what sort of approach we'd like to take, and then to implement this as a team. We seem unable as a group to do so, however, as has been apparent for a month now with this section. We do have some very good content in the sandbox, as well. But as long as we have people coming in and making huge removals, nothing will ever be done well. SageRad (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Pushing in primary sources carte blanche is not justified by simply saying primary sources are allowed. The article is getting bloated from people inserting the findings of whatever study they find rather than relying on secondary sources to summarize the literature to date for an encyclopedia (WP:NOTJOURNAL comes to mind). We are in a topic that has plenty of literature in the secondary sources and is controversial. There's really not a reason to be using primary sources in a topic like this with what WP:RS actually says. This conversation has been had many times here already, so I have no idea why people act surprised when primary sources are removed. It's time to raise the source quality to improve the content first, then we can figure out what kind of ordering actually fits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, i didn't say that "pushing in primary sources carte blanche" is justified. In fact i said something quite different to that, that actually agrees with a lot of what you just said here. I would like to raise source quality. I would like the article to provide a more summary-level overview of toxicity and not get too nitty-gritty. I would like the article to avoid being a list of negative-sounding details about glyphosate. I would like it to be grounded in reality, especially as reflected by the best secondary sources available. However, i wish that you would perhaps help with improving sourcing beyond deleting content that is sourced to primary articles, especially content that is critical of glyphosate, so that we can evolve to a better-sourced article gradually. I also encourage DrChrissy to slow down in adding new content, and to use secondary articles whenever possible. Currently, we seem to be in a cycle of flip-flopping with Kingofaces43 and Jzg/Guy removing content, and DrChrissy adding content, and it seems the two "sides" are feeding each other. SageRad (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SageRad, please be reassured that I am, and will continue, to use reliable secondary sources wherever possible. However, these are not always available. DrChrissy (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to know this is your intention, DrChrissy. This review-level source on amphibians may be of use to you. I've added it as a source to the article with the ref name "Mann". I do agree with Kingofaces43 and Jzg/Guy that it would be good to keep an eye on level of detail and aim for brevity as well as completeness. That may be a hard balance to strike. SageRad (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I advocate removing all primary-sourced material, and where possibly relying on secondary and tertiary sources that discuss significant areas of content, so we can avoid the appearance of having mined the archives for every paper with a negative mention of glyphosate. The fact that it's "other people's" is not just a red herring, it's anti-Wikipedian. I believe "edited mercilessly" is the term of art. And that is very much what we should be doing. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 18:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Fish_and_aquatic_life_2
The 7th paragraph under the subheading provided in the link simply repeats the first two sentences within the 1st paragraph.

"Glyphosate formulations are much more toxic for amphibians and fish than glyphosate alone.[93] Glyphosate formulations may contain a number of so-called ‘inert’ ingredients or adjuvants, most of which are not publicly known as in many countries the law does not require that they be revealed.[67]"


 * I've corrected redundancies in the toxicity section now. SageRad (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Bloat
The article is becoming bloated with the addition of ever more detailed claims often based on primary sources (e.g. ). I think it is time to start looking for broader reviews and pruning the article, because right now it comes across as List of reasons glyphosate is devil's spawn. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 17:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just done a huge amount of work on the "Toxicity" section -- trimming, removing duplication, removing the commented-out clutter, making the headings flow logically and work with the sub-lede, and much else. That section is much improved in terms of brevity. (final diff of my string of edits). SageRad (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The format changes are good, the content changes not so much. Here's an interesting thing: you know how the statement "Laboratory toxicology studies have suggested that other ingredients in combination with glyphosate may have greater toxicity than glyphosate alone" was left in for a long time despite being a complete misrepresentation of the source? When the source is correctly represented as "Although surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations, the weight of evidence is against surfactants potentiating the toxicity of glyphosate", suddenly the whole thing is problematic and you remove it. That's why people think you are a POV-pusher. Now, you can address that by "writing for the enemy" - for example, proposing summarisation of the mantra "Glyphosate is evil because it affects fish. Glyphosate is evil because it affects worms. Glyphosate is evil because it affects frogs. Glyphosate is evil because it affects tree frogs" and so on - and I promise you, that is how the article currently reads. If the critical material were about half as long and much more sharply written, it would be four or five times as effective, and the reader might actually get to the end of it. Do you see my point? Guy' (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me explain, so you don't get the wrong impression.
 * I had not seen that statement before you changed it earlier today. I think it would have been out of scope in the Toxicity section sub-lede as it was, and then as you modified it, it was even moreso, being a detail that didn't belong in the lede.
 * Secondly, in my reading today in the Mann (2009) paper, i did read about glyphosate/POEA synergy and this review-level article actually contradicted the conclusion that you had added to the article. Section 5.2 of that paper says, "Because of its anionic nature, glyphosate on its own does not penetrate the plant cuticle. Therefore, the herbicide’s phytotoxicity is facilitated by the addition of a surfactant. The surfactant incorporated into most glyphosate-based products is a polyoxyethylene tallowamine (POEA)." The paper then goes into toxicity to amphibians and fish.
 * Given that, i thought of changing the content in the sub-lede there to include this other finding from a review article that was later than the source you had used. Then, instead of doing so, i chose brevity and to remove the content because it was (1) out of place in the sub-lede and (2) questionable and contradicted by a later review paper, and (3) seemed to be a denial of a no-longer-extant claim. Therefore, i chose to simplify rather than to keep the trail of a past edit. I did respect your flagging that to begin with.
 * So, i am glad that you asked about this one specific piece of content, and i could address my thought process on it.
 * I do indeed see your point, and i do agree with the principles you are outlining. Brevity, accuracy, completeness, representation of reality the best we can manage. SageRad (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, i was about to remove the first two sentences under Toxicity-->Glyphosate alone-->Human, as this applies to glyphosate formulations, not glyphosate alone, but the page appears to be protected now, so i could not. I was hoping to show you that i am not editing only in one direction, but rather toward accurate representation of reality. Alas, the conflict around this page has blocked my ability to do so. Perhaps as an admin you could do this for me, . I would like to move this source to apply to the section under formulation toxicity relating to human accidental ingestion of the formulation, and delete the first two sentences of the toxicity for humans under "Glyphosate alone". I would be much obliged if you would be kind enough to do this as a favor to me. The first source there contains good information, so i would like to retain it, but to put it in its correct place. SageRad (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

PANAP
We cited PANAP as a source in this article for a few statements. PAN Asia Pacific is an advocacy organisation for "food sovereignty" and its position is clearly anti-GMO. I think this is a partisan source and since the figures it cites cannot be of its own making, as it lacks the research base, we should use the original sources or not at all. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 15:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good catch. I haven't had time to review all the sources listed here, but it's probably best to do that after the dust settles from ArbCom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, i believe that this is the diff in which these were removed.

I do not believe that the fact that an organization has a point of view necessarily makes it unusable as a source. Please see WP:BIASED and please respect guidelines. "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." That seems very clear to me, that the fact of a source having an indication of bias according to an editor is not a sufficient reason in itself to remove any content sourced to that source. SageRad (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I am explicitly asking editors here to respect guidelines, and to work with other editors cooperatively. I am requesting that people stop deleting the content that others have worked very hard on, with insufficient reasons for those deletions. It's counter-productive to the making of good articles. We end up going in circles. Let us talk about content, and discuss why any particular content is good or poor, and let us edit the article to improve it, and not to push a point of view. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * They are partisans, and they have no credentialled status on which to make the statement cited. If these are indeed true and significant points, they will be in mainstream scientific journals. If the best we can do is a "food sovereignty" campaign group then the claim simply is not significant. The article is not short of criticisms, many of which appear to be redundant to each other. "It harms frogs, here's how, source. It harms fish, (same mechanism), source. It harms worms, (same mechanism). Seriously, any reader is going to lose the will to live before they get anywhere near the bottom. The article needs to be about a third as long and a lot sharper. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 17:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So, let's get specific here. Content that was removed, that was sourced to this document, which you removed, was "Low glyphosate concentrations can be found in many creeks and rivers in the U.S. and in Europe." This appears to be from this PANAP document passage: "A study in southern Ontario, Canada found residues of glyphosate in a wide range of creeks, brooks, lakes, rivers, and drains, with the maximum detected level of 40.8 ug/l (Struger et al 2008). A previous study found it in “most of the wetlands and streams sampled” in Alberta (Humphries et al 2005)" (as well as some other sources about surface water in France and a few other sources in that same section).


 * Now, if i were to look up the two sources listed there, Struger et al 2008 and Humphries et al 2005, and include the same content sourced to those two studies, then i think it's likely that they would be removed because those are primary sources.


 * On the other hand, if i find a review article that cites Struger 2008, such as this one, and use this to source content about effects on amphibians, then that should sit well with you, at least in terms of source type, correct?


 * I am trying to figure out your standards here. Of course i agree with raising source quality, but i am against throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Of course i agree with brevity, but there's a balance to be struck with completeness.


 * I am glad to be unpacking these edits, to see what principles underlie them. I agree with the goals of brevity, and i agree with using more secondary articles. However, primary sources and sources from organizations with a bias are not disallowed and can even be very useful. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a good teaching moment :-) So: "Low glyphosate concentrations can be found in many creeks and rivers in the U.S. and in Europe." Unpack that and you get "A study in southern Ontario, Canada found residues of glyphosate in a wide range of creeks, brooks, lakes, rivers, and drains" - so we were overstating the source, which itself acknowledges that it comes from a study (not a variety of studies, it does not say how many samples were taken or - crucially - whether they were randomly selected). Now, that detail may be in the original, but we can't tell because the arms-length source we used is partisan so only reported the bits they like. Does the original paper say how many sites were sampled, what proportion were contaminated, and how they were selected? That's the difference between science and rhetoric. The key point is: look for review articles in the scientific literature (not articles outside the literature where we argue as editors that they are "review-level"), focus on journals with high impact and in the top tier for their speciality. That's the way to reduce the Sturm und Drang. You're dealing here not with fans of GMOs, industry or pesticides, but with supporters of science and the scientific method as the best way ever devised for separating truth from falsehood. Remember, in the early days of the scientific revolution the time taken to get from Newcomen's engine to the Rocket is comparable with the entire history of spaceflight: science is important because it works, it overcomes the weaknesses of our fallible biased brains. Homeopaths hate science because it shows them to eb wrong. Don't be like those guys, state the science, in full, with uncertainties, whether you like it or not. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A good illustration of the difference between evidence and anecdote imho. (Addendum. Word.) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, i hate the term "teaching moment" -- it places you above me, as teacher, in this context for sure -- this is a learning moment -- for me and you both, i hope. I'd love to tell you about the last time someone used the term "teaching moment" on me. You write, above "we were overstating the source," but in fact this is not the case. I had written above citing two studies (not one), and i had also written "(as well as some other sources about surface water in France and a few other sources in that same section)." You're speaking so condescendingly in the above comment, as if you're the one with the knowledge and i'm the student who needs to learn how things are done. In fact, you have actually made apparent that you didn't read the PANAP source, i think, and that you also didn't really read my comment with any generosity of spirit. The PANAP study was actually rather good as a source, in the part i read, and it reported on many studies regarding surface waters, and the results reported agreed with the review article that i read in a scientific journal regarding amphibian toxicities. I do support science, sire. I'm a scientist. I know about how these things work. You don't know me. All in all, i don't stand corrected or "taught" by you, here. I have learned some things from this dialogue, and i really hope you have too, perhaps about how you can sometimes see what you want to see, and not what's there. I suffer the same prejudicial effect sometimes, i admit. It's human. Please really notice that you are insinuating some really unfriendly and untrue things about me here, and you're plain wrong about it all. I'm trying to work with you and to be generous in my interactions with you. It must go both ways. SageRad (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You state elsewhere that you are a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I accept that. I am pointing out how Wikipedia typically approaches this kind of content. I've been here a decade and my children are older than a fair chunk of the editors I deal with, in my experience you can sum up most Wikipedia disputes with: "oh no, not this shit again", so I want you to understand that this is not special. It's more of the same.
 * I don't have a lot of generosity of spirit to give here. I am prett convinced that you are a net drain on the project, but you seem to know a lot about glyphosate and this would be a good article for you to demonstrate that you can check your agenda at the door and put that knowledge to good use. I'm not convinced, but I am willing to give you the benefit of what doubt remains. I don't like you very much, but I am doing my best to ignore that and give you a chance to prove that you are not just here to push a POV. I comment only because I do not think this is a lost cause, but you have a big hill to climb, and that's not just my view, several others seem to share it.
 * Remember the purpose of Wikipedia. We are here to describe something neutrally. Glyphosate is licensed and widely used, we are not here to tell people why that's wrong, we're here to tell them about it, not to recruit them tot he cause. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow. Hey, i've been here for over 6 months of very intensive editing, and i have grasped the guidelines pretty well. I think i've climbed the learning curve pretty well, thanks. I am open to learning from everyone, but you're really placing yourself above me all the time, and you continue to do so. It's not right. You're lording it over others. I've just shown that your critique of my comment was mistaken and misplaced, and instead of acknowledging it, you're lecturing to me again. Really. I am here to improve the article. In another section here, "Bloat", i had left you a comment that i intended to remove two sentences under "Toxicity->Glyphosate alone->Human" because they were misplaced, and this would be an edit in favor of glyphosate (but the newly added page protection prevented me from doing so, so i asked you if you'd be so kind). Really, i'm asking you again for more generosity of spirit and to stop acting like you own the place, or lording it over others as if you're always right. You weren't right, here, and you seem to be seeing things with a predilection for conflict, which is understandable given that there has been a lot of conflict. People get patterned into perception bias. SageRad (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Wow. Hey, i've been here for over 6 months of very intensive editing, and i have grasped the guidelines pretty well." Sage, 12:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC). Hey Sage, the evidence would not agree. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Polarization has this effect of making some people think that other people are bad editors. Let's work to de-polarize ourselves, please, instead of continually slinging aspersions all around. I do understand sourcing and guidelines and ideals of Wikipedia, and strive to do good work here. I don't find your comment helpful or accurate and i think this is no longer a fruitful conversation in relation to the article's content. SageRad (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced, but better minds than mine are looking, and it'll all come out in the wash. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Additive toxicity
The start of the section on toxicity read:
 * Laboratory toxicology studies have suggested that other ingredients in combination with glyphosate may have greater toxicity than glyphosate alone.

The source says:
 * Although surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations, the weight of evidence is against surfactants potentiating the toxicity of glyphosate.

I don't think I am being obtuse when I see this as using a source to say the opposite of what it says in its own abstract. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 15:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The initial version may have implied but did not require potentiation. It would be satisfied by simple addition. As it stands now, the whole issue is simply out of the sub-lede of the Toxicity section, appropriate as to WP:WEIGHT regarding prominence of placement. Good catch. SageRad (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * [Moved, thanks to SageRad for pointing out my error]
 * This is a situation we very commonly see in articles related to fringe topics. A paragraph is lifted form the body of a report, and is asserted to represent the report as a whole, even when the abstract or conclusion says something else. Of course you can mine the report and find sentences that you like, but the abstract (which, as you will be aware, is designed to function as an overview of the headline message of the study) says something else, so it's the abstract we use. Or, better still, we go to a tertiary source that has a broad overview of the evidence, for ang against, and use that instead of dozens of tiny paragraphs sourced from primary studies. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, i do understand what you are saying, JzG. Except that herein lies the problem: the initial content only required that the effect of glyphosate with adjuvants be greater than the effect of glyphosate alone, and that is supported by the study. The initial content did not say that adjuvants potentiate the effects of glyphosate, but only that together the effects may be greater, and that is definitely true, as POEA is more toxic to amphibians than glyphosate. We all know that the LD50 is very high for human acute poisoning for glyphosate alone, but a few cups of the formulation will kill you. The study's abstract does state, as you quoted, "Although surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations..." which confirms the addition of toxicity of glyphosate by adjuvants, which is what the initial content said. SageRad (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Toxicity section organization problems
I see the toxicity section outline, and it's really in bad shape. It's illogical and contains a lot of duplications and inaccuracies. This is the current outline under "Toxicity": 7 Toxicity
 * 7.1 Active ingredient
 * 7.1.1 Mammals
 * 7.1.1.1 Humans
 * 7.1.2 Fish and aquatic life
 * 7.1.3 Antimicrobial activity
 * 7.1.4 Soil biota
 * 7.1.5 Antimetabolic activity, plants
 * 7.1.6 Genetic damage
 * 7.2 Government and organization positions on glyphosate toxicity
 * 7.2.1 European Food Safety Authority position
 * 7.2.2 US Environmental Protection Agency position
 * 7.2.3 World Health Organization position
 * 7.3 Additive toxicity
 * 7.3.1 Surfactants
 * 7.4 Inert ingredient toxicity
 * 7.4.1 Human
 * 7.4.2 Endocrine disruption
 * 7.4.3 Genetic damage
 * 7.4.4 Other animals
 * 7.4.5 Fish and aquatic life
 * 7.4.6 Effect on plant health

The problems with this are many, and obvious. I had worked very hard on this organization in the sandbox, and yet none of that work has been put to use here, due to all the drama and obstructionism recently.

Essentially, we need to represent toxicity of glyphosate alone, and that of glyphosate-based formulations including the adjuvants used in various formulations. We only need one section about glyphosate-based formulations, and that section can include discussion of the individual adjuvants, with links where available to their own pages (POEA, for instance).

The heading "inert ingredient toxicity" is not accurate, and we ought to use the term "adjuvant" instead, as these ingredients are not inert.

We should use a consistent set of subheadings for classes of life, from humans to other life forms.

Just pointing out these issues for further discussion. SageRad (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , agree. thanks for correcting my edit of inert with adjuvant.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above seems good to me re. the major headings (and I agree about your efforts in the Sandbox). We then need to decide whether we give priority to animal types, or to the type of damage that occurs (genetic damage, Endocrine disruption).  One classification of types I thought might be helpful is to think of organisms -
 * "The species I am not allowed to talk about"
 * "Terrestrial organisms" including soil biota, antimicrobial activity and plants
 * "Aquatic organisms"
 * This would allow us to focus on the different routes, measurement and levels of toxicity etc. DrChrissy (talk)
 * DrChrissy, i do think there is a good reason for both kinds of headings -- organism classes, as well as modes of action. They both make sense to me. I would like for us to be consistent, so we start with organism classes and then modes of action, under both glyphosate and GBF sections. SageRad (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I have done a general restructuring of the Toxicity section now. It makes more sense and there is no duplication:

7 Toxicity
 * 7.1 Glyphosate alone
 * 7.1.1 Humans
 * 7.1.2 Other animals
 * 7.1.3 Fish and aquatic life
 * 7.1.4 Antimicrobial activity
 * 7.1.5 Soil biota
 * 7.1.6 Genetic damage
 * 7.2 Glyphosate-based formulations
 * 7.2.1 Human
 * 7.2.2 Other animals
 * 7.2.3 Fish and aquatic life
 * 7.2.4 Effect on plant health
 * 7.2.5 Endocrine disruption
 * 7.2.6 Genetic damage
 * 7.3 Government and organization positions
 * 7.3.1 European Food Safety Authority
 * 7.3.2 US Environmental Protection Agency
 * 7.3.3 World Health Organization

I also removed all the commented-out duplicated material. Please respect this organization unless you have a good reason to change it. SageRad (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Canadian herbicide survey
This information was removed:

A survey of multiple sites within multiple watersheds in Canada during 2007 found glyphosate was one of the most frequently detected herbicides of eight that were monitored.[72] 

Canada said this about the survey:

''Public and scientific concern has grown over the last decade in Canada over the cosmetic use of pesticides in urban centers. With this in mind, a national survey was designed to monitor eight commonly used herbicides in urban rivers and streams across Canada.''

How is it that Wikipedia non-experts feel free to judge the survey and decide it not be included in this article while the nation of Canada does not find it problematic? Gandydancer (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the abstract from the study itself. Government agencies will archive publications indiscriminately like that when a government employee is a co-author. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, they did conclude that "Concentrations of 2,4-D, mecoprop, dicamba, glyphosate, and AMPA were linked to urban use and frequently detected in all geographic areas." SageRad (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a high concentration of DHMO, too. Was it significant? Was there evidence of harm? Or is this just yet more for the list of reasons why Glyphosate is the spawn of Satan? This article is written by the department of redundancy department, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It just says that glyphosate was found in all locations tested. Varying levels, but found. That's all it says. I'm not implying anything more, but this is just a point of fact. It's not saying "glyphosate is satan" or anything. It's just establishing where glyphosate has been detected by one study. I don't see why you hjave to go to "is this just yet more for the list of reasons why Glyphosate is the spawn of Satan?", JzG... that seems like quite a leap, and makes me think you're approaching this topic with a bent already looking for trouble instead of seeing what is simply there. SageRad (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just made exactly the same point at AN3. DrChrissy (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * But do you not see the point? Glyphosate was found in all areas tested, it says. But did it only test areas on the margins of large agricultural spreads? Were the sites selected randomly, or with a view to likely presence of glyphosate? That question is absolutely crucial because if it's the latter then you can't say it's widespread, only that it's widespread where glyphosate is in use - and even then you have to assess the significance, which requires a secondary or tertiary source. We need to know how systematic the search was, whether it's replicated by others, we need independent commentary on methodology and so on and so on. If this study had found no glyphosate, would it have been published or would it lie in a file drawer like most negative findings do? And would your reaction be the same if it had found no glyphosate? Imagine replacing it with a paper that found none, would you be as passionate about retaining it, or would you be looking to see if the authors were funded by Monsanto? Do you see what I mean? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see your point, yes. However, the study tested rivers near cities, as i think i recall. More description of the study could be in order, or situating its relevance with a secondary study or three. If we are really going to address the question of prevalence of glyphosate in the environment, then secondary sources are the way to go, for sure -- papers on surface waters as well as those on amphibians and fish, which also address presence in surface waters. Still, the results of that primary study might be relevant to the article. That's an editorial judgment call. I see what you mean by all your questions, but i don't think the answers are as pat as you seem to think. If there were no glyphosate found environmentally, then these things would probably not even be mentioned in the article, which seems alright by me. There are in fact some conflicting review articles on various topics relating to glyphosate, and bias in research teams probably enters into it, so there is that dynamic as well. It's real. And i do have some bias myself, as well, as do you i think. We must work with all these things. SageRad (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The solution is as I suggest and as I think you probably also accept: replace our subjective judgment as editors with the more objective judgment of reliable independent sources, with the additional quality assurance of peer-review. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's really the only way to go forward at this point. The kind of conversation I've been seeing above is exactly why we caution against primary sources in science and say to stick with secondary sources in almost all cases. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

To address Guy's concerns: Please give some credit to the researchers who must have been well aware of the possibility that nearby agriculture may effect some rivers/streams and take that into consideration.
 *  But did it only test areas on the margins of large agricultural spreads?


 * Were the sites selected randomly, or with a view to likely presence of glyphosate?

Short answer is no. Do you think these researchers were a bunch of dopes?

This was not, for instance, a study to see if glyphosate causes cancer. This was a survey for the government to see to what extent some chemicals were to be found in rivers and streams near urban centers. They did not need to do it twice.
 * We need to know how systematic the search was, whether it's replicated by others, we need independent commentary on methodology and so on and so on.
 * If this study had found no glyphosate, would it have been published or would it lie in a file drawer like most negative findings do?

This was a survey used to help Canada establish their environmental regulations.

Guy I am getting so weary of your sarcasm and constant insistence that the rest of us are a bunch of boobs only interested in trashing Monsanto. The Canada study would help our readers to know to what extent researchers found glyphosate in some waterways. That does not mean that it is "bad", just that it is there. Gandydancer (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about giving credit to researchers - I do not know which questiont hey were setting out to answer. Was it:
 * In areas where glyphosate is used, does it contaminate the local groundwater?
 * In areas where glyphosate is used, does it produce meaningful contamination of groundwater, by reference to known levels of toxicity?
 * Is there systematic contamination of groundwater with glyphosate, regardless of local agricultural use?
 * Or some other question. And since I don't have the original paper, and nobody has produced independent reliable commentary that puts the research in context, I am asking the legitimate quesiton of whether ti actually supports the statement being made on the back of it.
 * You can pretend that the majority of editors adding critical commentary to this article are peerless examples of the Wikipedian ideal, but the facts would be against you. We are all biased, some more strongly than others. I want to get to the facts. I want to know what the science actually says. I am distrustful of glyphosate, but doubly distrustful of appeals to conspiracy. Regulators consider this product acceptably safe, environmental activists would apparently rather bathe in Strontium 90. Why such a large disparity? I find it easy to understand a passion for a clean environment, but Wikipedia is not about that, we're about boring old fact, and I want the boring old facts. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gandy - well put. I also hope people have noticed that although the Canadian study was published in 2012, the data were collected in 2007!  I'm sure when we find more recent sources, this will have changed one way or the other (no Satan spawn here!). DrChrissy (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This reversion of content here deleted reference to an article which states "Glyphosate was not detected at a concentration at or above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's maximum contamination level (MCL) of 700 μg/1 in any sample." Dated 2005, it is a little old but The Spawn of Satan could have been balanced if an editor had perhaps not been hell-bent on reverting material simply because of another editor's identity and (incorrectly) assumed POV. DrChrissy (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit needed
I would like to remove this sentence:

At a site in Texas half-live was as little as three days to 141 days at a site in Iowa.[35]

It is meaningless and the source is as well. Would an admin take care of this please, or perhaps there is some other method of editing that I'm not aware of? Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's out of scope, too much of a detail and the source absolutely does not support it. There is no mention of Texas or Iowa in he source. How did this get in the article? The soil half life range is already specified earlier and that is a good level of summary. Good catch.


 * Also, "water" is misspelled in the preceding sentence. SageRad (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ,Re "how did this get into the article?"
 * that's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glyphosate&diff=next&oldid=684040808 how], i fused duplicated sections. and it was sourced, until large scale reversions happened.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, I would be happy to see you showing equivalent skepticism towards content that is in line with your POV. I suspect that we should say what the half life of contamination is, because it is self-evidently relevant, but based on broader sourcing. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Guy/JzG -- your meaning escapes me here. This has nothing to do with a POV or agenda. The half-life range is stated previously to this content in question, and i said that in my comment here. I think you're really not seeing me clearly. You're projecting a POV that is not present here. There is better and more concise information in the article already, and this content here is not well sourced, so i agreed that removal is warranted. I don't see how that's got anything to do with a POV. SageRad (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Guy's reaction is very similar to Jytdog's reaction the last time I edited this article, which was also to remove something unimportant and poorly sourced.  In that case Jytdog said he'd have been accused of bias if he had been the one to remove it, suggesting that the rest of us are interested only in a biased article, not an accurate one.   You'd think we could just work together without the constant comments of accusations that anytime an editor makes a negative comment about some chemical or another they must be hell bent on trashing Monsanto. It makes editing difficult and often a miserable experience. Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That might be a valid comment if it weren't for the obvious fact that SageRad has a strong POV here. I think SageRad knows a lot about the subject, what I would like to achieve is a better article, but I am having a hard time seeing most of his edits as properly neutral. If SageRad can learn to check his moral outrage at the door, he could be a force for good on this article, IMO. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with having a strong POV when it comes to our editing here. Let's see...today I edited infant formula, Jon Batiste, and Bernie Sanders because I have a strong POV about them, that in some cases may go so far as to be called "moral outrage".  But it is NOT OK to constantly belittle and call other editors biased in their editing just because you think so and I'm getting really sick of your holier than thou attitude where you see nothing wrong with instructing the rest of us in how this place is supposed to work and on what you perceive as other editor's shortcomings.  It has resulted in a battleground atmosphere that makes editing a miserable experience.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Keep comments to content and principles, please. Stop stereotyping me,. Judge me by my actions. Open your eyes. We really need to discuss the meaning of POV -- it means "point of view" and everybody has one. I personally am skeptical of the chemical industry. But that is different from pushing an agenda into an article. My edits may have a general focus of precaution about chemicals, but that's 100% fine and acceptable on Wikipedia. I'm not gaming the system or the rules. Stop casting such stereotypes constantly. It's tiring and harmful to the editing environment. If you would open your eyes and see my edits instead of projecting, then you'd see that my edits generally make sense and that i value accuracy above all else. I don't see how this edit here is either "for" or "against" glyphosate. It's just about proper sourcing, and writing a good article. I believe we share the same goal of developing good articles, but your continuous allegations that i'm biased are out of scope here and, i feel, uncivil. SageRad (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and, I sympathize, but i advise , no I implore you , as I see this is continuing as I tried to post this)to present these diffs at the ongoing arbcom proceedings instead of feeding a ..... (5 letter word I may not mention) by commenting on JzG/Guy's moral lapses and getting off Talk page topic. Gandydancer, i hope you see that more than this edit is needed to fix the section. Sage Rad, I'm sorry I cant convince you with my advice from October 5. or maybe it just takes time for you to unlearn ...?--Wuerzele (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuits
I noticed the recent addition and immediate reversion of content related to a mass tort action contemplated re: damages from Roundup. This is something to keep an eye on that will need to be carefully integrated into the article. It is a fast-developing issue, with daily news coverage in reliable sources - but I suggest we wait just a bit until the reports have a bit more cohesion. At the moment, I believe it has only been individual lawsuits filed in various locations across the US.

Please do not add every news article immediately when it is published, but also don't knee jerk revert out this content once it develops a bit more in the reliable sources. Thank you. Minor4th  01:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

La Plata study finds glyphosate in cotton products
Because the Monsanto suite of articles is under discussion right now, I'll leave this here (it's, um, 'translated' from Spanish): *
 * "85 percent of all samples tested positive for glyphosate and 62 percent for AMPA, which is the environmental metabolite, but in the case of cotton and gauze the figure was one hundred percent"


 * "In terms of concentrations, what we saw is that raw cotton what dominates is the AMPA (39 mg / kg and 13 mg / kg of glyphosate), while the gauze is absent AMPA, but glyphosate whose concentration is 17 mg / kg"


 * The result of this research is very serious. When you use cotton or gauze to heal wounds or personal use hygienic, does thinking they are sterilized products, and results that are contaminated with a carcinogenic substance."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up, . I dont see how it cant be used until the study by the Espacio Multidisciplinario de Interacción Socioambiental from the National University of La Plata is published or a reliable source picks it up; even if we had the research presentation at the "Third National Congress of Doctors of Fumigated Peoples" it might not be enough. i coudlnt find any news about it.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No news in Western media has picked it up yet, but here's some mainstream coverage from S.A. However, we don't rely on popular press to determine what science is added to our articles, luckily.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note the automatic translation is wrong; the original Spanish talks about ug (micrograms) per kg which Google has translated to mg (milligrams) per kg. 195.147.216.28 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   08:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Back to bees
I would like to introduce-
 * Glyphosate per se has virtually no toxicity for honey bees, however, common formulations such as Weathermax® do.
 * The source is here
 * DrChrissy (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See comment below. Same deal. Lfstevens (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

GBF's are unusual in their toxicity
I have read several statements similar to the following-
 * "Quite unusual for a pesticide formulation is the co-formulant considered to be more toxic than the active ingredient." when discussing GBFs.
 * page 325 in Castro, M. J., Ojeda, C., & Cirelli, A. F. (2013). Surfactants in agriculture. In Green Materials for Energy, Products and Depollution (pp. 287-334). Springer Netherlands.
 * Should this be included?
 * DrChrissy (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't those surfactants used in other pesticides? Why do they become more dangerous mixed with glyphosate? Lfstevens (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

highly toxic to amphibians
I would like to introduce the following.
 * Glyphosate herbicides are classified as "moderately to highly toxic to amphibians".


 * And using the same reference -
 * Tadpoles are detritivores and may therefore ingest glyphosate and POEA even when they have been adsorbed to bottom sediments.


 * DrChrissy (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * DrChrissy (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that peer reviewed? Lfstevens (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Structure regarding fish and amphibians
In the article we have sections entitled "Fish and aquatic life" which describes content for fish, amphibians and aquatic invertebrates. I suggest that for biological reasons, we need to restructure these. I am not entirely sure of this but I believe absorption of substances through the skin of fish is limited because of the scales (presumably, most absorption is through the gills and ingestion). In contrast, most amphibians are able to absorb substances through their skin. In addition, many amphibians do what their name means - they spend time on land. I think our section headings should reflect these rather fundamental differences. DrChrissy (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Lfstevens (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No preference. Geogene (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds very reasonable. SageRad (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate harms earthworms
I would like to introduce the following text.
 * Glyphosate causes a signiﬁcant reduction in growth of the earthworm (Eisenia fetida). Pelosi, C., Barot, S., Capowiez, Y., Hedde, M., & Vandenbulcke, F. (2014). Pesticides and earthworms. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(1), 199-228. doi:10.1155/2010/678360
 * Yasmin, S., & D'Souza, D. (2010). Effects of pesticides on the growth and reproduction of earthworm: a review. Applied and Environmental soil science, 2010.
 * Sorry, I gave the wrong reference. DrChrissy (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please note, it is a secondary source.
 * DrChrissy (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks to be supported by that secondary source. I might add "signiﬁcant reduction in growth and reproduction" as per:


 * It seems to be clear that there have been mixed results from various studies, but a general indication that glyphosate -- alone and in combination with other pesticides -- generally has a negative effect on earthworms, at least E. fetida. SageRad (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And is also supported by this primary source. Santadino, M., Coviella, C., & Momo, F. (2014). Glyphosate sublethal effects on the population dynamics of the earthworm Eisenia fetida (Savigny, 1826). Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 225(12), 1-8. DrChrissy (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An interesting quote from another article in the nature.com stable "These sizeable changes provide impetus for more general attention to side-effects of glyphosate-based herbicides on key soil organisms and their associated ecosystem services." See here[] DrChrissy (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Link directly above is a primary source. Also please carefully read the conclusions of the review. The only conclusion that the reviewers came to was there is currently no strong proof. Boghog (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for bringing this to Talk. Second, the source looks OK. That leaves the wording. I'd be explicit and use words from the source. E.g. (but not necessarily) "G (and other pesticides) was observed to affect coccoon hatchability and growth." Lfstevens (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also like to introduce-
 * Glyphosate applied at commercial doses decreases cast (earthpod) formation by Metaphire posthuma Bertrand, M., Barot, S., Blouin, M., Whalen, J., de Oliveira, T., & Roger-Estrade, J. (2015). Earthworm services for cropping systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(2), 553-567.
 * Please note it is a secondary source.
 * DrChrissy (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) It is secondary only to the extent that it cited primary studies. There is no mention of inclusion and exclusion criteria. There is no evaluation of each of the primary studies to deterimine if appropriate methods were used. Most importantly, the review did not offer any conclusions on whether glyphosate is harmful to worms at relevant concentrations. Boghog (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The clue is in the title. DrChrissy (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need clues. We need conclusions and this review did not offer any other than we need more data. Boghog (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Another interesting quote from a secondary source is here. The book is dated 1999, but if we are going to argue that a 2000 review is OK, I can't see why 1999 would not be.
 * "Some large spectrum herbicides, e.g., glyphosate, are quite harmful to some earthworms such as Apporectodea caliginosa even at very low doses.


 * DrChrissy (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, absent a later, contradicting source. Lfstevens (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus? I think we have consensus for the following: Glyphosate can be harmful to some earthworms such as Apporectodea caliginosa, even at very low doses, and causes a signiﬁcant reduction in growth of the earthworm Eisenia fetida.


 * DrChrissy (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is consensus yet. We should include something from the 2014 review, but the main take-home message that I got from reading it is that there may be some negative effects of gly on earthworms but really we don't know yet as there haven't been suitable experiments conducted. I don't think it supports such a definitive claim such as the one you're suggesting to include. I think it is more accurate to state that it is generally considered safe (list the reviews one by one if necessary), but there are some indications that it may be harmful and that further research is required. SmartSE (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not include the 2014 review in my proposed inclusion. Please do not spuriously criticise my proposed inclusion on the basis of material it does not contain. DrChrissy (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to follow-up, all WP articles are considered to be "work in progress". If Smartse wants to add information from the 2014 review, of course they are welcome to do this at a later stage.  However, just because an editor wants to add material at some point in the future should not be used as a reason to hold up editing the mainspace article. DrChrissy (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Woops. Sorry about that. Nevertheless, I don't agree that adding this content was right since it is so contradictory to all of the other reviews stating that it has little or no effect but I guess I'll have to fix that myself. SmartSE (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)