EU 2017 decision

First, thanks for setting up this article as it's the only way to treat this information in a fair and unbiased manner, IMO. I am working on another article right now which takes up most of my time reading sources and trying to sort through the stuff that was added here and there and I have next to no time to spend on this article. However, prior to giving up as a lost cause any efforts to improve the Roundup information at the glyphosate article, I did follow pretty closely the 2017 EU decision on allowing it. I think it should be included in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

After some cleanup of WP:FRINGE stuff from the initial page creation and copying content from glyphosate, it looks like some of the problems are popping up that were cautioned against in previous talk page discussions. Right now, the glyphosate alone content isn't included here, though it becomes undue to not include it since glyphosate is relatively non-toxic. That's looking like a fair case that this type of split causes more problems than solves (though I'm honestly not sure what we're attempting to solve right now).

However, the larger problem I'm seeing with WP:DUE is that we're making a whole separate article to rather lengthily say that glyphosate has such low toxicity, that highly concentrated detergents are more toxic (which we know aren't supposed to be consumed in concentrated form or poured in fish tanks). It can get misleading with that in mind simply saying something like POAE is more toxic than glyphosate. Then we have the issue that a lot of this is really just high-dose POAE toxicity content, not due to the mixture itself. Basically, I'm not seeing a concise focus on anything here so far towards the actual formulations rather than individual components except to say there's really not much of a biological effect in real-life scenarios. Honestly, the more I tried to make the focus on the formulations, I'm getting even less convinced that a split is worthwhile. It doesn't look like the regulatory stuff is out of the ordinary either compared to other EU pesticides so far, so that seems like a better fit over at glyphosate without really giving any additional notability to mixtures per se.

Considering the previous content at glyphosate has been relatively stable, I'm not sure if there's much else that would be added here, but that's why I'm looking for comments here. Otherwise, we might just be dealing with a redundant WP:CFORK that's better left at the parent article. I'm willing to give some time to stress test this and be convinced, but nothing has really passed muster for that so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm going to undo this section. It's too technical for this article, and you've once again removed most of the content that is relevant for this article which is not acceptable. This should go in the main glyphosate article. Please don't copy content from that article here, one reason I created it was because that article is too technical. There seems to be consensus for that, and the content that is going to be split out should be discussed before it is copied to replace the content in this article. This really is not acceptable. Seraphim System (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Seraphim System: Can you please define what "is relevant for this article"? The vast majority of sources discuss glyphosate rather than formulations which is why the decision was made to merge Roundup and glyphosate several years ago. Kingofaces43 evidently spent a long time examining the sources when making those edits and justified each one in the edit summaries, it is lazy of you to revert saying that they are undiscussed (since when has that been a reason to revert?) and the removals of unsourced content were justifed. SmartSE (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article also covers agricultural and regulatory history like the history of Roundup Ready Crops, which keeps being removed from the article while it is still being developed. Editors have requested that content about branding history and the EU regulatory history be expanded which is what I am working on. It seems the issue is more about whether this article should move to some other title - but there was also support for this title on the glyphosate talk page. I don't think the removals have been properly justified and I don't think this article should stress chemistrysince that is already covered in the other article - other editors may have other interests besides chemistry and deleting their content or pushing it to the bottom of the article and front loading the article with technical content is not acceptable. As far as I can tell this is basically editing against consensus at the moment. Seraphim System (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For those that did want a split, the idea was that the content specific to formulations would be moved or at least copied here. A lot of your content violated WP:DUE like citing a Seralini study even though that content had been hashed out over at glyphosate already, which is why I mentioned the problem with WP:POVFORK. Either way, I already told you on your talk page the expectations of 1RR in this topic, and you cannot be trying to edit war your content back in without gaining consensus for it (i.e., basically following WP:BRD. This is mainspace now, not a sandbox. That content is all appropriate for WP:MEDRS sources, though I do agree it can be made simpler by trimming down some of the claims of toxicity and focusing more on the sources saying such studies have been done, but aren't ecologically relevant. It's a bit more difficult to craft that concise of language, so that's a secondary concern to getting the focus of a potential article settled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:MEDRS applies to most of the content in this article. For example, John Vandermeer is a recognized scholar whose work is highly cited and this book in particular is a secondary source (an academic book). I don't think a "Pesticide Registration Manual" from the EPA is a better source then an academic book. Some of the content that was added didn't have any supporting citations. - even if WP:MEDRS did apply, which I don't think it does to most of the content in this article, it is also clear that edits are more likely to gain consensus if laypersons can actually understand them and I think that's an important goal for this article. If you have a conduct issue you should post it to AE, since I think your blanking massive amounts of content without discussion is also a conduct issue.Seraphim System (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Vandermeer - why cite a book on acroecology which cites a single study on roundup when there are numerous reviews available on toxicity to aquatic animals already cited in Glyphosate#Aquatic_fauna_2? SmartSE (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I chose this one because it was an academic secondary source, not a primary study, but it was simple enough to write without too many technical details, which I think should be in a separate article. It's not unusual to have one general article and one that focuses on more technical details.Seraphim System (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Ok thanks, but how is that distinct from the history of glyphosate? The regulatory history is no different for formulations versus the active ingredient - the decision Gandydancer is referring to is already covered in Glyphosate#European_Union but was not about formulations. For roundup ready crops, as Kingofaces mentioned in an edit summary, these are not specific to Roundup and are more relevant to be discussed in the glyphosate article, as it is the active, not the formulation, that the crops are resistant to. Given that this is a topic about chemistry, I am really scratching my head at why you think it shouldn't discuss this - this is what makes the formulations distinct after all. How could the edits have been better justified? Did you examine the sources and see whether what KoA had said about them made sense? I'm not sure how you are judging consensus, but right here and now, it was your edit that is against consensus. SmartSE (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not legally the same thing. The regulatory history is much longer then what is covered in the Glyphosate article and I think the full details would overburden that article. This is not only a topic about chemistry and we already have a thorough article about chemistry. I'm not really interested in working on a highly technical chemistry article which is why I started a new article. I don't think reverting massive undiscussed removals of sourced information is against consensus. The purpose of a new article is not for one editor to unilaterally copy content here - some of the content may need to be merged, but since this is a controversial topic the partial merger should be discussed. It certainly shouldn't be copied and pasted over the existing content in the article.Seraphim System (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SmartSE, it is the 2017 info that I believe needs more coverage. For several months I have been working on the Trump Administration related articles and it is my belief that we must not drift into thinking that previously held rules of what is and what is not ethical are no longer applicable. Some current administration practices are not ethical - they are not "normal". In the same way, to copy/paste information written by Monsanto into a decision is not ethical or "normal". Core ethics should not change, IMO. I work on a wide variety of articles and based on my work on other articles, I believe that the 2017 decisions requires broader reporting here on WP, even if that means that Monsanto's behaviors have been justified. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandydancer: More coverage on what? Which aspects are missing from the glyphosate article and why do they belong here and not there? Please list sources. (And let's leave politics and what we've been up to for somewhere else please). SmartSE (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, as I said I do not have time to refresh my knowledge in depth re Monsanto's RoundUp right now. I am in the habit of friendly exchange on the talk page which may not suit all editors. I will strike my last edit. Gandydancer (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandydancer: I hope I don't come across as unfriendly, that's certainly not my intention, just that I think it helps to stay on topic. SmartSE (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The merger was already discussed quite often back at glyphosate, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, especially those who wanted the split in the first place. Please also keep in mind it doesn't matter what you personally want to work on. Previous talk discussions were very clear that anything really WP:DUE about formulations was primarily based in chemistry and MEDRS related content (including laws and regulations that follow). Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to request that you provide links to consensus discussions you mention from now on, because you have referred to discussions on another article several times now at this article without providing links to those discussions and I have no idea what you are talking about because I've never worked on that article. And I'm not saying it matters what I personally want to work on. What I am saying it that per WP:TECH-CONTENT articles about chemical compounds are explicitly mentioned as particularly technical articles, where that is ok. But this article is not about a chemical compound, it is interdisciplinary. Of course it is going to include some content covered by MEDRS, but it includes other history and law content as well. Of course, the circumstances of each individual article would have to be considered individually - it's hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all rule for Chemistry/Legal sources, but in this case some of these sources were used incorrectly. They are primarily legal findings - they can only be taken as statements about the specific regulations they mention. Seraphim System (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why do you think legal content follows MEDRS? Seraphim System (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Competence is required in the science of the subject for dealing with laws related to that science. At this point, the claim about scientific agencies and findings being primarily law sources isn't going to get any traction or change anything on this talk page or article content either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The specific content you added to this article seriously misrepresented the conclusion of primary assessments that were prepared as part of a regulatory renewal process. Compounding that error by implying that other editors lack competence, without any evidence, is imo heading into personal attacks/misconduct and I think you should strike it.17:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Some comments:


A "cursory glance" is not going to be helpful here. What it says is: "The overall conclusion from the evaluation is that it may be expected that plant protection products containing glyphosate will fulfil the safety requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC. This conclusion however is subject to compliance with...for each glyphosate containing plant protection product for which Member states will grant review or authorization" - this is a legal conclusion. The content in the article says: "A 2000 review concluded that 'under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans'. A 2002 review by the European Union reached the same conclusion." - I would say this is a misrepresentation. Based on this, I think the content in the glyphosate article should first be thoroughly source checked and reviewed, before it is merged it into other articles (and certainly the merger should not be performed unilaterally). Seraphim System (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it looks like this is the current status quo (minus the first paragraph of Regulation) with both mine and Seraphim's edits being removed. Arbs were very clear that as part of 1RR, new edits someone makes that were removed should not be reverted back in as a way of getting around 1RR and instead need to gain consensus (also why I won't be reverting my edits back in tomorrow).
The second part were my new edits, which also need to gain consensus since they were reverted. That being said, I have to agree with Smartse that the blanket revert of my very pointed edit summaries was not very helpful (nor was restoring fringe content) towards improving the page, nor am I seeing anything substantial yet that addressed most of the removed content on this talk page.
For your second bullet, we generally avoid primary journal articles because they are limited in scope in the the content they review in their intro. In this case, the number for formulations in Estonia wasn't really DUE. The remainder the the paragraph was redundant with the second one, not to mention that the general regulation scheme is not really specific to glyphosate as mentioned above. For the third, some of those are again required per DUE and do mention formulations as well. With a bit more than a cursory glance at the title or text, you'll see that it discusses plant protection products containing glyphosate rather than just the active ingredient. For the fourth, we don't do WP:GEVAL, especially in science related topics, but your comment about the lead to Glyphosate#Glyphosate-based_formulations doesn't really fit with DUE. That was rather basic content that was already agreed upon though, so if sourcing was a concern, one only needed to tag it and it could have been solved easily. As for the Scientific American, you've been made aware many times now that those Seralini studies are WP:FRINGE, and the Scientific American is not MEDRS with respect to that study. With all the sources out there, no one should be considering that or trying to reinsert it. On the last bullet, multiple edit summaries were given aside from the merge, but any rollback should have only gone to [this edit] since we're all respecting 1RR here. It's better not to unilaterally blanket revert, but deal with specific problems instead in edits so they can be discussed as I did in edit summaries. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who Seralini is. WP:MEDRS said the Scientific American was an ok source, as long as everything with quoted and attributed which it is, so that's why I used it. I would have preferred using the EfSA assessment directly since its preferred under MOS:LAW but I wasn't sure it was be allowed under WP:MEDRS. I don't know that I have ever rolled back a regular editor before, but I think the justification I provided on this talk page for it when asked by Smartse is sufficient. The problems range from cites that don't check out, replacing "phosphate ester neutralized POEA" with POEA (which most sources don't seem to be using interchangeably), to almost verbatim close paraphrasing I had assumed this was careless but good faith copy + pasting on your part without a thorough review/source check. I'm not sure what you think I did wrong here by reverting this.Seraphim System (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seralini affair for an example, who is a generally a well known fringe scientist in this subject. Also, WP:MEDPOP is what you were likely reading about the Scientific American. It's only good for lay discussion of a broad topic, but not for citing primary research. We need reviews, etc. for that. For this subject, that article is kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel (kind of like citing Andrew Wakefield in vaccine science). As to the revert on my new edits, I already said that many of these things would have been solved by a source needed tag or questions individually on the talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will add the content about Seralini to the background history section and remove this, I did not know the paper had been retracted. Seraphim System (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content that needs a citation before being restored

These citations did not verify the content they were cited for, or if I made a mistake please help by adding a quote or a new citation so it can be restored to the article:

On the first bullet, the trade secret phrase only needed to be deleted from the sentence or changed to proprietary. On the second, the study isn't needed for anything, but is directly linked there. The USGS summary is the better source in this case. On the third, Langland specifically states POEA is not registered for application to aquatic sites. Langland is also an extension publication with a literature cited section. These are papers put out by extension faculty for agronomic information, pesticide use, regulatory compliance, etc. On the fourth, is was agreed upon at glyphosate that Mesnage wasn't reliable for anything but a simple uncontroversial statement like that. I've seen other sources talking about it though, so it's probably better to replace it somewhere down the road. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Langland says Monsanto did not register Roundup with POEA, the source does not say it's not allowed. The USGS link that is given doesn't verify the content in the article. Seraphim System (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those two phrasings are the same thing. That gets into basic pesticide law where you need to register for specific uses to be a legal use (i.e., the label is the law). If it's not registered and labeled for something, it's not allowed. As for the USGS, it doesn't need to verify anything. Not all reliable sources cite other sources, and government scientific agencies making basic statements like this are far from a concern. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS doesn't need to verify anything? Yes, it does, it needs to verify the content it is cited for in the article. The two phrasings are not the same thing. In this case, I would prefer a reliable source for this. Langland is not an authoritative RS for legal content and the fact that it is not cited is a problem.Seraphim System (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to ask - is there a date for the Langland paper? The key part is "none of the many glyphosate-containing products currently registered for aquatic use contain POEA". This isn't really usable without a date for the paper though. I'm also not sure how Langland knows this because it doesn't seem to be publicly available information (and no citation is provided). However, I did finally find a source that the label "Toxic to fish" is legally binding on the user, which is from this Virginia Tech extension specialist, so I guess the two sources together will be fine. I don't think this is the same as saying "All formulations labeled Toxic to fish are so labeled because they contain POEA" - I looked around and I can't find any actual confirmation of this, only that they are labeled and following the labels are a legal requirement. So maybe the Virginia source will be better.Seraphim System (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like any legitimate issues with using Langeland and USGS as is have already been addressed based on your comments, so there is consensus so far to use them as such. First, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with very basic pesticide law terminology needed to work with sources in this field or even the types of scholarly sources out there. At this point, you'll need to get up to speed with that on your own time rather than using article talk page space for that as I've done due diligence on my part so far.
Extension publications by professors are educational material put out for farmers and the general public about agronomic and legal use of pesticides. No one is going to be able to seriously claim scholarly sources discussing pesticide law are not reliable, so there's no reason to spend more time on that. Also, you don't need to know how Langland knows as it's not relevant to anything on this talk page discussion. That's not how WP:V works for authoritative scholarly sources with your added personal requirement. We don't engage in peer-review of scholarly sources saying X needs a citation. If you have a problem with the date listed in the publication, then you need to find a source that shows the statement is out of date. The source is very clear that POAE formulations are not registered or labeled for aquatic use, and the pesticide labels are pretty clear on the related setbacks, buffers, etc. if you want personal followup. As for your toxicity to fish comments, that's right in the source. For USGS, when reputable scientific/government organizations make a statement as part of a summary, we simply WP:ASSERT that, especially for something as uncontroversial as this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical content that needs explanation

Can any of this be worded using less technical language? If not, maybe it should be excluded.

That's all for now. Some of this content looks like it is ok for inclusion with updated citations, but my preference would be to find the citations or update the links before restoring the content. Some of this I'm not sure about like the phosphate ester thing and would appreciate editors who know more about chemistry can comment.Seraphim System (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the first, this is what the authors say, so I'm not seeing where the issue is. Ecotoxicology usually deals with non-humans just due to the number of species, but they do list mammals in general. This doesn't really seem to matter unless someone want to put it in the human toxicity section though. On the second, the source doesn't give it significant mention, and polyethoxylated tallow amine already mentions it is a range of chemicals. On the third, the previous sentence already explains that. Puddles, temporarily flooded areas after heavy rain, etc. More paraphrasing would be fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the articles have to be written so laypersons can understand them, especially general or interdisciplinary articles like this one.Seraphim System (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, that's the statement the authors make, so we reflect that. The authors don't make a distinction about including or excluding humans, so we won't either. Non-target organism is a fairly ubiquitous term used for the general public. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS question

The WHO itself doesn't consider glyphosate carcinogenic, and while we usually don't go by what a regulatory body cites for assessing MEDRS, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the cites in the source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The disclosure is pretty clear that the authors had the final say, which is the key detail in disclosure statements. If they lied about that, then we'd need some major sources on that. Cautions get added if the funding agency was actually involved in the study. What really matters though is that other reviews citing the paper don't have issues with the methodology or findings[3].
No, if the disclosure is mentioned in the paper, then we should mention it also. No one is saying they lied about it. Seraphim System (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Measuring POEA, a Surfactant Mixture in Herbicide Formulations". U.S. Geological Survey.
  2. ^ Gary L. Diamond and Patrick R. Durkin February 6, 1997, under contract from the United States Department of Agriculture. Effects of Surfactants on the Toxicity of Glyphosate, with Specific Reference to RODEO
  3. ^ "SS-AGR-104 Safe Use of Glyphosate-Containing Products in Aquatic and Upland Natural Areas" (PDF). University of Florida. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
  4. ^ a b Mann RM, Hyne RV, Choung CB, Wilson SP (2009). "Amphibians and agricultural chemicals: Review of the risks in a complex environment". Environmental Pollution. 157 (11): 2903–2927. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2009.05.015.
  5. ^ Giesy JP, Dobson S, Solomon KR (2000). "Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup® herbicide". Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 167: 35–120. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1156-3_2. ISBN 978-0-387-95102-7.
  6. ^ Govindarajulu PP (2008). "Literature Review of Impacts of Glyphosate Herbicide on Amphibians: What Risks can the Silvicultural Use of this Herbicide Pose for Amphibians in BC?". British Columbia, Ecosystems Branch, Ministry of Environment. Retrieved December 12, 2015.
  7. ^ Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC (Apr 2000). "Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans". Regulatory Toxicology* and Pharmacology. 31 (2 Pt 1): 117–65. doi:10.1006/rtph.1999.1371. PMID 10854122.
  8. ^ Mink PJ, Mandel JS, Sceurman BK, Lundin JI (Aug 2012). "Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: a review". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 63 (3): 440–52. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.05.012. PMID 22683395.
Categories