Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
::What is the dose or minimimum inhibitory concentration? This does not belong in the article even as a compromise if the glyphosate concentrations are 1000x greater than those that would ever actually be encountered. [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] <sup>[[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Formerly 98|contribs]]|[[User:Formerly 98#Statement of Compliance with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Guideline|COI Statement]]</sup> 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
::What is the dose or minimimum inhibitory concentration? This does not belong in the article even as a compromise if the glyphosate concentrations are 1000x greater than those that would ever actually be encountered. [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] <sup>[[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Formerly 98|contribs]]|[[User:Formerly 98#Statement of Compliance with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Guideline|COI Statement]]</sup> 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
::: Are we going to be debating this here? I ask others to chime in. Is this a suitable conversation for this forum? I can answer this question but it's in depth and it seems out of place to me here, as i noted in response to another such question by the same user. [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 14:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
::: Are we going to be debating this here? I ask others to chime in. Is this a suitable conversation for this forum? I can answer this question but it's in depth and it seems out of place to me here, as i noted in response to another such question by the same user. [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 14:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
As i see those papers, they do show that animal gut microbiomes do contain organisms that do contain the EPSP synthase enzyme. I don't know what to say but you kind of flabbergast me and i'm going to go get some breakfast and not tussle like this right now. Who would have thought there is a key slapping slicker in the Wikipedia? [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:26, 5 May 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Formula
change formula as it shows the Phosporus atom on the left where the pictures have it on the right
Drinking glyphosate
The following content is being edit warred into the article by 5.12.55.41 and 188.25.223.185 dif
On 26 march 2015 in a preview of an interview it was revealed that Monsanto lobbyist Dr. Patrick Moore said the chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer is safe for humans but then refused to drink it when the journalist offered him a glass.
He said that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, was not increasing the rate of cancer in Argentina and insisted that “You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you” but these arguments have been invalidated by his own behavior. [1]
References
- ^ french interviewer (2015-03-26). "Lobbyist claims Monsanto weed killer is safe to drink, then bolts when TV host offers him a glass". Raw Story. Retrieved 2015-03-26.
{{cite news}}
:|author=
has generic name (help)
Does anybody find this content to be encyclopedia worthy? In my view: it is WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and it also doesn't describe what happened accurately. See here. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Great stuff for a tabloid, meaningless in terms of the issues of safety which must be addressed using WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that this Moore incident doesn't merit inclusion in this article, as Moore is not a recognized expert on the subject. Also, more an aside, sources have been corrected to say he is not a Monsanto lobbyist.Dialectric (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
WHO Contradiction
As Spydoo points out, there is a contradiction in the article. It reads, "...the UN World Health Organization have all concluded pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic." which is at odds with "...the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans"". There is no source provided for the former claim, while IARC is tradionally the workgroup that classifies this for the WHO. The IARC indeed did a review years ago in which it found that glyphosate was not carcinogenic. Thus, Spydoo "Removed WHO from list of organisations that have found glyphosate to not be harmful, considering the upcoming release of study with adverse findings against the chemical." But Sjgknight undid this arguing "An org can find both things, complete removal doesn't make sense". While that is obviously possible, the article does not need 'whatever is possible', but what can be verified and substantiated. I support Spydoo's edit and enforced it again, noting in the summary, "that was probably based on the IARC review years ago. IARC redid exactly that review. WHO opinion IS changed on the matter." But Sarr Cat undid that with exactly the same argument as Sjgknight gave. I now request a source to substantiate the claim that WHO conclude that pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic, because it is very likely that opinion is based on a former review by the IARC. Which is now superseded by their latest review. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- The content you and the others were edit-warring over was duplicative of content elsewhere. I just deleted it. Matter resolved, I think Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's pretty rigid, because the duplication is necessary as every header should be an independent discussion. You also removed the position of the EC Health and Consumer Protection which is now no where to be found in the article. But I agree the whole section was unsubstantiated. Timelezz (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The new findings contradict their previous ones, correct? I see no mention of this fact in the article. (which could just be me being stupid, ill admit). I get where you're going in that the new review supersedes the old ones though. However, i don't like how the new report is mentioned right in the lead section without at least some mention of it's controversial status. SarrCat ∑;3 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- we generally do not cite the history of reviews. just the most recent, authoritative things. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I just thought it might be worthwhile to mention, as it seems that this particular review is controversial due to it going against what most scientific reviews have said so far (from what I can tell anyways.) I guess the main issue here is what position WHO takes, then I guess, yeah, go with the most recent review if that's the standard thing to do on WP. SarrCat ∑;3 20:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Don't we have the problem that WHO's current review has not yet been published? So no one can evaluate what it is based on. Currently all we have is a press release right? Ttguy (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Basic science about glyphosate
I made several changes to more accurately reflect the basic science of glyphosate, and they have been undone by Jytdog, i think unjustly. A couple of the changes were on unreferenced sentences, to note that glyphosate is taken into plants by root uptake as well as by foliar uptake. This is basic science on glyphosate and in a basic science sentence with no reference, i made a correction based on well known science. I could reference if needed to a research article. SageRad (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I also introduced a paragraph on correlation to changes in rumen composition and antibody levels in diary cows with glyphosate level in the cows. This was also removed by Jytdog, because, s/he said, it was a "primary source" -- well if a peer-reviewed article is not an acceptable source, then what is? Is this just that these changes were removed? The citation i provided is: Schrödl, Wieland, et al. "Possible Effects of Glyphosate on Mucorales Abundance in the Rumen of Dairy Cows in Germany." Current microbiology 69.6 (2014): 817-823. SageRad (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see you've been talking to Jytdog on your talk page where most of your questions have been answered already, but the main issue is that we don't use primary journal articles here for much of anything. Those are articles where researchers publishes results of actual experiments. What we want are secondary sources that give context to those sources, such as literature reviews. Primary sources in science are not meant for the general public, but are instead presented to other scientists in the field who are versed in experimental design, statistics, etc. to determine the validity of the study. Others make very shaky conclusions that are easy to embellish when laypeople start reading them such are correlative studies, etc. Without scientists sorting through that all and saying the findings have merit, we can't establish what we call WP:WEIGHT here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- if you look at my edit notes, I explained each reversion. there were two main buckets. some of the changes were WP:OR and not in the sources provided; the others were based on primary sources, as noted.Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- SageRad like this edit you made - what is the source for the underlined parts of "EPSPS is not present in animal somatic cells, though it is present in animal gut microbiomes, and animals instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diets and production in gut microbiomes" There are two bits there a) that glyphosate affects the gutmicrobiome broadly, and b) that the gut microbiome is an important source of aromatic amino acids (worth mentioning next to diet). there is not source for those bits in our article. this is what i mean.. when i say that you cannot just add stuff to Wikipedia. I could just as well make the same edit and replace "microbiome" with... "cilia" in your edit, and could be just as adamant .... and within Wikipedia, would be just as wrong. do you see? Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the whole paragraph that cited Funke et al because the original statements were not reported by the paper referenced. You would see that there is no reference to sources of aromatic amino acids within animals in the paper, nor is there any such statement that EPSPS is not present in animal organisms, so the whole original content seems to have been bad. To answer your question, however, it is basic science. It's background knowledge at this point. I am sure i could find a source, though you might then remove it given the track record. I counter, however, with a question: What is the source for the original assertions in that very same paragraph that i edited? SageRad (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please find a secondary source for the facts that you adduce. Your efforts and your facts are welcome on the page. They just need the right sourcing. The lack of proper sourcing is a huge problem in WP and is obviously an issue in this article's existing content. Rather than wholesale removal or allowing the situation to worsen via inadequately sourced additions, the middle ground is where we are at the moment. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am having serious issues with the aggressive removal of all my edits to the page. I sense something of a bad sort happening here. I don't think it's value-neutral. Answer me this: isn't a peer-reviewed journal article a reasonable source for inclusion of a fact in the entry on glyphosate? For example, the fact that it *is* taken up by the roots, not just foliar spraying? I will now add this fact -- AGAIN -- with two such references. If that is then taken away -- AGAIN -- due to some concern that the source is "primary" and not "secondary" -- then show me any absolute policy that "primary sources" are indeed not allowed on Wikipedia? Or otherwise WHY is makes sense to remove something based on a peer-reviewed journal article. SageRad (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please find a secondary source for the facts that you adduce. Your efforts and your facts are welcome on the page. They just need the right sourcing. The lack of proper sourcing is a huge problem in WP and is obviously an issue in this article's existing content. Rather than wholesale removal or allowing the situation to worsen via inadequately sourced additions, the middle ground is where we are at the moment. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the whole paragraph that cited Funke et al because the original statements were not reported by the paper referenced. You would see that there is no reference to sources of aromatic amino acids within animals in the paper, nor is there any such statement that EPSPS is not present in animal organisms, so the whole original content seems to have been bad. To answer your question, however, it is basic science. It's background knowledge at this point. I am sure i could find a source, though you might then remove it given the track record. I counter, however, with a question: What is the source for the original assertions in that very same paragraph that i edited? SageRad (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- SageRad like this edit you made - what is the source for the underlined parts of "EPSPS is not present in animal somatic cells, though it is present in animal gut microbiomes, and animals instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diets and production in gut microbiomes" There are two bits there a) that glyphosate affects the gutmicrobiome broadly, and b) that the gut microbiome is an important source of aromatic amino acids (worth mentioning next to diet). there is not source for those bits in our article. this is what i mean.. when i say that you cannot just add stuff to Wikipedia. I could just as well make the same edit and replace "microbiome" with... "cilia" in your edit, and could be just as adamant .... and within Wikipedia, would be just as wrong. do you see? Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, i have made two edits. One is to restore the fact that glyphosate *is* taken up by plant roots as well as foliage. I supported this with two peer-reviewed research articles which show glyphosate being taken up by plant roots. I hope this is adequate source documentation for this fact. If it's not then tell me why, specifically, and not just by referencing a policy but by quoting the relevant text in said policy, because i have found past mentions of policy to be inaccurate when i went and read the linked page. I have also made a change to reflect the fact that animals contain organisms that contain the EPSPS enzyme. I made this edit because the preceding sentence "EPSPS is not present in animals" is not fully accurate as animals contain as part of their own super-organism, microbes that do contain EPSPS and therefore EPSPS is present in animals. My addition provides this important knowledge in the article to resolve the contradiction to truth in the first statement. SageRad (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Disputes over the removal of peer-reviewed research articles are an ongoing issue on science articles. For human health claims, WP:MEDRS sets a high bar which effectively limits sourcing to scholarly review articles. For non-health related claims, there is no guideline in place, only the essay, Wikipedia:SCIRS. SCIRS allows the use of primary sources. While reviews are preferred, addition of a brief mention of peer reviewed research that adds new information to an article is allowed, and removals of such content should have a detailed explanation for the removal on the talk page rather than just a 'removing primary source' comment.Dialectric (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Dialectric, thank you *very* much for the comment. I see that in the case of natural sciences, primary sources are indeed valid, although secondary sources are preferred when available. I appreciate this, and i will keep a watch on what happens, as i learn about how to contribute to Wikipedia in more depth. I intend fully to be fair and accurate in my work, and to reflect the scientific record about the reality of how glyphosate works. That is my only goal here. I trust in truth. SageRad (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- my edits/discussions about primary sources, when content is not health-related, are not based on MEDRS, but on the overwhelming call in NPOV (especially), OR, and VERIFY, as well as RS, that content should be based on secondary sources, and primary sources should be used only with great care. There is rarely a reason to use primary sources, and when editors insist on it, i generally find there is some misalignment going on. And as this is a controversial article, everybody working here should be reaching for the best sources (what policy and guidelines say we should do) per the advice in the essay, WP:Controversial articles. There are almost 2000 articles in pubmed on glyphosate. If we start adding primary sources there is no end to the baloney that we will get into; somebody brings a primary source that says "X", another brings 2 that say "Not X", and on we go. It is a recipe for ridiculous content and endless disputes about WEIGHT; secondary sources are above all crucial for dealing with WEIGHT. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been discussing with Jytdog on my own talk page, but i wanted to move this to a more public location to have this substantial discussion in relation to this page, not on my user talk page. So here is a good jumping-off point, i hope: Yes, my edits are meant to be factual. The inclusion or exclusion of facts can be value-laden of course. The frame of an explanation can be value-laden. The claim that animals do not contain the shikimic acid pathway and therefore glyphosate has no effect on animals, though, is not a real fact. It's not true. It's a weasely lie which is in favor of the industry that wishes it to remain the de facto assumption about glyphosate. EPSPS being present in microbes in the human gut means that the human organism has the shikimic acid pathway, in an organismic sense. To be human is to have a gut microbiome. To call it otherwise is, to me, a distortion of the truth that does not serve human knowledge and transparency. As to the "primary vs secondary" distinction, i'm still working on understanding precisely what this means. I get a sense of what it means, and from what i gather, it would tend to make Wikipedia reflect a sense of "scientific consensus" but this can be manufactured by attentive effort by an entity that has an agenda, as has been the case sometimes in the field of climate change study. There may be no review-level paper that reports something important that is reported in a primary research paper. Or, the review-level paper that does mention it may be disallowed by things like your assertion that Seneff papers are not worthy of being cited as sources. I do not like Seneff papers, and i haven't used them. However, who gets to make that determination? Who gets to decide whether a fact is to be reported from a primary source or omitted, or whether a particular source like a Seneff paper is to be excluded from the realm of possibility? SageRad (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I understand where you are coming from, but the emphasis on secondary sources at Wikipedia comes from hard experience. Its our first line of defense against POV pushing, since you can find a primary source that says almost anything. On the other hand, I know it can be frustrating to find a secondary source that states what you "know" to be true. I just spent a futile hour doing that myself this morning.
- In the present case, you've clearly stated above that your goal in adding the microbiome material is to show the potential for an effect on human health. So this would clearly fall under WP:MEDRS, which states " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials." I sympathize with the first principles argument that "glyphosate affects bacteria, and bacteria are part of the human microbiome, therefore glyphosate may affect human health". (I sympathize a lot less with the WP:SOAPBOX commentary about "weasily lies", which do not contribute to the discussion here). But ultimately this is WP:OR. You need a secondary source that makes this statement per WP:MEDRS. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 13:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Basic facts about the ecology of the chemical are not a medical question, so i don't think that attributions of my motivations should make this fall under MEDRS guidelines, do you? SageRad (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would say so, as you have explicitly stated that the purpose of this addition is to show a possible human health effect. What you have put together here is a textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS: Bacteria contain the enzyme that is inhibited by glyphosate, bacteria are part of the human microbiome, therefore glyphosate may kill the bacteria, disrupt the microbiome, and affect human health. It sounds reasonable, but we don't do that here. You need to find a secondary source that says this.
- One example of why this is a problem is shown in this paper: The minimum inhibitory concentrations of glyphosate for enteric bacteria are in the 0.15 to 3.0 mg per mL range. This is equivalent to 150 mg to 3 grams per liter. The EPA level of concern for long term glyphosate exposure is 3 ppb (0.000003 g per liter). Nobody is being exposed to 150 mg per liter in drinking water or from any other source. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 13:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I say that this is wrong of you, to use speculation as to my motivation to categorize a fact about a non-medical scientific fact as requiring the criteria that a medical fact would require. My motivation is to see the basic truth about glyphosate properly represented. If there are implications for human health, then this is a separate issue, and *that* would require the rigor of a medical fact. SageRad (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your honesty and I "use it against you" in this argument with reluctance. But you do see that what you've done is WP:SYNTHESIS, don't you? There do not appear to be secondary references out there that make the statement you are implying with your string of connections. And did you see my point that the concentrations that affect the microbiome are unachievable in practice? If we allow your WP:SYNTHESIS, then we have to allow mine, and we end up in an extended debate on the subject in the article that simply confuses the reader. There are good reasons for our sourcing rules. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 14:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is patently unfair to attribute motivations to me. I think you should judge any edits by a uniform standard and not pigeonhole me as a person with an agenda. I reject that label and characterization. My agenda is truth and that is the goal of Wikipedia as well. SageRad (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Probably no secondary references that you would approve of, although there are probably secondary references. You would probably call them "not credible" or something judging by the tone and the clues at this point. I've replied to your comment regarding concentrations, in that i refuse to debate that here as it seems inappropriate, but if i must have that debate i would easily do so and overcome your reasoning. Anyway... i don't know where this leaves us but i feel a serious hostility here that i would not expect at Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your honesty and I "use it against you" in this argument with reluctance. But you do see that what you've done is WP:SYNTHESIS, don't you? There do not appear to be secondary references out there that make the statement you are implying with your string of connections. And did you see my point that the concentrations that affect the microbiome are unachievable in practice? If we allow your WP:SYNTHESIS, then we have to allow mine, and we end up in an extended debate on the subject in the article that simply confuses the reader. There are good reasons for our sourcing rules. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 14:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to the comment "Formerly 98" citing a paper and getting into dosage and MIC, etc. --> I could very easily speak to this point of yours and refute the relevance of MIC in this context, but i don't believe that this is the place for that discussion, is it? I may be fairly new to the Wikipedia editing process, but i thought that the talk page is to discuss factuality, and here you are trying to make an argument (flawed though it is) that implies that i have an agenda other than truth, and that i am wrong on it, as well. This is so strange. I don't think i feel right about this. Or do others say that this is the place to debate on the point raised? If so then i would, but i think it's not appropriate here. This is the place to establish what's a fact and what's not, to a good degree of reliability and verifiability. SageRad (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't question your honesty at all and I have no doubt of your good intentions. What I'm doing is insisting that you abide by sourcing rules that have been put in place with broad consensus and which have been here many years before either of us got here. And this discussion illustrates my point that if we allow WP:SYNTHESIS, our articles rapidly devolve into debates about the theories of non-experts. We don't do original research here. You disagree with my comment about MICs (I'm a chemist, but as you will see on my user page, I specialize in antibacterial research), and I disagree with your implied conclusions about the microbiome. None of this belongs in the article. Not because I think it doesn't, but because it violates the sourcing rules. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I say that this is wrong of you, to use speculation as to my motivation to categorize a fact about a non-medical scientific fact as requiring the criteria that a medical fact would require. My motivation is to see the basic truth about glyphosate properly represented. If there are implications for human health, then this is a separate issue, and *that* would require the rigor of a medical fact. SageRad (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Kuklinsky-Sobral ref
The following ref was used to support the claim that glyphosate is taken up by roots. Kuklinsky-Sobral, Julia, et al. "Isolation and characterization of endophytic bacteria from soybean (Glycine max) grown in soil treated with glyphosate herbicide." Plant and soil 273.1-2 (2005): 91-99. I read that ref and i do not find where it says that. Where does it say that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
roots
So, the secondary sources all make it clear that in actual use, glyphosate is primarily taken up by leaves. there is uptake by roots but it is minimal, as glyphosate that doesn't stick to leaves or otherwise enters the soil, binds tightly to the soil. in my edit to the body yesterday, i added content about that, with sourcing (please do check that sourcing and if you disagree I am interested in hearing about that). because root uptake is minimal, i just removed "roots" from the lead here, since the lead is a summary and doesn't deal with small details generally. Since this is important to SageRad I went ahead and made the lead match the body in this dif. Unsure why this is so important to you, SageRad. Can you explain? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- To me, it is important not to minimize root uptake without data to support it. For now, i have added the new reference in place of the Kuklinsky-Sobral ref, as noted above. The new ref is Sprankle, Paul, W. F. Meggitt, and Donald Penner. "Rapid inactivation of glyphosate in the soil." Weed Science (1975): 224-228. This states clearly that glyphosate is taken up by roots in the research. The reason for the importance of root uptake is that glyphosate is commonly being used for "burndown" treatment prior to planting, and residues are indeed being found in the crops being grown in that soil, even when the crop is not directly sprayed during its growth. These are significant levels of glyphosate in crops such as wheat and other grains, which have not been directly sprayed even pre-harvest, and these levels have been reported by the FAO assays on glyphosate in 2005. For now, i will leave it as it stands, until i can find more solid data and sources on uptake by roots. I hope you understand why this is important and why it might not be accurately described by "minimally" -- I think that it is not fully known whether it's "minimally" or more like "significantly". Thanks for your patience. I hope this doesn't seem like nit-picking to you, but how the story is told is important, and this affects the food supply of the human species. I am seeking truth, not a bias in either direction. Let the truth speak. I do see too much obfuscation by the industry, however, out in the world, so i am watchful for bias in that direction. SageRad (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
seeking page protection
here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SageRad_and_User:Jytdog_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29 Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC) What does this mean and how can i help to resolve this? I do not think i am edit warring here, but discussing and replacing references with more appropriate ones as discussed, etc. Is this a charge against me in particular? SageRad (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
gut microbiome
SageRad, about this dif. You have a pile of sources there and none of them comes out and says what you want to say. Here is the content you added:
However, animals do contain microbes in their gut microbiomes which do contain the EPSPS enzyme. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
- ^ Shreiner, Andrew B., John Y. Kao, and Vincent B. Young. "The gut microbiome in health and in disease." Current opinion in gastroenterology 31.1 (2015): 69-75.
- ^ Krüger, Monika, et al. "Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum." Anaerobe 20 (2013): 74-78.
- ^ Russell, Wendy R., et al. "Colonic bacterial metabolites and human health." Current opinion in microbiology 16.3 (2013): 246-254. Quote: Bacterial fermentation of carbohydrates (CHOs) and proteins produces short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) and a range of other metabolites including those from aromatic amino acid (AAA) fermentation.
- ^ Schulz, A., A. Krüper, and N. Amrhein. "Differential sensitivity of bacterial 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthases to the herbicide glyphosate."FEMS Microbiology Letters 28.3 (1985): 297-301.
The quote from Russell that you include there, is not about how animals obtain aromatic amino acids. It is about gut microbiota producing aromatic compounds via metabolism of proteins that people eat. The source says those aromatic compounds appear to be important, but that is a separate topic from where animals get essential amino acids.
I modified that as follows in this dif
However, microbes in the the gut flora of animals are an emerging subject of scientific research,[1] and as of 2013, at least one study had identified an effect of glyphosate on gut bacteria from cows, in in vitro studies.[2]
References
- ^ Shreiner, Andrew B., John Y. Kao, and Vincent B. Young. "The gut microbiome in health and in disease." Current opinion in gastroenterology 31.1 (2015): 69-75.
- ^ Krüger, Monika, et al. "Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum." Anaerobe 20 (2013): 74-78.
I will agree to use a primary source this way - this does appear to be an issue that will have more science built around this in next year or two, and this is a place to start, that we can update as reviews come out. Is this OK with you?Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I guess i'm almost ok with that for now, as i'm getting kind of flabbergasted at the moment and need breakfast. However, I do note that that study on dairy cows is a natural experiment in vivo, and the samples from the cows were analyzed, with the action of the experiment happening in the cows, hence "in vivo" .... thanks for your efforts. SageRad (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- What is the dose or minimimum inhibitory concentration? This does not belong in the article even as a compromise if the glyphosate concentrations are 1000x greater than those that would ever actually be encountered. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are we going to be debating this here? I ask others to chime in. Is this a suitable conversation for this forum? I can answer this question but it's in depth and it seems out of place to me here, as i noted in response to another such question by the same user. SageRad (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- What is the dose or minimimum inhibitory concentration? This does not belong in the article even as a compromise if the glyphosate concentrations are 1000x greater than those that would ever actually be encountered. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)