BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 12 May 2015 21:01:37 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
> This is what we refer to as a "fishing expedition."

Hold on, one's personal opinions about the author and his agenda is
"politics", and that's not Science at all.
The paper at issue showed us over 30 detections of Glyphosate (Round-Up) at
levels significantly above the LOQ in retail-packed honey.
The methods used were perfectly acceptable.
Personal feelings do not change data.

Let's talk about the data, specifically Figure 5 in the paper:
http://omicsonline.org/open-access/survey-of-glyphosate-residues-in-honey-co
rn-and-soy-products-2161-0525.1000249.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/lcj28rt

Now "ng/g" is "parts-per-billion", but about 30 levels detected were plainly
"valid" detections, in that the levels found where several times the LOQ.

The other half the 60-odd samples said to be "detected" were so near the LOQ
that I would have tossed them out.
When one sees lots of roughly 18  ppb readings with a 15 ppb LOQ, the
rational response is "the actual LOQ is shown by this graph to be around 18
ppb, not 15 ppb".
Another possible source of this apparent error could have been a lack of
precision in the spiking of samples used to calibrate the gear.

But the remaining 30-odd samples were unmistakable, and the overwhelming
majority of the samples with clearly detectable Glyphosate came from the
USA.

As for the potential for human health impact, the EPA said "not a
carcinogen" back in the 1990s, yet the World Health Organization says
"probably a carcinogen" in their latest (March 2015) summary.
I tend to look for the most recent assessments I can find, and I consider
EPA and WHO to have equivalent resources and processes.

The persistence of this herbicide has only rarely been tracked, and when it
has been looked at, it's been found to be far more persistent than
advertised.
The general story here is that it is very persistent in soil, and it leaches
out of the soil to continue to contaminate water in runoff and streams.
Think how persistent it has to be to end up detectible in honey found on
retail shelves.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2