Glyphosate: too much of a good thing?

Source at http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00028 Although previously accepted as the less toxic alternative, with low impact on animals, farmers as well as consumers who are exposed to residues in food, glyphosate chemicals are now increasingly controversial as new evidence from research is emerging. We argue that specific aspects of the history, chemistry and safety of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides should be thoroughly considered in present and future re-evaluations of these dominant agrochemicals: • Glyphosate is not a single chemical, it is a family of compounds with different chemical, physical, and toxicological properties. • Glyphosate is increasingly recognized as having more profound toxicological effects than assumed from previous assessments. • Global use of glyphosate is continuously increasing and residues are detected in food, feed, and drinking water. Thus, consumers are increasingly exposed to higher levels of glyphosate residues, and from an increasing number of sources. • Glyphosate regulation is predominantly still based on primary safety-assessment testing in various indicator organisms. However, archive studies indicate fraud and misbehavior committed by the commercial laboratories providing such research. We see emerging evidences from studies in test-animals, ecosystems indicators and studies in human health, which justify stricter regulatory measures. This implies revising glyphosate residue definitions and lowering Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) permissible in biological material intended for food and feed, as well as strengthening environmental criteria such as accepted residue concentrations in surface waters. It seems that although recent research indicates that glyphosates are less harmless than previously assumed and have complex toxicological potential, still regulatory authorities accept industry demands for approving higher levels of these residues in food and feed

In plastico: laboratory material newness affects growth and reproduction of Daphnia magna reared in 50-ml polypropylene tubes

Plastic laboratory materials are found to affect vital parameters of the waterflea Daphnia magna. The main responsible factor is defined as “newness” of the materials. Juvenile D. magna were raised individually in; a) new laboratory-standard 50 ml polypropylene tubes, and; b) identical tubes which had been washed and aerated for several weeks. Newness had significant effects on growth and fecundity of D. magna. New tubes caused delayed maturation, reduced reproduction and reduced growth when compared to washed and re-used tubes of the same commercial brand. The findings indicate that newness of tubes has inhibiting or toxic effects on D. magna. Often laboratory plastics are intended for single-use due to sterility demands. Newness might be an important confounding factor in research results and should not be disregarded. Disposable plastic utensils may come with a seemingly ignored cost and induce adverse effects in biological test-organisms and systems. The presented findings accentuate continued need for general awareness concerning confounding factors stemming from material laboratory environment. Based on the present findings the authors suggest that plastics intended for use in sensitive research may need to be washed and aerated prior to use