Subject: Glyphosate & Surfactants

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 94 11:47:10 CST

SANet,
Dr. Tom Hoogheem of Monsanto asked me to post the following response to Jim 
Dixon's comments on SANet for him. (Tom does not subscribe to Sanet and did not 
know the e-mail address.)
--
Larry Holden
Monsanto AG
[email-masked]

==== ===== ====

In a previous posting questioning the saftey of glyphosate surfactants, Jim 
Dixon, [email-masked], concluded with:
 
>I invite Mr. Hoogheem to get the facts by writing to me at 1476 Water Street,
>Kelowna, B.C., Canada V1Y 1J5.  In my opinion, it is incumbent upon the
>manufacturer when providing details of their product to include _all_ of
>the information and not just the lose data.

------
 
          Jim, give me your telephone number and I will be glad to 
          call you. I do not sidestep anything. First, the surfactant 
          DOES NOT BREAK DOWN INTO 1,4-DIOXANE. No one but you has 
          EVER made that accusation. The surfactant is POEA, 
          polyethoxylated tallow amine. Animal fat is ethoxylated to 
          make the surfactant, the same as is done for soap, 
          detergents, and shampoos, among over thousands of such goods 
          registered in the world. 1,4-dioxane is a contaminant formed 
          in the ethoxylation process; the contaminant is also 
          contained in these thousands of such goods. Regardless, when 
          you and your group made this an issue when you analyzed 
          Vision a number of years ago, I went to our surfactant 
          suppliers and asked if they could remove the contaminant. 
          They said they could and have done so.

          Thus when you talk about being responsible just remember- on 
          this issue regulatory agencies said 1,4- dioxane was not a 
          problem and it remains in many products most people 
          intentional put all over them regularly. However when groups 
          such as yours make it an issue with my product, we tried and 
          fixed it.

          Next, we have told people about our surfactant for a number 
          of years now. The information was sent to a number of 
          people, including by registered mail to your friends down at 
          NCAP. Interesting that they felt they should sue EPA to get 
          that same information.....

          Next, Rodeo does not even have a surfactant in it. Again- 
          who has the facts?

          To say the facts ain't straight sounds strange coming from 
          someone who claims the surfactant breaks down into 
          1,4-dioxane and that Rodeo has a surfactant in it. If you 
          want the facts on Roundup and glyphosate, simply write or 
          call EPA. They have just issued a document that is called 
          "The Reregistration Eligibility Document for Glyphosate". 
          Guess what? Their review is based solely on non IBT and 
          Craven data and we are ready to be reregistered and meet all 
          current data requirements. You also might write the World 
          Health Organization. Check and see what they say.
          
          When you talk about the surfactant being more toxic, what 
          type are you referring to? The surfactant does have a higher 
          acute oral LD50 than glyphosate, not surprising when you 
          think what soap would do to the walls of your stomach. Also, 
          the surfactant is more acutely toxic to fish. Again not 
          surprising when you think what soap does to a fish's gills 
          and it's ability to transfer oxygen.

          Sorry Jim, but you are going to have to come up with a lot 
          more FACTS when you are dealing with this product. And if 
          you use INTERNET, I'll be watching to make sure you are 
          indeed factual.

          Thomas J. Hoogheem
          [email-masked]