Given my previous post, 'Hate Mail', I appreciate the irony of getting involved with such an emotive issue. The use of glyphosate, and its links with cancer, create polarised opinions. Here is my attempt at being balanced and neutral...
There's been a lot of chatter recently
about the decision by the French Government to ban the direct sale of
Roundup (and possibly other glyphosate products) in garden centres.
This decision, based on studies of farm workers, has been hailed by
many as a step in the right direction... but is it?
In small doses glyphosate isn't
particularly dangerous compared with other pesticide products. Jet5
is a disinfectant approved for organic use, but get a small drop of
it on your skin and your skin will go white and give you a very
unpleasant burning sensation for several hours, and if you breathe in
a fungicide like Roseclear (or trade versions) you can have breathing
difficulties (add this to something like even mild asthma and you're
in trouble).
The problems come from overuse;
glyphosate is popular because it's a convenient way to kill weeds
without resorting to physical methods like digging. Because it's easy
for people who can't be bothered to control weeds in other ways it's
become the go-to product for gardeners, but gardeners seldom fully
appreciate the importance of things like spraying intervals or dose
rates (I had a customer who used Clinic Ace (glyphosate) at 10x
dilution rate because she didn't want to wait a week for the weeds to
die!). If a home gardener doesn't see results quickly then they spray
again and again and again until they get the desired effect, but also
causing a pollution problem. Trained pesticide handlers know how to
use these products while minimising environmental damage, but the
public seem unwilling to take advice/training or even to accept that
when they reach for any pesticide product they're entering into a
legally binding agreement to use the product safely and exactly
how the manufacturer tells them to. This, I'm afraid, really should
be the number one reason for taking glyphosate off the shelves; not
enough gardeners can be trusted to use herbicides or any pesticide
properly at home. A dose of herbicide sprayed at the right time will
kill troublesome perennial weeds and leave you with easier to manage
seedlings to deal with, but you have to use it properly, and not just
reach for weedkiller every time you see a weed.
In agriculture the reliance on
glyphosate is even greater; as well as controlling weeds on ground
before crops are planted, glyphosate is sprayed onto certain crops to
kill them and dry them out. In many cases these weedkilled crops are
destined for us, particularly corn and soy. How crops can be sprayed
just before harvesting but somehow supposedly not contain glyphosate
is beyond me; there is fairly conclusive evidence that glyphosate is
getting into our food via these treated crops. Given how much
agriculture relies on glyphosate it's not really a surprise that an
EU study found higher than average rates of cancer in farm workers-
even if the person spraying the crops is in a top of the range sealed
cab and is protected from the product, the minute he or she works
with the crop directly the dose rate will go straight up!
Given how massive the use of glyphosate
is in agriculture I really doubt that normal horticultural use would
generate even remotely similar results to the EU study but, as with
so many other things like radiation or smoking, a regular large dose
of glyphosate probably will put you at higher risk of cancer. I
really doubt that horticultural contractors are particularly at risk
because the amounts we use are tiny compared to those used on farms
(it stands to reason that someone coming into contact with glyphosate
sprayed by the hectare will be at significantly higher risk than
someone who sprays a few square metres!), but I think controlling the
access that gardeners have to pesticides is probably wise, especially
while so many people remain ignorant of the dangers of misuse and
their personal responsibility to the environment.
Contractors aren't beyond reproach; I've been surprised by how many professionals I've seen over the years spraying in windy weather, when rain is forecast (and in one case even when it was raining!); we've had our training and really should all be sticking to it!
In due course there will be
alternatives to glyphosate for garden use; citronella oil is
available in some cases for weed control (although Canada has banned
some citronella products so there may be problems there), and 'hot
foam' treatment of weeds looks promising, if currently expensive) for
larger areas. In the meantime it looks as though glyphosate will
remain the dominant chemical weed control, but whether or not it
remains in the public domain only time will tell.
While I applaud your attempt to be balanced and neutral about glyphosate, I am afraid that the people currently trying to get it banned will only see you as an apologist for Monsanto and for chemicals that are a risk to workers and consumers. In the modern world you are for something or against it.
ReplyDeleteI have watched several of Dr Bruce Ames’ videos on YouTube and it is clear to me that the furore that surrounds agrochemicals is largely misplaced. There is no evidence that cancer has increased as a result of their use. Natural chemicals are as likely to be carcinogenetic as synthetic ones and are present in vastly greater quantities in our diet than agrochemicals.
There have been industrial substances that have been found to be carcinogenetic and to have caused cancers in significant numbers of cases; asbestos for example. However, I don’t myself believe that Glyphosate poses that kind of risk. The evidence of it causing cancers is very limited, in spite of how long it has been in widespread use and while I would not defend the use of something that was a clear danger to health, I suspect that the increased risk from its proper use is pretty insignificant. You do have to wonder how many of the workers concerned, and indeed, the environmentalists protesting its use, are smokers.
Banning Glyphosate is probably largely meaningless unless it involves banning its widespread use in agriculture. I don’t have figures for where it is used but I guess it’s almost all in farming. I doubt whether the French government would be so quick to make life significantly more difficult for their farmers. I would be fairly certain that it would increase costs and reduce yields, possibly by very significant amounts.
I am a follower of Roger Brook’s blog at http://www.nodiggardener.co.uk/ . He is a staunch defender of Glyphosate, and it is well worth reading what he has to say on the subject. As a no dig gardener he is seeing the maintenance of good soil structure as being crucial to sustainable land use. He sees the use of Glyphosate as a tool in the maintenance of land without resorting to cultivation.