Roundup and cancer the IARC Report

Punch

Member
Location
Warwickshire
Get back on topic.
This investigation by Reuters shows that IARC scientific findings were compromised.
Whether you like Glyphosate or not, we should be demanding that any science to decide the fate of pesticides and/or farming practice should stand up to scrutiny.
The IARC report is the "scientific" resort to many that wish to ban Glyphosate and pesticides.
If the reports chairman (Dr. Aaron Blair) suppressed data about 50,000 farmers and their families pesticide exposure and subsequent health, he should be struck off.
If not whoever can tell the most convincing lie will win any argument!
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
As we never use it pre harvest, it would not be a problem if they restricted its use until they decide with independent evidence what is the risk, but a ban would increase farming costs massively, for anyone that's tried to control weeds with cultivation will tell you it's nearly a waste of time on farm scales unless you get perfectly timed dry weather, even then you need more good weather to provide you the moisture again, so no to a ban but yes to out of crop use until it's actually decided.

As cultivation control will lead to yield drops as it frankly doesn't work anywhere close to 100% of the time, add in cost increases and steel and diesel costs where and tear on machinery either farm profits will plummet or food will get more expensive including any animals meat, that's feed grain to fatten it.
So banning out right without clear evidence is a problem, as it will be costly. To both farmers and consumers, if I had a choice I would want to get the decision 100% right before I called for a total ban.

And sitting on the fence until that evidence is found is only sensible, as a human being at the same risk as anyone else, if not more......a restriction on in crop use, is the fence. If it's overlkill (it may be) they can unrestrict it, if it's given the all clear.
What gets me is burning fuel in engines is definaltly leading to cancer but they never try to ban that.........the sooner we replace fossil fuels the better, it may lead us to exit the cancer age as it will be seen in a few hundred years time......as well as banning cigarettes.......which again totally cause cancer without doubt.....by the sound of it smoking and walking down a congested street are more likely to give you cancer than roundup, but that's not to say it's not adding to it, but look to ban the major contributors first.........
 

glasshouse

Member
Location
lothians
Banning roundup would reduce cereal production and increase the price of said cereals.
The crap price of cereals failing to keep up with inflation can be traced back to 1978 when the stuff become widely used.
 

Muck Spreader

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Limousin
Pre harvest use has been yet another bad farming story, so what ever the science, a, I don't want my food pre treated and b, we should stop shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of publicity.

Roundup is a great product when used intelligently for it's original purpose, but using it as a desiccant on crops for human consumption is just mad.
 

Robigus

Member
Banning roundup would reduce cereal production and increase the price of said cereals.
The crap price of cereals failing to keep up with inflation can be traced back to 1978 when the stuff become widely used.
Would you ever consider putting up some independent analysis and facts to support your claims?
If we banned Roundup would we still be able to use the plethora of other brand name products that contain glyphosate?
Could the relative fall in cereal prices not be due to over production linked to better and more abundant fungicides; better and more advanced plant breeding and higher uses of fertiliser?
How does use of Roundup reduce the value of the crop? I remember using it in the seventies - it was bloody expensive and we used it very sparingly.
Did you bother to read @Exfarmer 's opening post?
 

Robigus

Member
Pre harvest use has been yet another bad farming story, so what ever the science, a, I don't want my food pre treated and b, we should stop shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of publicity.
This is the real issue. The glyphosate debate has been totally hijacked by the professional Green Lobby and all scientific facts has been ignored in a deluge of fake news.
This is the mind set that at one end gives us the idiot Gwyneth Paltrow and her Gloop empire selling gullible fools New Age nonsense but at the other extreme gives us disgraced Dr Andrew Wakefield and his vaccination deniers who have probably caused the preventable deaths of thousands of children.
 

glasshouse

Member
Location
lothians
Would you ever consider putting up some independent analysis and facts to support your claims?
If we banned Roundup would we still be able to use the plethora of other brand name products that contain glyphosate?
Could the relative fall in cereal prices not be due to over production linked to better and more abundant fungicides; better and more advanced plant breeding and higher uses of fertiliser?
How does use of Roundup reduce the value of the crop? I remember using it in the seventies - it was bloody expensive and we used it very sparingly.
Did you bother to read @Exfarmer 's opening post?
Anybody involved in farming knows that the real terms value of cereals is about 25% of what it was in 1978.
Better fert and chem have played a part , but are only replacing the yield drop caused by continuous cereal cropping which glyphosate makes possible.
 

Robigus

Member
Anybody involved in farming knows that the real terms value of cereals is about 25% of what it was in 1978.
Better fert and chem have played a part , but are only replacing the yield drop caused by continuous cereal cropping which glyphosate makes possible.
I've farmed in the middle of East Anglia for thirty years and I don't know anyone who continually crops cereals.
How would glyphosate be the only thing to make this possible?
Where is the yield drop occurring? All independent figures show that yields have risen in the last forty years.
 
We have to look into why there has been a massive increase of cancers of bowel, stomach etc over the last half a century. What I have been reading there was little evidence of it before and contrary to belief people (excl inner city) did live into their 90's. People also didnt understand about skin cancers from the sun either so how come farmers lived to a ripe old age? A concoction of herbicides/pesticides in daily life cannot to be good for us.

Whether the world powers of people like Monsanto can ever be taken on is how the world is turning. Evidence can be suppressed and people can be paid. You only need to look at what the happened with sugar (John Yudkin) and how the industry did its best to control the WHO.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.9%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,293
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top