Roundup Causes Cancer

[Ukjay]

There is some interesting research info on the net about the effects on soil biota but nothing I've found worrying, in my opinion at least.
It just changes populations a little which (in theory) weakens the crops resistances a little, but compared to most other chemicals is relatively safe.

Obviously fungii, algae, bacteria and some protozoans use the shikimate pathway as plants do (so it isn't exactly the boon to benefitting soil health that some wish to believe it to be) but it also isn't a terrible thing for occasional and educated usage from that point of view.
High organic matter levels lessen the effects, according to most research I'm aware of, as that lessens the effects of most external factors, including fungal resistance/general resilience in the crop.

Extrapolating that further (or guessing?) that if it does make for a more prone crop, then the pesticides used to counter any effects would likely have much more effect on the soil biota than the initial glyphosate application to dessicate the previous crop.

Nothing has "no effect" but in my belief and research on the topic, roundup is the lesser of evils.

It's more public perception that's the issue, they don't want it in the foodchain but the alternatives will have effects, no doubt about that!

It would certainly be an interesting "what if" all the time and effort spent on developing chemistry hadn't been, the food supply model would look nothing like it does today.
Oversupply would be much less of an issue (unless of course people lived longer as a result of different dietary choices).
But that's off the topic of the thread

Hi Pete,

In the above - I note there is no mention of the influences of worm activity, which is seeing impacts on the applications, so thought I would see what your thoughts are on the studies carried out.

From the papers I have read - (and not ones testing on Eisenia sp here), there is some quite interesting information about the impacts it is having, both short term (as low as 1 week), but more importantly long term periods.
The studies document the way in which it is impacting reproduction success rates, the growth inhibiting affects found, the avoidance of worms to entering areas that are treated with glypho etc.

 

[Richard III]

Hi Pete,

In the above - I note there is no mention of the influences of worm activity, which is seeing impacts on the applications, so thought I would see what your thoughts are on the studies carried out.

From the papers I have read - (and not ones testing on Eisenia sp here), there is some quite interesting information about the impacts it is having, both short term (as low as 1 week), but more importantly long term periods.
The studies document the way in which it is impacting reproduction success rates, the growth inhibiting affects found, the avoidance of worms to entering areas that are treated with glypho etc.

If I was a worm I think I would go for a spray of gyphosate passing overhead, rather than a plough smashing
my house to pieces and cutting me in half?

 

[Guy Smith]

As the UK media goes into overdrive about the over hyped dangers of glyphosate its worth remembering meanwhile in most other countries paraquat is still being used routinely. It's used in crops like sugar cane

See https://paraquat.com/en/use/crops

where it can be sprayed onto cane three days before harvest. The UK routinely imports foodstuffs such as oranges, sugar and coffee where paraquat is used in its production.

Paraquat was banned in the UK ten years ago. It is an acutely poisonous. It's toxicity profile makes glyphosate look like morning dew.

Yet here we are half talking ourselves into banning glyphosate on our farms.

Those who export into our markets by having lower costs of production due to better access to cost saving technologies. must be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Hi Pete,

In the above - I note there is no mention of the influences of worm activity, which is seeing impacts on the applications, so thought I would see what your thoughts are on the studies carried out.

From the papers I have read - (and not ones testing on Eisenia sp here), there is some quite interesting information about the impacts it is having, both short term (as low as 1 week), but more importantly long term periods.
The studies document the way in which it is impacting reproduction success rates, the growth inhibiting affects found, the avoidance of worms to entering areas that are treated with glypho etc.

Which papers?

 

[Ukjay]

Which papers?

Unfortunately I have not bookmarked the papers, but they are all available on NCBI website if needed.

 

[Bury the Trash]

Hi Pete,

In the above - I note there is no mention of the influences of worm activity, which is seeing impacts on the applications, so thought I would see what your thoughts are on the studies carried out.

From the papers I have read - (and not ones testing on Eisenia sp here), there is some quite interesting information about the impacts it is having, both short term (as low as 1 week), but more importantly long term periods.
The studies document the way in which it is impacting reproduction success rates, the growth inhibiting affects found, the avoidance of worms to entering areas that are treated with glypho etc.

dont worry, he will be along shortly (just having his tea)

 

[Green oak]

Unbelievable I get these emails. Because I got asked to save a pub being turned into a house.

 

[Richard III]

Unbelievable

That landed in our email about an hour ago, my blood pressure is just starting to subside a little!

 

[SilliamWhale]

Unbelievable I get these emails. Because I got asked to save a pub being turned into a house.

There is no "potentially toxic"about it. Roundup is toxic

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Hi Pete,

In the above - I note there is no mention of the influences of worm activity, which is seeing impacts on the applications, so thought I would see what your thoughts are on the studies carried out.

From the papers I have read - (and not ones testing on Eisenia sp here), there is some quite interesting information about the impacts it is having, both short term (as low as 1 week), but more importantly long term periods.
The studies document the way in which it is impacting reproduction success rates, the growth inhibiting affects found, the avoidance of worms to entering areas that are treated with glypho etc.

Short term increases in earthworm activity in many cases followed by lesser activity over the next period?

Reasonably predictable outcomes, I didn't mention it as I am fairly dispassionate about glyphosate as a whole.

As I don't and won't ever need it in my system, I like to stay out of these debates most of the time and just watch the squirming - as per my first paragraph

 

[Ukjay]

Some of the reports suggest that earthworms go into a feeding frenzy simply due to the amount of litter decomposing but that would rely 9n

Short term increases in earthworm activity in many cases followed by lesser activity over the next period?

Reasonably predictable outcomes, I didn't mention it as I am fairly dispassionate about glyphosate as a whole.

As I don't and won't ever need it in my system, I like to stay out of these debates most of the time and just watch the squirming - as per my first paragraph

Understand, no further questions from my side..

For me, I will continue reading the papers, as it is proving to be quite an interesting road ahead..

 

[CornishTone]

Typically Australian no BS response from AgSafe, which is our industry body overseeing safe use of Ag chem, a bit like BASIS.

AgSafe
MEDIA STATEMENT

CURRENT REPORTING & COMMENTARY ON GLYPHOSATE
15 AUGUST 2018 (CANBERRA)

CropLife Australia as the national peak industry body for the plant science sector welcomes open and informed discussion on the safety of crop protection products, including glyphosate. CropLife and our members strongly support the robust, rigorous and independent regulatory systems and assessments that these products are subjected to here in Australia. A regulatory system similarly rigorous to that applied to pharmaceuticals.

What is most concerning is the alarmist and significantly misinformed commentary on the safety of glyphosate following a recent San Francisco jury decision. Equal weight appears to be given to views of commentators with clever Twitter handles that have spent no more than two minutes researching the latest social media meme, to that of credible, highly qualified and globally respected medical and toxicological scientists with decades of experience and knowledge on this specific topic.

CropLife encourages all observers and commentators to refer and give primacy to the independent experts on these matters, instead of continuing to inadvertently perpetrate misunderstanding and misinformation and as a consequence escalate community concern unnecessarily. It should be noted that every single independent science based regulatory agency globally has comprehensively evaluated glyphosate and found it safe to use.

The following quotes from experienced, credible, independent, and respected experts are provided below to introduce some perspective and context to this current public discussion:

Paul Pharoah, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology, University of Cambridge
· “These medico-legal cases are always difficult to make because the concepts of risk and cause in a scientific sense are different to those concepts in a legal sense.” - https://www.theguardian.com/environ...cer-ruling-is-in-blatant-ignorance-of-science
· “The epidemiological evidence that glycophosphates are associated with an increased risk of lymphoma is very weak ... From a purely scientific point of view I do not think that the judgement makes sense.” https://www.theguardian.com/environ...cer-ruling-is-in-blatant-ignorance-of-science
Bernard Stewart, Cojoint Professor, School of Women’s and Children’s Health, UNSW; Scientific Advisor, Cancer Council Australia
· "Residues in food are so low for all chemicals and glyphosate too, that there is no cancer risk." http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-11-28/glyphosate-renewed-for-five-years-in-europe/9199740
· “And then there’s the even lesser risk of cancer from residual glyphosate, which has never been documented. Just forget it.” https://theconversation.com/council...-in-playgrounds-wont-hurt-your-children-54831
Dr Ian Musgrave, Molecular Pharmacologist/Toxicologist, University of Adelaide
· "Science is not besotted by court cases and the actual scientific evidence we have shows that that link is not apparent at the concentrations humans use, under the conditions human use it." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-11/cancer-council-monsanto-should-come-clean/10109760
· “My view and the view of most biological scientists and toxicologists is [when] used properly, it’s not dangerous” - https://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-project/2018/8/12
· “In fact, the largest study of agricultural workers who use glyphosate showed no association between glyphosate and cancer.” https://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-project/2018/8/12
Andrew Bartholomaeus, Consultant toxicologist; Adjunct Professor, School of Medicine University of Queensland; Adjunct Professor Toxicology and Pharmacy, University of Canberra
· “Glyphosate has been tested in a very comprehensive package of toxicology studies, on multiple occasions … and consistently glyphosate is not a carcinogen in animal studies." http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-11-28/glyphosate-renewed-for-five-years-in-europe/9199740

Statement by Mr Matthew Cossey, Chief Executive Officer of CropLife Australia
Contact: Alastair James (Director – Agricultural Chemical Policy) Ph: 02 6273 2733 Mob : 0428 776 626

Agsafe
Level 1 Maddocks House
40 Macquarie St Barton ACT 2600

 

[ski]

As the UK media goes into overdrive about the over hyped dangers of glyphosate its worth remembering meanwhile in most other countries paraquat is still being used routinely. It's used in crops like sugar cane

See https://paraquat.com/en/use/crops

where it can be sprayed onto cane three days before harvest. The UK routinely imports foodstuffs such as oranges, sugar and coffee where paraquat is used in its production.

Paraquat was banned in the UK ten years ago. It is an acutely poisonous. It's toxicity profile makes glyphosate look like morning dew.

Yet here we are half talking ourselves into banning glyphosate on our farms.

Those who export into our markets by having lower costs of production due to better access to cost saving technologies. must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments expressed in your comments, I would worry that it misses the underlying challenges entirely.

Every sector of Agriculture that I can think of has issues that are analogous to the glyphosate position, ie. ever tightening environmental (and we can include both animal welfare and cropping issues) legislation that is supported and actively campaigned for by a variety of groups with a range of reasons and concerns. Their premise goes something like this (this is my attempt to clearly identify why they represent such a challenge to us all)"The mutilation of an animal, crop or biological system is intolerable and agriculture must make its methods fit the animal, crop or biological system, in short, farming activities must do no harm to the natural environment " At first reading this seems like a reasonable enough proposition, however, if we start to consider the implications and imagine where it would lead to, it is basically promoting a return to the pre history hunter gatherer society.

At some stage, the efforts of the environmental lobby will have to face the reality that the production of food by means of modern agriculture cannot be done without some cost to the natural environment. Indeed, it is worth reminding ourselves that agriculture is changing of the natural environment to increase the productivity of that environment.

To illustrate the point, it is my understanding that Germany is already proposing that glyphosate be banned, and their argument for doing so has little concern over the toxicity or otherwise of glyphosate but rests on the case that by applying the product you destroy all plant species it contacts and that by so doing you are then destroying the life cycle of lots of other species which were not the target. ie, you are causing needless damage to the environment. The trouble is, that they are right if you accept the premise that agriculture should do damage to environment. They are completely wrong if you take a risk based approach that weighs the benefits of supplying safe food at reasonable cost against the cost to the natural environment.

It would appear (to me anyhow) that at this present time, and due in probably to damage done to our environment by earlier industrial and agricultural practices the 'there must be no harm' harm argument is in the ascendancy and until such time as there is a visible example of what will happen to food supply and costs if we continue to pursue this type of policy it will not change. ( In the same way, that, until the worst effect of the unrestricted use of earlier agrochemicals and industrial chemicals became obvious there was no clamour to do anything about it)

It is the same ethos that wants to challenge all sorts of other agricultural issues, such as, Beak trimming in hens, allowing dairy cattle to graze grass, the re-wilding of the countryside, and so on and so forth.

Can we do anything to arrest this trend or reverse it? It would seem erroneous to think that we can reverse this current trajectory as in part it is a reaction to an earlier situation and over reaction seems to be a human failure. However surely it must be the duty of our farming bodies and spokespersons to be able to join the dots and try to limit the speed of these type of challenges, to educate to the best of their ability the public, the politicians and articulate clearly and simply the context of farming with all its benefits in the current period.

Sadly it looks a very uphill task so we should support those who are prepared to put their heads above the parapet.

 

[Guy Smith]

I'd agree with the above analysis and would argue that your final para reflects the approach of the NFU.

It you look at our Healthy Harvest document from 3-4 years ago regarding the use of and regulation of crop protection materials much of what you suggest is in there.

To my mind the key point is that you cannot produce food without impacting on the environment and that has been true since the dawn of civilisation and the emergence of farmers. You can mitigate and manage some of the negative impacts but it will come with a cost. Regulators also do perverse things - such as GM on the grounds they are intrinsically bad for human health or the environment. Neither of those things have any scientific basis.

If British agriculture is to thrive it must have a similar regulatory back drop to its competitors otherwise it will become U competitively costly. The other factor here is support from the national treasury. This also needs to provide an international level playing field.

 

[Bigtractor]

Ingredient from Monsanto’s cancer-causing weed killer found in children’s cereals

https://www.fastcompany.com/9021919...ausing-weed-killer-found-in-childrens-cereals

B.T

 

[Breakthru]

If you mean by lazy not cultivating to control weeds pre drilling thereby reducing GHG emissions from tractors and not disturbing soil structures then you are right.

In the 1950s and 60s my old chap used to spend time raking up couch rhizomes then burning them. Then along came RoundUp and made me lazy.

What is really lazy is that as an industry we are letting the greens etc have an unopposed field day.
How many spray operators be they farmers or employees do we know have or have died from NHL Cancer.
How many general public do we know with NHL Cancer.
I along with many others here have inadvertently bathed in and consumed Glyphosate for many years and so far, fingers crossed no NHL.
A friend of mine, 79 and a smoker, was a sprayer driver for contractors for years back to the days when there were no cabs never mind the back window being open. When spraying Acid he wore two wool jerseys. The second one was pulled over his head like a hoodie so that when the drift caught up with him at the ends he sat tight, only thing it wouldn't eat through quickly apparently,
He nor any of his or my generation has had or died from NHL Cancer.
I think we need to put numbers together for Bayer/Monsanto to help fight this.

 

[Kidds]

If I was a worm I think I would go for a spray of gyphosate passing overhead, rather than a plough smashing
my house to pieces and cutting me in half?

In my previous life as a worm I was actually given that choice.
Looking back we are both happy with our decision to go with the plough.

 

[Macsky]

Ingredient from Monsanto’s cancer-causing weed killer found in children’s cereals

https://www.fastcompany.com/9021919...ausing-weed-killer-found-in-childrens-cereals

B.T

I think the multiple health risks posed by the sugar content of said cereals should be more of a concern than the parts per billion of glyphosate.

Lucky Charms? boak

 

[Cows 'n grass]

I'm in the US at the moment and there are TV adds from no win no fee lawyers looking for non Hodgkin's lymphoma sufferers to make claims against Monsanto. Scary stuff.

 

[Brisel]

Agreed,isn’t it brisel on here that said in a previous post that he bought thousands of litres of it for pre harvest use? I avoid bread now if I can

Only just spotted this. No, the pallets of glyphosate I bought was for pre drilling use, not pre harvest. The exception is oilseed rape which gets a dose 14-24 days pre harvest to even the crop up. Nothing else gets pre harvest glyphosate here unless something has gone wrong like a serious weed problem.