Roundup Causes Cancer

[Ukjay]

I used to keep a pony on land that had been used to grow organic potatoes prior to it being put down to grassland. The owner of the stables was told not to graze sheep on the land for at least 7 years as there was too much copper in the soil - how can that be healthy?

Erm, I have not said it is, so please do not imply I have??

Your point therefore is mutted as such, but what your comment does indicate / show - is possibly the farmers growing the potatoes have rendered the land not fit for certain sheep grazing use by making it somewhat toxic through using compounds that contain high levels of copper through potentially treating blight for example.
To be certain of the toxicity levels though - the owners would need to test to land and not simply go off word of mouth to ascertain the levels in the soil.

Additionally, the use of copper containing products in organic farming is being monitored closely from what I can gather, so it may face more severe challenges in the future if what I am reading is to be taken as correct - but maybe someone who farms organically may be ale to give a clearer understanding, as I am not a real farmer..

 

[Douglasmn]

I firmly believe roundup should be banned pre-harvest. I think it would be a great shame to see it banned altogether though. Is one pass of round up pre-sowing not better than endless selective-herbicides sprayed on the growing crop? Pre-harvest is simply bad practise in my opinion. Even in Scotland I was able to combine wheat 15% in the first week of August this year, just letting the crop ripen naturally. I believe if a crop won't ripen naturally in your area then it's best to grow something else more suited to your climate and conditions.

 

[Fish]

Don’t think that the court case has a lot to do with roundup a lot of the yanks have it in for Monsanto,one Canadian is working into his seventys spending millions on it

Yes, this is the modern day version of the Salem witch trials, no evidence,

But Burn the witch.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

Bit off topic but do we need to be concerned about 300-000 tons of radioactive mud thats about to be dumped in the see a mile off Cardiff bay

 

[GeorgeK]

Yes, and look deeper at how we have found this to be completely wrong on our part which you have chosen to ignore.

We took guidance on what can be done due to the land being left to seed for years, but we have since learnt what we were doing / have done is wrong and only based on one mantra - chem only option (same mantra as what we were told early on for our horses - routinely treat, treat and treat for worms - we do not treat for worms, we FEC, and our horses are clear as can be for worm burden).

Fortunately, we have now become aware that it is not the only way to attack this problem, and something we are not happy to have done as we know there must be health risks associated with the use of chems.. You will then, if you care to read further - see I want to be chem free as soon as possible as spraying is not something that sits well with us for the reasons we are debating - plus my own inner moral conflict in the use of such things.

Furthermore, I openly admit we were easily duped in the beginning and I will hold my hand up to making a massive newbie mistake, which is not an issue for me to admit that I fudgeed up, as I made a fundemental error in my normal practice of questioning and I simply trusted what I was told without my normal questionaing approach. I can never defend the wrongs I have done - nor would I try to either, but take it on board and learn to reflect and repair.
I am also not stupid to think that we can live completely devoid of chemicals - it will never happen, but we can be better ambassadors in the use, which is not where we are now!

The greatest achievement we have done though, in a relatively short period of time fortunately, is learn that what we did earlier was wrong and you can do this with different methods - avoiding chems as far as possible (not sure how far we can take this - as we are in the early stages of the change in land management, but reading the literature we are - it looks to be a promising route to take), but thankfully we have stopped significantly the above and are hopefully on the way to repairing the damage we may have caused and cease dependancy on chems.

We have moved stock onto our land and rotate it, so again the use of chems is restricted further now - a good step imho.
We are looking at additional options to improve the soil further - plus we are planting trees and hedgerows etc which were removed years ago in order to improve the whole ecology of the land further.

Of importance and something you have openly ommitted to highlight - I have also never stated any Chemicals are safe and do nothing to our health, nor have I added any chems to anything going into my food - what you are defending, or trying to - is the blanket use of a chemical that can go into the food chain that I am opposed to, and one very important additional reason I am looking to go completely chem free - as I do now wonder since reading about soil diversity (microbes / bacteria etc) if the hype that the chems bio degrade fully in the soil completely is correct as we will more than likely have killed more of the required bactieria in the soils through use of the chems that are needed to degrade the chems - thus as I care about the water we drink too, it has been an additional point for me to contend with...

Also - the big difference between you and I (apart from me admitting we fudgeed up and did something wrong here - something that will never happen from this industry), is that I now believe that there is evidentally a more significant risk to using chems and therefore driving / pushing me harder into actively looking to remove this risk and dependance of chemicals completely, whereby you a potential farmer - know there is a highly probable risk - but try to defend the use becuse you cannot accept it is carrying such high risk in its use.

Pandora is eagerly awaiting to open her box - but what are you going to do then with blinkers on!!

I haven't ignored your change of view, I'm just pointing out that you are perhaps a bit too critical and derogatory towards people using pesticides, as a pesticide user yourself. I would have thought you could be more constructive in your comments and understanding of the situation. Don't tar me with the same brush, as you are so fond of saying - "you a potential farmer - know there is a highly probable risk - but try to defend the use becuse you cannot accept it is carrying such high risk in its use." That's a sweeping statement to make, how do you know how I farm? We are 1/3 organic , 1/3 stewardship nectar and pollen mix (no pesticides) and 1/3 low input direct drilling. We rotate grass and arable to control weeds with fewer pesticides.

Again... how do you know glyphosphate is the chemical that has caused you problems? Your knapsack spraying will have exposed you to pesticides millions of times more concentrated than glyphosate residues in food which is measured in parts per billion

 

[Pieces_of_Eight]

Then if you have two sides of the Peer Debate (as we do now) - you will sit on the "Its not dangerous" fence by that statement. Each to their own - but that fence is getting seriously rickety

I wouldn't describe Roundup/glyphosate as not dangerous.

Crossing the road is dangerous, people die doing it every day, which is why you look both ways.

All agrochems are hazardous, which is why they have a detailed product label.

I'll continue to use glyphosate, following the instructions to minimise the risk of the hazard causing harm to me or the wider environment.

 

[vantage]

Merely a thought I had this morning while milking,the guy in court claiming damages against Monsanto,how can he prove it was not a naturally occurring compound that caused his condition?

 

[Ukjay]

Don't tar me with the same brush, as you are so fond of saying. "you a potential farmer - know there is a highly probable risk - but try to defend the use becuse you cannot accept it is carrying such high risk in its use." That's a sweeping statement to make, how do you know how I farm? We are 1/3 organic , 1/3 stewardship nectar and pollen mix (no pesticides) and 1/3 low input direct drilling. We rotate grass and arable as we believe it is more sustainable.

You have the right to think it is derogitory that I challenge the information we had and see, I'm used to that kind of interpretation that if it does not suit the need of the person, try and make it into something else to win the masses over.
I however think you will find my comments are based on documented posts on this forum, a recent factual account of one which is from a post made openly admitting to spraying pesticides when not needed onto a food crop (thier words not mine), and in a climate that would more than likely serve no to little purpose as to its intended application (even challenged by other Real Farmers too for the record) - therefore factual debate / challenge, so we will beg to differ there.
This action alone was a blatant misuse of a chemical imho as the use contains strict control measures for application and is highly suspected of being a possible carcinogen that is entering our foodchain, but you obviously feel it is justifiable to simply roll over and accept and condone the misuse of pesticides and think nothing more of it - good for you!

Your points could therefore also infer that maybe I should keep my mouth shut and simply allow this misuse to continue without challenge, ironically then I suppose therefore I should have also not challenged my own personal mistakes and wrong decisions prior to our complete change of vision - even though I am paying to end up eating something that may impact my life.
Go figure why I thought you may be a farmer and therefore looking at this from a different angle.

Additionally and something of higher importance, I have learnt the wrongs of my previous actions and am actively looking to remove / repair the possible damage I may have done from my own ignorance at the time, and I can't see me being called a potential farmer though - as I do not Farm in the conventional way, so not sure which shoebox we would go once we can achieve our goal.

Also - there is a common term I have learnt on here through reading many, many posts / threads of 'JFDI' - so again, not complying with rules / regulations is seemingly a condoned practice, so again - is that derogatory, No - it is a factual account of what I am reading on here given out freely by your industry.

This is maybe born out of other contries not so resticted in their ability to use chemicals and practices not allowed in the UK, I do not know - but does that make it aceptable and something to be ignored.

Obviously not everyone does this and I am fully aware of that fact - I would say the high % are conscious of the actions they do, and there are a lot of great individuals out there, but I am allowed the option to challenge and disagree fully, if I feel it is deserved. I am also allowed the expectation that the alleged professionals - open up and start to realise the risks and possible side affects of doing something that could be impacting the very thing they are in business producing food etc for.

You can obviously choose to bury your head in the sand as long as you feel safe to do so, but it is looking very much like the cards are marked now as supply chains are now looking to destock this chemical, so will be interesting few years to come.

You fail to address the points I made:
1) You are overly critical and derogatory towards people using pesticides, when you have done exactly the same. I would have thought you could be more constructive and understanding of the situation rather than lowering yourself to personal attacks and insults

As above - not derogatory, and as I have also admitted what I did to start was / is wrong it needs balancing. You on the other hand condone it and challenge me because it does not suit your needs. Fine - but do not think I will sit in the sidelines and take this without challenge.

I also in previous posts defend the farming industry for other things - but I cannot, will not, condone things that I challenge myself over - that would be hypocritical, not me following my own objections to my wrong doings..

Also, instead of trying to twist what I say, read my posts fully and with an unbiased opion. I have openly explained why we used them, and more to the point our mistakes - then why we are now not using them as far as possible, with the goal to stop completely if at all possible.
I have also admitted I have made a serious mistake by following the direction solely on their knowledge of way of removal without doing my due diligence into the full cycle and effects. You on the other hand cannot stand up and admit you are wrong or are making the wrong decisions here!!

2) Again... how do you know glyphosphate is the chemical that has caused you problems? Your knapsack spraying will have exposed you to pesticides millions of times more concentrated than glyphosate residues in food which is measured in parts per billion

Have I stated I have cancer / problems? I have also not stated it Does Cause cancer that I can recall, I believe it to be more along the lines of highly probable / may cause / and is seen to be a potential carcinogen have I not?
Also - I am not the kind of person who looks for someone to blame for an illness or claim handouts, but if a company did know it could do damage to health and hid it from common knowledge - then I can see why some people will chase this.
If we are able to take the risks knowing the full story, not the parts people wish us to know - then we make our own formal decision and should be forced to take the risk that comes with it.
I can accept that, but what I will not accept is ignorance to the fact that we may be doing something here that could be impacting our health, simply to oppease certain areas.

 

[Ukjay]

I'll continue to use glyphosate, following the instructions to minimise the risk of the hazard causing harm to me or the wider environment.

Is this not the point in question though - there appears to be a serious concern over this, but as long as the label currently says it is ok - fine?

 

[Still Farming]

Remember also the 80's sheep dipping and organophosphates that were MAFF and Government law and enforcable and timed and inspected and recorded and made to use by local Authority and MAFF inspectors ?
What happened if alive to all those and us that HAD to use them?
Headaches ,blurred vision,stress ,sick ,bone and limb aches all to name a few symptoms ?
Roundup and generic derivatives are usually voluntary and up to you if you use ?

 

[Pieces_of_Eight]

Is this not the point in question though - there appears to be a serious concern over this, but as long as the label currently says it is ok - fine?

If the product label is updated, I'll follow the new instructions.

At the moment, I'm confident that using glyphosate is one of the less risky things I do.

 

[Still Farming]

Is this not the point in question though - there appears to be a serious concern over this, but as long as the label currently says it is ok - fine?

Also remember ALL the food the UK imports from all the countries in the world with crops that are grown with chemicals that are NOT on our lists of APPROVED chemicals ???

 

[Ukjay]

If the product label is updated, I'll follow the new instructions.

At the moment, I'm confident that using glyphosate is one of the less risky things I do.

Exactly (and I know I need to be careful as I am a minority here) - but some have easy choices being made to use it or not, but people cannot simply choose not to eat it can they, due to its widespread use in the foodchain.
For me - I do believe we should be challenging this before it is written off, not wait until we find it does / does not cause any health issues, but that is how I am wired unfortunately - and I accept other will differ.

Also remember ALL the food the UK imports from all the countries in the world with crops that are grown with chemicals that are NOT on our lists of APPROVED chemicals ???

This is maybe born out of other contries not so resticted in their ability to use chemicals and practices not allowed in the UK, I do not know - but does that make it aceptable and something to be ignored.

As above in my previous post - I am already aware of that.

 

[Derky]

I firmly believe roundup should be banned pre-harvest. I think it would be a great shame to see it banned altogether though. Is one pass of round up pre-sowing not better than endless selective-herbicides sprayed on the growing crop? Pre-harvest is simply bad practise in my opinion. Even in Scotland I was able to combine wheat 15% in the first week of August this year, just letting the crop ripen naturally. I believe if a crop won't ripen naturally in your area then it's best to grow something else more suited to your climate and conditions.

Precisely too much is thrown on pre harvest just for combine timing and ease of harvest.

 

[Ukjay]

Remember also the 80's sheep dipping and organophosphates that were MAFF and Government law and enforcable and timed and inspected and recorded and made to use by local Authority and MAFF inspectors ?
What happened if alive to all those and us that HAD to use them?
Headaches ,blurred vision,stress ,sick ,bone and limb aches all to name a few symptoms ?
Roundup and generic derivatives are usually voluntary and up to you if you use ?

Again, trying to be careful as my points are being taken out of context quite a lot here lately, but hey, I will continue the discussion / debate as it is quite interesting, and gives me more opportunity to learn things.

Sheep farmers having to use those chems, they get ill as it is highly concentrated - you did not like it but because it was laid down you did it.

Roundup and generic derivatives to use your words, are voluntary only for you to use yes - but not voluntary to the end consumer I fear.
The above forcing of sheep dip example is ironically similar to what is happeng in the food chain if you openly break it down.
Consumers allegedly eating small levels of pesticides they do not ask for over decades due to it getting into the food chain. Could it be influencing our bodies, is it their choice and voluntary to use it..

 

[itsalwaysme]

Quote from a sky news item on my phone
"He sprayed large quantities from a 50 gallon tank attached to a truck and during gusty winds the product would cover his face" one of his lawyers told the court
"At one point when a hose broke the weedkiller covered his entire body"
Mr Johnson read the label but said he was never warned the product could cause cancer the lawyer said.
Whether or not there is any link to cancer it doesn't sound as though he was following recommendations (gusty winds !) or the equipment was properly maintained,
Some chemicals might be carcinogenic but used correctly with correct PPE are probably quite safe, but you probably wouldn't want to have a bath in it.
I'm sure in UK courts this would have been thrown out on these issues

 

[Simon Chiles]

Quote from a sky news item on my phone
"He sprayed large quantities from a 50 gallon tank attached to a truck and during gusty winds the product would cover his face" one of his lawyers told the court
"At one point when a hose broke the weedkiller covered his entire body"
Mr Johnson read the label but said he was never warned the product could cause cancer the lawyer said.
Whether or not there is any link to cancer it doesn't sound as though he was following recommendations (gusty winds !) or the equipment was properly maintained,
Some chemicals might be carcinogenic but used correctly with correct PPE are probably quite safe, but you probably wouldn't want to have a bath in it.
I'm sure in UK courts this would have been thrown out on these issues

I may have misunderstood ( I haven’t followed this closely ) but as I understand it Monsanto were being sued for the fact that the label didn’t actually say that the product could be carcinogenic and not whether it actually was ( or wasn’t. ) In light of Mr Johnson’s claim that he’d used the product without PPE, with faulty equipment and in unsuitable conditions I’d have thought that any decent lawyer would have argued that regardless of what the label did, or didn’t say, he ( and his employers ) clearly had a blatant disregard for what was said on it. I suspect this case will get overturned but no doubt it’ll open a floodgate of other similar cases against Monsanto.

 

[Lindell]

Precisely too much is thrown on pre harvest just for combine timing and ease of harvest.

Is glyphosate used pre harvest on Barley and Oats too ? anything else it's used on , pre-harvest ?

 

[roscoe erf]

Compared to some of the sh!t we used to apply glypho is positively harmless , I've drunk gallons of it .

Wife’s been drinking it for years she doesn’t know it though

 

[Muck Spreader]

Wife’s been drinking it for years she doesn’t know it though

If that's the case, I would be checking what she makes your brew with.