Roundup Causes Cancer

[bobk]

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

You lot still use stuff that's been banned for years here .

 

[Grem]

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..

Sorry, but you give the impression that you believe chemicals are dangerous to our health, so the alternative in my mind is organic, is it not?
Organic farming uses natural substances to treat/prevent disease, be it in a crop or in livestock, but considering arsenic is also a natural substance, I fail to understand that natural is necessarily better.

 

[Grem]

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..

If the consumer doesn't like eating what the farmer produces then he/she should grow their own food.

 

[neilo]

the wife has that, in remission now, fer weeks i had to inject her, she wouldent let the nurses do it because they caused vsuch massive bruising.
i would just slap her on her belly and catch her on the bounce and not leave a mark, these experts no nothing, when the grandson was born they couldent get him to suck,
well, when we went bin to see him there was a bit of despair about it. i was watching them trying for a few mins, for f....s sake, give him here or we will be here all f.....g night.
grabbed little tom and bottle, stuck tit in his mouth and tickled him under his chin with me little finger whilst holding the bottle jus right and he was right on, just like a lamb.
damm nurses forgoot about the colostrum though and he wasent too well for a while, cant trust no bugger now to do their job
then they had the cheek to ask me to start half a dozen others they was having trouble with.. i nearly told one little nurse to come with me and i will hone your technique.
but thought better of it, i was getting the silent though messages from the mrs that was saying i know what you thinking and dont you dare, this telepathy thing has died a death now
with mobile phones

That made I chuckle. I wonder how many sheep farmer new fathers have received ‘that’ stare when the nurses have been struggling to get a baby to feed? I know I certainly did.

 

[neilo]

Exactly - so please (to the pro use) stop pretending that it IS safe for the ones who feel differently - because you, nor anyone else knows for certain.
A lot of things done in the world are done for financial gain - nothing more, nothing less.
If things can be muddied - it will be, that is the nature if the beast.

It is near impossible to prove a negative. Just look at the money that was spent desperately trying to connect nvCJD to BSE and to scrapie in sheep. Despite spending squillions trying to do so, no link has ever been found to link it, but hysteria stoked up by a certain Prof Lacey (looking to secure more research funding, most likely) was taken as gospel by the ‘they’re all out to get us’ brigade.

 

[How much]

The head man from Roundups manufacturer was on radio 4 a few weeks back and he said that the Eu roundup and the Non EU roundup where not the same apparently some years ago someone had raised doubt over the safety of the wetting agent so they changed it for another type , In his words it was easier to change it than prove the original one was safe.
I guess by virtue that raises the question is the original and non EU formula as safe as the EU one ?

like others on here it seems that spraying just before harvest seems wrong , if it is or not i would have no idea , but how many times is a potato crop sprayed ( not with roundup ) and you would imagine that a potato has by virtue of its size and moisture content has a lot of potential to absorb some of that chemical in its growth. We assume they are safe.

However in moderns society look at all the stuff people spray on themselves !!! have you seen the list of ingredients in a underarm deodorant

 

[Ukjay]

Sorry, but you give the impression that you believe chemicals are dangerous to our health, so the alternative in my mind is organic, is it not?

Err, not entirely sure how to read that one, as to me it appears that you are suggesting chemicals are not dangerous to our health by your above statement... so not geting drawn further there, as there is clearly enough denial about chemicals and their impact already, whereupon I have never said chemicals are safe to health, and I have noted previously that we will never be in a world free of them either.

Organic farming uses natural substances to treat/prevent disease, be it in a crop or in livestock, but considering arsenic is also a natural substance, I fail to understand that natural is necessarily better.

Like with everything around us - it all comes down to what you believe to be better for ones health I suppose, which for me, I would rather 'try' and remove certain things if possible, where I am able to do so.

 

[Muck Spreader]

You lot still use stuff that's been banned for years here .

News to me, like what?

 

[Ukjay]

It is near impossible to prove a negative. Just look at the money that was spent desperately trying to connect nvCJD to BSE and to scrapie in sheep. Despite spending squillions trying to do so, no link has ever been found to link it, but hysteria stoked up by a certain Prof Lacey (looking to secure more research funding, most likely) was taken as gospel by the ‘they’re all out to get us’ brigade.

Hi Neil,

For me (and I know it is not aligned with many for the very obvious reasons), it is clear as day, and one which is a moral conflict for me personally if I am honest - that a lot of people within the industry we are discussing topics on - do not openly like to face up to, nor even contemplate accepting that there could be realities of potential impacts caused through the modern practices carried out further down the line, and will seemingly use any counter tactic they can to defend / deflect their actions...

I could add references of them to substantiate my point here, but we have all read the same threads / posts, so it will only serve to stir the hornets net more in this direction on top of the current backlash (which is fine, as I know I am in a rather contentious conversation / debate), but strangley there is always (or it seems that way) - a deflective tactic to apportion blame outside onto other individuals, businesses or countries at any cost,or label someone Leftie, Far Right, Greenie or whatever they decide to use in order to deflect the focus, in what I can only assume is to remove the attention towards their own potential impacts.

Why this is so - I do not know, but one thing I do know, is that it is definitely going to be a damn site more interesting going forwards....

 

[bobk]

News to me, like what?

IPU, Dursban

 

[GeorgeK]

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.



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!!



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.

But we are 1/3 organic and 1/3 stewardship with no chemicals. Only 1/3 of our land receives chemicals and at a much reduced rate as we rotate with grass. Why is that burying our heads in the sand and refusing to accept the problems? Surely it's a step in the right direction? I know exactly what organic production entails and it's not a silver bullet. Yield is about half, diesel is about triple, plus the cultivation leads to erosion even on medium land such as ours because soil naturally migrates downhill over many years. We have a lot to relearn from organic production that will benefit us but I feel at least for the short term it's not whether all chemicals are bad, it's how can we use a minimal amount and in a responsible manner, that leads to an overall positive outcome for us the environment. There are many posts here in favour of a ban on glyphosphate pre harvest, I feel that must be a good thing. Give credit where it's due and try to work with us, it will be more productive

 

[ollie989898]

I do wish people would stop banging the drum about pre-harvest use of glyphosate. It's a non-sequitur; not relevant. CRD and their European counterparts determined what the safe harvest interval was, agreed on it, and that is that.
If we want to go down the route of investigating just what is safe or how long glyphosate persists then the main metabolite from that molecule can persist in soil for two years, which is precisely why I always used prescribed doses based upon the target in question.

 

[Ukjay]

Give credit where it's due and try to work with us, it will be more productive

Unfortunately I struggle to comprehend how anyone can "work with us" as such - when the "US" for a large part, (not all fortunately), see no negatives in what is being done, therefore making it nigh on impossible to work with - and potentially indicative of why the name calling, stigmas etc that get thrown at anyone who dares question the validity, or agrees in principle there is potentially higher percieved risks due to how things are being done in the now....

I sympathise in part for where all these restrictions / roadblocks take the industry, but I will never apologise for questioning what we do - especially when I even question my own impacts!

 

[Ukjay]

.
If we want to go down the route of investigating just what is safe or how long glyphosate persists then the main metabolite from that molecule can persist in soil for two years, which is precisely why I always used prescribed doses based upon the target in question.

Sorry Ollie, I have to ask to see what way the land lies:

What are the Scientific Community saying about the residual build up of all these chemicals in our soils, are they having any negative impact?

 

[Muck Spreader]

IPU, Dursban

If it's banned in the UK it's the HSE jumping the gun, the EU extended it use to Jan 2019.

 

[ollie989898]

Sorry Ollie, I have to ask to see what way the land lies:

What are the Scientific Community saying about the residual build up of all these chemicals in our soils, are they having any negative impact?

I have not read all the literature, I was merely illustrating that this stuff was always claimed to be eco-friendly, yet evidence exists it persists in soil for months. I suspect many other actives are the same. The complaints regarding pre-harvest use to me as nonsensical.

 

[GeorgeK]

Unfortunately I struggle to comprehend how anyone can "work with us" as such - when the "US" for a large part, (not all fortunately), see no negatives in what is being done, therefore making it nigh on impossible to work with - and potentially indicative of why the name calling, stigmas etc that get thrown at anyone who dares question the validity, or agrees in principle there is potentially higher percieved risks due to how things are being done in the now....

I sympathise in part for where all these restrictions / roadblocks take the industry, but I will never apologise for questioning what we do - especially when I even question my own impacts!

I don't say you're wrong to question, I just wonder about the effectiveness of your approach on this forum. Yes it will be hard or impossible to change the minds of many, but the way you put your arguments surely alienates those who are open to change. You talk about questioning methods and providing balanced arguments but your approach to this means very few are still listening to you. It could be argued you have a negative impact as you stand mostly to reinforce people's prejudices against those that advocate farming with fewer chemicals. So ask yourself what's the aim of your posts? All you achieve at the moment is for yourself to bathe in self righteous indignation, thinking "I'm right, they're all wrong, how come no one's listening"

 

[Ukjay]

I don't say you're wrong to question, I just wonder about the effectiveness of your approach on this forum. Yes it will be hard or impossible to change the minds of many, but the way you put your arguments surely alienates those who are open to change. You talk about questioning methods and providing balanced arguments but your approach to this means very few are still listening to you. It could be argued you have a negative impact as you stand mostly to reinforce people's prejudices against those that advocate farming with fewer chemicals. So ask yourself what's the aim of your posts? All you achieve at the moment is for yourself to bathe in self righteous indignation, thinking "I'm right, they're all wrong, how come no one's listening"

Unfortunately, the prejudices upon outsiders / different farming methods are so deeply ingrained from decades ago, that they have nothing whatsoever to do with me thank you, and conversely, the above is quite ironic really - as that slant at me, could just as easily be turned 180 and directed back for numerous reasons, but hey; you carry on if it serves your ultimate purpose...

As for the self righteous indignation dig, well, we will have to agree to disagree on that one before this goes off on a completely alien tangent - because of the simple fact that at no point in time have I stated or commented that I am right and everyone else is wrong, therefore it is an implication being pushed against my challenges as they do not sit well in the current climate, therefore before I get another wild accusation thrown my way, it is probably best to cease responding..

 

[Fallowfield]

I do wish people would stop banging the drum about pre-harvest use of glyphosate. It's a non-sequitur; not relevant. CRD and their European counterparts determined what the safe harvest interval was, agreed on it, and that is that.

In science there's a concept known as 'the truth for now'.

It refers to any commonly accepted belief based on current understanding and by implication acknowledges that as understanding increases, and as new facts come to light, then that truth will be superseded and replaced by a new 'truth for now'.

It may be that the safe harvest interval succumbs to that process.

 

[tommyurray]

Yes that correct, so perhaps we should ask is the need more important than the risk
I don't need jelly babies.

If roundup was withdrawn it would most certainly put a strain in strain on food supplies and food costs would have to rise

Yes it would put a strain on food supplies and food costs would rise out of preportion to the drop in supply(supply /demand out of balance ) farmers need to think about this a bit more ..... the less we produce the more we get paid when was the last time you were thanked for feeding a greatfull nation
Perhaps wore things could happen
Ps I use roundup and would hate to be without it but..