The truth about Glyphosate - IARCS Scandal

[Chris F]

If you haven’t read this article by forbes magazine as a farmer you should. If shows how our industry is being railroaded into the loss of actives.

It’s full of information every farmer should be armed with to defend scientifically why glyphosate should stay.

IARC's Glyphosate-gate Scandal

The International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC's) judgment that the weed killer glyphosate is probably carcinogenic conflicts with the assessment of every other agency. Now, evidence points to IARC's having skewed its account of the evidence to achieve its desired outcome.

www.forbes.com

Quote from the article:

“IARC’s ruling goes against the assessment of every other agency that has evaluated the compound, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, and the World Health Organization, of which IARC is a part.”

 

[Goweresque]

While I have no doubt that political activism is driving the science over glyphosate, are we as farmers really wanting to go into battle for it? Have we learned nothing from the last 70 years? That every product/machine/process that improves productivity in agriculture just makes our lives harder, not easier, by driving output prices down? That almost all the productivity gains in agriculture accrue to the consumer (and the processors further up the chain), not the primary producer? So if by having glyphosate banned productivity falls, then farmers may actually benefit, from higher prices?

 

[glasshouse]

While I have no doubt that political activism is driving the science over glyphosate, are we as farmers really wanting to go into battle for it? Have we learned nothing from the last 70 years? That every product/machine/process that improves productivity in agriculture just makes our lives harder, not easier, by driving output prices down? That almost all the productivity gains in agriculture accrue to the consumer (and the processors further up the chain), not the primary producer? So if by having glyphosate banned productivity falls, then farmers may actually benefit, from higher prices?

Here hear

 

[glasshouse]

While I have no doubt that political activism is driving the science over glyphosate, are we as farmers really wanting to go into battle for it? Have we learned nothing from the last 70 years? That every product/machine/process that improves productivity in agriculture just makes our lives harder, not easier, by driving output prices down? That almost all the productivity gains in agriculture accrue to the consumer (and the processors further up the chain), not the primary producer? So if by having glyphosate banned productivity falls, then farmers may actually benefit, from higher prices?

Roundup has eradicated more farmers than couchgrass ever did

 

[bovrill]

While I have no doubt that political activism is driving the science over glyphosate, are we as farmers really wanting to go into battle for it? Have we learned nothing from the last 70 years? That every product/machine/process that improves productivity in agriculture just makes our lives harder, not easier, by driving output prices down? That almost all the productivity gains in agriculture accrue to the consumer (and the processors further up the chain), not the primary producer? So if by having glyphosate banned productivity falls, then farmers may actually benefit, from higher prices?

If, while banning it's use here, we also ban the import of products from parts of the world where it is allowed to be used, then yes, we may actually benefit.
That won't happen though, and the only result will be killing our own production to import everything from other countries, as has been the trend for many decades now.

 

[eagleye]

you have all but forgotten what couch grass is like in cereals, it was almost as bad as blackgrass is now IMO

 

[Exfarmer]

There is not a hope in hell that we will ban the importation of food which has been grown on treated ground. We will cut off our noses in supporting the banning of Glyphosate, just as effectively as we have seen, in the support of the pig industry for the restrictions on housing, which lead to a huge reduction in the UK pig herd.

 

[Brisel]

Roundup has eradicated more farmers than couchgrass ever did

Please explain why you think that?

 

[Brisel]

While I have no doubt that political activism is driving the science over glyphosate, are we as farmers really wanting to go into battle for it? Have we learned nothing from the last 70 years? That every product/machine/process that improves productivity in agriculture just makes our lives harder, not easier, by driving output prices down? That almost all the productivity gains in agriculture accrue to the consumer (and the processors further up the chain), not the primary producer? So if by having glyphosate banned productivity falls, then farmers may actually benefit, from higher prices?

Productivity will not push prices up far enough to fill the gap left by the loss of actives. The main reason is simply that we will just import material treated with what we've lost & it will be cheaper than ours. The best current example of a lack of competitive advantage is GM crops.

 

[glasshouse]

Please explain why you think that?

Simple
Mass spraying off roundup pre and post harvest has removed the need for close farm management , proper cultivations and grain driers.

Thousands of acres of grain can thus be operated by a one or two men and some shiny tin.
Its called "pharming"
Its a global problem, which herbicide resistance is already beginning to undo, but the uk needs to act before that point is reached

 

[milkloss]

If, while banning it's use here, we also ban the import of products from parts of the world where it is allowed to be used, then yes, we may actually benefit.
That won't happen though, and the only result will be killing our own production to import everything from other countries, as has been the trend for many decades now.

Yes, this ^^^

I’m fine with them banning all kinds of stuff as long as nothing imported is treated or managed in a way that is banned here. The problem with being at the forefront of R&D and innovators is that we then give the technology away and then promptly ban it ourselves........ WTF?

If someone stood up and said we’re going to ban round up but also prevent importation of products grown with it then I’m sure most uk farmers will take up the challenge with glee.

 

[glasshouse]

Productivity will not push prices up far enough to fill the gap left by the loss of actives. The main reason is simply that we will just import material treated with what we've lost & it will be cheaper than ours. The best current example of a lack of competitive advantage is GM crops.

Dropping our own production by 5 million tonnes would raise wheat price in uk by about £40 ton above world price at import parity

 

[Brisel]

Simple
Mass spraying off roundup pre and post harvest has removed the need for close farm management , proper cultivations and grain driers.

Thousands of acres of grain can thus be operated by a one or two men and some shiny tin.
Its called "pharming"
Its a global problem, which herbicide resistance is already beginning to undo, but the uk needs to act before that point is reached

I see your point now. Still farming but less jobs.

 

[Gong Farmer]

It's no good coming up with all that science to support glyphosate, you need to come up with politics to support it.

I personally think it's too late to save it now, anyway.

 

[Goweresque]

If, while banning it's use here, we also ban the import of products from parts of the world where it is allowed to be used, then yes, we may actually benefit.
That won't happen though, and the only result will be killing our own production to import everything from other countries, as has been the trend for many decades now.

Thats the thing though isn't it? We stand FAR better chance of getting imports produced using glyphosate banned, if we campaign for that, rather than to keep glyphosate. What answer can the those proposing the ban have? It causes cancer (so they say) so lets ban all products made using it, just common sense right?

The farming organisations should forget trying to protect glyphosate and be one jump ahead. Say 'Yes please ban glyphosate, we're all in favour of banning this terrible carcinogenic chemical thats sprayed all over our food. Of course all imports that use it will have to be banned as well, on safety grounds.........'

Chances are glyphosate is going regardless of what farmers think, so lets forget about defending it and try to get an import ban as a quid pro quo for its being banned.

 

[SilliamWhale]

It's no good coming up with all that science to support glyphosate, you need to come up with politics to support it.

I personally think it's too late to save it now, anyway.

I don't. Theres nothing wrong with it. I want them to ban Liberator, Kerb etc. first

 

[glasshouse]

I see your point now. Still farming but less jobs.

Sorry the wife had to bring me round with some smelling salts.
I passed out when you got my point!

 

[Lexion1000]

Thats the thing though isn't it? We stand FAR better chance of getting imports produced using glyphosate banned, if we campaign for that, rather than to keep glyphosate. What answer can the those proposing the ban have? It causes cancer (so they say) so lets ban all products made using it, just common sense right?

The farming organisations should forget trying to protect glyphosate and be one jump ahead. Say 'Yes please ban glyphosate, we're all in favour of banning this terrible carcinogenic chemical thats sprayed all over our food. Of course all imports that use it will have to be banned as well, on safety grounds.........'

Chances are glyphosate is going regardless of what farmers think, so lets forget about defending it and try to get an import ban as a quid pro quo for its being banned.

Once glyphosate goes they’ll just move to the next chemical. If it’s safe, which the evidence seems to suggest, it would be daft for farmers to declare it unsafe.

 

[David.]

How does the loss of an effective and cheap total herbicide fit in with the thinking that is supporting the reduction of or even elimination of cultivations ahead of drilling, in the quest for the holy grail of reducing carbon emissions?
My memory of life pre Glyphosate is of filthy crops, harrowing off and burning couch, this all after Gramp had wasted most of the Autumn cultivating to kill it....

 

[Brisel]

Sorry the wife had to bring me round with some smelling salts.
I passed out when you got my point!

Don't worry - I don't agree with you! We need all the tools to stay competitive with imports. If that means there are fewer people working on farms, so be it. We won't have the protection of the Common Agricultural Policy for much longer so we will be forced to adapt or go bust. If farm labour is what you want to preserve, get off the commodity treadmill and produce something labour intensive that has a profit margin big enough to support all the staff.