Glyphosphate how safe??

[silly billy]

Glyphosphate is said to be safe when it hits the soil enabling you to grow on the soil straight away but will it leave chemicals in my soil which may harm me?

[silly billy]

[tim]

Don't know, but I would have thought less than one Supermarket lettuce?

[Baccy Man]

Given the amount of glyphosphate sprayed on the planet every day, the most common opinon is that it is probably safe to say that glyphosphate itself is not violently toxic to people or animals. People do not have the same enzymes in their cells that plants do, just like human cells and bacteria differ enough that antibiotics kill bacteria cells but not human cells.
On the other hand, most people react badly to glyphosate-surfactant herbicides ie: Roundupâ,,¢  when ingested or applied to the skin, so you want to avoid any direct skin contact with it & under no circumstances ingest it people have died as a result of that. Monsanto were forced to change the way they advertised Roundupâ,,¢ in 1996 or 1997 when it was proved it was not safe and did cause harmful effects to people and the environment.

Glyphosphate will kill almost any plant, including aquatic plants, so you want to be sure to avoid spray drift onto other plants or into water. Any pesticide should be applied carefully.

I choose not to use any form of weedkiller (other than hard work or fire) but wether you want to us it or not is entirely your decision.

[Jeannine]

I think this is a very difficult question to help anyone with.

A few weeks ago we considered it, we didn't use it we never have , but we were very very close.

I think if the weeds are taking over your veggies, your plot and your life, you have to do what is needed to stay on top, we managed to get back on top but it is so easy to fall behind.

I can't think of any weed  killer that I would trust to be completely harmless but if you have to and it is used occasionally and with care, I think I would agree with Tim wholeheartedly.

Sometimes you have to do what you need to do, and it is not always possible to weed as often as one would like

XX Jeannine

[redimp]

#13 New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup (Glyphosate)
Sources:

Third World Resurgence, No. 176, April 2005
Title: “New Evidence of Dangers of Roundup Weedkiller”
Author: Chee Yoke Heong

Faculty Evaluator: Jennifer While
Student Researchers: Peter McArthur and Lani Ready

New studies from both sides of the Atlantic reveal that Roundup, the most widely used weedkiller in the world, poses serious human health threats. More than 75 percent of genetically modified (GM) crops are engineered to tolerate the absorption of Roundupâ€"it eliminates all plants that are not GM. Monsanto Inc., the major engineer of GM crops, is also the producer of Roundup. Thus, while Roundup was formulated as a weapon against weeds, it has become a prevalent ingredient in most of our food crops.

Three recent studies show that Roundup, which is used by farmers and home gardeners, is not the safe product we have been led to trust.

A group of scientists led by biochemist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen in France found that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup at concentrations lower than those currently used in agricultural application.

An epidemiological study of Ontario farming populations showed that exposure to glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, nearly doubled the risk of late miscarriages. Seralini and his team decided to research the effects of the herbicide on human placenta cells. Their study confirmed the toxicity of glyphosate, as after eighteen hours of exposure at low concentrations, large proportions of human placenta began to die. Seralini suggests that this may explain the high levels of premature births and miscarriages observed among female farmers using glyphosate.

Seralini’s team further compared the toxic effects of the Roundup formula (the most common commercial formulation of glyphosate and chemical additives) to the isolated active ingredient, glyphosate. They found that the toxic effect increases in the presence of Roundup ‘adjuvants’ or additives. These additives thus have a facilitating role, rendering Roundup twice as toxic as its isolated active ingredient, glyphosate.

Another study, released in April 2005 by the University of Pittsburgh, suggests that Roundup is a danger to other life-forms and non-target organisms. Biologist Rick Relyea found that Roundup is extremely lethal to amphibians. In what is considered one of the most extensive studies on the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms in a natural setting, Relyea found that Roundup caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles. Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were nearly eliminated.

In 2002, a scientific team led by Robert Belle of the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) biological station in Roscoff, France showed that Roundup activates one of the key stages of cellular division that can potentially lead to cancer. Belle and his team have been studying the impact of glyphosate formulations on sea urchin cells for several years. The team has recently demonstrated in Toxicological Science (December 2004) that a “control point” for DNA damage was affected by Roundup, while glyphosate alone had no effect. “We have shown that it’s a definite risk factor, but we have not evaluated the number of cancers potentially induced, nor the time frame within which they would declare themselves,” Belle acknowledges.

There is, indeed, direct evidence that glyphosate inhibits an important process called RNA transcription in animals, at a concentration well below the level that is recommended for commercial spray application.

There is also new research that shows that brief exposure to commercial glyphosate causes liver damage in rats, as indicated by the leakage of intracellular liver enzymes. The research indicates that glyphosate and its surfactant in Roundup were found to act in synergy to increase damage to the liver.

UPDATE BY CHEE YOKE HEONG
Roundup Ready weedkiller is one of the most widely used weedkillers in the world for crops and backyard gardens. Roundup, with its active ingredient glyphosate, has long been promoted as safe for humans and the environment while effective in killing weeds. It is therefore significant when recent studies show that Roundup is not as safe as its promoters claim.

This has major consequences as the bulk of commercially planted genetically modified crops are designed to tolerate glyphosate (and especially Roundup), and independent field data already shows a trend of increasing use of the herbicide. This goes against industry claims that herbicide use will drop and that these plants will thus be more “environment-friendly.” Now it has been found that there are serious health effects, too. My story therefore aimed to highlight these new findings and their implications to health and the environment.

Not surprisingly, Monsanto came out refuting some of the findings of the studies mentioned in the article. What ensued was an open exchange between Dr. Rick Relyea and Monsanto, whereby the former stood his grounds. Otherwise, to my knowledge, no studies have since emerged on Roundup.

For more information look to the following sources:
Professor Gilles-Eric, criigen@ibfa.unicaen.fr
Biosafety Information Center, http://www.biosafety-info.net
Institute of Science in Society, http://www.i-sis.org.uk

[Jeannine]

That is interesting but what are the GM crops it is used on I only know a couple

[jennym]

Always better to read the actual research quoted by the organisation shown in redclangers post IMHO:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7728/7728.pdf


Other independent institutions have done studies too:

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/glyphosa.htm
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/reflist10.htm

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Relyea-Monsanto-Roundup1apr05.htm

I choose to drive a car, but not to use some weedkillers - maybe an illogical choice given the odds on death and serious injury in car accidents.

[antipodes]

I have decided not to use any weedkiller because I just don't want my kids being exposed to any kind of chemicals. My neighbours seem to toss it all over the place but I am trying to at least keep my plot clean. I have not been able to pull out all the weeds, but whenever I go I spend a while hacking down anything that looks unsightly and giving a quick scrape with the hoe. I leave the weeds to rot on the ground. OK, I do have quite a few but have realised that others on the site are worse!!
I live in a grape-producing region and there are lots of chemicals used in the vineyards. I have heard that the effects of these chemicals are known but not made public, and I had a friend who died young from a rare cancer who strangely enough lived in the vineyards. So I tend to err on the side of caution. And I have accepted that an entirely weed-freeplot is probably not a very realistic goal, at least not the first year, so I tackle only the bits that are invading the veg and try and keep the edges tidy. I am curious as to why you would go to the trouble and expense of applying weedkiller when you can just hack the weeds with a hoe or a strimmer in a fairly short time? (but my plot is maybe smaller?)

[silly billy]

Thanks all for the advice and information looks like I will have to removed all the weeds by hand as my children eat our produce.

[Melbourne12]

Thanks all for the advice and information looks like I will have to removed all the weeds by hand as my children eat our produce.

How strange.  Having read the studies quoted by jennym, I shall continue to use glyphosate and Roundup in particular with renewed confidence.

[Rhubarb Thrasher]

personally, I never use weedkiller, I actually like grubbing weeds from garden paths, with broken dinner knives. but it's certainly true that all garden chemicals are so much safer than before. Not perfectly safe, but then veg we eat naturally contain chemicals which are potentially hazardous and would be banned if they were present as a pesticide residue.
Just because a tiny amount of something does a lot of damage to weeds doesn't mean it's at all a problem, it just means that it's highly targeted towards some plant process. We've come a long way for instance from the first selective weedkiller, which was actually Sulphuric Acid

[silly billy]

One of the studies makes the following claim: Breakdown in soil and groundwater: Glyphosate is moderately persistent in soil, with an estimated average half-life of 47 days [58,11]. Reported field half-lives range from 1 to 174 days [11].

Unless I am mistaken its claiming it will remain in the soil for upto 174 days I would have sown grown and consumed quite a variety of crops in that time on the land I intended to use it on so I can't see anything strange about deciding not to use it.

We have indeed come along way yet just yesterday there was a recall of drugs used for treating HIV because it was found to contain cancer causing substances.

[shirlton]

We have used it on 2 of our plots just to give us a clear start. The council did the one and we have just done the other one. We don't intend to use it again because have the time to control the weeds. If you want to do it all without any  form of chemical then it's up to the individual, so long as you can keep the weeds under control and stop them spreading to other folks plots. Years ago we had a plot next to someone who claimed to be organic but they left all the seedheads to blow over on everyones plot. needless to say they were not very popular. Slugs too like weedy allotments

[Melbourne12]

The average 47 and up to 174 days is just the half life.  It clearly persists much longer.  But so what?  If it's not harmful, and it clearly isn't, it won't hurt.  It's absorbed through the leaves, so unless you spray it on your veg to destroy them, and then eat the resulting roadkill, you won't actually ingest any of it.

And even if you chug the solution straight from the watering can, you'd have to drink a huge amount to put more than 0.1% into your bloodstream, which is where it shows even the slightest harmful effect.  That or inject it.   :o

I'd be much more concerned about Bordeaux Mixture, which I see my "organic" lottie neighbours spraying copiously on their spuds.  Copper salts really are harmful.

[Baccy Man]

Here is a couple of links which explain my earlier comments about the harmful effects to people and the environment that it can cause a bit better.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/health-environment/pesticides/glyphosate-fact-sheet.shtml

http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/index.html

[Melbourne12]

Here is a couple of links which explain my earlier comments about the harmful effects to people and the environment that it can cause a bit better.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/health-environment/pesticides/glyphosate-fact-sheet.shtml

http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/index.html

I don't want to go off on one - A4A is such a nice and gentlemanly forum and it would be a shame to introduce a sour note.

But really.  That is such bad science.  Back in the day, I was actually educated as a scientist.  This sort of politicisation and perversion of science makes my blood boil.*

* For the avoidance of doubt, I don't mean this literally.  Please don't add my remark to the "anecdotal evidence"  ::) that Roundup raises the temperature of human blood to boiling point, leading to certain death.

[jennym]

 ;D Melbourne12, how refreshing!

[Robert_Brenchley]

I was educated as a scientist as well. My view is that we should be extremely wary of all these substances, as there's a long history of 'harmless' chemicals proving to be anything but.

[RobinOfTheHood]

I was educated as a scientist as well. My view is that we should be extremely wary of all these substances, as there's a long history of 'harmless' chemicals proving to be anything but.

There is usually a vested interest somewhere.   :(

[Melbourne12]

I was educated as a scientist as well. My view is that we should be extremely wary of all these substances, as there's a long history of 'harmless' chemicals proving to be anything but.

There is usually a vested interest somewhere.   :(

Well of course there's a vested interest!  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

How do you expect any commercial transactions without vested interests?  You wouldn't be able to buy your seeds, or tools, or water your plot, or even rent your plot without "vested interests".

Do you seriously think all these vested interests are well aware that the goods and services that they're selling you are deadly dangerous, but value your life so little that they carry on regardless?

Mind you, just 'cos you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not following you.  :o