Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
it seems glyphosphate might be history quite soon
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Author 
 Message
Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3043
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 16 8:22 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote    

Mistress Rose wrote:
This was something that has always concerned me about developing Roundup resistant strains. You get crosses with other similar plants and suddenly all your weeds are resistant too.
...except Monsanto's business model was to make their strains infertile, so the farmer has to buy new seed every year

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 16 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Shane wrote:
Mistress Rose wrote:
This was something that has always concerned me about developing Roundup resistant strains. You get crosses with other similar plants and suddenly all your weeds are resistant too.
...except Monsanto's business model was to make their strains infertile, so the farmer has to buy new seed every year


They make it illegal to grow, not infertile. And plants care nothing for threats of litigation.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 33026
Location: yes
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 16 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

on a slight tangent their gm boll weevil resistant cotton sets seed and cross fertilises with local strains hence the legal actions against indian peasant farmers for retaining seed.it turned out that M had a flawed case but not before a lot of folk were driven to bankruptcy/suicide.

iirc monsanto's case was flawed in that they didnt have a patent on the f1 retained seed.

back to the plot there are other ways to grow stuff than the glyphosphate method and other ways to eradicate invasive pest species (some less sound than others but less rough on the wider environment)

Last edited by dpack on Sun May 22, 16 8:27 pm; edited 1 time in total

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8405
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 16 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Green Party MEPs peed off with glyphosate test results.
Quote:
12th May 2016

Green MEPs have today received test results confirming the presence of unsafe levels of the ‘probably carcinogenic’ weedkiller glyphosate in their urine.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide. However, glyphosate does more than just kill weeds. In fact, the World Health organisation confirmed last year that the substance is “probably carcinogenic” to humans.

Jean Lambert, MEP for London, Keith Taylor, MEP for the South East, and Molly Scott Cato, MEP for the South West, were among a group of 48 MEPs that took part in a symbolic urine test ahead of the European Parliament vote last month to oppose the EU Commission’s proposal to relicense the controversial toxic substance until 2031.

The inspiration behind what was labelled the #MEPee test was the results of a recent study in Germany which found that 99.6% of people tested were found to have glyphosate residue in their urine.

The results reveal that every MEP tested has been found to have glyphosate traces in their urine, with the average concentration being 1.73ng/ml. That level is more than 17 times the safe limit for drinking water. The lowest level found among the group was 0.17ng/ml, almost double the safe level.

buzzy



Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 3136
Location: In a small wood on the edge of the Huntingdonshire Wolds
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 16 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Tavascarow wrote:
Green Party MEPs peed off with glyphosate test results.
Quote:
12th May 2016

Green MEPs have today received test results confirming the presence of unsafe levels of the ‘probably carcinogenic’ weedkiller glyphosate in their urine.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide. However, glyphosate does more than just kill weeds. In fact, the World Health organisation confirmed last year that the substance is “probably carcinogenic” to humans.

Jean Lambert, MEP for London, Keith Taylor, MEP for the South East, and Molly Scott Cato, MEP for the South West, were among a group of 48 MEPs that took part in a symbolic urine test ahead of the European Parliament vote last month to oppose the EU Commission’s proposal to relicense the controversial toxic substance until 2031.

The inspiration behind what was labelled the #MEPee test was the results of a recent study in Germany which found that 99.6% of people tested were found to have glyphosate residue in their urine.

The results reveal that every MEP tested has been found to have glyphosate traces in their urine, with the average concentration being 1.73ng/ml. That level is more than 17 times the safe limit for drinking water. The lowest level found among the group was 0.17ng/ml, almost double the safe level.


So does that mean that MEPs are dangerously toxic?

How does anyone who doesn't use Glyphosate accumulate such quantities?

Does it mean that people are accumulating Glyphosate, or accumulating Glyphosate residues (whatever they are)?

Are Glyphosate residues as toxic as Glyphosate is alleged to be?

Henry

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8405
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 16 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

buzzy wrote:


How does anyone who doesn't use Glyphosate accumulate such quantities?

Does it mean that people are accumulating Glyphosate, or accumulating Glyphosate residues (whatever they are)?

Are Glyphosate residues as toxic as Glyphosate is alleged to be?

Henry

I've always assumed it's from food residues.
For years we where led to believe Glyphosate broke down rapidly when in contact with soil but that's a myth.
So it's been leaching into groundwater for decades.
I think UK farmers have stopped using it as a desiccant on cereal crops but a lot of the cereals used in the UK are imported.
How dangerous is debatable.
My primary concerns are how much damage it's doing to the environment not human health.
Although with cancer rates rising worldwide we should be questioning (IMHO) if the sum total of modern food production isn't playing a part in that rise.

Slim



Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 4734
Location: New England (In the US of A)
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 16 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I'm all for organic management practices, but more so I'm for best practices.

While I'd like to see A LOT less glyphosate usage, banning it is a bit overkill

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/glyphosate-toxicity-looking-past-the-hyperbole-and-sorting-through-the-facts-by-credible-hulk/

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 16 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Slim wrote:
I'm all for organic management practices, but more so I'm for best practices.

While I'd like to see A LOT less glyphosate usage, banning it is a bit overkill

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/glyphosate-toxicity-looking-past-the-hyperbole-and-sorting-through-the-facts-by-credible-hulk/


Me too. We've managed 20 years without it...

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8405
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 16 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Slim wrote:
I'm all for organic management practices, but more so I'm for best practices.

While I'd like to see A LOT less glyphosate usage, banning it is a bit overkill

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/glyphosate-toxicity-looking-past-the-hyperbole-and-sorting-through-the-facts-by-credible-hulk/
Can't argue with that.
There are instances like Mistress Rose said regarding Japanese knotweed where it's about the only remedy.
But as I've said elsewhere a pernicious fast growing weed like that could have value as a feedstock for biofuel/biogas generation on substandard agricultural land.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 33026
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 16 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

that article has a point if folk are objecting on grounds of gross toxicity as measured by ld50 (which has issues such as species variability ,cumulative dose,means of administration ,acute not chronic etc etc ) by ld50 quite a few relatively "harmless" things turn out to be very bad long term

the who have designated it as probable human carcinogen which also has issues such as isolating species variability,gross vs low level effects,finding a glyphosphate free control population for isolating the glyphosphate effect from that of all the other environmental carcinogens etc etc etc .

however if meppee clocks up 17 times the safe(thought to be safe) amount for drinking water there is a strong case for curtailing it's use as a big scale commercial growing tool.
that the manufacturers have stated that it breaks down on soil contact,does not form a residue in food ,does not migrate to water sources etc etc all of which are apparently "incorrect" is hardly a recommendation for anything they say in it's favour.

there may be a case for injecting it into knotweed and similar topical applications but there seems a good case for not adding it to the environment in huge quantities(as there is for many other things).

Last edited by dpack on Mon May 23, 16 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

Jam Lady



Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 1720
Location: New Jersey, USA
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 16 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Bayer has made a bid to buy Monsanto

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 33026
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 16 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

bayer has history that make monsanto look fluffy,the nazi years are but one ugly episode of that history.

edit psemployee of the centuary

edit 2 ppsgood old boys

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 8914

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 16 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

An interesting article Slim. Thanks for posting. I agree that it should be used for specific problems, not as a general herbicide, but again, as it says in the article, the alternatives can be a lot worse.

Nick



Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 33696
Location: Hereford
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 16 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Glyphosphate is a possible carcinogen (same class as wood smoke and red meat).
Alcohol is a definite carcinogen.

I've no idea of the funding for this guy, but an interesting take for the non knee jerk reactionary.

https://thechronicleflask.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/whats-all-the-fuss-about-glyphosate/

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 16 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Nick wrote:
Glyphosphate is a possible carcinogen (same class as wood smoke and red meat).
Alcohol is a definite carcinogen.

I've no idea of the funding for this guy, but an interesting take for the non knee jerk reactionary.

https://thechronicleflask.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/whats-all-the-fuss-about-glyphosate/


He's rather fond of wikipedia.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com

<-- -->