Is it safe to use glyphosate (Roundup etc) and other chemicals?

This article is particular interesting as it relates to assessment of other ‘innert’ compounds added to roundup and not the gyphosate salt per say. It is argues that POEA causes human cells to suffocate.

It is also interesting that if common household salt is also placed in a petri dish at sufficient concentrations, it will also cause cell mortality through the dehydration of the cells.

While interesting article, not sure what it really means in relation to use compared to dosing a cell culture in a laboratory so it has direct contact with the chemical. Wondering if such occurs in the real world?

1 Like

Take a deep breath.

It is no doubt fact that there are risks in using, handling or having just about every chemical substance known to mankind.

We use simple chemicals around the house every day. Natural gas, ammonia cleaners, hydrogen peroxide, acids such as vinegar which we not only consume but also effectively strips dirt and oxide filters from copper.

We even allow people to fly in planes knowing that there is a reasonable probability that sometimes they can fly too close to the ground (crash).

We have not put a prohibition on any of these things, even when we know there are risks to others fro there use. We have not banned aircraft travel which is anecdotally safer than driving on our roads. We even help our sometimes uncontrollable teenagers get a license.

We may even get a cancer one day for any number of reasons, including our individual genetic susceptibility and lifestyle factors. Some of us spend too much time in direct sunlight for our fair skin and freckles.

If there is a risk with using a particular product including herbicide that is no different. We know there may be risks. That does not suggest we should stop using any one product.

We have individual choices whether to fly, ride a bicycle, or use any number of products from chainsaws to herbicides.

If we consider all the facts and the number of fatalities arising from the use of any item then would our energy be better spent banning the motor car and air travel and chainsaws and definitely sunshine?

Rational debate aside if anyone desires to now ban glyphosate so be it. The risk is that we may to be consistant also need to ban the automobile and flight. That leaves the horse as an option for transport. Which considering personal family history over the pervious 150 years has caused the death of more direct family relatives than motor vehicles or crocodiles or even wells and kitchen stoves.

I can choose to trust or not trust a big company such as Bayer. I trust the APVMA to respond if necessary re glyphosate. It is a much more difficult choice when it comes to trusting other motorists. I accept those risks despite knowing some of our fellow motorists cannot be relied upon 100% of the time.

That to me is life.

1 Like

I’ll avoid getting in the middle, but IMO quoting a US Congress investigation is perhaps the most ideologically driven, partisan inquisition one could cite in this century! The majority party is mostly anti anything that starts with the words ‘United Nations’ or ‘World [anything]’.

One just need look at everything Jason Chaffetz, the chair and chief instigator, opposed to see where he ‘comes from’.

Not a very good reference as I see it and him.

1 Like

That’s a fair comment but remember that politicians are often puppets for business interests. The comment taken in that light made a point.
In the end research will keep coming. And as occurred in the smoking debate and coal debate the business interests will fund scientists and trolls to shoot down any dissent. That’s how it works. We’ll see if/when the fat lady sings I guess.

There are a significant number of compounds/chemicals/biological agents on the IARC lists.

and those at this stage not known to be carcinogenic:

The American Cancer Society has also compiled a summary of the IARC list as well:

The ‘possible carcinogenic’ list which 'Roundup" is on also includes things like aloe vera, Ginkgo biloba extract, talc-based body powders, potatoes (which contain acrylamide) etc.

‘Possibly carcinogenic’ also means…agents, mixtures and exposure circumstances for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent, mixture or exposure circumstance for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but limited evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from other relevant data may be placed in this group.

In effect means that the substances are not known (proven) not to be carcinogenic and the ‘jury is out’ in relation to whether they are in fact carcinogenic.

2 Likes

To quote from the Scientific American article linked above:

… “if the product is used according to labeled directions, both people’s health and the environment will not be harmed.”

But some inert ingredients have been found to potentially affect human health. Many amplify the effects of active ingredients by helping them penetrate clothing, protective equipment and cell membranes, or by increasing their toxicity.

Every herbicide I know contains dihydrogen monoxide. Perhaps the problem is not glyphosate, but this common additive.

3 Likes

It could be. It kills thousands each year, mostly from full immersion in the compound.

3 Likes

Very insightful!
A little knowledge is dangerous.

I think you jest and misjudge this magic substance.
For some substances without this magic additive some others are highly toxic and can be fatal. Eg if enough Dihydrogen-monoxide is combined with CH3-CH2-OH it enables this diabolical poison to take on more pleasing and aromatic properties such that moderate human ingestion is tolerable.

It may be useful to know some herbicides are designed to be mixed with diesel, while others may come as a dispersable granule. There is no Dihydrogen-monoxide required. Given some hydrocarbon fuels are known carcinogens perhaps this is also another additive to avoid.

2 Likes

One could reasonably assume that Bayer might be starting to regret their takeover of Monsanto.

It looks like Bayer will need more than a few of their aspirins and a good lie down with this headache.

3 posts were split to a new topic: Glyphosate Affect on Bees and Hence Pollination

This could be interesting.

2 Likes

Now the Cancer Council is on the bandwagon again.

There will be a lot of interested persons watching Four Corners tonight.

1 Like

Oh interesting! Thanks for sharing. Keen to hear what they have to say

2 Likes

I haven’t had time to watch the Four Corners report yet, hopefully later this week. What did they have to say, Nemo?

Also, The Conversation’s timely (and peer-reviewed) article on the evidence for and against glyphosate is an interesting, evidence-based read - what we’ve all been asking for. The comments on it’s Facebook post are quite a good insight for some fact-checking and myth-debunking as well :slight_smile:

Remember to always keep an open mind and accept all of the evidence, not just the part that sounds nice. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

The Four Corners report is about as balanced as possible under the circumstances. Monsanto has done what I’ve come to expect of the private sector; push the boundaries of legality. If they haven’t crossed that line, then their behaviour is undoubtedly criminal in character. That is bound to colour public perception and tends to discredit subsequent industry push-back.

All of the “victims” admitted to being outrageously careless; repeatedly ending up soaked in herbicide mixtures. The US case, had it happened in Australia, would probably have led to conviction of the employer. The poor bloke was evidently given no training; the workplace was far from safe.

The IARC no doubt has good reasons for classifying glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. They put it in the same category as red meat (amongst other things). As with all chemicals, glyphosate should be handled with care. As far as I can remember, it’s always carried warning labels. Of course, the marketing encourages complacency.

I agree with one of the comments above. The real problem is water. It causes breathing difficulties, you know. :wink:


All jokes aside, glyphosate is never used alone. At the very least, it’s usually mixed with surfactant. I’ve used it myself, in a mixture with metsulfuron-methyl, to tackle lantana. Health affects through occupational uses should probably be investigated with that in mind.

For anyone who’s terrified of coming into contact with a carcinogen, I have bad news:

1 Like

Not the last word, however some very plain and clear speaking.

The explanation of how the IARC part of the WHO reports and how the Australian Cancer Council assesses the reports is most useful.

So you can end up with two different carcinogens in the same IARC grouping, where one will hugely increase your risk of getting cancer and the other might just shift it by a minuscule percentage, Dr Saunders said.

For example, processed meat — including salami, sausages and bacon — is in Group 1, along with tobacco smoke, plutonium, asbestos and even sunlight (solar radiation).“

For any one interested the article from the ABC explains some of the considerations made by the Cancer Council in how it responds to any new reports.

2 Likes

A sad demise caused by an uneducated public :disappointed_relieved:

2 Likes

Yes, let there be education.

Would you use this product after reading the Safety Data Sheet. Sorry, this only applies to NZ.

Here’s the Aussie advice on the product.
https://m.yates.com.au/products/lawn-care/pest-disease-and-weed-control/yates-weed-n-feed-liquid-hose-on/

The active herbicides in weed and feed are MCPA and diKamba. Both are high risk to acquatic wildlife. Oh and don’t feed any clippings from treated lawn to the chooks!

I still use glyphosate following the APVMA approval and safety precautions. If you added dye marker to it when in use any leakage, over spray or even pickup on clothing is easy to observe and take action to manage. I choose the red version. The same precautions go for MCPA and diKamba. I use the latter selectively. Compared to glyphosate diKamba has a longer residual in the environment and is certainly not suitable for use in any riparian areas or areas likely to flood or water log. I don’t use MCPA, but I understand it is in the same class of herbicides.

The end point here is if increased restrictions on the use of glyphosate came to pass, it is perhaps at the safer end of the herbicide options, what next? Will every home lawn owner take to doing 100% of their weeding on hands and knees in a zero herbicide world? Should hope it’s not all bindis and giant sensitive weed!

2 Likes

This is an important point that most opposed to glyphosate don’t realise. Without glyphosate, one of the safest and most sustainable farming tools we have, farmers will be forced to return to older technology pesticides that are much more toxic to human and planetary health. This is a case of well-intentioned environmentalists causing further destruction to the environment and human populations. It is unfortunate, and the reason why we must keep educating people to make the right decisions :slight_smile:

EDIT: typo

2 Likes