There is only one research reference I can find to glyphosate impacts on bees…https://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10305, but I can find any other papers which have tested the conclusions of this paper. It would be a very brave government to make a policy decision based on one paper. This is especially when the this paper suggests there might be a link but further research is required.
There are some other papers about impacts on nematodes.
I also expect that if a surfactant is used in a glyphosate product, these surfactants have a potential to impact on aquatic biota (filter feeders). As many aquatic insect larvae are filter feeders, there is a high chance that a glyphosate product containing surfactants which enters a waterway may affect the growth and survival of insect larvae.
Brave or informed, it has been announced by Germany. Not a minnow amongst developed nations. Their reasoning is according to ‘The Guardian’ based on the threat to Insects, including bees.
We could argue the decision to infinity and beyond. It does not change the fact of the German decision.
For Australia specifically, with respect to the potential risk vs benefits of glyphosate.
The APVMA is supportive of the continued approval for use of glyphosate.
Although the focus of the research considered by the APVMA has been on potential for effects on humans.
Note:
The APVMA approval as well as local government authorities recognise there are specific risks around the use of glyphosate based products. The use of regular commercial and regular retail formulations is not approved around water ways or within prescribed distances of riparian zones.
The primary risk typically noted is the use of additives, such as surfactants supplied premixed in the commercial Roundup, Zero, and other glyphosate products.
In straight talk they are the products 99% of consumers are familiar with, purchase and use.
Invertebrates breath through their skin/exoskeleton. It’s that simple. Glyphosate and many other herbicides are delivered as salts, which as they break down in the soil do affect soil chemistry. Not all soils are the same. Without knowing what research the German government relied on, it seems reasonable that there is a basis.
Herbicides, insecticides, fungicides (probably all -cides) are commonly used with surfactants. Surfactants are added to water for more effective fire-fighting. If surfactants are a problem, then we need to do some serious risk analysis.
For agricultural use products the APVMA has specific requirements for approval of all adjuvants.
For a broad range of products (chemicals), the risks and benefits have been evaluated. Approval of a product with full consideration and the risks assessed is always conditional.
This topic so far has collected discussion around perceived risks in using glyphosate based herbicide.
Perhaps the discussion also needs to note that minimising risk and harm when using chemicals relies on knowing how to use a product, and understanding and complying with all of the conditions attached to the approvals.
I have used glyphosate for about 40 years while being sensitive to best practice for using any chemical. I have no cancers. Since we don’t know all the reasons why we get cancer, and millions have used glyphosate without getting cancer, I question whether cause and effect has been established on this question.
There are certainly many differing views on the use of herbicides, glyphosate being the current focus.
I’ve used the product in a limited capacity for more than 30 years. It is not the only agricultural chemical spray used for herbicide or pesticide management.
I’m not supporting the banning or continued use of glyphosate products. It is up to the Australian regulator the APVMA to advise if anything needs to change. To date they have not withdrawn approval. That for me answers the question.
P.S.
There are many other chemical compounds we are exposed to on a daily basis. Cancer is common and the causes of many cancers are unclear. Over time the compounds in car exhaust fumes have been shown to cause serious harm to large populations. Fuel formulations have been changed and vehicle pollution controls improved. We are yet to man the internal combustion engine, or sue the Royal Dutch Shell Company in mass.
This can be correct and also that some individuals are more susceptible to cancer when exposed to cancer causing agents. An example is tobacco where there are limited number of individuals who are chain smokers all their lives, live a very long life (90+ years) and are somehow lucky not to have any smoking related cancers. There are others who smoke for a relatively short time but still are cursed with a smoking related cancer. In some respects, the sensitivity or predisposition of individuals to cancer agents may also have an impact.
As many things in the world can or may be a cancer agent. there is a risk that there may be individuals with a predisposition or sensitivity to glyphosate. While a scientific connection is yet to be proven, there is a possibly that such individuals exist somewhere.
As any scientific evidence proving a link currently is lacking, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has categorised glyphosate as a Group 2A compound: Probably carcinogenic to humans. This status may change when more research and information becomes available.
As a qualified horticulturist, I was trained in the safe use of chemicals. Also, my mother taught me how to safely use household chemicals. For example, drain cleaner.
If you use chemicals, many of which are in common use, by not breathing, not allowing on the skin or ingesting, people should be ok.
The sun causes cancer, but sensible protections can prevent this.
P. S. Many who don’t smoke, get lung cancer.
Many who use glyphosate don’t get cancer.
Many of us have professional training in working with hazardous materials or in hazardous environments.
Use of herbicides still needs training relevant to each hazard and a full understanding of the hazards. One often repeated and alleged detail of the litigation that occurred in the USA concerns the level of awareness of the user - claimant of the hazard and risk.
There has been much discussion previously in this topic and opinions offered on the safety of glyphosate products. There are those in the community who use or work with agricultural chemicals, domestic herbicides and pesticides. Best practice includes both training specific to the use of each type of product as well as compliance with all safety requirements.
Is there an opportunity for improvement in Australia? Requiring all purchasers and users to meet a minimum standard of product knowledge and training may be the next step. In the interim, it remains voluntary for all users who do not have demonstrated competencies to seek out suitable training.
P.S.
For those wondering MarkM has completed relevant training through the national Land for Wildlife program. My attitude and approach to working with many herbicide products changed for the better as a consequence.
Another topic but I recall that around 30 years ago it was claimed that Qld was going to require that anyone who wanted to buy and/or use a chainsaw would have to successfully complete a course in the safe use of them.
In this instance the judgement is unrelated to the use of glyphosate. It is also not related to personal health or injury.
The case concerns a different class and type of herbicide Di-Kamba. This is a selective herbicide which is widely use to manage weeds. In residential use it is effective for control of bindis, and a wide range of broadleaf weeds including dandelions. It is also absorbed by woody weeds and trees through foliage. It is not safe to spray on garden plants in general other than a range of common lawn grasses (Broadleaf grasses are also susceptible).
Common lawn product Weed N Feed by Yates contains Di-Kamba and MCPA herbicides.
In the USA example a peach farmer claimed wind drift caused the herbicide to carry over from neighbouring properties and damage his orchard trees.
It is interesting the product manufacturer appears to have been held responsible for something others might consider the responsibility of the herbicide user. Who has the deeper pockets might be a factor. Appeal by Bayer against the judgment pending.
It would be interesting to find out the exposure to PFOA, PFAS etc vs Glyphosate. There are huge amounts of glyphosate used around the world in agriculture and that has been the case for decades. I would not assume Monsanto has the lesser problem.
I would like to see that advice, please provide a source. My understanding is that it has a half life of days or weeks in the soil. Incidentally the paper does not study the issue of the time to breakdown but assumes it as part of their model. I can’t give details of that as it is paywalled.
The ABC article is a very poor piece of journalism, it fails to mention that:
the original paper does not say glyphosate is harmful to health,
the paper labels regions by level of hazard of contamination - this is not the same as level of hazard to ecosystems or living things,
and here is the kicker, the study did not measure the amount of glyphosate at all!
The ABC says “The research found that glyphosate and associated by-products of the chemical were detected in the majority of the globe’s soil.” Bollocks!
The study produced a computer model of the amount of residue in the soil. In the abstract there is no mention of doing anything to actually detect it. They said:
“We have linked our new PEST-CHEMGRIDS global spesticide use database and our BRTSim model to predict glyphosate dynamics over global croplands.”
So here we have a sensational ABC article having its level of silly amplified by uncritical re-reporting. This is how issues like this develop a life of their own, they become an internet pile-on of one misunderstanding on top of another.
