This isn’t really helpful but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Environmental_fate
and follow the citations from there if you want primary sources.
I would have thought it obvious that it does not break down “as soon as it touches the soil” as that would make it rather less useful.
Per your reference it is typically broken down by microbial action in the soil.
A better observation is that Glyphosate based herbicides are not effective once they come in contact with the soil. Glyphosate is also typically mixed with a adjuvant such as a surfactant to aid in penetration of the target plant.
Any overspray that does not fall on the live foliage of the target plant is effectively wasted. The herbicide does not get drawn in through bark or branches. Environmentally it is also best to minimise any excess in the soil, despite the observation it will breakdown.
The mechanism of breakdown and tendency to bind to soil while breaking down means it is ineffective other than on foliage.
Glyphosate is absorbed through foliage, and minimally through roots, and transported to growing points. It inhibits a plant enzyme involved in the synthesis of three aromatic amino acids: tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine. It is therefore effective only on actively growing plants
P.S.
The most effective way to apply glyphosate to many weedy plants is by direct application using stem scraping, stem injection, etc
Bayer is settling some 95,000 Roundup cancer claims cases in the US for some $15.9 billion.
Roundup causes cancer? Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Bayer was just feeling charitable.
Another highly toxic agricultural chemical.
It appears that Paraquat or Gramoxone is much more toxic to humans and animals than glyphosate.
Even China has banned it.
While this may be the case from a toxicology viewpoint, the risks are very low. The article indicates that in Australia the risks are low and deaths rare (a recorded death occurred when the herbicide was accidentally spayed into the mouth of a farmer).
There are many commonly used chemicals in the house or used in say medical field which have equal or higher risks. Singling out one chemical over another may be emotive rather than risk based.
The parents of a boy who drank a Paraquat mixture left in a Coke bottle in the toilets of a sporting venue are calling for the chemical to be banned after he nearly died. Despite widespread education, people are still storing dangerous stuff in unsafe ways and using chemicals in ways the manufacturer strongly advised against.
Our neighbour, a hobby farmer, who doesn’t read labels, was ill for 3 months after he spayed his land, his cattle and himself to the point of saturated and dripping, with a generic of a long available woody weed killer. He worked on the premise that if a teaspoon worked, then a tablespoon must be better and if it killed Wattle is should also selectively kill weed grasses. He was wrong on all counts and didn’t heed the withholding of 6 weeks before grazing or use any PPE or precautions on mixing or application.
He’s now blaming the chemical for his illness and people on Facebook are talking about getting it banned. But you can’t stop people using these products incorrectly and as a hobby farmer he has access to chemicals that are only sold to farmers. Misuse of which gives legitimate farmers a bad name. Our Council is also trying to go “chemical free” by using steam to kill weeds, which is working out slower, more expensive with new dangers of heat & steam close to operators.
There are training courses in safe herbicide and pesticide management that can help to overcome ignorance. Some are sponsored eg by local councils and free. Others by industry and agricultural businesses. I’ve attended one to suit my needs.
Paraquat is not on my list of products to use. It can have adverse impacts on soil fungi, animals and aquatic life. Although it’s easy to see why it is so popular/convenient as an alternative to glyphosate, especially in cropping situations.
I perceive the problem is that chemicals used by people incorrectly (stored in a Coke bottle, used without PPE or against manufacturer’s instructions etc) end up with calls for the chemical to be banned from all use.
It is a Workplace Health & Safety issue - and the Coke bottle incident did get a WHS fine, but the parents are calling for the chemical to be banned Australia wide. The neighbour will never take advantage of education, even Free - heck! he won’t even read the label! Yet calls on Facebook for the chemical to be banned because his misuse, rallies similarly ignorant people.
I practice a low impact - chemical treatment of weeds. I first chip out & remove seed heads, if that is not practical, I spot spray, if not practical I will wipe (and only those weeds). I do not blanket spray. I use beneficial insects and non-weed species to out-compete them. I limit the use of salt based herbicides. I keep meticulous records, have wash-down bays, research anything we might use and clean up and dispose of things carefully. All blown away by “someone” silly enough to put lethal chemicals in a Coke bottle or misuse the product and post on Facebook or go to the Media. In the end, if banned, it forces producers to use a possibly less safe alternative.
I can understand the personal emotions. It’s every caring parents nightmare to lose a child needlessly.
Considering first hand personal experience in the workplace and with the extended family. Motor vehicles have been the number one indiscriminate killer. Sometimes by the hand of the driver, but more often by the hand of a non related driver. The number of near misses is even more frightening.
Putting everything in context is difficult.
I’m not about to suggest lower speed limits in the cities and tougher driver testing. The broader community accepts that there is a level of risk with motor vehicle use. Although we all want safer outcomes, we are not about to ban the car or end the weekend.
I’m prepared to follow any changes to the APVMA approvals. For selective herbicide use we follow the National Landcare and LFW guidelines for rehabilitation. There are some land owners who are zero herbicide. It depends on how much you can take on and what you have to manage. Strategies that minimise the quantities used such as spot use, hand removal where practical and recognising riparian zones are all important.
I’d hope it’s balanced scientific advice that drives any future changes, if any change is indeed necessary.
I must agree. There are a lot of products which are dangerous (which I alluded to in my previous post), especially when not used or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Choice has also raised many such a button batteries and has been careful not to push for bans, but to ensure that those who can’t handle the product safely are forced to do so through additional control measures (a bit like mandatory PPE).
Unfortunately agricultural chemicals are seen as being evil (which is possibly the reason for this thread and recent discussions about glyphosate) and there are some in the community which believe that the world would be a better place without them. The unfortunate reality is current levels of food production can’t be achieved without chemical inputs (whether for soil, plants or animals) and if society took the approach that all agricultural chemicals should be banned as they are dangerous in some way, it is unlikely that the world would be able to feed the existing population causing widespread famines.
If a user is going to be that irresponsible with ag chemicals the boy could have been poisoned with any one of 20 substances not just paraquat so why focus on that one? You can’t ban them all because one person was criminally negligent.
If it way say petrol or methylated spirits, would the same demand for a ban occur? My guess is no eventhough both can cause death if injested.
Another bad news article regarding pesticides.
The reason is harmonisation. Going to the lowest denominator to help out the manufacturers… nothing is too risky for us when there might be a dollar to be put in a pocket?
Obviously not based on this comment on the proposal:
Matt Landos, a veterinarian and adjunct professor at the University of Sydney, whose specialty is aquatic species, said the panel was prepared to use overseas approvals to gain registration but was not proposing to use foreign bans on pesticides to withdraw them in Australia.
Consumers should also be wary of the proposal to remove household products from regulation by the APVMA. As products are banned in overseas markets Australia becomes the perfect waste disposal opportunity for the wonder products rejected by Europe etc.
Yes harmonisation between testing authorities in different countries. I can see why streamlining as proposed has merit. If say the EU, UK or US has thoroughly reviewed the chemicals in question, and Australian authorities are comfortable with the integrity of this process, then there could be time and cost efficiencies by relying on the review results of overseas testing and approval agencies. As a taxpayer, do we need our own testing and authorities to replicate work done by similar agencies overseas when historically the results from Australia and overseas is similar…I would say no, as long as the intregity of overseaa processes are maintained and from time to time an application for registration is fully assessed as some sort of second party review if the overseas information.
Replicating work is a slightly different aspect than analysing the data and erring on the side of caution, or on the side of profits, or as rare as it sometimes seems a reasonable balance.
I’ll use the analogy (take it or leave it) of no spare tyre needed in Australia because no spare tyre is needed in the EU. Different population densities and different road networks, yet they must be all the same since someone somewhere had a look and made a decision based on their own local situations - excepting us (and probably a few others)?
A has been posted by myself, Australia seems a dumping ground for lots of products beyond their use-by dates, be it the technology or increasingly safety aspects. Even when we have ‘standards’ they are often voluntary and there is no law prohibiting sales in many product categories that do not meet them.
An article regarding the use of neonicotinoids in Australia.
Great to see that Bunnings have acted proactively.
An unexpected side effect:
Of course, herbicides are not alone:
