Another article regarding glyphosate.
they don’t indicate the causal effect. As glyphosate is a salt, and salts are one way to kill microbes…if the effect is from being a salt rather than the chemical itself.
It might be worth asking the broader question. Most herbicides present as salts or breakdown into salts. Is the observation universal to all herbicides?
The study does not consider other causes of insect population variation/declines, including climate effects or the high usage of insecticides with cropping.
If there is a supported and reasoned argument based on the study to reduce glyphosate use, it suggests all chemicals need to be banned from agriculture. A more useful assessment would be a comparison between natural forest area key insect populations and similar vegetation environments that has had regular exposure to chemical salts. Personal observation is that the recent decline or dip has been across all local areas.
May I suggest that the category of salts is too broad to be useful as the basis of any kind of evaluation of microbial toxicity whether it involves herbicides or not.
Many complex organic compounds are employed because they are biologically active. This applies to biocides, drugs and other categories of function. They are frequently deployed in the form of a salt because that makes them more soluble in water. This may be advantageous for handling and dispersion or facilitating absorption by the target organism.
However it is the major molecule that provides the basis of the activity not the fact that the substances is sold or dispensed in the form of a salt. Once absorbed the substance may revert to its original state depending on the conditions in the tissue where it is.
There are simple salts (such as table salt) that do not have a complex organic molecule component. Their properties have little in common with the complex ones for several reasons including that the action of both categories are so diverse.
Without doing any research (and since the linked article was short on details of the mechanism of the problem) I think if it can be shown glyphosate does act as stated it will be because of the biological activity of the main part of the compound not because it is handled in the form of a salt.
2 Likes
Who would know without adequate independent research undertaken. As the last few posts have highlighted, it isn’t as simple as pointing the finger at the chemical compound of glyphosate…there could be other factors in play.
Salts are a proven killer of microbes (bacteria, fungi etc) and has been used for centuries for such purpose - this is why it is used as a preservative. Applying a chemical salt to microbes and then blaming the chemical without any research is potentially stabbing the dark. They could ultimately be right, but one shouldn’t point the finger unless one as sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims.
In many countries it is due to high use of insecticides to control crop and human pathogens (mosquitoes, flies etc). With broad range development and long distances between natural areas which can provide habitat for insects, the insect population as distance increases from natural areas, declines. The same relationship applies for other animals/wildlife, especially where the wildlife can’t adapted to the modified landform.
You have said, @syncretic, what I was planning to say. Nice one. Salts are indeed a very broad chemical class.
1 Like
You have and it makes sense when
Noting, Glyphosate works by inhibiting the action of a plant enzyme that plays a role in the synthesis of three amino acids named phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan.
I’m not into biology. It’s a revealing link between insects, bacteria and glyphosate, if it can be substantiated through further studies.
The study shows that glyphosate has the potential to harm insects indirectly by targeting their bacterial partners and thus to contribute to their decline.
There are countless species of bacteria in the environment. Who knows which ones might be susceptible to any of the herbicides, or the value of each bacteria form to the environment. The herbicides I’m most familiar with the use of all act in some way to disrupt the chemistry of common plants. Glyphosate is the only herbicide chemical in Group M - Inhibitors of 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3 phosphate (EPSP) synthase. There’s more than 50 Herbicide chemicals recognised for use in Australia. A list of some of those more common (approx 40) and the Groups with modes of biological action. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/biosecurity/weeds/weed-control/herbicides/herbicide-resistance
3 Likes
Another herbicide, Paraquat is widely used in agriculture as an alternative to glyphosate. It’s unlikely to be directly encountered by urban dwellers. It’s revealing in other ways.
The long article provided by a The Guardian characterises it’s evolution from first production to current day over 7 decades.
The references to positive marketing strategies promoting the products use as ‘ protecting land for future generations’ may conflict for those with differing views on the value of biodiversity.
A Syngenta “regulatory strategy” document from 2003 refers to paraquat as a “‘blockbuster’ product” that must be “vigorously” defended to protect more than $400m in projected annual global sales. Ensuring what Syngenta called its “freedom to sell” paraquat was a top priority, the internal records show.
For a different view on Paraquat and Parkison, it is worth reading this article which reviews 269 publications to determine if there is evidence of a link between Parkinson and Paraquat:
The value from The Guardian published article is the reveal to consumers of the behaviours of several large chemical companies in promoting Paraquat.
Have they behaved ethically in the best interests of the community?
Or is their behaviour against the community and in favour of self interest?
Australian agricultural interests are currently aligned with the views of the USA both permitting the continued use of Paraquat. Elsewhere the collective expert opinion has agreed otherwise. Their concerns are broad of which only one is a possible link to Parkinson’s.
Paraquat was banned in the European Union in 2007 after a court found that regulators did not thoroughly assess safety concerns, including scientific evidence connecting Parkinson’s to paraquat. It is also banned in the UK, although it is manufactured there. The chemical was banned in Switzerland, Syngenta’s home country, in 1989. And it is banned in China, the home base for ChemChina, which purchased Syngenta five years ago.
Paraquat is fatally toxic to humans in very small doses. The EU court indicated that prior approval,
had failed to apply proper procedures and was not properly thorough in its assessments of paraquat’s effects on human and animal health.
EU court reimposes ban on paraquat weedkiller | Reuters
2 Likes
