I turned this down because I personally advocate for organic agriculture whenever possible and I’m not educated on this chemical. 🧪 Was I right by saying “absolutely not” or is this actually something that we need to educate people about
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I listened to a presentation on it at a public health school a year or two ago, it is pretty clearly linked with lymphoma and some other cancers.
I will see if I can find notes or who gave the talk so you can contact them or look up their work if you want.
I work at an elementary school & I know they have to post notices all over campus, warning us if it will be/hasbeen used. I also know its use on campus has declined sharply in the past few years, with maintenance crews just pulling weeds or using weed whackers instead. Dunno, feels significant?
When exploring this topic, I urge thinking more broadly than just ‘is x safe for humans’ or ’modern ag depends on it’. Removal of ‘weeds’ has devastated habitat for many other parts of the food web, not just high-profile species like monarch butterflies. We need better One Health solutions!
Migrant farmer workers frequently complain that they're NOT given PPE when various pesticides/herbicides/whatever are being used on crops. So, "if used properly/or proper PPE is used, there's no danger" might be true, but it doesn't address the experience of those who have to work with the stuff.
For the similarly behind-the-times lurkers like me: this is roundup 😬. Sooooo it’s complicated/actively disputed, AFAIK. Interested to see if any Bluesky experts are around!
My impression from watching this debate for many years is that it is a relatively safe chemical which in many cases enables relatively environmentally-friendly agriculture (eg zero tillage). There is a lot of negative emotion around it which often seems to ignore the science.
"Relatively safe"
"Relatively environmentally friendly"
Relative to what?
Sugar?
Cyanide?
"In many cases"
What about the other cases?
Your vague and woolly comment is exactly the sort that encourages "negative emotions".
Sure. I’m not into making absolute statements - pretending I know absolutely. However, I am happy to give you my considered opinion that the positives of glyphosate seem to outweigh the negatives. I also won’t deride your response.
The positives to farmers and the negatives to dead farm workers?
I'm being facetious, obviously, but it does illustrate how a vague and woolly answer could mean just about anything.
Do you have an interest you should be declaring?
I don't; I'm simply curious.
Oh, and it ain't derision if it's true.
As an organic gardener, I actually think people get way too upset about glyphosate as an herbicide. But when you learn about Roundup Ready crops and how farmers get trapped buying patented seeds or get sued by Bayer when their non-GMO seed crops get crossed with them? Probably a good call.
The clearing of land for farmland is the biggest cause of biodiversity loss, and organic food requires more land on average. It is a problem not a solution
What I'm hearing is that it is linked to a whole host of gastrointestinal disorders. The EU has restrictions on glyphosate for good reason. Germany, Austria and Mexico banned glyphosate and 8 of 10 provinces have banned it in Canada.
Uh, is this from glyphosate-using industry?
So we banned (versions of it) here (EU) tho other versions are still perfectly available (off-the-shelf Roundup and whatnot). People in my country don't always know what's exactly banned or not, but generally have a dim view which perhaps is not correct?
There are certainly a nice list of studies showing various bad things including lowered fertility in us animals, but if someone asked me "what do you think of glyphosate?" I'd start with "I heard it sucks yet is popular" and then want to know more.
Comments
I will see if I can find notes or who gave the talk so you can contact them or look up their work if you want.
"Relatively environmentally friendly"
Relative to what?
Sugar?
Cyanide?
"In many cases"
What about the other cases?
Your vague and woolly comment is exactly the sort that encourages "negative emotions".
I'm being facetious, obviously, but it does illustrate how a vague and woolly answer could mean just about anything.
Do you have an interest you should be declaring?
I don't; I'm simply curious.
Oh, and it ain't derision if it's true.
So we banned (versions of it) here (EU) tho other versions are still perfectly available (off-the-shelf Roundup and whatnot). People in my country don't always know what's exactly banned or not, but generally have a dim view which perhaps is not correct?
Feels like I can't avoid it as a consumer.