@Hostafan1, you are very defensive of glyphosate.....I wonder why.
it's a very useful product. Seemples
....that we can all do without.
Right. Except it won't be the case that everyone just stops and goes organic. Farmers etc will move to other options. So you may in fact ban a relatively safe one to push people to other, more dangerous ones.
We have seen exactly that sort of unintended adverse consequence in other areas of poorly thought out regulation.
So if you are worried abot glyphosate my first suggestion is to look hard at what would replace it and compare those, not glyphosate to nothing.
There's also the misunderstanding that organic farming is chemical free - which it isn't. Apart from any drift from non organic farmed areas, there's a tolerance of around 10% [last time I checked] allowed for organic farming of crops. A study is needed - but surely those conducting it should be paying for the entire project, not the public who take part, even if that's just the initial test?
Too much income generated from fags and booze. It'll be interesting to see what happens if [and I stress 'if' ] tobacco gets banned. They're not going to ban bevvy. Prohibition anyone? They can't control the drugs [although alcohol is the worst drug of all ] coming into the country. I hate to think what'll happen if they ban the other two. Can't see that happening any time soon.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
My main objection to glyphosate use is that it is grossly misused. From about the 90s onwards it was used on an increasingly large scale in arable farming. It was not only used to kill weeds pre sowing of arable crops such as wheat, barley and oats, but to kill the crop off prior to harvest, when the crop was nearly ready to harvest. The reasons for this, it was claimed, was that it meant all the crop was ripe/dead at harvest and it saved on drying and storage costs. There were no unripe grains, as would normally be the case. This practice was heavily promoted by the spray selling companies as a sound thing to do and of course it suited Monsanto because it meant they sold far more of their product. BUT it meant that the wheat (and other crops) showed a heavy glyphosate presence; we of course eat the contaminated wheat and are ingesting glyphosate every time we eat a sandwich. A family member who is close to me was a farmer and this is one of the reasons he stopped farming.
Glyphosate has been shown to be carcinogenic. Most at risk are those who handle the chemical regularly through spray application in their work and deaths have occurred and Monsanto has been found liable in a few court cases. More will probably follow.
There have also been links between glyphosate in humans and wheat intolerance, which is on the increase, but more research is needed on this. It may be that the increase in people with wheat intolerance is not that at all but glyphosate poisoning. For this reason and others, the study , Taking the Pi** is important.
Based in Sussex, I garden to encourage as many birds to my garden as possible.
A study is needed - but surely those conducting it should be paying for the entire project, not the public who take part, even if that's just the initial test?
The initial cost puts me off honestly and I think it limits the scope of the survey because anyone on a tight income isn't going to waste that £40. Those people are likely to have a poorer diet and the results of that would be helpful.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
It should be possible to design a study on residual traces in wheat flour. There are countries where it is not used on wheat for human consumption (Denmark is one) It is however used on animal feed wheat and all non organic rape.
I have no problem whatsoever with a field being sprayed to kill weeds before planting. I have a huge issue with the new trend which is to spray the field instead of ploughing it, as that produces less CO2 and is therefore good! Around here I can point out at least 10 fields with that very distinctive orange colour one of which even has tire tracks in the same dead orange leading across the bit of neatly cut verge next to it.
My neighbour only grows fodder maize in the field over the road from me, so no roundup but he does use a broadleafed weedkiller on the maize. The machine shop that does the spraying is good enough that even the weeds in the ditch by his field are not effected.
Posts
Apart from any drift from non organic farmed areas, there's a tolerance of around 10% [last time I checked] allowed for organic farming of crops.
A study is needed - but surely those conducting it should be paying for the entire project, not the public who take part, even if that's just the initial test?
Too much income generated from fags and booze. It'll be interesting to see what happens if [and I stress 'if' ] tobacco gets banned. They're not going to ban bevvy. Prohibition anyone? They can't control the drugs [although alcohol is the worst drug of all ] coming into the country. I hate to think what'll happen if they ban the other two. Can't see that happening any time soon.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
Glyphosate has been shown to be carcinogenic. Most at risk are those who handle the chemical regularly through spray application in their work and deaths have occurred and Monsanto has been found liable in a few court cases. More will probably follow.
There have also been links between glyphosate in humans and wheat intolerance, which is on the increase, but more research is needed on this. It may be that the increase in people with wheat intolerance is not that at all but glyphosate poisoning. For this reason and others, the study , Taking the Pi** is important.