What's the fuss about Glyphosate?

Most Australians believe glyphosate (traded under names like Zero and Roundup) to be the ideal weed killer because it is not very poisonous (it only carries a Caution warning) and it does not remain active for very long.  So why would the city of Rotterdam in the Netherlands ban it?



First some basic info to get you up to speed on Roundup:

• Roundup is the name US company Monsanto gave to the herbicide, of which glyphosate is the active ingredient, when it released it in the 1970s.  Now there are many products under different names by different companies that are all glyphosate-based and do the same.  Monsanto's Roundup dominates the market.

• The world has shown an enormous appetite for this herbicide.  In 2007 glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the US agricultural sector, with 84,000 tonnes applied.  It was the second most used in US home gardens where users applied 3,600 tonnes (source Wikipedia - glyphosate). Personally, I never use any herbicides on vegetable beds, but I have used glyphosate to get rid of otherwise indestructible weeds such as twitch.

• I have no Australian statistics, but it is my understanding that most Australian farmers use glyphosate-based herbicides for clear-spraying of paddocks prior to seeding, along fence lines and along tree planting lines.  The reason is simple: it is a very economical way of dealing with weeds on farms where every dollar counts.

• Monsanto has developed genetically engineered crops to make them what they call 'Roundup Ready'.  This means that farmers can spray Roundup while crops are growing.  Weeds will die and the crops will not.  At present 14 GE varieties are awaiting approval for cultivation by the European Union.  Forecasts are that if these crops are approved the use of glyphosate-based herbicides in the EU will increase eightfold (source http://www.nieuws.nl/opmerkelijk/20130613/Vaak-onkruidbestrijder-in-Nederlandse-urine ) .

• Milieudefensie, an organisation funded by the Dutch government, recently found that the urine of five out of eight Dutch people checked for residues of glyphosate, did contain them.  The samples were taken from people who lived in cities and who did not use Roundup themselves.  The organisation advised that vegetables and fruit for sale to the public should be tested for these residues.

So why did the city of Rotterdam decide to stop using glyphosate-based herbicides?  Well, parents became very concerned when they saw Council workers routinely spraying areas where their children play with Roundup.  They started the 'Non-toxic Sidewalks for our Children' petition.  It gained such momentum that the Rotterdam Council agreed to stop using it.  This, in itself, of course, does not tell us why we should avoid it (for more info on this petition see http://www.globalresearch.ca/dutch-city-of-rotterdam-bans-monsantos-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide/5344109 ).

A 2002 review by the European Union reached the conclusion that there is no potential for Roundup to pose a health risk to humans.

In 2007 Monsanto was convicted in France for false advertising of Roundup as biodegradable and claiming it left the soil clean after use.

After reading more material on the subject, and every time asking myself whether reliable scientific data was provided,  I came across a feature-article in the Huffington Post.

For those who have never heard of the Huffington Post, in 2012 the Huffington Post became the first commercially-run online newspaper to win a Pulitzer Prize.  I believe it to be a newspaper with integrity, very rare these days.  It is for free, because it makes its money from online ads.

After this plug I feel entitled to share with you a small section of their feature-article 'Roundup: Birth-defects caused by world's top-selling weedkiller, scientists say', published on 24 June 2011.  Here we go: 

Farmers in Argentina use Roundup primarily on genetically modified Roundup Ready soy, which covers nearly 50 million acres, or half of the country's cultivated land area.  In 2009 farmers sprayed that acreage with an estimated 200 million liters of glyphosate.

The Argentine government helped pull the country out of a recession in the 1990s in part by promoting genetically engineered soy.  Though it was something of a miracle for poor farmers, several years after the first big harvest, residents near where the soy crop grew began reporting health problems, including high rates of birth defects and cancers, as well as the losses of crops and livestock as the herbicide spray drifted across the countryside.

Such reports gained further traction after an Argentine government scientist, Andres Carrasco, conducted a lab study in 2009 on chickens and frogs.  The study found that glyphosate causes malfunctions in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying.  It also found that malformations caused in frog and chicken embryos by Roundup were similar to human birth defects found in regions where genetically modified soy is produced.

Among developmental biologists who are not beholden to the chemical industry or biotechnology industry, there is strong recognition that Carrasco's research is credible.

In 2010 a regional court in Argentina's Santa Fe province banned the spraying of glyphosate and other herbicides near populated areas. A month later the provincial government of Chaco province issued a report on health statistics from the area where GE soy is grown.  The report showed that from 2000 to 2009, following expansion of GE soy and rice crops in the region, the childhood cancer rate tripled and the rate of birth defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire province.

For the complete Huffington Post article see
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html

How is this information relevant to us, food-gardeners?  In two ways I think: 

• It once again encourages us to grow our own food because this does not exactly inspire confidence in mainstream-commercially-produced food.  

• If you have weeds in or around your food garden that you can't get rid of or do not have the energy or strength for to remove manually, then it is worth considering alternatives to herbicides.

 Here are ten suggestions for removing weeds in and around food-gardens without using chemicals:

1. Planting in a way that gives you good access to the ground around plants and then regular weeding with a hoe so small weeds never gain a foothold.
2. Covering the area with weedmat, with holes where your plants will be.  Weedmat can be a very effective weed suppressor.  It is designed to inhibit weed growth, while still allowing water and air flow for healthy soil and plants.  Only works for more permanent plants.
3. Thermal weeding using heat in various forms (radiant, flame, steam, hot water) to kill plant tissue. This technique has been researched and used for weed control for many years, but is generally economically effective only against small seedlings.
4. Applying thick mulch all year round to inhibits weed growth and germination of weed seeds by blocking sunlight and light rainfall from reaching the soil surface.
5. Using old carpet for large areas to smother weeds results in the ground being perfect the following year to plant into as the worms have done all the work turning weeds into soil.
6. Suffocating weeds with layers of newspapers and mulch (see http://www.abc.net.au/gardening/stories/s963151.htm )
7. Paths and other spots where you do not grow grops can be sprayed with vinegar (see http://www.agardenforthehouse.com/2011/06/got-weeds-use-vinegar-not-roundup/).
8. Companion planting and filling the space between vegies with flowers and herbs with foliage that smothers weeds.
9. Allowing weeds to grow while your crop is not affected by them and then completely removing all weeds every time after harvest.
10. Use chickens, ducks and other animals to weed around plants that are not affected by them.

I asked Tara, who is a member of the Food Garden Group and who runs a farm near Richmond, for her comments on a draft of this blog post.  Here is some of what she had to say:

About the health statistics in Santa Fe province, Argentina, Tara commented:
These people probably have not been educated in the proper use of protective clothing.  They are probably using bulk purchased cheaper glyphosate which could contain a mixture of toxic surfactants that are added to chemicals to make them work better.   When washing contaminated clothing together with clothing of other family members, it spreads to them.  Spray drift that you hardly notice can also have a chronic toxic effect.  This is true for many agricultural chemicals.  I am not saying 'don't use them', but rather consider the need to use them.  Use a good quality formulation and make sure you use proper protective clothing.  Children playing on play equipment that has received spray drift can also be exposed, not necessarily to high amounts, but rather to continual low doses. Growing your own food means you personally control how much of these chemicals enter your body.

About suggested methods for removing weeds without using chemicals Tara commented:
In the last three years I have pretty much stopped all spraying around our house and gardens (we still use some sprays for our crops).  The difference is astonishing.  I use animals (chickens, geese, ducks) to eat pests and weeds and I mulch a lot with old hay and tree clippings, manure etc. and now we have fewer problem weeds, heaps of worms and the garden is growing much better because all the micro-organisms are not being 'challenged' by chemicals all the time. 

Thanks for your comments, Tara !

The more aware we are of what is out there, the better we can look after ourselves.

Happy food-gardening !