Dangerous herbicides being sprayed around Southwark

[cjohnson66]

I recently attended an event in Hackney to raise awareness about the use of the herbicide glyphosate in parks and on hard surfaces. Currently approved as safe in the UK (but to be banned in the Netherlands and Sri Lanka from 2015) it's the active ingredient in the Monsanto weed-killer Round-Up and the most commonly used herbicide on the planet. It has been linked to a number of medical conditions including Parkinson's disease, breast cancer and birth defects - young children and women in the early stages of pregnancy are apparently particularly susceptible to the effects of glyphosate.

Here's an article with links to the science:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2379278/glyphosate_is_a_disaster_for_human_health.html

It took me three weeks(!) and a host of confusing and defensive responses from Southwark council to ascertain whether or not they currently spray with glyphosate. Here's the eventual response:

"Whilst Southwark Council appreciates your concerns, Glyphosate is an approved herbicide and I?m afraid unless it is banned we will continue to use it."

The problem, as has been observed before with a number of once-approved pesticides and herbicides (most recently the once widely-used neonicotionoid pesticides just last year), is that the testing and approval process for such chemicals is woefully inadequate. Given such precedents, surely a precautionary approach should be adopted with regards to the use of glyphosate? There are many more safe and cost effective methods to deal with unwanted plants (though personally, I don't see why this necessary at all - Paris, for example is a pesticide-free city).

If you're similarly concerned, you can get in touch with local councillors here -

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=WARD&VW=LIST&PIC=0

I have written to James Barber and am awaiting a response. Updates to follow.

[EDmummy]

Do you have any information from Southwark on concentration levels and does any of the research include lengths of exposure?

[cjohnson66]

EDmummy - all the most relevant studies and their summaries can be found in this article:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2379278/glyphosate_is_a_disaster_for_human_health.html

This study is also alarming:

http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf

I don't claim to be an expert on this by any means. My concern is the apparent lack of expertise and information on the effects of this chemical. Until we know that it is absolutely safe (the burden of proof for this should lie with the manufacturers in the absence of scientific consensus), it seems sensible to restrict its use. Or we run the risk of exposing ourselves to substances which have unknown effects, perhaps 20 years down the line. As was seen with DDT and more recently, endosulfan. These chemicals are permitted until the weight of evidence against them is stacked high enough - which seems like a hugely irresponsible system to me.

[Penguin68]

Until we know that it is absolutely safe

It isn't. Nothing is. Relative safety is the real issue here. People can die of drinking too much water. Should we complain if that is being provided to every house?

How the glysophosates are being delivered (e.g. are there rules in Southwark about there use in windy conditions) in what concentrations and where (close to or well away from play areas etc.) are important. But to require their non-use until they can be proven to be harmless under all circumstances (which cannnot happen) is senseless whilst they are still legal for use in this country.

[cjohnson66]

Penguin68 - 'People can die of drinking too much water'. This really has no bearing on the topic at all, it's a straw man response.

As I've mentioned, very alarming examples of pesticides being used extensively then retrospectively deemed extremely damaging have been observed a number of times in the very recent past. So I don't think it's unreasonable to stop spraying this stuff in public parks for example. Where people eat picnics and children play on the ground. Do you?

'To require their non-use until they can be proven to be harmless under all circumstances (which cannot happen) is senseless whilst they are still legal for use in this country.' Ok, under ALL circumstances may be a tall order. But beyond reasonable doubt I think is a fair expectation. The research is inadequate and much of what has been found is very concerning. A cursory online search will bring up a number of pretty worrying studies. Why risk it? Are weed-free parks and pavements worth the chance?

[i*Rate]

cjohnson66,

I have raised the issue of the latest use of spraying weedkillers on our street with Southwark - about a month ago. Haven't had a response on the subject so far and still chasing them for one. Very glad to have all above info' on the subject; very useful to know.

Cheers.

[Sue]

I am also concerned about this issue.

So far as I am aware there are also no notices put up to the effect that spraying has taken place, nor are residents warned in advance that it will take place.

My five year old granddaughter and I sowed seeds around a tree pit outside my house, and - ironically - put up a notice asking Southwark not to spray the pit as seeds were sown there.

Some days later, I noticed weeds (well actually they are wild flowers, many of which are quite pretty) dying along the edges of the pavement, and realised that actually they had been sprayed before we had sowed the seeds.

I am now quite concerned that my granddaughter may have come into direct contact with glyphosate on the soil*. Just hoping that I got her to wash her hands before she ate anything :( (yes of course I should have done anyway, but can't remember if I did).

If Southwark are going to continue to use this chemical then the least they can do is to inform residents of what is being used, where and when.

ETA: But mainly on the weeds which we pulled out of the pit before planting the seeds :(

[Loz]

I use Roundup for a path weeder/clearer. Damn good stuff. Available at all garden centres. And Sainsburys too, I think.

[cjohnson66]

Loz - yes it's very effective. Also potentially very damaging.

[EDmummy]

Hmmm http://www.dcscience.net/?p=129

[cjohnson66]

EDmummy - doesn't look credible I agree. But certainly not the only source of research on glyphosate, much of which is very worrying. This is my concern - the research is apparently inconclusive and a satisfactory consensus is yet to be reached. In the absence of this, the precautionary principle should be adopted to mitigate against the possibility of causing environmental damage and harm to humans. The strongest argument for this, as I've said above, is the precedent set by other chemicals which have been used extensively and subsequently banned. This happened as recently as 2012 with the highly lethal pesticide endosulfan and in 2013 with neonicotinoids (which have been linked to colony collapse disorder in bee populations). I just don't trust the regulatory bodies to protect people against these things.

[EDjules]

as a side note and slightly off topic but the OP did say "There are many more safe and cost effective methods to deal with unwanted plants! ...can people please post the alternatives for pesticides? ive been using vinegar / salt / lemon juice depending on the area (salt not on the lawn obviously) but would love to know some other effective alternatives.

[Sue]

EDjules Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> as a side note and slightly off topic but the OP

> did say "There are many more safe and cost

> effective methods to deal with unwanted plants!

> ...can people please post the alternatives for

> pesticides? ive been using vinegar / salt / lemon

> juice depending on the area (salt not on the lawn

> obviously) but would love to know some other

> effective alternatives.

xxxxxxxx

Aphids - dilute mix of washing-up liquid and water.

Slugs and snails - sharp grit placed around the plants most likely to be attacked. But I'm afraid I use slug pellets.

Lily beetles (very beautiful) and similar - pick them off and kill them how you wish :(

[DaveR]

"I recently attended an event in Hackney to raise awareness...."

That's your problem, right there. Attending awareness-raising events in Hackney has been scientifically proven to be seriously damaging to the critical faculties. The most common symptom is for people with no scientific knowledge at all to google research papers and then start making confident assertions about "the absence of scientific consensus" and "the precautionary principle". The cure (happily enough) is to chill out, for example by watching a lot of football on tv, preferably whilst having a few beers.

[cjohnson66]

DaveR - agreed, let's just ignore all this nonsense - Monsanto have our best interests at heart and probably wouldn't opt for profit over the welfare of people and the environment right? Best just to ignore it and hope that the The Chemicals Regulation Directorate will protect people against this stuff. They've completely failed in the past but there's a first time for everything!

Are enjoying football and beers and giving a shit mutually exclusive?!

[Loz]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Aphids - dilute mix of washing-up liquid and water.

Have to agree with this - works a treat. Apparently it works by blocking their breathing holes, so you basically suffocate them to death, so the foie gras veggies might get on your case. ;)

> Slugs and snails - sharp grit placed around the plants most likely to be attacked. But I'm afraid

> I use slug pellets.

Or use the more traditional method of 'chucking them two doors down the road'.

[Sue]

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

>

> > Slugs and snails - sharp grit placed around the

> plants most likely to be attacked. But I'm afraid

> > I use slug pellets.

xxxxxxx

Loz Wrote:

> Or use the more traditional method of 'chucking

> them two doors down the road'.

xxxxxxx

:))

They have a homing instinct. They come back. Very very slowly :)

[DaveR]

"DaveR - agreed, let's just ignore all this nonsense - Monsanto have our best interests at heart and probably wouldn't opt for profit over the welfare of people and the environment right? Best just to ignore it and hope that the The Chemicals Regulation Directorate will protect people against this stuff. They've completely failed in the past but there's a first time for everything!

Are enjoying football and beers and giving a shit mutually exclusive?!"

Science amateur + big company conspiracy theorist + recent expert on regulators = "giving a shit"

Edited to add:

I took a short time off dreaming about football and beers to test my theory that scientific ignorance + access to google is a dangerous combination. Look at this:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-press-release-from-fote-and-gm-freeze-about-glyphosate-in-urine/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

[cjohnson66]

That study looks at concentration in urine. Not the effects of the chemical. Did you google it?

You're missing the point Dave - I am not a scientist, correct, I do not believe that Monsanto care in the slightest whether or not this is dangerous (do you, really?) and I know very little about regulators. My point is that we do not know yet whether this is safe. It's that simple. Do we all have to be professional biologists to be concerned here?

[DaveR]

You're missing the point, c. You go to a meeting in hackney then announced breathlessly to the world (or at least this forum) that there is a terrible problem we should all be worried about, and should all be badgering our local authority about, but guess what? You know nothing about science, and it just so happens that this 'problem' fits neatly with your pre-existing ill-informed prejudices. You appear to think that 'giving a shit' and making a noise is an inherently laudable thing. I disagree.

Edited to add: you obviously know enough about science to dismiss research re concentration in urine as irrelevant. So, professor, what medium of transmission of glyphosate into human cells poses the greatest risk to health?

[cjohnson66]

Still missing the point Dave. It's very simple, I'm not sure how best to rephrase so you can understand - we do not know enough about it to be spraying it in public parks for the sake of aesthetics. The evidence was similarly inconclusive for other once-common chemicals which are now banned. I see this as a worrying precedent which has helped form my 'pre-existing ill-informed prejudices'. I make no claims about this being a laudable 'cause', I am simply urging caution in the absence of evidence. Which seems like the most sensible position to me. I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating here - don't you think that further examination of the effects of this chemical would be a good idea? You're insistence that I am unqualified to be concerned as I'm not a professional scientist is just ridiculous.

[Penguin68]

For those who do not understand risk, or wish things to be 'absolutely' safe, there will never be enough knowledge. As I have said before, care about how it is used (not near water courses or springs, not in high winds, not near children's play areas (or if necessarily near, then these areas cordoned off until after rain or a given period)) may be necessary on the precautionary principle), but calls for blanket bans on a legal chemical are unhelpful.

Many authorities now greatly regret the 1950's bans on global use of DDT - which almost certainly have led to very many infant and adult deaths from malaria.

There are numbers of weeds which are not just (or even) unsightly but are either poisonous (to people or livestock) or invasive and damaging to native species. Their removal is not a matter for aesthetics.

And much of the pleasures we get from public spaces rely on their effective management.