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.

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 - 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?!

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.

Many reasons why bees are in trouble at the moment - check out EJF's site http://ejfoundation.org/bees

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

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?

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.

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.