Viewpoint
The most dangerous thing about glyphosate is the van that delivers it ...
Highly respected agricultural agronomist, broadcaster and columnist, Sean Sparling, has written a highly critical and hard-hitting blog about the ‘science’ behind the glyphosate debate
I recently filmed a piece on Glyphosate for BBC Countryfile - but when did it become totally acceptable for groups who oppose anything - whether that be glyphosate, GMs, or indeed the general use of agrochemicals or anything else for that matter - to routinely spread spurious information and downright falsehoods in order to achieve their aims?
So began Sean’s article and, even at this early stage, you just knew this was going to be a good read.
He continued: UK food production and indeed world farming would be decimated and unnecessarily compromised if glyphosate were to be removed from use when its re-evaluated in December 2017. It is as vital a tool to agriculture as the farmers themselves and, to put pseudo-scientific and knowingly false claims into the public domain just to create public distrust of what is one of the safest actives we use, is a disgracefully calculated and cynical act.
The overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that glyphosate is not in any way carcinogenic to consumers, it is not mutagenic, it is not an endocrine disrupting agent - the overwhelming mountain of independent scientific assessments and reports from world renowned bodies, such as the EFSA, have proved that over and over again - but apparently all you need to do to get an active ingredient banned - no matter how safe - is simply put an unqualified rumour into the public arena and that undoes, undermines and negates all of the years of science and fact!
If the reason certain groups are demonising glyphosate is to help the drive to prevent GM crop technology from developing in the future - “no glyphosate no GM” being their logic - then these groups should consider a few things in the meantime.
Glyphosate is being demonised as a “toxic” compound. The EPA classifies herbicides for acute toxicity in four categories where “I” is the most toxic and “IV” is the
12 I PC AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2016
least toxic. Glyphosate is rated as an EPA Category IV for acute oral toxicity based on tests conducted on rats - that’s pretty much as safe as it gets.
The results from other extensive, chronic toxicology tests recently resulted in an EPA classification of glyphosate as a “Category E” herbicide, or “evidence of non- carcinogenicity for humans,” the most favourable rating possible that can be granted.
Glyphosate is being quoted as being “carcinogenic to humans” because, apparently, that statement was contained in “a report”. The actual context of the reference in that report, was that “glyphosate could be perceived as being carcinogenic to spray operators who are over exposed to it, but this risk is minimised by the routine and statutory use of protective equipment which reduces operator exposure to negligible levels”. So, poetic licence from taking a comment out of context which is, at best, very misleading.
Such accusations need to be proven by independent bodies with no hidden agenda and no ulterior motive, otherwise anyone can say anything about anything, then before you know it, it’s the bloody Salem witch trials all over again.
Great headlines were made from the fact that glyphosate turned up at a minutely trace level in a Euro MP’s urine. Firstly, that shows that someone other than me is taking the p*ss out of Euro MPs; secondly, and most importantly, it shows that the human body is doing its job and removes anything remotely “waste” as far as it’s concerned; thirdly, the levels of arsenic, cyanide, aluminium, lead, mercury, cadmium and selenium in the same urine sample, were most likely thousands of times greater than the glyphosate levels - but it wasn’t deemed necessary to include that fact in the headlines, because they’re not trying to get these elements banned.
The fact it’s in there is irrelevant, as Paracelsus (the father of
toxicology) said; “it’s the dose that makes the toxin”. Indeed, there’s enough fluoride in 23 tubes of toothpaste to kill us, enough caffeine in 15 cans of Redbull to kill us, 6 litres of water in one go will kill us - it’s the dose that’s key, not the presence.
“Glyphosate contaminates the soil” is yet another spurious claim. The fact is that glyphosate quickly breaks down in the soil (within 40 days or so) into inert compounds such as carbon dioxide, water and other compounds that actually nourish some soil organisms and, what doesn’t break down just locks firmly onto soil particles and deactivates.
FACT - No one has ever died as a result of the correct use of any pesticide ... ever. Yet, every year, thousands of people die from eating wild berries and leaves - 4kg of spinach or rhubarb has enough naturally occurring toxin in it to be lethal to an average adult.
There are more toxins and carcinogenic compounds in one cup of coffee, a few glasses of wine, or a few pints of beer than there are in all the pesticide residues you ingest from your food over an entire year - perspective strikes again.
On the same scale of “dangerousness” from the IACR and WHO, which is demonising glyphosate, glyphosate ranks at the same risk level as eating red meat, eating apples - in fact eating all fruit - hairdresser products, emissions from frying foods, smoke from wood burning and, perhaps most worryingly,- working a night shift!
It is also worth noting that, when glyphosate is “shown” to be toxic or dangerous to non plant organisms in these “scientific studies” carried out by its opponents, invariably it is only when huge doses are injected directly into the subjects - this is not representative of how it is used in practice. To put that into context, you can take two paracetamol four times a day for headaches with no ill effects. But, if you were to take 1,000
paracetamol four times a day, it would kill you. This is not justification for banning paracetamol.
To summarise, risk and hazard are two very different things. Virtually all agrochemicals are hazardous, but we lessen the danger by understanding them, respecting and abiding by statutory regulations and directions, and by mitigating the risk. The best analogy of this is a roller skate on the stairs. The roller skate is the hazard, the chances of standing on it is the risk. What you do, is you make sure you know where the roller skate is and you take measures to avoid standing on it. What you don’t do is ban roller skates!
The take home message is that glyphosate is not the monumentally dangerous herbicide that its opponents have hyped it up to be. When the proper application procedures are practised by applicators and usage on food crops are kept within the regulatory parameters, it is almost totally innocuous, particularly when compared to many of its more toxic alternatives, many of which were phased out in conjunction with the rise in glyphosate’s popularity.
This constant drip drip drip of pseudoscience, lies and misinformation into the unsuspecting and trusting public domain must be stopped and, possibly more importantly, must be shown up for the calculated and cynical means to a dubious end that it really is, because the most dangerous thing about glyphosate in my opinion, is the van that delivers it!
To read the full article, including many agricultural references, visit Sean Sparling’s twitter page, search for “Sean Sparling Glyphosate’ or follow this link -
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/m ost-dangerous-thing-glyphosate- van-delivers-sean-sparling
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156