PITCHCARE CLASSIFIEDS GLYPHOSATE
Setting the record straight Comment from the industry
“Glyphosate more than ever has a huge role to play in controlling the cost of weed control. With the unquestionable scientific data that exists worldwide from respected bodies with regard to the products safety case, to lose such an important active ingredient as a consequence of political pressure in the near future would be a remarkably poor decision.”
Ian Graham, Complete Weed Control.
Mark explains that, in 2015, a research group called IARC, linked to the World Health Organisation (WHO), published a paper stating that they thought glyphosate was ‘probably carcinogenic’ and this kicked off the controversy.
“However, since 2015, many government regulators have looked carefully at what this research group said, as well as all the other available evidence, and concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.”
There’s no doubt that there has been controversy around glyphosate, and its use in the public sector. However, the active ingredient has been around for over forty years and is a very valuable tool for contractors and groundskeepers to control weeds in public spaces
Pitchcare talked to Mark Buckingham, Communications and Government relations manager at Bayer, to set the record straight on glyphosate and give you the hard facts to help make informed decisions on weed control.
Is glyphosate safe?
“All chemical pesticides go through a rigorous registration and testing process which they must pass before they are available for use,” says Mark.
“The regulatory process for each chemical product involves a careful scientific assessment of the evidence around the product and this is carried out by independent scientists who are funded by the government.”
“Their job is to act as independent safety guardians for the public, not supporters of the chemical industry. They exist to properly understand the safety of the active for operators, bystanders and non-targets in the environment,” he adds.
“Because glyphosate - the chemical active found in Roundup branded products - has been around since 1974, it’s been extensively tested, often with studies being repeated several times. For example, there has been more than 800 scientific studies and reviews submitted to U.S., European and other regulators in connection with the registration process.”
“Because of this wealth of data, our confidence in what we know about the active is high,” says Mark.
Is glyphosate harming the environment?
Mark explains that to maintain modern life, we need to manage the environment.
146 PC June/July 2020
“It is all about doing it in a way that is as sustainable as possible,” he says.
“Ultimately, this is an important question about the decision to use any weed management tool because, if you decide to manage weeds, every tool has some environmental impacts.”
“The decision comes down to why you are managing these weeds. This may be a safety issue to help maintain a smooth pathway and reduce trip hazards or maintaining sight lines on roadways for transport safety requirements.”
“In this instance, a tool that does this with the minimum of side effects is required and glyphosate is just one of these tools.”
Mark adds that often the alternatives to chemical herbicides can have a bigger and unseen impact to the environment.
“We’re increasingly concerned about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, and mechanical alternatives can increase these. Using an effective herbicide like glyphosate is one of the lowest greenhouse gas emitting weed control methods,” he says.
What would it mean if we lost glyphosate?
“If glyphosate was lost, there would be a significant cost increase to groundskeepers,” says Mark.
“Typically, the costs of larger scale weed control on pathways and in parkland, for example, can be up to ten times more expensive without the use of chemical controls.”
“Add to this that non-chemical methods typically require more visits, so more travelling to and on the site. This would not only increase fuel and labour costs but also increases greenhouse gas emissions.”
Mark adds that, in some situations, such as control of invasive species, we would seriously struggle to keep these at bay without glyphosate.
“For example, giant hogweed and Japanese knotweed would be extremely difficult, or even impossible to effectively control, without the use of glyphosate,” he says.
Why the controversy?
“One of the questions you’re probably thinking is - if it is so safe and cost effective then why the controversy and why am I reading about it everywhere?”
Mark Buckingham joined Bayer in 2018 with their acquisition of Monsanto who he started with in 1999 in the UK. He later worked in a variety of corporate affairs roles at Monsanto’s Headquarters in St Louis, USA and their Australian business in Melbourne before returning to Europe. Mark has a BSc in Agriculture from Reading University UK and is a 1996 Nuffield Farming Scholar.
“It’s important to always review the latest science, and the independent reviews continue to confirm that glyphosate and our glyphosate- based formulated products can be used safely and are not carcinogenic.”
“Bearing this in mind, we can be confident that glyphosate should remain part of an integrated weed control strategy.”
“With the vast investment in herbicide research over many years, it’s rare to find such a combination of effectiveness and safety, so it is worth looking after.”
For more information visit:
http://www.glyphosatelitigationfacts.com/main/
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
