Bayer Works Wonders

[Honky Tonk]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...humans-animals

[coracle]

In spite of the terrible consequences LAWYERS attribute to using “Roundup”, [[and other targets) we are in general living longer than people did before it was available.

People that don’t use it get cancer; and for people that do, there is no way to prove that if they hadn’t used Roundup they wouldn’t have got cancer [[a touch of meuller type thinking creeping in there).

Perhaps the main cause of cancer is living [[but unfortunately lawyers think they deserve to make a living).

[Honky Tonk]

In spite of the terrible consequences LAWYERS attribute to using “Roundup”, [[and other targets) we are in general living longer than people did before it was available.

People that don’t use it get cancer; and for people that do, there is no way to prove that if they hadn’t used Roundup they wouldn’t have got cancer [[a touch of meuller type thinking creeping in there).

Perhaps the main cause of cancer is living [[but unfortunately lawyers think they deserve to make a living).

So I understand your position, just because science has made great strides to stop other life shortening diseases and factors, it's Ok for a corporate conglomerate to introduce and make ka-zillions off of a proven cancer causing agent, that not only gets into today's food chain, but food chains for generations to come? And it's the lawyers fault? All the other scientific testing that was done had nothing to do with it?

[Johnnny5]

I'm not sure if Round Up is really a carcinogen, but if it is there's more trouble ahead than just the potential for cancer. Round Up is an essential tool in modern agriculture and without it costs are going to skyrocket. Without another option many will have to return to manual weed control which involves tilling and soil disruption [[Which means more issues with runoff).

[Canadian Visitor]

Interesting......

I see some different views from some posters than I might expect.

***

As someone who has done management level work in the field of environmental restoration; I have more than one take on this issue.

In general, I have been involved in public education programs that discourage the use of cosmetic pesticide applications [[ie, for keeping your lawn free of dandelions)

All pesticides, be they natural or synthetic have some risk factors associated with them. In general it would be a poor idea to purposefully inhale or otherwise consume them.

To use such a product for a pretty trivial reason, has always seemed a bit dim to me.

In respect of the commercial agriculture level of application, there is much more justification for the use of some forms of pesticide, some of the time.

To completely restrict their use goes beyond even being organic [[organic farmers are permitted to use 'natural' pesticides, some of which can be quite toxic in their own right) .

Removing their use, altogether, would result in a substantial reduction in yield, which would have broad economic ramifications, including raising prices for more pest-prone crops.

That said, Round-Up or glyphosate has particular issues.

It is typically used in conjunction with GMO crops, which are designed to be round-up resistant [[or to survive a pesticide designed to kill all plant life in the area in which it is sprayed)

To this point, I have not seen scientific evidence that glyphosate itself or gmo crops, unto themselves pose a human health risk, when the former is correctly applied.

Glyphosate dissipates quite quickly to my understanding leaving little or no residual impact.

However, that is not to suggest its use in conjunction with gmo crops doesn't cause problems.

Glyphosate tends to be widely applied to an area, not plant by plant, in agricultural use.

The problem is that it works.

It sterilizes the area sprayed of all non-crop plant life.

This has serious effects on pollinators [[bees) which we need in order for many crops to produce.

The bees need many of the plants being exterminated for sources of food and shelter.

The spraying also has the secondary effect in many cases of promoting soil erosion and run off.

If there is no plant life beyond the crop in the field, even in the adjoining area, then you will get more run-off when it rains.

That run off can lead to flooding, as well as general dirtying of the water, but may also lead to run off of fertilizer which loads the water with phosphorus, which an promote toxic algae blooms.

http://lakeeriealgae.com/

The use of a broad-spectrum pesticide like this can also have the effect of raising the temperature of the water, by reducing the amount of brook or streamside vegetation. [[no shade)

While farmer's shouldn't be spraying next to such areas in the first place, if often happens when applying on mass-scale.

***

At the same time as those concerns above exist, glyphosate is also used in environmental restoration to treat and remove invasive species.

However, unlike agriculture, applications are rarely indiscriminate, but instead applied individual to each plant.

***

I tend to think evidence is support of an all-out ban is not there yet, especially when considering that many older pesticides have higher levels of toxicity to humans and/or livestock.

But I do think the case for restricting use is there; and I think the answer may actually lie in allowing glyphosate [[used properly) but removing round-up ready GMO crops, such that application cannot be indiscriminate.

But that's merely a supposition on my part, I'm open to other thoughts.

[JBMcB]

So I understand your position, just because science has made great strides to stop other life shortening diseases and factors, it's Ok for a corporate conglomerate to introduce and make ka-zillions off of a proven cancer causing agent...

A lot of chemicals, natural and man-made, can cause cancer at high enough exposure. This includes stuff found in most vegetables. Roundup falls into that category. If you breathe in the stuff daily for years at a time, it increases your odds of getting cancer by a few percentage points.

So, technically, saying Roundup can cause cancer is correct, the same way smoking a single cigarette can cause cancer. Or walking outside in the sun for a few minutes. Or eating an apple. The odds are astronomically remote, but you are still correct.

Whether or not your accuracy makes a difference to the vast majority of the population is another matter.

[Richard]

DuPont held the patent on Freon,all of the sudden freon eats the ozone,DuPont loses exclusivity on Freon and 100s of different blends and manufacturers enter the market.

Bayer held patent and cornered the market with roundup,roundup is bad,now hundreds of companies will enter the market with a new planet saving solutions.

Everytime something is labeled dangerous and the market opens up with alternatives the consumers pay the price.

Up until a year ago the big box stores used to stock pest control products that worked,they became dangerous and now they sell the same thing in watered down versions.

In California pretty much everything produced is labeled a cancer risk.