Semi OT: Why Glyphosate will be banned

ttps://risk-monger.com/2016/06/02/goodbye-glyphosate-why-science-doesnt-matter-in-the-age-of-stupid/

And how the EU really does make this sort of thing much easier (aided by the useful green idiots, of course).

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

Got my stocks in last month in anticipation, maximum concentration, and a whole lot cheaper pro rata than the extortionate gnats piss available in garden centres.

Discussion on uk.rec.gardening been going on for a week or so now.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

But I thought our resident EU-philes had declared this to be another Brexit scare story. Y'know, like the EU army and that Dave did actually achieve peace in our time.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Glyphosate is no longer covered by a patent. Therefore all and sundry want it banned so it can be replaced by more expensive chemicals that are covered by patent.

What is really pushing this is the ugly lobbying by chemical companies.

Reply to
Fredxxx

Can you enlighten me to what brand etc, and the source?

Reply to
Fredxxx

Using the EU as a way to get a continent wide ban.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You've been listening to Denise again haven't you?

Reply to
Capitol

In message , Chris Hogg writes

I hope you have attended and passed the appropriate training course for knapsack sprayer operator!

I blame Monsanto. If they hadn't spent money on gm crop development in order to enlarge their sales, we would not have politicians running for cover.

Of course desiccating Wheat and Rape prior to harvest has not endeared any green voter to the stuff.

>
Reply to
Tim Lamb

Absolutely, 5 litres of 490g/l for £30

Reply to
Andy Burns

In fact the European Commission want to drop the ban, as does the relevant commissioner, and the relevant EU body, the ECHA. It is the large EU states - France, Germany and Italy - as well as the European Parliament, who want the ban enforced.

In other words, it is the exact opposite of the EU imposing its views.

Also, the scientific evidence is not all one way. The WHO/IARC still maintain that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic", based on studies in the US, Canada and Swedent. They say that it is "unlikely to cause cancer through diet", but that is a slightly different matter.

I don't believe great weight should be given to the views of the ECHA, which is a political rather than a scientific body. It comments on scientific studies but doesn't carried out any itself.

Reply to
Timothy Murphy

+1
Reply to
newshound

Also ClinicAce, Roseate are brands that have been around for a few years. The 5l for about the same as two of the 1l, the 490g/l works out slightly cheaper than the 360g/l

Reply to
Andy Burns

Ordered, thanks!

Reply to
newshound

e-bay

formatting link
£24 inc. delivery, for 5 litres of

360 g/l glyphosate is good value.
Reply to
Chris Hogg

It kills life, systemically.

How can it not be considered harmful, in some way?

Reply to
RayL12

Its harmful to plants. Not to humans

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

'Considered' and 'actually' are very different. The former is purely speculative and may be quite unsubstantiated; the latter requires evidence, which IAUI is controversial at the moment.

Glyphosate specifically inhibits an enzyme pathway, the shikimic acid pathway, that is essential to plant growth. This pathway exists only in plants, fungi and bacteria. The enzyme is not found in humans or animals.

Lots more here if you care to plough through it.

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Hogg

In message , Chris Hogg writes

In the early days of *Roundup* farm crops advisors were quick to advocate an unofficial additive which improved the take up rate and reduced the impact of poor weather conditions.

Basically an extra *wetter* to break down the wax found on grass leaves. I understand these extra wetters are now incorporated in the licensed product and may be what concern the health lobby.

Reply to
Tim Lamb

Interesting comment there Tim. I was advised by some to add a little ordinary washing up liquid to glyphosate when wiping rushes to lower the surface tension and overcome the waxyness of the rush.

Andrew

Reply to
Andrew Mawson

In message , Andrew Mawson writes

So long ago and not the sort of activity that got recorded, I can't remember the product:-( Possibly Ammonium Sulphate.

Look up Adjuvants for proper details.

Reply to
Tim Lamb

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.