beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,062
seems to be the vanishingly small and unproven risk is from glyphosate being on food crops. it makes no sense then to ban or prohibit use in urban areas. the main arguments against it use in urban weed control are based on its success. i.e. it leads to less weeds and bugs (living on the weeds) in the urban environment, which greens happy to have more of, while most people dont really want.There is a new movement in British agriculture, promoted by DEFRA, with the attractive name Regenerative Farming. It claims to be environmentally sound but is 100% dependent on the regular use of glyphosate on every single field regardless of the crop grown (not inc grassland). Naturally this is also being strongly backed by the all powerful multinationals that produce the chemical. Glyphosate is banned in many countries around the world due to carcogenic concerns.
As consumers the plan is to convince us that this is a new eco way forward for food production. The alternate view is there is an increased risk to human health and a massive backward step for the environment (glyphosate kills everything so habitats are destroyed).
I have connections to the industry and you can see where my view sits. But following on for the relatively minor use on Brighton’s streets, I would be really interested in your views on what is, for better or for worse, going to be a use of glyphosate On an enormous scale. Thanks.
as i recall the Brighton ban was on using any weedkillers. looks like attempting to make a different argument, glyphoste causes cancer, to drive the agenda in favour of banning weed killers rather than accepting its part of council's job to maintain our towns.