Please stop using weed killer.

vistafinder

true-or-false wrote: »

Yeah but your point is still pretty damn murky since chemicals aren't necessarily bad. Water is a chemical. If you want to say that you specifically mean that Roundup isn't safe, then you should be giving a reason for it.


Links would make a difference because then you'd actually be educating people instead of sounding like you've plucked this from random dodgy articles. If not links, then maybe you could explain to me/everyone how Roundup causes birth defects, or where even just the correlation between Roundup use and birth defects comes from. As for overuse, if overuse is the problem then it's a very different story than the Roundup itself being the problem.


If there is something severely dangerous going on, then it would be great to try to inform people about it. But there's no point in making noise if you're not actually citing any reasons for people to worry. I'm not trying to argue against you; I'd love to know what's going on. Trouble is you haven't really shown us anything yet.

Did you not see the first link and the pages and the links on it?

So you would drink chemicals out of a bottle like you would water?

I was kind of thinking if people are interested that they may do a bit of looking for themselves and to not be forcing it on them and causing arguments with people who just want to argue. I did say to reconsider?

Here is some of the stuff they have made in the past.
http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/04/15/monsantos-dirty-dozen-the-12-most-awful-products-made-by-monsanto/#axzz361dhJWZD

Is it just a small bit odd that a company like this is dealing with these companys.
http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/04/02/boycott-monsanto-a-simple-list-of-companies-to-avoid/#axzz361dhJWZD

There is very little studies after being done and anything that has been done gets mobbed by them. I hope its all wrong but would it not be a good idea to not use it until we find out the truth? Is that true or false?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY16uNIjzKk

gctest50

http://www.grr.org.ar/terceros/Seralini%20Eric%20Glyphosate%20.pdf

Glyphosate damage or kill human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells at concentrations below those recommended for agricultural use, and may interfere with human reproduction and embryonic development

lazybones32

pwurple wrote: »

What do you brush your teeth with?

...my toothbrush.

vistafinder

Not all bad.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/healthandlife/dietandfitness/time-to-eat-your-weeds-273413.html

came across this on my FB gardening club, article regarding Round up and Super weeds

Think some of you will enjoy it.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2014/06/28/repeat-mistakes-led-superweeds/11652199/

lazybones32

Dandelions are a diuretic (helps you pee) as are milk thistle. Whether this contributed to dandelion's common name "pi$$y bed" I can't say.
Foxgloves can be used to treat a cardiac condition of the same official name - Digitalis. In the wrong dose it can cause cardiac arrest though, so don't go eating them.

j@utis

Are you serious about blaming the farmers for spraying their crops or giving antibiotics to their animals?
I'm afraid it's not them to blame, it's the consumers fault. Look how majority of people shop for their food: they all are following one general rule "to buy as much as possible for as little as possible". You can't put "high quality and cheap" in one sentence, it just doesn't work that way.
To make food cheap you have to cut corners, a lot of them. Farmers have to get maximum yields because they paid too little for their produce, food processing industries have their own methods how to get their profits in the market where competition is fierce and margins are low. Quality food has very low priority on peoples' shopping list. I personally know only 2 persons who care what they put in their mouths. Others are way more happy to spend their money on latest electronics, cars, holidays, bags & shoes etc...
Your health is your own business and if something goes amiss with it there's a huge pharma business "to help you out".

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

That the point, people are already starving, the problem is not production but distribution. <...>

I hope distribution "problem" will never get solved - it would only make starving problem worse!

vistafinder

This happened 5 years ago. How are people not being told this when they are buying it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm

the_syco

my3cents wrote: »

If the OP would like to tell me how I can continue to fight the Japanese Knotweed in my area without using "Roundup" I'd be delighted.

From P39 of New Scientist (5th July 2014 edition), they found a "small sap sucking insects called psyllids" to be very effective in the war against Japanese Knotweed. Also interesting is that it (the Knotweed) doesn't make seeds and is only spread of people unintentionally, and was only spread intentionally around 1850 after it was first found. It wasn't until 1898 or so that they found it to be a pest.

vistafinder wrote: »

Hunting and shooting are not my thing I go fishing the very odd time alright. We all need to just think a bit more if we want to keep doing these things? I was lucky enough to see salmon leaping up stream the last couple of years they may not be there soon because of selfish people.

Off topic, but it's the poachers that ruin it for everyone. All fishermen I know put back whatever they catch at the end of the day. Fish stocks are replenished in rivers for the fishermen, so in effect fishermen are helping to keep a lot of the rivers full of fish.

true-or-false wrote: »

It could even be that much of what I've read about it is influenced by biased scientific research funded by Roundup-affiliated parties.

I find unless it's anti-Roundup, the research is usually referred to as Roundup-affiliated parties. And by gawd, the "natural" cure of pretty much anything is a thriving industry in its own right! Here is a list of such products.

gctest50 wrote: »

http://www.grr.org.ar/terceros/Seralini%20Eric%20Glyphosate%20.pdf

Must read that later. And yes, I'm very skeptical about links which say one thing is bad, "but wait, for $9.99 you can buy this super healthy thing"...

j@utis wrote: »

Are you serious about blaming the farmers for spraying their crops or giving antibiotics to their animals?
I'm afraid it's not them to blame, it's the consumers fault.

Agree 100% If every farmer went organic, food prices would go up for one reason; there'll be less of it. Heck, food prices of current organic meat is more expensive! And the worst thing about it? They'll be in competition with the non-EU states who won't be following the same rules.

=-=

Finally, is the GMO blight-free potatoe being planted yet? Read about it a while (year or two) back, but nothing since. Very interested to see how it goes.

evolving_doors

Wow this is all getting very technical...

First off I'm with the OP, not because of any mega research but I think being so obsessed with the botoxed sterile lawn is an anathema to the spirit of gardening.

At the end of the day folks if you are putting chemicals on your grass just because you don;t like the look of nasty dandelions then yissr mad. It's just pure aesthetics and a waste of time.. look over into your neighbour's garden/field and you'll probably see dandelions, it's like pi55ing on a box of matches while the house burns down.

Best you can do is dig em up or pluck the heads so they don;t go to seed.

if you get so obsessed about the 'evil dandelions' the next thing you'll be worrying about is the encroaching moss, then the creeping buttercup. Why does your lawn have to look like a putting green anyway?

Incidentally... pull up any dandelion and you'll probably find a worm or two at its root. Next time you are injecting the poison into the soil to have that 'show lawn' think of the family of worms you are exterminating.

Peace

Norfolk Enchants_

Armelodie wrote: »

Wow this is all getting very technical...

First off I'm with the OP, not because of any mega research but I think being so obsessed with the botoxed sterile lawn is an anathema to the spirit of gardening.

At the end of the day folks if you are putting chemicals on your grass just because you don;t like the look of nasty dandelions then yissr mad. It's just pure aesthetics and a waste of time.. look over into your neighbour's garden/field and you'll probably see dandelions, it's like pi55ing on a box of matches while the house burns down.

Best you can do is dig em up or pluck the heads so they don;t go to seed.

if you get so obsessed about the 'evil dandelions' the next thing you'll be worrying about is the encroaching moss, then the creeping buttercup. Why does your lawn have to look like a putting green anyway?

Incidentally... pull up any dandelion and you'll probably find a worm or two at its root. Next time you are injecting the poison into the soil to have that 'show lawn' think of the family of worms you are exterminating.

Peace

Dude that's nice and I'm glad for you that you have come up with the solution for all the worlds pesticide problems, except there's one tiny itty bitty thing, the problem isn't really a domestic one, it's a commercial one.

vistafinder

This is un-f-cking-believable.Just if people dont know it this is happening in Ireland aswell.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/02/06/2014/144804/clean-up-your-weeds-ahead-of-harvest.htm

vistafinder

And this is what this farmer has to say about it.
http://permaculturenews.org/2014/05/06/roundup-damages-pigs-banned-danish-farmer/

evolving_doors

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Dude that's nice and I'm glad for you that you have come up with the solution for all the worlds pesticide problems, except there's one tiny itty bitty thing, the problem isn't really a domestic one, it's a commercial one.

Brother, this is a gardening forum in which the OP posted... NOT the Farming and Forestry forum....If you say the problem isn;t a domestic one then what are all the small containers of roundup and other various weedkillers doing in between breads and veg in Dunnes stores, because I'm sure as hell sure that the farmers of Ireland aren;t going there to purchase their litre of weed killer or weedandfeed junk.

This IS a domestic problem if it's on sale in every hardware shop and supermarket up and down the country.

When it rains in my garden where do you think all this pesticide goes? Narnia or something?

You go on about me solving the "worlds pesticide problems" ... So you consider the battle against dandelions in your back garden as a 'worldly pesticide problem' ? Then that really brings a definition to 'first world problems'

I'm saying that this IS a domestic problem as well as an industrial one.

Read the first post again, it is in reference to private non-commercial individuals. hence why it was posted here.

gctest50

vistafinder wrote: »

This is un-f-cking-believable.Just if people dont know it this is happening in Ireland aswell.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/02/06/2014/144804/clean-up-your-weeds-ahead-of-harvest.htm

It could be - its like everything - it ok to squeez it a little bit
- squeezing that last tiny bit out of it is often trouble though

vistafinder

gctest50 wrote: »

It could be - its like everything - it ok to squeez it a little bit
- squeezing that last tiny bit out of it is often trouble though

I am having a bit of trouble understanding that.:o?

gctest50

vistafinder wrote: »

I am having a bit of trouble understanding that.:o?

Ah - i kinda meant trying to squeez the very last bit of performance out something

kinda like the law of diminishing returns

There is an article in todays Sunday Times magazine called ' The Plant that ate Britain'
Matt Rudd on the Unstoppable rise of Japanese Knotwood

my3cents

Jake1 wrote: »

There is an article in todays Sunday Times magazine called ' The Plant that ate Britain'
Matt Rudd on the Unstoppable rise of Japanese Knotwood

And what do they do here about Japanese Knotweed.....

lazybones32

Armelodie wrote: »

When it rains in my garden where do you think all this pesticide goes? Narnia or something?

You go on about me solving the "worlds pesticide problems" ... So you consider the battle against dandelions in your back garden as a 'worldly pesticide problem' ? Then that really brings a definition to 'first world problems'

I'm saying that this IS a domestic problem as well as an industrial one.

Read the first post again, it is in reference to private non-commercial individuals. hence why it was posted here.

The active ingredients of Round-Up are mostly neutralised upon contact with the soil and what remains are degraded by the microbes in the soil. The real issue is concentrations, application rates and frequency of spraying.
Just because a manicured lawn isn't important to you, doesn't mean it isn't important (or a means of livelihood) to others. Chemicals aren't bad for plants and are necessary: the whole "Organic" movement began as treating the soil as an organism, not about not using any chemicals. I use a lot of chemicals around my garden every year but not for food that will be consumed by humans and my garden is a thriving ecosystem.
The use of chemicals can increase productivity or cause catastrophe - it's in the hands of man.

danjo-xx

I think no matter what we do, were all gonna die:D

gctest50

Pain au paraquat report from PRiF ( The Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food )


http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/Resources/CRD/PRiF/Documents/Results%20and%20Reports/2013/Q4%202013%20FINAL.pdf


http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/advisory-groups/PRiF/PRiF_Results_and_Reports/2013++Programme.htm

vistafinder

lazybones32 wrote: »

The active ingredients of Round-Up are mostly neutralised upon contact with the soil and what remains are degraded by the microbes in the soil. The real issue is concentrations, application rates and frequency of spraying.
Just because a manicured lawn isn't important to you, doesn't mean it isn't important (or a means of livelihood) to others. Chemicals aren't bad for plants and are necessary: the whole "Organic" movement began as treating the soil as an organism, not about not using any chemicals. I use a lot of chemicals around my garden every year but not for food that will be consumed by humans and my garden is a thriving ecosystem.
The use of chemicals can increase productivity or cause catastrophe - it's in the hands of man.

I think there are plenty of links up here now to say that the mostly neutralised crap the manufacturers tell people it lies! Add to that then the concentrations and frequency.

bogmanstar

We must have our suburban lawns. Can you imagine how awful life would be if you didn't have a lawn that looked nearly as nice as astro-turf? What would the neighbours think? Your lawn is a symbol of all that you have achieved. You certainly shouldn't let the possibility of poisoning your dog or your kids or your neighbour stop you from doing whatever it takes to maintain your lawn. Copper arsenite is a bit overlooked these days, but it's a nice green colour too, and very low maintenance.

lazybones32

vistafinder wrote: »

I think there are plenty of links up here now to say that the mostly neutralised crap the manufacturers tell people it lies! Add to that then the concentrations and frequency.

I disagree with the neutralisation - if chemicals have a long residue, then it will be brought to Public attention. It has been done in the past and recent-past. Maybe we don't have enough time to research the long-term effects of the use of glyphosates to know how harmful they are (I'm sure when the cure for cancer is found, the use of radiation therapy will be viewed as a barbaric practice by our ancestors)

Any compound that is applied too liberally will accumulate in the soil and enter the food web. Round-up applied twice a year will not reach toxic levels, but if there is a crop that is treated once every 6 weeks, it is applied faster than the microbes can degrade it and will quickly build-up...

lazybones32

bogmanstar wrote: »

We must have our suburban lawns. Can you imagine how awful life would be if you didn't have a lawn that looked nearly as nice as astro-turf? What would the neighbours think? Your lawn is a symbol of all that you have achieved. You certainly shouldn't let the possibility of poisoning your dog or your kids or your neighbour stop you from doing whatever it takes to maintain your lawn. Copper arsenite is a bit overlooked these days, but it's a nice green colour too, and very low maintenance.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...

What you apply (or don't apply) to your lawn is the least of your concerns regarding the introduction of unnecessary chemicals into your body...unless you eat your grass.
I have 3 dogs and none eat sprayed grass; they must have some sense that alerts them to poisoned grass.

Boskowski

But what about everything else but your 3 dogs? Like all the worms and snails and beetles and micro bits and whatnots which are in return eaten by birds and hedgehogs and whatnots. Just don't care as long as the lawn looks nice?

Maybe I'm a tree hugger but even without delving into it spraying chemicals all over my garden just doesn't seem a good idea. You call it poison yourself. Why would anyone do that for the convenience of not having to pull a few weeds now and then? Seems irresponsible to me.

I have to agree on your point of me doing or not doing it just being a drop in the ocean. But then if I don't even change the things I can change what hope is there at all?

lazybones32

Boskowski wrote: »

But what about everything else but your 3 dogs? Like all the worms and snails and beetles and micro bits and whatnots which are in return eaten by birds and hedgehogs and whatnots. Just don't care as long as the lawn looks nice?

Maybe I'm a tree hugger but even without delving into it spraying chemicals all over my garden just doesn't seem a good idea. You call it poison yourself. Why would anyone do that for the convenience of not having to pull a few weeds now and then? Seems irresponsible to me.

I have to agree on your point of me doing or not doing it just being a drop in the ocean. But then if I don't even change the things I can change what hope is there at all?

16,000,000,000 acres of land on Earth. I spray glyphos-based products on about 100 square metres of those 16 Billion acres/40 Trillion square metres (40,000.000,000,000). People spray selective herbicides on their lawn: these target dicot plants - not grasses - and most are neutralised upon contact with the soil and what isn't neutralised, is decomposed by bacteria and fungi within the soil without harming them.

Are more hedgehogs killed by cars and dogs or by pesticides? Dig a portion of your lawn and birds will come and pull worms from it. Nature has an incredible capacity to adapt to change (as evidenced in Chernobyl) but as I've already written, people must be careful to apply the correct dosage at the correct time: good husbandry.

Nature is hostile to biological species - look at how many organisms are fatal to humanity or each other. I don't say to go on the offensive but I don't advise taking the view that everything is harmonious and peaceful either. Chemical application can boost or destroy - depending on how they're used.

Johro

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've managed not to use any herbicide up to now, but i may need to get some to kill the stump of an ash tree in our neighbour's garden; it's too big and too close to both houses, but i'd be happy to take it down in return for the wood.

I heard tree stumps will rot if you hammer in some copper nails.

Johro

hallo dare wrote: »

I think I'll keep using it thanks. Nothing looks better than seeing a nettle wither in pain and die off in a brown mess.

I think it just looks f#ckin awful tbh.
You see it driving along country roads, those people who got the weedkiller out instead of the strimmer or mower, or gloves, especially along the road, people do the bit along the fence, big long streaks of rotten looking yellow and brown, or black, for a while anyway, til it greens up again and it's out with another spray of poison. I don't get it. Also, a lot of these folks rely on wells for their drinking water.
A lot of posters here say they use it on brambles. I just put on some leather gloves and pull them.

magicbastarder

Johro wrote: »

I heard tree stumps will rot if you hammer in some copper nails.

afaik that's for killing the tree; i suspect copper would just slow down the actual rotting process.

Johro

magicbastarder wrote: »

afaik that's for killing the tree; i suspect copper would just slow down the actual rotting process.

Oh. Okay, fair enough.

vistafinder

lazybones32 wrote: »

I disagree with the neutralisation - if chemicals have a long residue, then it will be brought to Public attention. It has been done in the past and recent-past. Maybe we don't have enough time to research the long-term effects of the use of glyphosates to know how harmful they are (I'm sure when the cure for cancer is found, the use of radiation therapy will be viewed as a barbaric practice by our ancestors)

Any compound that is applied too liberally will accumulate in the soil and enter the food web. Round-up applied twice a year will not reach toxic levels, but if there is a crop that is treated once every 6 weeks, it is applied faster than the microbes can degrade it and will quickly build-up...

No offence. You need to take off your rose tinted glasses there and start looking at the kind of scumbag company you are supporting. They are fairly lowlife. I will be going out of my way not to give them a penny of my money. Thats for sure.

lazybones32

vistafinder wrote: »

No offence. You need to take off your rose tinted glasses there and start looking at the kind of scumbag company you are supporting. They are fairly lowlife. I will be going out of my way not to give them a penny of my money. Thats for sure.

No offence taken.
I am not encouraging people to support any company or product. I am simply saying that herbicides containing glyphosate are effective and should be applied at the correct dosage, the correct times and under ideal conditions.

I don't know how you have arrived at me supporting Monsanto but I will defend the necessity of using chemicals in Agriculture. If you understand that as me endorsing the repeat-treatment of genetically engineered crops, so be it

Norfolk Enchants_

lazybones32 wrote: »

No offence taken.
I am not encouraging people to support any company or product. I am simply saying that herbicides containing glyphosate are effective and should be applied at the correct dosage, the correct times and under ideal conditions.

I don't know how you have arrived at me supporting Monsanto but I will defend the necessity of using chemicals in Agriculture. If you understand that as me endorsing the repeat-treatment of genetically engineered crops, so be it

Nice response lazybones32, calm, measured, well informed and not at all hysterical, although not really in keeping with the tone of the OP.

vistafinder

lazybones32 wrote: »

No offence taken.
I am not encouraging people to support any company or product. I am simply saying that herbicides containing glyphosate are effective and should be applied at the correct dosage, the correct times and under ideal conditions.

I don't know how you have arrived at me supporting Monsanto but I will defend the necessity of using chemicals in Agriculture. If you understand that as me endorsing the repeat-treatment of genetically engineered crops, so be it

It might be just me so but I would be thinking that if you buy a product from a company that you are supporting them?

wildefalcon

Glyphosate is out of patent and anyone qualified can make it.

Harmful buildups will be identified by the harm they do - remember DDT? Banned because it's harmful. You can't hide the harm, look at the tobacco companies - it may take time, but it came out eventually.

What concerns me is the amount of investment Monsanto are putting into GM glyphosate resistance. I've no problem with GM, done right, but what I don't get is how Monsanto would profit from patent expired Glyphosate resistance in crops.......

unless.......

they know the resistance gene will escape from the GM crop and into the "weed" plants. Then when glyphosate is useless on weeds they release their new "wizz bang" (patented) weedkiller that overcomes GM resistance and makes them money.

Or maybe I watch too much X-files.

lazybones32

Glyphosate was discovered by a Monsanto scientist but it is used by other companies now as the main ingredient.

I wouldn't put your suspicion past them (Monsanto), wildefalcon. They were trying to charge American farmers for the seed that was reproduced from seed that was bought from them initially, i.e. If a farmer bought 200kg of seed one year, Monsanto wanted to charge the farmer for the seed that could be reproduced from that crop. Shameless stuff but if you've got good lawyers...

vistafinder

lazybones32 wrote: »

Glyphosate was discovered by a Monsanto scientist but it is used by other companies now as the main ingredient.

I wouldn't put your suspicion past them (Monsanto), wildefalcon. They were trying to charge American farmers for the seed that was reproduced from seed that was bought from them initially, i.e. If a farmer bought 200kg of seed one year, Monsanto wanted to charge the farmer for the seed that could be reproduced from that crop. Shameless stuff but if you've got good lawyers...

And yet you believe this wonderful, honest multibillion dollar company when they tell you that the herbicide glyphosate is safe to use on your garden at the correct dosage the correct times and under ideal conditions. Now that is what you call hysterical.

Just out of interest how do you plan to take care of your resistant weeds.

Wait.... let me guess more chemicals?

zoe 3619

vistafinder wrote: »

No offence. You need to take off your rose tinted glasses there and start looking at the kind of scumbag company you are supporting. They are fairly lowlife. I will be going out of my way not to give them a penny of my money. Thats for sure.

Can we all be sure Monsanto are acting in our best interests?horrible company,interested only in profit.why would anyone spray poison on their garden,rather than putting in the effort to pull up a few weeds.I wouldn't think of eating any veg out of a garden that had roundup sprayed on it.anyone noticed all the bees are dying...wonder why that is?pesticides kill bees.bees pollinate plants.no bees=no plants.round up=no bees.

lazybones32

[/B][/B]

vistafinder wrote: »

And yet you believe this wonderful, honest multibillion dollar company when they tell you that the herbicide glyphosate is safe to use on your garden at the correct dosage the correct times and under ideal conditions. Now that is what you call hysterical.

Just out of interest how do you plan to take care of your resistant weeds.

Wait.... let me guess more chemicals?

No, I don't believe because Monsanto claim such, I believe because other scientists have researched and come to similar conclusions. I don't buy into the notion that Monsanto are impartial so stop trying to imply I'm defending them.

I don't have 'resistant' superweeds but I will continue to use chemicals. If M. offer the best solution at the best price, I will continue to buy those products.


For my own curiosity, do you own, use or have ever owned or used products/services from these Companies?

Nokia
Coca-Cola
Nestle
Primark
Nike
Any and all of the Oil and Gas suppliers.
Ryanair
Irish Banks
Gold or diamonds
The list could go on and on...and even further if we go historical.

If you have, it is somewhat hypocritical of you to accuse me of 'supporting' an unethical Corporation by buying their products.

vistafinder

zoe 3619 wrote: »

Can we all be sure Monsanto are acting in our best interests?horrible company,interested only in profit.why would anyone spray poison on their garden,rather than putting in the effort to pull up a few weeds.I wouldn't think of eating any veg out of a garden that had roundup sprayed on it.anyone noticed all the bees are dying...wonder why that is?pesticides kill bees.bees pollinate plants.no bees=no plants.round up=no bees.

I would not believe one word they say. The likes of them can literally do what they want.

vistafinder

lazybones32 wrote: »

[/B][/B]

No, I don't believe because Monsanto claim such, I believe because other scientists have researched and come to similar conclusions. I don't buy into the notion that Monsanto are impartial so stop trying to imply I'm defending them.

I don't have 'resistant' superweeds but I will continue to use chemicals. If M. offer the best solution at the best price, I will continue to buy those products.


For my own curiosity, do you own, use or have ever owned or used products/services from these Companies?

The list could go on and on...and even further if we go historical.

If you have, it is somewhat hypocritical of you to accuse me of 'supporting' an unethical Corporation by buying their products.

And would it be possible that these scientists might have vested interests or performed only short term studies on company orders? Would it be possible that other scientist have done longer studies and came to different conclusions.

Enough said spray away! But do you not wonder why glyphosate is being banned for public use in other countrys?

The thread is about weed killers.

You have a point about going historical. There has been an endless list of (harmless & safe) products sold only to be banned when the damage has been done but how about we look to the future instead and think about that for a change.


:)The hysterical treehugging hypocrite

lazybones32

"...I believe because other scientists..."
Maybe I should have clarified: scientists not on Monsanto payroll; scientists not funded by Monsanto or off-shoot Corporation. Monsanto don't own everything.

I will continue to spray and I think it will be removed from Public access because they may not be adequately informed on how best to apply it. I made an earlier post directly related to this issue.

vistafinder

lazybones32 wrote: »

"...I believe because other scientists..."
Maybe I should have clarified: scientists not on Monsanto payroll; scientists not funded by Monsanto or off-shoot Corporation. Monsanto don't own everything.

I will continue to spray and I think it will be removed from Public access because they may not be adequately informed on how best to apply it. I made an earlier post directly related to this issue.

I never mentioned them. I wrote company orders.

I was referring to it being banned over healh risks.

wildefalcon

vistafinder wrote: »

And would it be possible that these scientists might have vested interests or performed only short term studies on company orders? Would it be possible that other scientist have done longer studies and came to different conclusions.

Enough said spray away! But do you not wonder why glyphosate is being banned for public use in other countrys?

The thread is about weed killers.

You have a point about going historical. There has been an endless list of (harmless & safe) products sold only to be banned when the damage has been done but how about we look to the future instead and think about that for a change.


:)The hysterical treehugging hypocrite

I'd have thought a competing company would have a vested interest in damaging monsantos reputation.

Especially if the competitor was based on a different country, ie Germany or France.

I may be a conspiracy nut, but I'm not going to believe that they all cozy up together, especially when there's money to made slagging the competition!