EU Allows Use of Controversial Weedkiller Glyphosate for 10 More Years (nature.com) 43
After months of wrangling, the European Commission says it has decided to renew the license for the weedkiller compound glyphosate, approving its use in European Union countries for ten more years. From a report: Following the decision yesterday, the Commission released a statement saying that, on the basis of comprehensive safety assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), it would renew the licence, "subject to certain new conditions and restrictions." These include a ban on the use of the chemical to dry crops before harvest, and "the need for certain measures to protect non-target organisms." Governments can still restrict the use of glyphosate in their own countries if they consider the risks too high, particularly in regard to the need to protect biodiversity, the statement added.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the world's most widely used herbicide. Over the years, a debate has developed about whether the chemical is safe to use on food crops, as well as its possible environmental impacts. Some studies point to a link between glyphosate and certain cancers; others suggest that the way in which it is used should not harm consumers. Glyphosate has been investigated extensively by food- and chemicals-safety agencies, but disagreements among researchers remain. The license allowing glyphosate's use in the EU was last renewed for five years in 2017. Ahead of the authorization's expiry in last December, the European Union temporarily extended it for another year to allow the EFSA to assess some 2,400 studies about the compound and to make a recommendation to governments.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the world's most widely used herbicide. Over the years, a debate has developed about whether the chemical is safe to use on food crops, as well as its possible environmental impacts. Some studies point to a link between glyphosate and certain cancers; others suggest that the way in which it is used should not harm consumers. Glyphosate has been investigated extensively by food- and chemicals-safety agencies, but disagreements among researchers remain. The license allowing glyphosate's use in the EU was last renewed for five years in 2017. Ahead of the authorization's expiry in last December, the European Union temporarily extended it for another year to allow the EFSA to assess some 2,400 studies about the compound and to make a recommendation to governments.
10 Years (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I have not been to even one bee funeral where the decedent was dead due to glyphosate.
Re:10 Years (Score:5, Informative)
Several studies in recent years have linked glyphosate with honey bee and wild bee decline. One study found it changed the microbiome in the bee's gut. However I've been unable to determine whether the studies put this down residues staying in the plants a long time (not being metabolized) or just persisting in the environment (water, etc). Glyphosate is never sprayed in-crop while plants are flowering. When used in crop, it's strictly used when the crop is young, just a few leaves. It would kill a mature crop.
Some farmers use glyphosate pre-harvest for various reasons, some of which are problematic, but bees don't forage in a mature crop.
Re:10 Years (Score:4, Insightful)
Several studies also found links to climate change, air pollution, nothing at all, water pollution, droughts, rain, habitat loss, improper management, pesticides, pests, pathogens, competition amongst bee species, competition with wasps and other insects and poor nutrition
Basically nobody knows what's going on and there are now studies that the bee population didn't collapse or temporarily collapsed or even one study where they found that modern study teams don't go out far enough or use newer more accurate technology to account for the variation. Correlation isn't necessarily causation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds very much like you're getting your "studies" from Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Several studies also found links to climate change, air pollution, nothing at all, water pollution, droughts, rain, habitat loss, improper management, pesticides, pests, pathogens, competition amongst bee species, competition with wasps and other insects and poor nutrition
It sounds very much like you're getting your "studies" from Facebook.
I would not be at all surprised if you can find papers on all those things on Sci-hub.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
These type scientists have enormous influence
*top not type, meant people like Fauci in supervisory roles
Re:10 Years (Score:4, Insightful)
Several studies in recent years have linked glyphosate with honey bee and wild bee decline.
Glyphosate use has been linked to many things. Studies found it increased some forms of cancer and decreased other forms of cancer.
None of the studies have been replicated and are widely regarded as p-hacking [wikipedia.org].
Relevant XKCD [explainxkcd.com].
Re:10 Years (Score:4, Informative)
Re:10 Years (Score:5, Insightful)
I have not been to even one bee funeral where the decedent was dead due to glyphosate.
I've only been to two funerals where the decedent was dead due to tobacco. Therefore it hardly kills anyone. Certainly not millions every year worldwide. That's fake news, because *I* haven't seen more personally.
Fucking flawless logic you've got there. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You know what else is controversial? (Score:2)
Starvation. If Europe cant grow crops, they will import it from their former colonies, meaning poor nations will starve because food will become expensive. I will take my chances with getting cancer in the future when there might be a cure rather than have people starving today due to low crop yields and food supply shortages.
bruh??? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that's okay, they'll just all move to europe.
Re:You know what else is controversial? (Score:4, Insightful)
Starvation. If Europe cant grow crops, they will import it from their former colonies, meaning poor nations will starve because food will become expensive.
No. This is completely backward.
Poverty in poor countries is mostly rural. The poorest people are farmers. Higher food prices make them richer, not poorer.
What makes them poor are crop subsidies in the 1st world that encourage overproduction and depress prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Starvation. If Europe cant grow crops, they will import it from their former colonies, meaning poor nations will starve because food will become expensive. I will take my chances with getting cancer in the future when there might be a cure rather than have people starving today due to low crop yields and food supply shortages.
Oh, so there's simply NO chance any other solution exists other than what Greed says?
With that kind of blindly defensive logic against the food growers, you'll be looking forward to those doorbuster deals on Soylent Green. Talk about your loss leaders...
Either provide a significant substitute or STFU (Score:4, Informative)
The only 2 nations near, in the EU will multi billions tied up in the direction of this are at war with each other. The US has made its choice, roundup and GMO until something with more yield and less yearly risk is sold to us.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The funny thing is that these products are one of the primary causes of wealth and health improvements over the last few centuries together. We've improved life expectancies by some 40+ years and the EU is worried about something that may shorten the lives of less than 1% of the population by 2 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Emphasis on the word “may” there isn’t even any solid proof of it. You’d think with so many people eating glyphosate for breakfast lunch and dinner they’d get something.
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding, right?
Glyphosate has only been used for about 50 years, and aggressively for less than 30. It has caused significant ecological damage, both anecdotally and provably in many instances. It's very use encourages a monoculture crop of GMO produce controlled by a single company. It's linked to all sorts of disorders in and health problems (including cancers) in humans and animals - including obesity, which is the #1 comorbidity in the US. Meanwhile, the life expectancy has starting declining in
Re:Either provide a significant substitute or STFU (Score:4, Informative)
It's very use encourages a monoculture crop of GMO produce controlled by a single company.
"Roundup-Ready" seed patents expired years ago.
No one controls the GMO products that tolerate glyphosate.
Anyone is free to use them, for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the life expectancy has starting declining in the past decade in the US.
Mostly from overdoses and for a couple of years COVID as well. Nothing to do with glyphosate.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, the life expectancy has starting declining in the past decade in the US.
Mostly from overdoses and for a couple of years COVID as well. Nothing to do with glyphosate.
Your chances of getting cancer in the Western world are now 1 in 3. Not really sure why it has to come to watching lawyers run off with millions while everyone else in a class-action suit gets a check that wouldn't cover a Happy Meal, but I wouldn't expect anything less from mass ignorance when it comes to ignoring any potential cause of cancer until after plenty of harm happens.
Sure, we can sit back and accept the age-old reason of old-age with people living longer as THE cause/excuse for increased cancer
Re: (Score:2)
The primary reason you even get cancer is because you are twice as old than the average life expectancy just 50-100 years ago, even just a decade or two ago for Eastern European and other third world countries.
We never had life expectancy topping 70 and 80 years old, people back in the day used to get cancer too, we just didn't know what it was or how to treat it, people just died early from cancer (or many other diseases).
If you remove things such as GMO crops, insecticides, meat consumption and all the ot
Re: (Score:2)
Either provide a significant substitute or it is time to shut up about it.
It's not a scientists or regulator's job to provide a substitute for a chemical pushed heavily by private industry. It's their job to ensure safety. No. I don't ever want anyone to "shut up about it". Them not "shutting up about it" has largely been of benefit to western civilisation and contributes greatly to our health, and yours, despite how angry you are that someone cares about you.
Many products don't get substitutes developed before regulation proposing to ban them.
Welcome to the way the world works.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you didn't read the article because crippling an entire industry is what the commission chose not to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a scientists or regulator's job to provide a substitute for a chemical pushed heavily by private industry. It's their job to ensure safety.
Glyphosate was developed and tested by scientists, specifically by Henry Martin, who worked for Cilag in Switzerland, though it wasn't published. Another scientist, John Franz at Monsanto, independently rediscovered it and found it effective as an herbicide.
It may not be the job of these specific scientists who wrote the report to develop an alternative, but it is absolutely the job of *some* scientists to develop alternatives, not least because of the approval process, which requires scientific studies. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
In other words... (Score:2)
In other words: The right about of money has been exchanged to the right hands to permit this.
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Informative)
Not really. There's just not enough solid scientific evidence to back banning something so useful. No money needs changing hands. Government regulators do not just ban something that modern civilisation relies heavily on on a whim.
At least there was one important concession... (Score:5, Interesting)
It would renew the license, "subject to certain new conditions and restrictions." These include a ban on the use of the chemical to dry crops before harvest...
This ban on using it as a desiccant is a step in the right direction to improving human health.
The biggest problem with glyphosate has been its use as a desiccant on our crops. "Roundup ready" crops have been in our food supply since 1996, but glyphosate didn't get detected in our food until around a decade later. When it's sprayed only as a herbicide at the beginning of the planting season, it ends up in the ground and is not absorbed by plant roots. It's when they started to spray it at harvest season to rapidly dry kernels to reduce the chance of rot, that's when it ended up all over our food and ingested in our bodies.
Re:At least there was one important concession... (Score:4, Informative)
Bingo. This.
It's the over-application of the pesticide for drying that's the biggest part of the problem, not only because it remains on the food, but also because it's a much heavier application, which gets into the water and causes a significant overspray onto other area crops. It's basically impossible to do any agriculture near a Monsanto farm without your crops being destroyed - unless you've also decided to buy into their patent.
The alternative could be worse (Score:2)
Wonder what they'll switch to now. The top 4 US herbicides for desiccant use are now all banned in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
This ban on using it as a desiccant is a step in the right direction to improving human health.
Indeed. This is a reasonable precaution. 99% of the glyphosate in our food comes from its use as a desiccant.
Using glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant is legal in America and Canada.
Re: (Score:1)
Another hit to male fertility (Score:2)
And yet, here we are.
The fungus among us (Score:3)