glyphosate use in a permaculture environment...

[zzsstt]

There's been a few comments about Monsanto not telling us what surfactants they use. I'd like to check that we all understand that glyphosate is the "active" chemical, and that it is supplied in many formulations by many different companies. When we say "Monsanto won't tell us what they are", are we clear that Monsanto may not even KNOW - if the product in question is not a Monsanto product (the patent on glyphosate has expired) then Monsanto themselves may have no idea and no control of the actual formulation.

Personally I use:

Roundup PowerMax (Monsanto via Nufarm)
Ripper 480 (Dow)
Clear-up (Rygel)
Firebolt (Sipcam)

These are all glyphosate products, and that's before things like Arsenal (NuFarm) which contains glyphosate amongst other things (imazapyr in this case).

There are many others on the market from other companies as well.

Much of the actual active glyphosate is no longer manufactured by Monsanto. To expect them to "tell us" how they make their own formulations better than anyone else's is a tad unrealistic, because if people knew how to take raw (cheap) glyphosate and make it work like Powermax, they probably would. In the same way that the guy who wins all the vegetable prizes at the town show every year is unlikely to "tell us" everything he does to make them that good!

And I thought it was those spikey spores that caused rain..... oh my god, Monsanto tried to knock the spikes off them as well, didn't they? Perhaps Monsanto are actually trying to stop the rain.... or was that Mr Burns blotting out the sun? No, no, it all makes sense. GM products that are Roundup Ready, stop the rainfall and then sell GM "drought tolerant" products. I wondered where Monsanto's angle was with drought tolerant GM, because they make no profit from selling "drought", but.....if....they....can...create....drought.... they would be the only seed supplier in the world....... it all makes sense......

I wonder when that theory will become "truth".... :wink:

[frosty]

So ZZZZZSSSSSTTTTTT I cant compete with all that typing since all those cholinesterase inhibitors (that supposedly dont :evil: ) made me unable to use my hands much

but I have this mental image of you surrounded by Monsanto propaganda (ooopps you probably call it facts sheets or something :lol: )
typing like mad :ANAL: If Monsanto arent paying you they should be :lol: :lol:

but overall the fact remains that wholesale poisoning of the enviroment is not what Permacultur is all about

frosty

[Tezza]

i agree with frosty....

Tezza

[zzsstt]

So ZZZZZSSSSSTTTTTT I cant compete with all that typing since all those cholinesterase inhibitors (that supposedly dont :evil: ) made me unable to use my hands much

but I have this mental image of you surrounded by Monsanto propaganda (ooopps you probably call it facts sheets or something :lol: )
typing like mad :ANAL: If Monsanto arent paying you they should be :lol: :lol:

but overall the fact remains that wholesale poisoning of the enviroment is not what Permacultur is all about

frosty

A well, an interesting thought! In fact, and quite obviously, I do not get paid by Monsanto, nor do I easily fall for propaganda - and let's be totally honest, the information that is peddled by the "anti" brigade is just as much marketing as that supplied by the "pro".

It's interesting how people are predisposed to a viewpoint. Some people will instantly dismiss any information provided by a chemical company (for example) as untrue, and believe anything they are told by an "organic" (or whatever) source. The reality is that both groups are out to push a product or agenda, and so the likelihood is that both sets of information contain some truth, some exageration and some outright lies. I believe it is the responsibility of the individual to sort through that data and establish the truth. Unfortunately this does not often happen, either through lack of facts, or lack of skills, or lack of experience, and people tend to simply believe or accept what fits easily with their established position. Whether this is an opinion on a product like glyphosate, or a belief that changing a tap can save water, it is simply down to believing what serves the individual.

You clearly believe that glyphosate is very bad, and that it has done you some damage. On the other hand, tens of thousands of farmers across the world use it regularly with no adverse affects. I personally believe that the more "natural" we can be, the better. However I am realistic enough to understand that without "agricultural chemicals" our ability to produce food would diminish enormously - and people would simply starve. I also take issue with the concept that "Roundup" is to blame in your case. You have said that you lived in an area where Roundup was used all the time, and this caused the problem. That would be fine if you know (that's "know", not "believe"), that it was indeed only Roundup that was used, not Roundup plus other things, or other things on their own. I would also have to assume that if Roundup was to blame then everyone who was involved with the spraying, and everyone who lived in the area were equally affected. Because if you alone suffered this damage it would surely make more sense that something more specific to YOU was to blame. Now that may indeed be that you are somehow far more susceptible to Glyphosate (or something else that was sprayed) than nearly everyone else on the planet. But it may equally something else entirely. As I said earlier, cause and effect requires more than just a convenient timeline. I get a headache from drinking too much red wine, but then so does almost everybody else, each and every time they drink too much. A swift analysis of the metabolism of alcohol demonstrates why. So we have a large volume of evidence, and a clear cause. In the case of glyphosate, the enormous body of experience demonstrate that it is , within reason, safe. An evaluation of the chemistry of the product shows no reason for it to cause a problem. My own experience, and that of everybody I know from my neighbouring farmers to the guy spraying weeds at the petrol station, tells me that this product is safe. I spray a paddock with Roundup (nil stock witholding) and the livestock in that paddock are fine, as is my dog who stupidly decides to chase the sprayrig until I notice and chain him up. Every now and then I accidentally get a splash of Roundup (either neat or tank dilution) on me, with no ill effects.And yet I am supposed to believe that a boy died from walking on a sprayed area? I will believe that he died AFTER walking on a sprayed area, but AFTER is just timing. For example he walked on a sprayed area, then continued on his way home and was hit by a truck......Yes, he died after walking on Roundup, NO the death was not related to the Roundup in any way.

Your other point about PC not being about wholsesale poisoning of the environment is interesting. Why not? Surely permaculture is about the creation of a permanent culture/agriculture living within its means, in a sustainable way? Are you suggesting that we can only approach that task using certain practices and techniques?

By the way, I am sorry for all the typing. All my exposure the Roundup has yet to affect me!

[zzsstt]

i agree with frosty....

Tezza

Well of course you do. It's a viewpoint that fits your predisposition. That's why you're here on this forum, to communicate with "like minded individuals", something that has enormous benefits and I entirely agree with. The danger, however, comes when a group of likeminded individuals ceases to analyse information and simply accepts what others say BECAUSE it fits their predisposition. This is very common, and the internet has made it an everyday thing. Anybody can create a website that looks very convincing, with "facts" to support their claims, knowing full well that the predisposed will be sucked in.

On a forum such as this, with potentially no "non-permaculture" speakers, inevitably there is a rapid development of an almost fanatical zeal that goes unchecked. The real world is forgotten, issues become distorted and things that otherwise would be laughable become "fact".

I found this forum through a search (can't remember what for) and started reading. It contains some useful information. It also contains much that is exactly what my previous paragraph refers to - a sort of Chinese Whispers escalation of misinformation. There are discussions about farming practice that clearly have no knowledge of the subject at hand, which overlaid on an apparent predisposition to believing that farmers are bad, results in a set of conclusions that are so inaccurate or misguided as to beggar belief. So, until I become too busy or too bored to continue (or the moderators ban me!), I will attempt to provide a farmers viewpoint on the forum. Whilst I do not have any realistic expectation that many people will suddenly change their views, I do hope that some will perhaps consider that a discussion carried out in isolation by a group of likeminded people may not, in fact, represent the "truth" - especially when few if any of the people in the discussion have any experience or knowledge (other than that gleaned from equally biased sources) of the other side of the discussion.

[Salkeela]

I am a scientist with a keen interest in permaculture who has taken the time to read zsstt's posts. Zsstt, you are speaking a LOT of sense and are obviously NOT a schill for monsanto or any other petrochemical organisation.

Occam's razor is hard to apply and as you point out facts can easily be mis-read.

Indulge me as I use an example to illustrate my point:

My example involves a news article by the BBC stating that breast feeding reduces the mother's chances of heart disease. I breast fed all of my children for 8months to a year so it is an issue that I "want" to hear good about.

The article went on to describe how the study was run. The study looked at post menopausal women and compared groups who had breast fed with women who had not. It found the first group to be healthier (specifically they had less heart disease) and so the article concluded that the breastfeeding had caused their improved health. At first glance this seems to be a very valid and sensible conclusion. Indeed the issues are linked - but correlation is not the same as causation. The breastfeeding may not have been the cause.

The article made no mention of the fact that women who choose to breast feed are more likely to be interested in all health issues, and so they are more likely to take good care of themselves (diet, exercise etc.). This means that really all the "breastfeeding" issue has done is separate the women into groups of those who take bodily health seriously and those who take it less seriously (of course there can be some exceptions to this generalisation but in a large study these would have little effect).

So the difference between these two groups will extend to more than just whether they breastfed or not. One or more of the other differences may in fact have been the cause of the difference! (I suspect that the diet/exercise of the two groups may have been quite different.) Correlation does not therefore mean causation!

In other words simply encouraging breast-feeding without other changes to lifestyle may NOT bring about the improved health observed in the study.


So I do agree entirely with a healthy skepticism of all company propaganda. Spin is a marketing tool. Yet, as you say zzsst, those who are fighting the spin are just as susceptible to propagating some spin of their own ..... As a casual observer it does sometimes become very hard to tease out the facts from the spin..... and therein lies our problem.

This has been an interesting discussion - thankyou zzsst for taking the time to explain.

My own position is that I have used Round Up in very limited areas and very rarely (last time 2 years ago). I don't particularly like using it, because I want to see what is achievable without resorting to purchased chemicals, but I do not rule out using it again if I so choose. However I do not make my living by farming and neither do I even grow all my own food.

I wish we could all return to an Eden where there was enough fertile healthy, land for everybody to grow as much as they wanted without needing fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides or any other oil-produced intervention. However the reality is that our population size is now dependent on what modern agriculture can produce. Many farmers are now introducing more wildlife friendly techniques and practices and most farmers round here have a VERY healthy interest in what is best for their land and for themselves (combined with a need to produce an income - this is real life).

Permaculture is relatively new and switching to a different type of agriculture cannot happen quickly (there can be a time lag for example before permacultural practices reach full productivity). So we should all take baby steps. There is interest out there, but history has shown us that sweeping changes brought in on a whim rarely succeed as intended and so farmers are rightly resistant to sudden changes.

Permaculture will be best served if it can become an alternative for farmers to start along side their existing currently successful farming techniques. Permaculturalists need to be careful not to alienate the exact group of people they hope to influence. I sort of straddle two groups here: many of my friends are farmers and I own land but I earn my keep as a science teacher. Communication is key here and then there is a chance that ideas can be exchanged in a healthy positive manner.

Just my 2p worth.... and now I'd better get a move on I have a class to teach this morning.

Sal

[Arby]

Governments test these products to ensure they are safe when used appropriately.

With your extreme arrogance and ignorance, I wasn't sure where to start until this. If you seriously believe the above quote, you are not nearly as smart or informed as you want these readers to believe. Or, you are completely delusional.

Go ahead, "zzsstt". I know you're itching to type another 10,000 words so tell the readers here how the U.S. chemical regulatory process works. More specifically, explain the following:

1)who actually does the "testing"?
2)what is required?
3)who gave who broad authority for regulation and what year?
4)and finally, tell the readers who the tax funded government watch dog is and tell us what they have had to say about all this since the beginning of the regulation period.

You come across as authoritative, claim to have worked for chemical companies and know things as "fact". Here's your opportunity to substantiate. I understand it might take you a while to look all this up so no need to rush a reply in. :lol:

I --as I'm sure many other readers here are-- am really looking forward to your answers.

[zzsstt]

With your extreme arrogance and ignorance, I wasn't sure where to start until this. If you seriously believe the above quote, you are not nearly as smart or informed as you want these readers to believe. Or, you are completely delusional.

Go ahead, "zzsstt". I know you're itching to type another 10,000 words so tell the readers here how the U.S. chemical regulatory process works. More specifically, explain the following:

1)who actually does the "testing"?
2)what is required?
3)who gave who broad authority for regulation and what year?
4)and finally, tell the readers who the tax funded government watch dog is and tell us what they have had to say about all this since the beginning of the regulation period.

You come across as authoritative, claim to have worked for chemical companies and know things as "fact". Here's your opportunity to substantiate. I understand it might take you a while to look all this up so no need to rush a reply in. :lol:

I --as I'm sure many other readers here are-- am really looking forward to your answers.

Why is it that when peoples beliefs are questioned they suddenly get aggressive or abusive? I got an aggressive post full of emoticons earlier, which I ignored, now I have another!

When I first typed the post you are quoting I actually included the phrase "supposedly", because I suspected someone would jump on it. I then rephrased it "when used appropriately".

Anyway, to answer your "question", like most things the process and authorities vary from country to country. The registration process for any chemical also depends on the use of the product. In the pharmaceutical industry the process takes many years, starting with animal testing, moving through testing on volunteers in laboratories and with the final stages being clinical trials carried out by Doctors. These Doctors work to protocols written by the Pharmaceutical company to select suitable patients and monitor efficacy and adverse events. The trials are carried out double blind. It is, I agree, unfortunate that the company in question is responsible for carrying out the testing and analysing the data, although the raw data is included in the reports and is checked by the relevant authorities in the review process. On the other hand, given that the profit from the drug goes to the company I think you would have a hard time persuading a government or third party to carry out the testing, it is after all very expensive. By the way, who actually does the testing, who reviews the data and who authorises anything is utterly irrelevant because there is so much money tied up in the process that a person with anti-chemical beliefs will always be able to claim that the system is corrupt.

In fact, all testing is open to criticism. I am told the USA use (or used to use) Marines for chemical threshold testing (this may in turn be a rumour?), which of course means that such a threshold is irrelevant for children. However to continue with that analysis, it is utterly impossible to test everything for every possible combination of events, or to accurately assess the risk of long term exposure in anything other than real time (accelerated testing or statistical extrapolation are simply guesswork). It is also very hard to define what constitues an acceptable risk, there is nothing on earth that does not pose a risk to your health, if used by the wrong person in the wrong way (you are 80% water, but you can still drown).

So what we are left with is either total stagnation - nothing "new" can be considered safe until it is time-proven, but it cannot be time-proven unless it is actally used - or adoption of some generally accepted definition of "acceptable risk" and some generally accepted level of testing to assure a product falls within that risk level. There will, of course, always be people who claim this "is not enough". I find myself wondering if they extend that concept to everything that has not been around for 100's of years, or whether it is just the more obvious or fashionable subjects that arose their passions. Do these people refuse to eat, wear and touch anything that they have not produced themselves, presumably not because they type on their plastic-chemical keyboard! Maybe because the keyboard is not "designed" to kill things it is OK, or maybe they are unaware that the testing for that plastic and its constituents was done in much the same way as that of any other chemical?

The reason that I find this subject amusing is that the vast majority of people have exposure to "chemicals" almost constantly, even using the "plastic-man-made" definition of chemical. I have (as has been pointed out) made comment of other more harmful chemicals we are exposed to. For obvious legal reasons I will not mention the product by name, though I will say it is not a pharmaceutical or agricultural product, but I was involved in the development of a product that (I would guess) each and everyone reading this post contacts more or less daily. As with all things, the manufacturer was constantly trying to make the product better or more importantly cheaper to make. The constituent products ("chemicals") were under constant development, and suddenly one was synthesized that was not only better but also WAY cheaper than the previous best. Sadly it failed its safety testing (done by a third party lab in the approved manner) in a spectacular way. Not to be put off, some very minor changes were made to it's chemistry and it was retested, with marginally better results (but still a fail). Eventually this chemical was tested by every lab that could be found, under varous names, until it scraped a pass (presumably a particularly tough mob of rats!). That chemical is now included in the production formulation, in a product that we all contact every day.

Now, before anyone else says it, yes I know this proves that "they" can't be trusted. But, as I said right at the beginning, NOBODY WITH ANYTHING TO GAIN CAN BE TRUSTED. "We" are pushing permaculture as the solution, whilst conveniently ignoring the failure of every large PC project. We quote their successes in the past, and forget to mention that they no longer exist. It's called "marketing", and we all do it.

This does not change the fact that there are probably millions of people using a product with no obvious problems. A very small number of people suggest that they have had problems, but even if all their problems do indeed come back to this product (which is unproven at this stage), compare this to the damage done by sugar, overeating, cars, or probably gymnasia (?). If we are to use that as justification to ban a product then surely we should start on the things that do more harm?

I am sorry that I did not list the various authorities for you. As you suggested, anyone can Google and find the results. I imagine that you could find a number of sites that will tell you how corrupt it all is as well, as well as a few references to falsified test results, which I'm guessing you're writing off as unimportant or themselves lies, given that the entire system is corrupt?** Like I said, we can either consider the bulk of evidence in a rational manner or react according to our predisposition.

Is everyone who disagrees with you "arrogant and ignorant"?

**All people and organisations are, in fact, politically motivated. I was involved with the banning of a product that was (honestly) perfectly good, simply because the media hooked in to a Doctor who took some out-of-context data and (I'm guessing) wanted to make a name for himself. The banning was entirely political (aren't they all?), served no purpose and removed a product that could have been useful to many people.

[frosty]

Your other point about PC not being about wholsesale poisoning of the environment is interesting. Why not? Surely permaculture is about the creation of a permanent culture/agriculture living within its means, in a sustainable way? Are you suggesting that we can only approach that task using certain practices and techniques?

to be honest I cant be bothered reading most of your parroted propaganda and personal insults - although I scanned enough to gather you are arrogant and ignorant as Arby suggests

I would like you to tell me how you are going to continue farming once you cant use petroleum products ?

You will probably ask why should you even consider it :lol: I doubt the fact that natural resources like oil will not continue to be available has ever penetrated your over confident existence but it is going to happen .......... and when it does I fear you and your followers may starve :ANAL:

but it wont make a bit of difference to our food production methods

So my answer to your last line is a resounding YES

[stevieray]

I am a scientist with a keen interest in permaculture who has taken the time to read zsstt's posts. Zsstt, you are speaking a LOT of sense and are obviously NOT a schill for monsanto or any other petrochemical organisation.

+1

If you are going to make claims you should be prepared to back them up, or provide a disclaimer that they are merely opinion. If someone questions those unsubstantiated claims they are not arrogant, and they are proclaiming their ignorance by asking for references to studies or other supporting evidence that you haven't supplied.

It seems to me that all Zsstt is guilty of is a healthy prejudice against zealotry.

PS. I rarely use glyphosate but have used it on occasion when other methods of weed eradication is impractical for the specific situation.