glyphosate use in a permaculture environment...

[Arby]

So cutting and pasting freely available information provides credibility?

You can't possibly be serious!! :lol: The GAO is a well known source of credible information. You're an anonymous poster on an Internet forum.

As are you, though you have stated repeatedly that.... and the way you wanted me to "display some credibility", apparently was to cut and paste freely available information. Perhaps I have misinterpreted your request, but in almost every one of your posts you have stated that I know nothing based on the fact that I didn't cut and paste:

This is probably pointless but I'll try one last time...in elementary fashion. Yes, we're both anonymous posters. The difference though is that I provide a credible reference. You provide nothing but long rambles that do not coincide with with GAO. You say all is dandy. I say no THEN cut and paste excerpts for proof. You ignore and/or sidestep then continue rambling.

I could go on and on with stuff like this pulled from the GAO reports (I have been following them for years and you what, 2 days?) but you will still cling to your claim that testing is done and chemicals are safe and all that....even though you have not provided a single source of information to back up your assertions. And by your own admission, you do not have an in depth knowledge of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Funny how you'd know all that you claim. It's akin to a child learning to run hurdles before learning to crawl or walk.

I am quite sure you could cut and paste forever, we all could.

Why don't you than? Prove me wrong by cutting and pasting from a credible source substantiating your claim...and provide the reference link so I and other readers can verify. You haven't already because you can't!!!

As for my claim that testing is done, well yes I will cling to it.

"EPA and ITC had identified for testing less than 1 percent of the more than 60,000 chemicals in the TSCA inventory; since the enactment of TSCA, EPA had completed test data for only six chemicals and had not finished assessing those".

With less than 1% of 60,000+ chemicals, you are not clinging to much now are you??? :lol:

I have also given examples (from the GAO reports you have quoted) of everyday chemicals ("Vitamin A") that have been listed as troublesome, though you have chosen to ignore those "chemicals" as presumably you realise that for you their benefits outweigh their disadvantages

I do not take vitamins.

....- as you are not in a position where herbicides provide any great benefit (I'm assuming here that you grow all your own food, and use no man-made products etc.)

I grow about 25% of my own food and I grow that with ZERO synthetic chemicals. Of the remaining 75% of my food, I buy "certified organic" only. I know the latter doesn't come with any guarantees but four independent studies have shown "certified USDA organic" to consistently have fewer chemical residues compared to conventionally grown food. Not only am I trying to minimize my chemical body burden, I will not support conventional farming if I can help it. I have been there and contributed to its known problems. In good conscious though, I can say I have learned differently.

[zzsstt]

I have been away for a couple of days, and the one chance I got to use my computer the wonderful satellite internet system failed on me!

OK, this subject has me interested because my experience from within the industries was that I had to do a fair amount of work and provide a fair amount of data to get chemicals approved. Now I will admit that we did not test for each and every possible combination of chemicals and circumstances (such testing would be impossible), and nor did we test for some of the issues that are of concern today as we simply did not know of their existence - as I said earlier, our knowledge increases each day. However I will spend some time investigating how the process of testing and registering pesticides currently works and let you know what I find.

It occurs to me however that having a "full set of results" may not be as terrible as it first appears. One of the GAO reports includes a reply from the EPA which includes the normal "we can't afford it" comments, but also makes a more sensible coment about changes to test procedures and requirements impacting existing results. This started me thinking. If there are 5000 registered pesticides (just a number, not an accurate figure), and for arguments sake each has a full and complete set of test results, a single change in "law" requiring that an additional result is required means that instantly none of those pesticides has a full set of results. The next question becomes; for a chemical that has been in daily use for perhaps 30 years with no evidence of adverse events, is it worthwhile to go back and test it? What if the new requirement is something small like the colour of the product must be recorded? Is this a sensible use of testing resources? Some of those older chemicals that may still be registered may no longer even be in use, or may be used only in very small quantities as more modern chemicals may do a better job.

I'm guessing from the use of the GAO as an example that you live in the USA, which may be different, but in Australia we are not required to sit a driving test every time the laws governing cars and highways are changed. It is assumed that someone who has been driving for many years is competent to continue, and does not need to be retested because they are now required to wear a seatbelt or can no longer buy leaded petrol. Even with the best of intentions there is always a finite limit on how much (of anything) can be done, is it not better to concentrate on the new and unknown stuff than on what has been used for years? Is it actually a sensible use of resources to retest each and every chemical to maintain a full set of results, including recently added tests, for chemicals that are in general use and accepted as safe? This is not an attempt to avoid the issue, as I said I will investigate how our pesticide registration process works, but it was just a thought!

One final question (not related to chemical testing), you say that you will not support conventional farming. Is it a requirement in the USA that an entire farm be organic? In Australia we have the (to my mind) ridiculous situation where a farmer can own two fields of potatoes, one being "organic" whilst the other is not. To me this is a system so open to abuse as to make the entire "certification" process a joke, ot to mention casting great doubt on the motivation to grow organically. It also means that buying "organic" food from such a source is actually supporting conventional farming. Does this situation also exist in the US?

[Arby]

The next question becomes; for a chemical that has been in daily use for perhaps 30 years with no evidence of adverse events, is it worthwhile to go back and test it?

But what does one consider "adverse"? A lot of "adverse" effects are obvious...or at least in the way chemicals were looked at in the past. Many effects are very subtle and more and more are being discovered all the time...in previously unfathomable ways. The best reply I can give here is to sit down with an open mind and read "Our Stolen Future".

One final question (not related to chemical testing), you say that you will not support conventional farming. Is it a requirement in the USA that an entire farm be organic? In Australia we have the (to my mind) ridiculous situation where a farmer can own two fields of potatoes, one being "organic" whilst the other is not. To me this is a system so open to abuse as to make the entire "certification" process a joke, ot to mention casting great doubt on the motivation to grow organically. It also means that buying "organic" food from such a source is actually supporting conventional farming. Does this situation also exist in the US?

That I do not know for certain but I can understand what you're saying. I'll have to look that up when I have more time.

[zzsstt]

"Adverse events" are indeed a tricky subject - in the pharmaceutical industry the term includes ANYTHING BAD that happens...... whether or not it is obviously related to the drug. For example, one that sticks in my mind was that a patient suffered bruising after being hit by a baseball..... nothing to do with the drug. However it has to be recorded because there is always the slight chance that the drug has had ome slight effect on, for example, reaction time, which may be demonstrated if a statistically significant number of patients starts to show similar accidental injury.

I suspect however that you are talking more about the "things we have yet to discover" health issues, and here I agree with you to some extent. However my own view is that whether or not a chemical is man-made is largely irrelevant. All organic chemicals contain the same structures and bonds, arranged in different ways. It is basically impossible to predict how one of these complex molecules will interact in "any and all" situations. We know that there are "natural" molecules that will damage us, we also know that there are natural molecules that we require for good health (Vitamin A!) that occur naturally (green vegies, dairy produce) but that will still, under certain conditions, do harm to us. To be honest I have no doubt that some of the man-made chemicals are harmful in ways we have yet to discover, but I equally have no doubt that the same applies to "natural" molecules.

For me it simply comes down to my own risk analysis. Whilst it is possible that glyphosate may in the future be proven to be detrimental to health, it is also possible that the blue haze of oil vapour produced by gum trees (I am told this is why the "Blue Mountains" are blue) may be found to be equally harmfull. However I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that at any time I or my children go out in to the garden they run the risk of crossing paths with one of several of the worlds most venomous snakes, one particular example (the brown snake, the second most venomous snake in the world, we are told) being quite aggressive. I also know for certain that each time I get in my car I run the risk of an accident. However never to go outside, or never drive to town are not really option, so I decide the benefits outweigh the risks. I apply the same theory to pesticides - if I could avoid using them I would (anything unnecessary is inherently inefficient), but the reality is that if I want to make money from my farm at this point I have to use them.

Out of interest, and this is just a personal point of view, I think that whilst a "campaign" against persticides may be very noble, it is likely to to simply be viewed as extreme ("loonies") by people who use these chemicals every day, and who largely rely on them for their business. The trouble is that once the label "loony" has been applied, any further input from that source is written off as equally loony. At this point in history I think there is more to be gained by forgetting or at least putting aside all the "chemical" and animal lib causes, and developing a concerted effort to stop genetic modification of crops. To me that is an area that has the potential to create vast damage on a global scale, with (unlike pesticides) very little benefit. As I say, it's only my personal view, but the pesticides are here, in use and have been for years. Any damage they may cause has already been done. GM is new, utterly unknown and potentially far more dangerous.

[Arby]

I suspect however that you are talking more about the "things we have yet to discover" health issues

,

Well, there is certainly that but it's not really what I'm referring to. At the risk of sounding redundant, one should read "Our Stolen Future".....or at the very least, read the short interview I linked to earlier in this thread. The implications are complex...inscrutable.

and here I agree with you to some extent. However my own view is that whether or not a chemical is man-made is largely irrelevant.

Yes, you said it: "arranged in different ways"...and these man-made chems are being introduced rapidly. So in my opinion, it's not quite irrelevant.

I apply the same theory to pesticides - if I could avoid using them I would (anything unnecessary is inherently inefficient), but the reality is that if I want to make money from my farm at this point I have to use them.

I hear this often and there is no doubt about it; learning to farm on a large scale without the use of chemicals would be difficult. Notice I said "learn" though. Here, the overwhelming majority of farmers are conservative in their mindset. By their very nature, they do not want to learn to change...and in some cases, they may not be able to afford the mistakes it takes to learn. But, it's not impossible as people do it. There's perhaps a dozen or more right here in my immediate area. I have to believe however, that by you being on this forum, you are one of the few traditional farmers who would like to learn how to farm differently.

Out of interest, and this is just a personal point of view, I think that whilst a "campaign" against persticides may be very noble, it is likely to to simply be viewed as extreme ("loonies") by people who use these chemicals every day, and who largely rely on them for their business. The trouble is that once the label "loony" has been applied, any further input from that source is written off as equally loony.

I totally agree with you as I run into this all the time. Vocal people, with no proof that their cow was killed by chemical over-spray (or insert any crazy story here), turn people off. At that point, people lump all anti-chemical activists into the same group and it's damned near impossible to convince them to look at the real scientific evidence or the GAO reports. I'm referring to conservative folk for the most part but I'm always surprised at how resistant liberal people are as well. It may just boil down to the fact that people don't want to be told that what they're doing is bad, however politically correct it is stated. Egos are powerfully stupid things. :?

At this point in history I think there is more to be gained by forgetting or at least putting aside all the "chemical" and animal lib causes, and developing a concerted effort to stop genetic modification of crops. To me that is an area that has the potential to create vast damage on a global scale, with (unlike pesticides) very little benefit. As I say, it's only my personal view, but the pesticides are here, in use and have been for years. Any damage they may cause has already been done. GM is new, utterly unknown and potentially far more dangerous.

I don't disagree with you on the GM thing but there are those who believe chemicals don't just have the potential to create vast damage on a global scale, but that irreversible damage has already been occurring, obscurely for decades, right under our noses. There's plenty of evidence to back this up too but it's a hard sell to get people to read. With big TVs, big cars, big homes & big ideas, there's no time to see what the "loonies" are researching and writing about.

[zzsstt]

I suspect however that you are talking more about the "things we have yet to discover" health issues

,

Well, there is certainly that but it's not really what I'm referring to. At the risk of sounding redundant, one should read "Our Stolen Future".....or at the very least, read the short interview I linked to earlier in this thread. The implications are complex...inscrutable.

I will attempt to get hold of a copy and read it. I must admit though, I have read a great deal of information on many aspects of farming, chemicals etc. As a gross generalisation (and not related to this book as I have not read it!), what I have found is that they tend to be written by people with no direct education in the subject at hand. They tend to start very well (as most sales pitches do), but then start to introduce more bizarre concepts that are "unconvincing" to say the least. It would appear that the authors often believe that by about mid-way through the book the reader will be sold on the subject at hand (often the first sections deal with stuff that is either generally accepted or known, or alternatively offer a convincing explanation that requires no great changes in mindset) and so they can start introducing the concepts that are more peculiar. An example of this is a book I read that started off giving a fairly normal explanation of CEC's and mineral requirements, all of which makes complete sense and fits with (fairly) generally accepted "truth". However about halfway through the book he suddenly introduced some bizarre concepts about radionics (or some such theory) that, to me at least, do not stack up. I personally have trouble believing in a measurement instrument that not only will not work in the hands on an "unbeliever", but also somehow knows when it is itself being evaluated and therefore gives a false result...... On the other hand, "Salad Bar Beef" was a good, and convincing read!

Yes, you said it: "arranged in different ways"...and these man-made chems are being introduced rapidly. So in my opinion, it's not quite irrelevant.

All organic molecules are the same things arranged in different ways. I know of no way to pick what is man-made unless you already know.

I hear this often and there is no doubt about it; learning to farm on a large scale without the use of chemicals would be difficult. Notice I said "learn" though. Here, the overwhelming majority of farmers are conservative in their mindset. By their very nature, they do not want to learn to change...and in some cases, they may not be able to afford the mistakes it takes to learn. But, it's not impossible as people do it. There's perhaps a dozen or more right here in my immediate area. I have to believe however, that by you being on this forum, you are one of the few traditional farmers who would like to learn how to farm differently.

I would indeed love to know how to do it. I would actually love to believe that it is generally possible, but I don't. I do believe that it is possible in certain situations, however. It seems to me, from what I have seen and from my investigations, that if all goes well then chemicals are not required. But when things are not perfect, that's when the troubles arise. As an example, I know a grazier not far from me who uses very little herbicide, if any. However he is on land that has, in the past, been sprayed and resown repeatedly until the weed seedbank is almost zero. He has now got to the point that he does not need to spray. When he does spot the odd weed, he pulls it by hand. I envy him, because my farm has more weed seeds than soil! Hopefully my current management practices will gradually reduce the seedbank, allowing me in a couple of years to resow to permanent/perennial grass+legume pasture which will out-compete the weeds, but there is no way I could do that at present. Even our small lawn area which is irrigated dense kikuyu has to be weeded by hand or spot spray every week or two. I have the same issues with fertilisers, it would be nice to be able to live without them, but until the soil and pasture has been repaired it is not. I have trialled composted chicken manure, and even guano, and they work to a point, but the financials don't add up - they area expensive to buy, bulky to transport and can be hard to apply. At some point, when the lime, gypsum, legumes, soil microbes, Yeomans plow etc. have done their work I would like to think that I can reduce or remove my "dependency", but it won't be quick! And, by the way, just to make the job more difficult the global warmies have now declared beef production to be bad because "it generates greenhouse gases" (nonsense, but that's another subject). This will, of course, push me towards a cropping enterprise which inherently ships far more nutrients off farm and means I have to replace them with..... fertiliser!

Much of this comes back to the same old debate; "we never needed chemicals in the past". That is true, but in those heady times it was not required that a couple of people harvested 7 tonnes per hectare of wheat at the rate of 50ha an hour in order to feed 100,000 people living in a city somewhere. The game has, sadly, changed.

So I do like to think of myself as foward thinking, but I am also realistic enough to know that given everything I have been able to find out, I cannot yet avoid the use of chemicals!

[Arby]

Just one more reason why I don't and never will use Roundup: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ethru.html

And for the same reasons why I won't eat traditionally farmed (non-organic) food: There's plenty of supporting evidence that chemical residues are not healthy (& my wife & I have our own proof if someone wants me to go there); and ag chems are factually known to pollute and cause all kinds of ecological damage which, in return, effects humans yet again.

Refusing chemicals when there are workable alternatives seems like a no brainer to me but who am I.......

[christopher]

I cannot understand why anyone would come to a site devoted to permaculture and advocate herbicide use. Zzzzzzit, what, exactly, is your point, to stir shit? If so, well done. This is a very strong energy vortex that is wasting a lot of peoples time. This is not the first (or fifth) time this conversation has come up, and the back and forth is the same stupid game it is every time. Booooring.

FWIW, I have visited hundreds of farms, and there are many examples of working alternatives to commercially motivated greed, laziness and stupidity induced Round Up use. The best farmers and permaculturists have no need for these chemicals, none whatsoever, and have incredibly, staggeringly productive, sustainable, beautiful farms, and it tends to be either commercial farmers with crops that are not appropriate for their soils, who adhere to the kilograms per hectare times dollar value per kilogram model of agriculture (an inadequate model to quantify the true cost), or the weekender "have-a-go" type who can justify Round Up use and cal it "permaculture". No fault in either of those, its just not needed if your design work is sound.

I think that http://www.roundup-enthusiasts.com has a chat forum for all the Round Up defenders. Maybe they should all go there and love ROund Up together. This really is not the place.

Hi Frosty and Tezza! Imagine having this conversation again (and again, and again, and again, and again...) And Veggie Boy is right, this always gets ugly, and I am probably the ugliest, first.

In the name of peace, I am walking out of this thread. Enjoy your pointless bickering.

Death to Monsanto.

[milifestyle]

Christopher,

Sometimes the uglier a conversation gets the better. Especially something this important. We need more people like you stepping forward. Its often hard to stick to the topic and not make personal attacks. We should try to leave the personal attacks out of the conversation though.

Someone please ask me to do the same

[christopher]

Milifiestyle, all that you have said is true, but, over the last four years here I have watched several trolls come in, who do not understand permaculture, who are not practicing permaculture, who are not really even interested in permaculture, derail what this forum was initially about, a place to discuss permaculture, by spouting off how wonderful and safe Round Up is. Last I checked, this forum was generously hosted by the Permaculture Research Institute, not the Round Up Lovers Society.

There is a very precise formula these threads follow, everytime, and this and other recent thread have followed this up to item "F":

A) New members arrive.

B) New "members" put forth them selves to be "well informed", post very long posts touting the "safety" of Round Up, but never offer statistics.

C) New "members" refuse to considerf information Arby has put out, calling it "unscientific", and saying the proof is not yet in.

D) New "members"refuse to acknowledge the true cost of chemical use, in this communities case the most extreme example being Frosty's severe disability.

E) New "members" say things like Round Up is "safe", "safer than sea salt", and that chocolate will kill a dog faster than Round Up.

F) New "members" tend to focus only on threads where the "debate" is.

G) After a while, when members of this forum stop feeding the trolls that they are, these new "members" fuck off to some other place, and good riddance. They offer little or nothing substantive to the discussion, and while they have much to learn, they have no interest in doing so, being impressed with their own cleverness and uninterested in alternatives.

I expect "G" to happen any day now.

Now, if I was paranoid, I would say these people are schills for Monsanto, coming in here to tout how safe Round Up is. In the past, I suspected that, one guy, in particular posted about Round Up over and over, and Monsanto has many people who write articles and letters to the editor, repeating the mantra that ROund Up is safe.

What irks me is that these people siphon away energy that could be spent on re-mediating damage to the planet (including damage caused by Round Up) by engaging people like you, Milifestyle, and Arby (and others), who have both positive things to contribute to this forum, and the world. We should be talking about ponds, and pumps, and soil building, and sustainable architecture, not whether or not Round Up is safe. There must be a better place for these people to congregate and self congratulate over their happiness in the world of Round Up.

If this was the first time I has seen this, I would allow myself to get sucked into the "debate", but this thread, like another one, recently, follows the same, well worn path, with the same predictable pathologies. In 2005 and 2006, this forum was extremely active, with lots of information being exchanged, goats, ponds, cob building, photovoltaic and wind energy, chooks, plant guilds, swales, bio-char, aquaponics :wav: all manner of interesting and exciting earth healing topics, and then three trolly "members", the horses of the Apocalypse, rode in, made Round Up a "freedom of speech" issue, went through the pattern above, and people who are farmers and who do practice small scale agriculture, using permaculture principles, left in droves. ALS was founded by members who left during that time, and remains a very robust community that wastes NO time discussing Round Up.

Arby, don't feed the troll. You raise good points, and Zzzzzit is not being polite enough to respond to anything you say. Expect him to lose interest in this forum if he finds no one willing to "debate" with him, then he sulk and wander off to parts unknown, and you can get back to talking about things that are more interesting, like, well, for example, um, permaculture, which, as has been established, is really what this forum was intended for.

Arby wrote:

I suspect however that you are talking more about the "things we have yet to discover" health issues

Well, there is certainly that but it's not really what I'm referring to. At the risk of sounding redundant, one should read "Our Stolen Future".....or at the very least, read the short interview I linked to earlier in this thread. The implications are complex...inscrutable.

It is redundant. You told him several times. He is ignoring anything that challenges his paradigm. He won't read it, and if he does, he will dismiss it as being "Unscientific".

Focus on permaculture and things that are sustainable. Ignore Round Up as a topic, and ignore those who want to "debate" it. That goes for both the Pro Round Up and Anti Round Up crowds. Its such a pointlessly polemic and divisive topic, whcsh is peripheral to the subject at hand, permaculture. Anyone who has does permaculture work will see little need for Round Up.

Now I really am leaving this thread. Have fun, boys and girls, playing out the pathologies of yet another "Round Up is safe" thread.