5 ms·

First, research is showing it has sub-lethal effects on many species of animals, particularly pollinators like bees where field-realistic doses can significantl

by jly 9y ago

First, research is showing it has sub-lethal effects on many species of animals, particularly pollinators like bees where field-realistic doses can significantly reduce colony performance. Second, glyphosate persists and drifts easily from 'controlled' plants to nearby wild habitat, destroying and eroding critical forage. Glyphosate is hugely responsible for the conversion of massive amounts of land into corn and soy cropland, where reduced pollinator habitat actually reduces crop yields (or requires more agricultural abuses like migratory honeybees). To say this is a useful chemical is misleading. It's designed to kill things and like all such chemicals, there are significant tradeoffs, regardless of whether it is directly carcinogenic to humans.

tptacek 9y ago
That's interesting, but you're rebutting a bunch of arguments I didn't make.
- jly 9y ago
  I disagree with your argument that we should push back on policy intervention for glyphosate, because it might be non-carcinogenic to humans or it compares more favorably against another chemical in our food. My comments were other reasons why it may be dangerous. Considering it's one of the most-used common chemicals in the US, the standard for this usage must be very high.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Fair enough. I mean to say: we should push back on policy interventions based on marginal hypothetical cancer risks.
    - jly 9y ago
      I would definitely agree with that.
hcurtiss 9y ago
Uhm, glyphosate doesn't affect pollinators.[1] It's an herbicide. And drift that reduces "critical forage"? That's not even part of the glyphosate controversy. Glyphosate either works on a plant or it doesn't. Where you're killing your neighbor's plants by drift, you're going to get a citation or sued or both. [1] https://goo.gl/lGpC1k https://goo.gl/lGpC1k
- notadoc 9y ago
  Many people confuse herbicides with pesticides as you have probably noticed. Both can be harmful or beneficial, depending on usage obviously.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    "Pesticides", at least in common usage, is inclusive of herbicides.
- jly 9y ago
  > Uhm, glyphosate doesn't affect pollinators. It does affect pollinators, show in some examples of recent research [1][2], and effects on other non-insect animal species like frogs [3] and fish [4][5]. We may not know why it does yet, but there is plenty of evidence. This is just a tiny sampling. > And drift that reduces "critical forage"? That's not even part of the glyphosate controversy. This is very much part of the controversy. As one example, glyphosate has been linked to decline of milkweed habitat, significantly impacting monarch butterflies. The NRDC petitioned the EPA in 2015 to restrict the use because of this [6]. Just because of the widespread application in agricultural and urban areas, drift and runoff contaminate large areas of habitat, impacting countless non-target species of both plant and animal. One could also draw the conclusion that glyphosate-tolerant corn and soy have been particularly responsible for the conversion of over 150 million acres of land (almost the size of Texas) into food or biofuel development in the last ~25 years. This land is no longer animal/pollinator friendly and is leading to a rapid decline in plant/pollinator relationships. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063858 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063858 [2] http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/17/2799.full.pdf http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/17/2799.full.pd... [3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/11-0189.1/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/11-0189.1/abstrac... [4] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es404258h http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es404258h [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933590 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933590 [6] https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150624 https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150624

by jly 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

That's interesting, but you're rebutting a bunch of arguments I didn't make.

jly 9y ago
I disagree with your argument that we should push back on policy intervention for glyphosate, because it might be non-carcinogenic to humans or it compares more favorably against another chemical in our food. My comments were other reasons why it may be dangerous. Considering it's one of the most-used common chemicals in the US, the standard for this usage must be very high.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Fair enough. I mean to say: we should push back on policy interventions based on marginal hypothetical cancer risks.
  - jly 9y ago
    I would definitely agree with that.

hcurtiss 9y ago

Uhm, glyphosate doesn't affect pollinators.[1] It's an herbicide. And drift that reduces "critical forage"? That's not even part of the glyphosate controversy. Glyphosate either works on a plant or it doesn't. Where you're killing your neighbor's plants by drift, you're going to get a citation or sued or both. [1] https://goo.gl/lGpC1k https://goo.gl/lGpC1k

notadoc 9y ago
Many people confuse herbicides with pesticides as you have probably noticed. Both can be harmful or beneficial, depending on usage obviously.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  "Pesticides", at least in common usage, is inclusive of herbicides.
jly 9y ago
> Uhm, glyphosate doesn't affect pollinators. It does affect pollinators, show in some examples of recent research [1][2], and effects on other non-insect animal species like frogs [3] and fish [4][5]. We may not know why it does yet, but there is plenty of evidence. This is just a tiny sampling. > And drift that reduces "critical forage"? That's not even part of the glyphosate controversy. This is very much part of the controversy. As one example, glyphosate has been linked to decline of milkweed habitat, significantly impacting monarch butterflies. The NRDC petitioned the EPA in 2015 to restrict the use because of this [6]. Just because of the widespread application in agricultural and urban areas, drift and runoff contaminate large areas of habitat, impacting countless non-target species of both plant and animal. One could also draw the conclusion that glyphosate-tolerant corn and soy have been particularly responsible for the conversion of over 150 million acres of land (almost the size of Texas) into food or biofuel development in the last ~25 years. This land is no longer animal/pollinator friendly and is leading to a rapid decline in plant/pollinator relationships. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063858 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063858 [2] http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/17/2799.full.pdf http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/17/2799.full.pd... [3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/11-0189.1/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/11-0189.1/abstrac... [4] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es404258h http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es404258h [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933590 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933590 [6] https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150624 https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150624