Roundup. Incredibly
useful stuff. You've got to plant an area up, but how do you get rid
of the existing vegetation, specifically all the persistent perennial
weeds like couch, ryegrass, bindweed etc.? Or if you are trying to
establish a native wildflower meadow mix on a site dominated by
pasture grass? Or deal with Japanese knotweed? Or deal with a
persistent weed problem which is threatening to overwhelm an
existing, perhaps otherwise very successful planting? Or cope with a
weed problem deeply rooted into paving or other hard surfaces?
Roundup is usually the answer.
For years, since 1974
in fact, Roundup has been an essential part of the toolkit for the
landscape and horticulture industries, and increasingly for nature
conservation workers too. Now, in the European Union at least, it
appears threatened. It needs to be re-registered by EU rules - a
process required for all agrochemicals, and designed to ensure that
all materials used are regularly reviewed for safety and
environmental impact. Re-registration appears to be being constantly
delayed.
There is an incredible
amount of hypocrisy round Roundup, and indeed many other
agrochemicals. Well-known designers hoe their 'organic' plots in
magazine articles and TV progammes but out of the limelight specify
herbicide clearance for many of their clients' gardens. A lot of us
love to eat in organic 'artisan' restaurants, buy organic food when
it suits us, but carry on buying conventional produce the rest of the
time. Conventional agriculture, for all its faults, does a remarkably
good job of feeding us, on a steadily diminishing global stock of
arable land.
After a very long time
in use, there have been countless studies showing Roundup to be, ok,
not something you'd pour over your cornflakes, but pretty well
harmless to humans. Then a study by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer came up which claimed a cancer link. The organic
lobby, who having ignored the science on the active ingredient
glyphosate for years, grabbed this with both hands and ran with it.
Only the other day I read a Facebook posting from somebody describing
how she accosted a neighbour and accused him of poisoning the
neighbourhood. Now there is a story, see here, about how unpublished evidence of glyphosate's safety has been ignored. The cancer scare
should perhaps have never seen the light of day, and a lot of
unnecessary controversy and worry avoided.
For us in the garden
and landscape industry there are two main questions here. One is the
safety of this very widely used chemical, specifically of glyphosate,
its active ingredient. The other is, given that its safety record has
actually been remarkably good over 42 years on the market, why is
re-registering so politically fraught?
It is always difficult
for those of us outside a narrow scientific circle to really assess
whether a chemical is safe or not. Scientific and medical research
uses a jargon which can be impenetrable and rarely gives the clear
answers we want. Such research is often passed on to us by
journalists, who rarely have any better understanding of science
jargon than we do, and often have little interest in doing so. There
is a further problem, which is a political muddying of the waters.
Environmental campaign groups have long had it in for all
agrochemicals, and their well-funded press departments are all too
quick to fling out press releases on the latest research findings
giving their own point of view. Journalists overwhelmingly react to
these, rather than research on their own, they written in plain
English, and inevitably take up no more than one side of A4.
Every now and again, I
try to take a look at what the scientists are saying, and I have a
chat with a colleague who is a plant sciences prof. and does work for
the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. What I see and hear is not,
to be honest, hugely worrying. You can check it out for yourself on
wikipedia – which gives a good dispassionate summary with lots of
references. I personally use Roundup, mostly on nursery plots, for
which I find it incredibly useful.
Roundup's being in the
dock is largely political, an example of how the garden and landscape
world is getting blow-back from other, bigger controversies. Many
environmentalists hate Roundup because it was invented by Monsanto,
an American multinational. It is very hard to have a sensible
conversation about this company with many people, largely because of
the genetically-modified crops issue. Has there been a single
negative impact on human health because of GM crops? No. So, why the
almost-hysterical opposition? The sheer irrationality of much of the
debate has seeped into and poisoned sensible discussion of so much
else. Of course need to discuss how and when we use agrochemicals in
the managed landscape, and to continually review this. But we need to
look at the evidence and take it from there.
