After the World Health Organisation's International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there's enough robust scientific evidence
to consider glyphosate herbicide "probably carcinogenic to humans"
[1], Edinburgh and Barcelona City Councils announced their intention to take
action [2].
Edinburgh commissioned a report on the options and costs of
alternative weed control methods such as special blow-torches, hoeing and hot
water. Barcelona was looking at a ban on
the herbicide in favour of a sustainable, ecological style of management for
its gardens.
Four years later, where have these flagship initiatives led?
Edinburgh was successful in reducing its glyphosate
treatments by 50% in 2017 compared with 2016, but usage crept up quite a bit in
2018 (the last year we have figures for); it has now invested in quad bikes to
allow more efficient spraying.
Three other Scottish city councils (Falkirk, Highland and Midlothian)
are "actively cutting back", nine are promising limited reductions in
use of the herbicide, sixteen councils have no plans to reduce spraying, and
three (including Glasgow) aren't telling.
NGOs in Spain report that, besides Barcelona, glyphosate bans
are in place in Madrid, Zaragoza and the region of Extramadura, with partial
bans in the regions of La Rioja and Aragon.
Elsewhere, at least five councils in England have been
"seriously" trying to get rid of glyphosate while France, Germany,
Italy, Portugal and Denmark have "promised" full or partial bans.
This isn't really terribly impressive in terms of the
tangible elimination of a probable carcinogen from our everyday surroundings.
Excuses for this evident lack of political will include:
- public
spaces will become unkempt and less aesthetic if glyphosate is abandoned
- maintaining
standards without glyphosate would require 20 more workers at a cost of
£360,000
- austerity
- "a
lot of complaints about weeds"
- public
pressure not to let standards drop
- perceived
poor maintenance if glyphosate isn't used which will bring the council
into disrepute
- employees
are scared to stop using glyphosate in case they lose their jobs
- the
greater carbon footprint of alternatives (this from Bayer,
manufacturers of glyphosate)
- slow
and laborious hand-weeding will put workers at risk of repetitive strain
injury (this from Bayer, manufacturers of glyphosate)
Friends of the Earth Scotland has suggested that, rather
than swapping one weed-control method (glyphosate) for another, councils should
adopt a more imaginative, diversified approach.
This could range from doing nothing in areas where weeds can be
tolerated, to hand-weeding and hot foam weed control in other areas.
Besides the threat to the exposed public and wildlife, trade
union GMB describes glyphosate application as "a severe health risk to
workers". In America, that severe
health risk has translated into several thousand law suits brought by cancer
victims against the makers of glyphosate-based herbicides, Bayer.
OUR COMMENT
The human and medical costs of even one extra
glyphosate-linked cancer victim make the excuses put forward for inaction sound
somewhat lame.
It might be worthwhile contacting your Councillor to put
some pressure on your Local Authority to eliminate glyphosate: after all, given
what's going on in the US courts, the cost of defending a single lawsuit plus
the compensation (which you would actually be paying for) would make
glyphosate a spectacularly expensive cost-cutting measure.
Background
SOURCES:
- The Ferret, Councils sprayed 170,000 litres of weedkiller linked to cancer, The National, 12.01.20 Note. The Ferret is an editorially independent, not-for-profit co-operative run by journalists and subscribers, https://theferret.scot/
- Where is glyphosate banned? www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/where-is-glyphosate-banned/, updated November 2019
Photo Creative Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.