Good point Wes,
Monsanto (the makers) have been questioned about their claims about the safety of Glyphosate - and of course we all believe safety claims by Vendors - don't we?
It's one of the reasons we are going for a 'holding' action at present - there are a number of studies going on at present into the long-term safety aspects of this and related products.
There's a lot of myths and mis-information on Glyphosphate - like "it's safe to use for waterside weed control 'cos it is inactivated on contact with water" - hmm? really? - so why/how is it used for aquatic weed control? I understand EA are looking at this one!
The other one is that its residual concentrations in some GM crops are higher than normally allowed - another good reason to avoid GM! - I wonder if Monsanto have any interest in GM!?
Do any of the Hogweed-infested streams, becks and brooks flow into drinking water supplies? - that raises another set of problems!
mg:
Exactly!
What happens when standards that having been set, can be over ridden easily by the fact that the chosen countries (mainly third world who are exploited to the max) that are contracted to grow and produce for us but don't have any compulsion to adopt the same limitations of usage, before exporting back to us in higher residual amounts the very thing we say we must limit?
How to side step complicity but ensure we all get a taste of the poisoned well first!
Now how's this for tinfoil hat conspiracy buffoonary....
Can anyone prove that GM's even exist at all without relying somehow on repetition of regurgitated media industry acceptance only, or that people haven't been hoodwinked into a giant hoax that has only served to generate and maintain the apparent need for large scale introduction of this herbicide, using third world hunger (altruistic argument) as a vehicle in a climate that existing herbicides have already proved an obstacle, having already previously effected the kind of trust you speak of but still convincing enough?
Although it sounds far fetched, how many have actually considered how hard it would be to rightfully dis-prove a claim that something does exist for certain and that more importantly it can be verified independently by testing being carried out by anyone
but the very people that promoted its use from the beginning or any one company that doesn't hold the patent for it to even be tested legally nor need permission to do so by the same entity?
The herbicide had grown and been promoted alongside the GM technology all the way, almost like some kind of symbiotic shielding, mixed with a bit of unprovable scientific sci-fi fearmongering and mass public acceptance (mainly using fear and empathy together).
Seen any Chickens with Barbel heads on them lately?
No? Horses deformed by having Pigeon legs? No?
Oh? Glow in the dark pigs and photoshop it is then.
What's doing the real harm? the imaginary fish genes in your cornflakes or the residual amounts of accumulating Glyphosate sprayed onto the Maize plant during the growing season packaged for you to eat?
That's right, it's so safe you can probably bath in it (I wonder if Monsanto staff use GM produce in their own production site canteen's) would seem a good litmus test!
It is amazing what SFA have achieved, it shows what can be done.