>
>I realize that this is a very emotional issue.
Yes. But saying that often has the subtext of
implying that people don't have a rational basis for their views.
> Because I work on ecological restoration projects, I get to work with a
>variety of professionals and scientists on strategies for increasing
>biodiversity and habitat. I realize that it may be counter intuitive, but
>occasionally some limited herbicide use is part
>of best management practices for
>ecological restoration. I think it might be helpful to look at a relatively
>neutral analysis of facts and myths from a source with expertise in
>restoration ecology.
"Best Management Practices" are in the eye of the
beholder. What is "best" from the standpoint of
killing weeds may not be "best" from the
standpoint of health and "sustainability."
>
>Here is some information about the challenges of biodiversity and chemical
>control from the perspective of: wildones.org. [below]
The use of chemical control is extremely tempting
and I have been guilty of it myself in the
past. If, for the sake of discussion, one frames
the issue as the importance of invasive species
control vs the potential for human health and
ecological damage, I would like to know if the
Park Commissioners feel this is a decision the
people of Minneapolis are entitled to make.
Wild Ones, below, says "The beneficial
applications of some herbicides are evident and
necessary if we are to deal with invasive plant species."
Perhaps, but it has been my (limited) experience
that chemical control of invasives usually
requires continuing applications forever.
I am no expert on the toxicity of glyphosate and
mixtures thereof. But it is indisputable that
the influence of money coming from Monsanto and
other manufacturers has distorted both the
scientific literature and regulatory
processes. Thus, as hazards are becoming better
recognized, use is at the same time rapidly
expanding.
<http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_1_introducing_glyphosate.pdf>
of the Earth (FOE) says:
"Worldwide, around 650,000 tonnes of glyphosate
products were used in 2011 [13], and sales were
worth around US$6.5 billion in 2010 [14], more
than the value of all other herbicides combined.
And its use keeps increasing, in large part
because of the production of GM crops - one
industry analyst is predicting global glyphosate
use could double by 2017 [15]."
I expect that the percentage of this used for
control of invasives is small, and some of those,
such as painting on stumps, are likely relatively
low-impact, but others, such as spraying marshes
to control phragmites or cattails, are dosing the
most vital and sensitive environments.
This is a few years old but contains general information on glyphosate:
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-Cox.htm
This is from Natural News:
http://www.naturalnews.com/050598_glyphosate_dangers_Roundup_cancer_study.html
"U.S. worst of all: No restrictions on glyphosate use whatsoever
The rapid response of many other nations in
addressing toxic glyphosate following the release
of the IARC report only further highlights the
endemic corruption of the U.S. government, which
has done absolutely nothing to limit human
exposure to this deadly chemical poison."
This is from the journal Nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181
"The cancer-research arm of the World Health
Organization last week
<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract>
that glyphosate, the worlds most widely used
herbicide, is probably carcinogenic to
humans.<http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181#b1>1
But the assessment, by the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France,
has been followed by an immediate backlash from industry groups."
And from the Permaculture Research Inst (review article):
http://permaculturenews.org/2014/03/26/glyphosate-cancer/
"Glyphosate promotes growth of human breast
cancer cells at minute concentrations
A research team in Thailand led by Jutamaad
Satayavivad at the Center of Excellence on
Environmental Health and Toxicology, Ministry of
Education, and The Chulabhorn Graduate Institute
in Bangkok, published a paper [4] in the very
same Journal from which the Séralini study was
retracted. They found that glyphosate at minute
concentrations enhanced the proliferation of
human hormone-dependent breast cancer T47D cells,
but not hormone-independent breast cancer
MDA-MB231 cells. Their detailed experiments
showed that glyphosate mimics the action of
oestrogen, and uses the same molecular pathways
as the natural hormone to promote proliferation
of the cancer cells. They also found that
glyphosate had synergistic effects in enhancing
breast cancer cell growth in combination with
genistein, a common phytoestrogen in soybean."
I will end with this from something calling
itself "Academic Review.org" but which attaches
no authors' names to their emission:
http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/iarc-glyphosate-cancer-review-fails-on-multiple-fronts/
"IARC glyphosate cancer review fails on multiple fronts
The greater concern here is that it appears that
IARC has been unduly influenced by anti-chemical
activists who have persuaded it to take a
politically popular hazard-based decision which
is inconsistent with the weight of evidence and
the underlying science. Agencies like IARC have
an important role to play. It is shameful when
that role is undermined by special interests for political objectives."
But, apparently, the profits of Monsanto, et al,
are a good reason.... (Monsanto's patents are
long expired and lots of entities now make glyphosate.)
So I stand with Annie Young on this. There were
parks (and crops) long before glyphosate and
there will be parks and crops afterwards.
am
>(Wild Ones- Vision for Our Future- Wild Ones strives to become a widely
>recognized voice for native plants and the sustainable landscaping movement,
>promoting increased use of native plantings that create living landscapes
>through grassroots efforts by example, education, marketing, and
>personalized support.)
> I think reading this provides some context to some of the best management
>practices for ecological restoration and recreating biodiversity. There
>are internal links that don't work in plain text
>but can be found in the link
>below.
>Thanks,
>Scott Vreeland
>Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
>Commissioner District # 3
>(612) 721-7892
>
>http://wildones.org/download/roundupmyth/roundupmyth.htm
>The Roundup Myth
>
>Is it ever "OK" to use Roundup or other herbicides?
>What do you need to know about it?
>What's the fact and what is myth?
>
>In the last issue of the Wild Ones Journal we spoke at length about the
>invasive species, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). In fact, hardly an
>issue goes by that we donât have some mention of invasive exotics. In the
>November/December 2005 issue we reviewed
>Elizabeth Czarapataâs book, Invasive
>Plants of the Upper Midwest. Her lists of invasive plants may be specific to
>the Midwest but are applicable to anywhere in the continental United
>States where those plants are capable
>of growing. She mentions that, according
>to a recent report from Cornell University, âEvery year, the costs
>associated with non-native weeds approach
>and exceed $26 billion in the United
>States (including Hawaii and Alaska) alone.â
>
>It has become abundantly evident that something other than pure manpower
>and brute pulling force is necessary to control these interlopers. We do need
>to control them for the sake of a large number of natives that are being
>displaced by these plants, and ecosystems that are being disrupted. In order
>to gain control of these culprits we may need to consider the thoughtful
>and careful use of herbicides.
>Most of our antibiotics (penicillin, tetracycline etc.,) exploit the
>differences among the âillness-producingâ and the beneficial biota. For
>instance, tetracycline interrupts the action of
>transfer RNA of the target disease
>organism and not of the rest of the cell wherein it resides. Through this
>action the illness-producing organism is stopped. A similar strategy may be
>necessary for the control of unwanted, disruptive plants exploit the
>special characteristic of the organism we wish to eliminate. Whether it be
>garlic mustard or any other of a panoply of
>exotic invasives that have arrived
>on our shores.
>
>These actions are consistent with the mission of the Wild Ones, namely, to
>promote biodiversity and sustainable practices. We have resolved to support
>our native biota, and as a result we may need to be prepared to take some
>drastic action we must do something to interfere with the off-continent
>troublesome species, just to give our continental natives a much-needed
>assist.
>The coming of Roundup.
>
>How Does Glyphosate Work?
>Find out here.
>
>
>With the acceptance of this premise, let us consider one of our
>alternatives: glyphosate. Glyphosate is a broad
>spectrum, non-selective herbicide
>that interferes with the production of several amino acids that are vital to
>the life force of both plants and animals. Its mode of action is through the
>shikimate pathway. Animals do not use this metabolic pathway we get
>these vital amino acids by eating plants. It was with this explanation that
>glyphosate was approved by the EPA, sold to the
>American public, and then the
>rest of the planet, as being safe and non-toxic.
>The test results presented to the EPA on this herbicide involved
>glyphosate alone. When glyphosate was first
>manufactured by Monsanto in the early
>1970s it came on the market in a number of
>formulations. The most familiar of
>these is Roundup. It came to the consumer pre-measured, premixed, and
>ready to be applied. However, in Roundup, glyphosate is combined with
>surfactants and adjuvants, chemicals that are
>mixed in to assist in the delivery of
>the glyphosate into plant cells. This was not pointed out to the consumer.
>In fact, the consumer, the end user of Roundup, has not been informed of
>what these additional chemicals were and continue to be. This restriction of
>information continues, and yet this is the formulation that has been and is
>being sprayed on agricultural fields around the world.
>
>It is this lack of transparency on the part of Monsanto that has resulted
>in a great deal of muddled information. Most of the information that is to
>be had on the deleterious effects of this herbicide on fish, frogs, soil
>biota, and human beings is based on research using the Roundup formulation.
>Sometimes it is not clear whether the researcher used only glyphosate or its
>Roundup formulation. The two are very different products with very
>different properties.
>Then came Rodeo and others.
>These actions are consistent with the mission of Wild Ones: Promote
>biodiversity and sustainable practices.
>
>Rodeo, which is another formulation produced by Monsanto, consists of only
>glyphosate, diluted with water. This product is intended for use in
>wetlands and even in water. When, in 2000,
>Monsanto lost the patent on glyphosate
>products, many other companies started manufacturing similar products. As
>a result the glyphosate-only formulation is readily available on the open
>market, for instance under the trade name Accord. A separate surfactant, of
>known constituents, may be mixed in to assist in the delivery of the
>glyphosate to the plant cells.
>Whether one needs to add the surfactant depends largely on the method of
>application. With foliar spray the surfactant ensures that the glyphosate
>stays on the leaf and penetrates past the waxy protective surface of the
>plant. But the addition of the surfactant makes
>the formulation many times more
>toxic to other biota with which it may come in contact. Premixed
>formulations of glyphosate with wetland-safe
>surfactants may also be had, for
>instance under the trade name Glyphomate 41.
>
>
>It is possible to use glyphosate âsafely.â
>Yes. With what we know of the mode of action of glyphosate and its
>behavior in the environment this chemical may
>be of use to us with certain methods
>of application to individual plants:
>
>Designed by Wild Ones member Steve Maassen, the easy-to-make Tongs of
>Death is very effective at applying Roundup (or other herbicide) directly to
>pesky weeds or invasive aliens, while leaving more desirable plants unharmed.
>Read more about the Tongs of Death.
>
> Cut and Daub. The glyphosate-only product is delivered directly to the
>freshly cut stump of a buckthorn sapling (for instance), or a fistful of cut
>stumps of reed canary grass.
> Drill and Fill. The glyphosate is squirted into a series of holes
>drilled into the trunk of a large tree in a
>forest where it may be left standing
>to become a snag and eventually fall to the ground and serve as a nurse-log.
> The Glove (and Tongs) of Death. The glyphosate is stroked onto
>individual plants, by hand, in a glove soaked in
>the chemical. The hand is actually
>in a latex or rubber glove within the soaked cotton glove. The glove may
>also be replaced by a sponge applicator. Read more about the Tongs of Death.
> Coarse Spray. The glyphosate product, in combination with a surfactant of
>known constituents, may also be applied as a coarse foliar spray in a
>relatively safe manner, during that period of time when native plants are
>dormant but the invasive plant in question is growing. These so-called â
>wetland-safeâ surfactants may be used on
>upland plants as readily as on those near
>water.
>
>A handheld sprayer can deliver a deadly shot of herbicide directly to the
>weed without wiping out everything else.
>
>Other things to think about.
>Consider this: because garlic mustard comes from a different continent
>(middle Europe) and a different growing
>environment, it has a different growing
> season. In fact, it continues growing during a period of time that our
>natives are dormant. This is the
>âdifferenceâ that we need to exploit. We may
>apply the glyphosate plus water-safe surfactant while natives are dormant
>and amphibians are not out and about. It would be well to remember that not
>all natives go dormant during the winter. For instance, some sedges
>continue to be green throughout the winter. Because glyphosate is a general
>herbicide the sedges would be affected.
>Another important factor in the premeditated, careful use of glyphosate
>products is concentration of the applied product when diluted with water.
>When a little is good, a lot is not better.
>
>Major Herbicide Myths Vs. Major Herbicide Facts
>Find out more.
>
>
>When using a product that is not premixed, it is important to know the
>percent by volume of the active ingredient in the concentrated product. For
>instance, Accord comes in a concentration of 53%. That means that there are
>53 parts per hundred of glyphosate and 47 parts per hundred of water in the
>container that comes from the store. For treatment of woody plants (âCut
>and Daubâ or âDrill and Fillâ),
>a concentration of 14% by volume of active
>glyphosate is recommended and for herbaceous treatment (foliar spray), a
>concentration of 5%. To achieve these concentrations when starting with 53%,
>one would need to do the following: mix 1 part Accord concentrate with 3
>parts water to get approximately 14%. Mix 1 part Accord concentrate with 10
>parts water to get an approximately 5% solution of glyphosate. Itâs
>important not to exceed suggested concentrations for application. This is
>especially true if a surfactant has been mixed
>with the glyphosate as one might do
>for an early-winter spray application. Itâs
>been found that itâs possible
>to chemically burn the plants before the glyphosate has been delivered into
>the plant body. Plants treated in this way are able to resprout from their
>roots.
>The Nature Conservancy and many foresters have discontinued using the
>Roundup formulation when they use herbicides, and use instead the
>glyphosate-only products, or with wetland-safe
>surfactants, (both on uplands and
>wetlands).
>Moderation, balance, and tradeoffs.
>When a little is good, a lot is not better.
>
>Many things that we use every day are dangerous, or even life-threatening
>in some circumstances: fire, boiling water, concentrated salt solutions.
>But they are familiar to us we use them with
>care and avoid peril. It seems
>that with modern technology there is available to us an ever increasing
>variety of things that are useful but may be dangerous if not used with
>awareness. We need to make ourselves aware of
>dangers as well as of beneficial
>applications.
>The beneficial applications of some herbicides are evident and necessary
>if we are to deal with invasive plant species. We look upon infestations of
>non-natives and recognize their disruption of native ecosystems systems
>on which our clean water and the survival of our continental native species
>depend. It is the pledge of Wild Ones members to do what we can to further
>the related causes of biodiversity, ecologically sound gardening practices,
>and conservation of native plant species. But we need to engage invasives
>with cautious, clear-headed premeditation. If you donât need to use
>glyphosate but can accomplish your goals by
>other means, do so. If you need to use
>glyphosate do so with awareness and care.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Scott Vreeland
>Seward, Minneapolis
>About/contact Scott Vreeland: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/scottvreeland
>
>
>ââ
>View topic http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7qT6EIgyH1EXzMy8BrEJBp
>Leave group mailto:mpls@forums.e-democracy.org?Subject=Unsubscribe
>
>1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
>2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
>* Post to your forum today! Reach the community immediately
>with no Facebook filtering stopping you from connecting with others.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net