The glyphosate debate continues, so what’s the current viewpoint?
But first a reminder of what Glyphosate is
Glyphosate is the active substance in many herbicides (weed killers) and is widely used around the world. It is a non-selective, systemic herbicide/weedkiller and was first used in the UK in 1976.
Glyphosate is effective in controlling most weed species including perennials and grasses in many situations including amenity, forestry, aquatic and industrial situations. It is used by lots of people and industries from farmers to foresters to gardeners to biologists trying to control invasive exotic plants.
Since it is approved for use in many countries, it has been subject to extensive testing and regulatory assessment in the EU, USA and elsewhere, and by the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in most Roundup brand herbicides and also within a lot of other widely used weed control products. Farmers, local authorities, utility and rail companies use glyphosate as a cost-effective weed control herbicide. It is used extensively in Integrated Weed Management (IWM) processes and within agriculture to continue to aid in productive harvests whilst, at the same time preserving the environment.
The UK’s departure from the EU at the end of 2020 now means glyphosate is approved for use until December 2025. This is very important for professional invasive weed, amenity weed contractors and for British agriculture and a valuable timescale for the industries using glyphosate to prove its safety, use the product sustainably as part of IWM and alleviate the stigma surrounding the words glyphosate and Roundup.
Is Glyphosate safe?
Independent regulatory bodies around the world have looked at the available scientific evidence and concluded that glyphosate poses little or no risk to people when used correctly.
On March 15, 2017, the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) completed an extensive review of all the available scientific evidence on glyphosate and concluded it should not be classified as a carcinogen or as a substance that causes genetic or reproductive effects. ECHA is a regulatory authority on the safety of chemicals and a key adviser to the European Commission on the risks of substances to human health.
Tim Bowmer, the committee’s chair, said: “RAC agreed with the German dossier submitter that glyphosate should not be classified as a carcinogen – that is, as a substance causing cancer. This conclusion was based both on the human evidence and the weight of the evidence of all the animal studies reviewed. In addition, RAC concluded that glyphosate does not warrant classification as a mutagen – that is, a substance causing genetic effects – or as a substance causing reproductive effects.” He concluded: “The committee’s opinion was adopted by consensus – that is, with the full support of all the members and there were no minority positions.” A statement that reflected the conclusions of regulatory bodies around the world who agreed glyphosate posed no human health risk when used correctly.
Additionally, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carried out a review which concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic and poses minimal risk to non-target plants and animals when used appropriately. This conclusion is consistent with the outcome of other regulatory evaluations of glyphosate around the world, in countries including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany – all of which supported the conclusion that glyphosate posed no unacceptable risk when used correctly. This view was also upheld in a joint report from the WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN.
In fact, the only body that has concluded that glyphosate is possibly a cancer risk to humans is the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which concluded glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”. While IARC is an agency of the WHO, the WHO itself has upheld the view that glyphosate is safe.
IARC seeks to identify cancer hazards, meaning the potential for the exposure to cause cancer. But it does not indicate the level of risk associated with exposure, which can depend on a number of factors including the type and extent of exposure. IARC has said its classification programme may identify cancer hazards even when risks are very low with known patterns of use or exposure.
IARC’s identification of hazard is only the first step of the human health risk assessment process. Only when the hazard is considered together with the risk (exposure in everyday situations) can the human health risk, if there is one, be determined. These health risk assessments are carried out by organisations EFSA, the WHO and national regulatory bodies. And that health risk assessment, based on the best available scientific evidence, is currently undisputed – glyphosate poses no carcinogenic risk if used properly and for its intended purpose.
regulating Glyphosate use in amenity & public spaces
All risk factors for the use of glyphosate in public and amenity areas are considered during the approvals process. This is particularly important in parks and within high public footfall areas.
Legally enforceable conditions of use are imposed on the way products can be applied, to ensure the public are not exposed to levels of pesticides that would harm health or have unacceptable effects on the environment. It is important that users (or those who cause or permit others to use pesticides) not only comply with the authorised conditions of use but also use products in a responsible and sustainable manner.
The responsible use of pesticides in amenity areas as part of an integrated programme of control can help deliver substantial benefits for society. These include management of conservation areas, invasive species, and flood risks; access to high quality sporting facilities; and safe public spaces (for example, by preventing weed growth on hard surfaces creating trip or slip hazards), industrial sites and transport infrastructure.
Glyphosate & an Integrated weed management system for Amenity Areas
IWM is as it states integrated and not the removal of any given product from the management strategy for weed control.
It is about where possible reducing the use of herbicide and integrating other strategies such as the use of non-glyphosate-based products, sweeping, covering, hand weeding/pulling.
Going completely glyphosate free immediately requires prior planning to prevent poor control and spiraling costs to an already stretched budget. Infrastructure from the planning stage and even when towns and Cities are modernised should incorporate IWM, such as reducing tight corners, more flowing kerb edges, less use of block paving.
Best practice – it’s what we do
- Used correctly by our qualified knowledgeable staff with ongoing training and support it is safe for the environment and the most cost effective for local authorities and industry in controlling weeds, whether annual, perennial or invasive weeds.
- Not all glyphosates are equal, we only use authorised products approved for use in their field.
- We apply the herbicide in a targeted manner and spot treat weed growth, we conduct regular calibration tests on our application equipment to ensure only the correct amount of herbicide is delivered to the area.
- We ensure yearly refresher training for all our operational staff.
- We use our in-house BASIS advisor for all herbicide recommendations and wherever possible will reduce the overall active ingredient.
In Conclusion
Glyphosate is the most cost-effective product currently used for Amenity treatments and also within the invasive weed industry. In glyphosate we have a proven herbicide that we know works, is cost effective and used sustainably will aid Local authorities, land manager and farmers with invasive and Amenity weed control.
The latest risk assessments on glyphosate and the Peer-to-peer review from the EFSA and member states should all be published by the end of October 2023 with extracts and findings to be published at the end of July 2023 and August 2023, these documents run into several thousand pages.
If you have any questions around glyphosate you can contact our BASIS approved Specialist Advisory Manager: