Farmers used to plough fields after harvest. This kills weeds. It also uses a lot of power, so burns a lot of diesel and releases CO2. Ploughing also allows carbon trapped in organic material in the soil to break down and releases yet more CO2 as well as destroying soil structure.
Low/no till farming seeds directly into last year's stubble. This uses much less diesel so releases much less CO2. Organic matter in the soil builds up, trapping more carbon, and improving soil health. But now the weeds grow unchecked and destroy the crop.
A common variation of the above low till method it to 'cultivate' (sort of scuff up) the surface of the soil after harvest. This causes weeds to germinate. Then you spray them with glyphosate (Roundup), and can almost immediately start sowing your crop. This allows you to farm with much less carbon released, lower fertilizer usage (also reducing carbon).
Roundup allows farming with lower inputs and better soil health and less carbon released. That is why so many people defend its use.
Farmers love glyphosate because it kills weeds very effectively. It’s hard to exaggerate how much of a neat thing glyphosate was considered in the agricultural world when it appeared. That’s the reason it is used. Now, the reason it is produced and sold is that it is profitable for Monsanto, and regulation hasn’t stopped Monsanto.
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/12/5/707
"Abstract:
Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used agrochemical. Its use in agriculture and gardening has been proclaimed safe because humans and other animals do not have the target enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS). However, increasing numbers of studies have demonstrated risks to humans and animals because the shikimate metabolic pathway is present in many microbes. Here, we assess the potential effect of glyphosate on healthy human microbiota. Our results demonstrate that more than one-half of human microbiome are intrinsically sensitive to glyphosate. However, further empirical studies are needed to determine the effect of glyphosate on healthy human microbiota.
...
4. Conclusions
Hence, does glyphosate affect the human microbiota? Contemporary research points to the herbicide’s potential to disrupt healthy microbiomes, including the human microbiome. Several empirical studies have determined the impact of glyphosate-based products on wild- and host-associated microbiota and called to control the potentially negative consequences on environmental health and sustainability. However, further empirical studies are needed to find a “smoking gun” that determines the effect of glyphosate on the healthy human microbiota. Moreover, additional experimental and epidemiological studies are needed to determine these proposed effects of glyphosate-based products on wild and host-associated microbes to control their potentially negative consequences on human health and ecosystem functions and services."
Other:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=human+microbiome+glypho...
I always think it's funny when glyphosate apologists come out in droves to defend their favorite poison manufacturer. Maybe they actually drank the stuff when Bayer/Monsanto said it was safe to drink?
This always takes me a lot longer to find than i hope, since "roundup inert ingredient toxicity" has, you know, hundreds or thousands of DOI attached to it.
as i've heard said - "Inert doesn't mean inactive in this context"
That's crazy.
However, I'm still left wondering how Roundup-resistant crops work. It's not the effects of Glyphosate they are resistant to, but rather the effects of the "inert" ingredients?
Edit: Also... it turns out that glyphosate is safe?! Conspiracy theory: they found a safe chemical, glyphosate, named it the "active" ingredient, and focused all the research around that ingredient, knowing that it would be found safe. Then they were free make pesticides from unsafe chemicals, swap new ones in, etc.
If you look at the literature, say for "roundup inert ingredient toxicity", lots of papers explain that each manufacturer (or different use pesticides from the same manufacturer) will contain different ratios or mixtures of inactive ingredients, and there's a lot of what i consider damning evidence against the surfactants.
I don't think it's quite as clear as you put it, and Bayer was by no means the worst offender in this regard. Other related scandals are linked to at the bottom of the Wikipedia page, and the Canadian Red Cross (for example) seems to have behaved even more negligently.
It's used because it's effective broad-spectrum herbicide. My understanding it's quite a bit less toxic than its predecessors, and I understand there's no equivalent replacement on the horizon.
IIRC, the problem was they marketed it as practically nontoxic to humans, which is definitely not the case.
It only introduces the aspect that it might be associated to kidney disease.
Everything is toxic to humans at the right dose, even water.
It sounds like they evaluated the chemical itself but didn't evaluate what could happen to the chemical once it was in the environment.
I bet that's most of evaluations and it's probably not even required to take into consideration the environment and how it can change the response...
Of course Monsanto is putting its finger on the scales of both the research that is done and the research that is seen but they are not some sort of omnipotent evil.
Has their marketing stance changed? Or does Glyphosate continue to be marketed as a relatively safe solution?
Roundup is still for sale at Home Depot, they sell massive quantities of it every day.
>"We are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family," Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement following the verdict. "Today's decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews ... support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson's cancer."
>He confirmed the company will appeal the decision "and continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use and continues to be a vital, effective, and safe tool for farmers and others."
"Safe and effective"
To a layman, this may be heard as “Roundup can cause cancer.”
To a scientist, this may simply mean “There isn’t sufficient data to make a strong claim.”
Same words, two very different interpretations. That’s why lawyers fight so hard for jury selection.
E.g., It could have been a statement based on a single study, meaning they can’t make that claim based on that single study. But there may be less uncertainty (meaning stronger claims is more reasonable) when you look at it in the totality of data.
Now I think Monsanto still has a duty to determine what safe levels of exposure are, but it’s important to not extrapolate this level of risk to the average consumer.
Making sweeping statements like “The US lacks effective regulation and the precautionary principle with respect to chemical safety, agriculture, and food safety.” tells me nothing other than your opinion.
"iPhones are used for one reason, it's profitable for Apple"
"pizzas are eaten for one reason, it's profitable for Pizza Hut"
If you posted on Hacker News eight years ago that you thought it was a good idea for GM foods to be labeled, you'd be roundly mocked with all the data showing genetic modification is safe (as I'm sure is about to happen here anyway).
That was never what the debate was about and it was a straw man. The debate was over things like this. Why GM was being pushed so hard, by whom, and what that genetic modification implies about the food its associated with. Consumers should have the right to opt out, or at least be aware, of when they are participating in these agricultural markets.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops#Gly...
Well go on, don't just eldude to it. Spell it out.
My understanding is that GM is pushed so hard because while farming is the most necessary thing humans do, it's also highly undesirable labor and the pay is shit. It's also risky business, on a long enough timeline every crop fails.
Consumers should grow their own food if they are worried. See how hard it is.
My experience is that 99% of the people who are agasinst Roundup haven't ever done a day's farming.
> In 1996, Monsanto introduced the Roundup Ready soybean, a genetically engineered crop resistant to glyphosate. In the few years after, Roundup Ready cotton, maize, and various other crops also made their debut.
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/
Sounds about right[0].
> Direct on-farm employment accounted for about 2.6 million of these jobs, or 1.3 percent of U.S. employment.
Are farmers somehow not susceptible to conflicts of interest? You suggested it yourself: The work is hard enough as it is, so the last thing farmers have time for is to pressure godlike multinational corporations into investing into alternatives. Who else is supposed to complain?
[0]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic....
Eat organic.
In conventional/industrial agriculture, its used after harvest and before seeding. In intelligent agriculture , it's used a day before seeding.
So, why Monsanto went all the trouble of developing GMO crops resistant to it, if it is intended just for the weeds?
There are no roundup-ready vegetables that I am aware of, or fruits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation#Systemic_desi...
That doesn't mean it won't be applied at any other time if there's weed issues during other periods of the cycle, or that the farmer will apply it at the right time. A lot of farmers don't know when to apply herbicides, or won't until there are issues to save money.
I was working with a farmer who did most of it by hand or machine and he only needed to apply glyphosate twice in his 20 years as a farmer.
I've worked in agriculture for a couple years while doing my Biology undergrad. People who used chemicals had a HUGE increase in yields vs others.
Be thankful we're not longer using things like Agent Orange and DDT.
But the problem is that since as the safety improves so does how people use it. More safe means we can use more since it's not as scary.
It's so safe we can spray it on the wheat two weeks before harvest to make sure it's good and dry. Hopefully it doesn't rain!
Like what? What impact would that have on food prices? Glyphosate costs $10 / acre, or maybe 15 cents per bushel of wheat.