Nick Maclaren wrote:
> >Sorry Nick, but you are miss informed. The intention and the actual utility of
> >herbicide resistance technology is to use less herbicides. Additionally Wayne is
> >correct that newer herbicide chemistries are much safer than older ones. Roundup is
> >one of the safest herbicide that has ever been commercialized. Also, can you please
> >provide evidence to support your claim that Roundup (a) persists in in the crop and
> >(b) harms other organisms or persists elsewhere. Your post sounds like there is
> >data available that I am unaware of. Thanks.
>> Are you quite sure? I know that your statement corresponds to the
> political sales pitch, but I saw one quote from an advertising leaflet
> that said precisely what I said (in different words.) Remember that
> the WHOLE point of this particular technique is to enable plants to
> be sprayed with herbicide while they are growing, which is not a
> practical option at present (in general.) I think that my source of
> the quote was Nature.
May I inquire which company's advertising leaflet suggested using increased levels of
herbicides? I am unfamilar with this claim. Farmers that I work with typically want
to apply as little herbicide as possible because the additional cost directly impacts
their profitability. I also question your comment "Remember that the WHOLE point of
this particular technique is to enable plants to be sprayed with herbicide while they are
growing, which is not a practical option at present (in general.)" - Who says this is
not a practical option at present? The Nature article? Can you please cite volume and
issue number, I must have missed that claim.
> I did not claim that glyphosate persists in the crop - I said that there
> is little evidence to show that it DOESN'T.
Have you done a thorough literature search to check this claim? I suspect that
information was required for registering the transgenic technology and may be included in
the technology packet that Monsanto submitted to the USDA and EPA. Just a thought.
> Until these new practices
> were introduced, glyphosate was effectively not used on any food crop
> It is heavily used for keeping the ground clear around shrubs and
> trees, for clearing ground preparatory to planting, and so on - but
> NOT on the leaves of growing crops. The new techniques are being
> foisted on us without even the most elementary checking for expected
> problems (let alone unexpected ones.)
Again, are you certain of this or are your claims just hearsay? Did you ever read any of
Monsanto's documents supporting their patent applications?
> On the matter of 'elsewhere', there was a flame war on some UK group
> a year or so back, with some people claiming that it did not persist
> and others claiming that it did. One of the latter provided an actual
> reference, which I looked up, and it does seem that glyphosate persists
> in aquatic sediments for a period of at least years. Hence run-off is
> a very serious problem.
I missed that reference, can you please repost it. Thanks.