Fear of the unknown
IFEEL obliged to challenge A Giscomb’s comments (AG, 5 Jan 2019) about the use of glyphosate. Like food additives and drugs, agrochemicals (including all components in a formulation) are strictly controlled by national bodies. These bodies demand extensive safety data (costing millions). Even when licensed, should evidence of harm be found, the license can be altered or revoked. Many chemicals once used by gardeners are now banned, sometimes just because of the cost of proving safety. The bar is set very high.
There is no such thing as absolute safety – only a degree of risk. This is assessed not only on scientific, but also socioeconomic and political grounds. Thus, it is not surprising that national bodies sometimes disagree.
The result of one highly dubious American court judgement is hardly a ground for concern. On scientific grounds, many products would now be banned, such as tobacco products and cured meats. Controversy can arise when one side is fearful of the unknown. I expect to be allowed to decide on the use or otherwise of glyphosate, as there is no evidence of real risk – indeed, a bacon sandwich is likely to be more carcinogenic! On the odd occasion I use glyphosate, innocent plants are more at risk from overspray than I am of getting cancer!
As a chemist, I am saddened when people refer to ‘chemicals’ in a derogatory way, as if they were somehow evil concoctions. Like some plants in our gardens, some chemicals are poisonous, but they only harm us when we misuse them. Others are essential to life. We deal with risks using appropriate methods – enjoy rhubarb pie, do not eat the leaves; spray your plants, do not drink the liquid!
Dr M Hadlington Oldbury, West Midlands
Wendy says Thanks for writing in and for sharing your thought-provoking perspective on the glyphosate debate!