Tony said below:
"There will never be a situation in which Parks & Rec employs one
herbicide in a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based on local
input."
Tony, how do you know this?
Margie
On Jun 16, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Anthony West wrote:
Mary,
I appreciate your research on this topic! But you seem still to step
around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on Roundup. First,
most of the malign findings in human beings occur with agribusiness
applications, which can be up to 20 times more concentrated than
dilute commercial solutions. Second, while the half-life of
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, varies widely in the
soil, it does usually break down swiftly. That's why most harmful
effects are associated with its handlers, not with food consumers or
bypassers in a treated field months later. There was a reason, in
other words, why this construction site was fenced off from the
public for 75 days after this soil treatment, which was applied
early, before the new sod was laid down.
You are certainly right that further consideration should be paid to
research into potential risks of glyphosate and other pesticides,
and society should not rely on research paid for by manufacturers
alone.
You are also right that neither Friends of Clark Park nor UC-list
has any scientific authority to judge these issues or make decisions
on application. This is a consideration that rests on the
contracting agencies -- in this case, the Dept. of Parks &
Recreation, and perhaps Capital Projects as well. It is a citywide
issue which has nothing in particular to do with Clark Park. There
will never be a situation in which Parks & Rec employs one herbicide
in a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based on local input.
So readers with a (commendable, in my eye) concern about this
subject should direct the fruits of their research toward people who
write contracts for the City of Philadelphia. In the end, it is the
City that must decide which construction practices are safe and
which construction practices are affordable.
--Tony West
On 6/16/2011 1:55 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Frank Chase's reassurances that the pesticide Roundup is safe to
humans and animals, are, I am sure, well-intentioned. But the very
latest research, done by independent, university-based scientists,
makes a strong argument that the dangers of this product have been
grossly underestimated . Numerous studies have now demonstrated
the toxicity of Roundup (not just its main ingredient glyphosate)
to amphibians, mammals and humans.
In Ontario, a dramatic increase in miscarriages and premature
births occurred in farm families where the farmer fathers were
using Roundup. In Argentina, a region newly-planted in
RoundupReady soy and frequently sprayed with Roundup saw a
significant increase in certain birth defects. Researchers in
France and Argentina, alarmed at this association between Roundup
use and harm to humans, undertook research aimed at testing whether
there was a cause and effect relationship at work. They concluded
that Roundup, at concentrations well below those commonly employed
in agriculture, produced birth defects in amphibians, reduced
fertility in rodents, and was lethal to human fetal, embryonic and
placental cells. Other researchers have observed an association
between exposure to Roundup and increases in lymphoma in humans.
Apparently, the position that Roundup is harmless is based largely
on research that 1) was performed by scientists in the employ of
its manufacturer, much of it never published in any peer-reviewed
journals, and with evidence that negative findings were suppressed
and 2) investigated the toxicity of glyphosate alone, ignoring the
fact that the additives in the Roundup compound greatly increase
the toxic effect.
Two just-published reports address the relationship between Roundup
and birth defects and the safety of crops genetically modified to
tolerate spraying with Roundup (the plants store Roundup, which
thus enters the food supply either directly through human
consumption, or indirectly, as animal feed that then is stored by
the animals, eventually consumed by humans). They are both
excellent reviews of the status of research on Roundup and a good
source for the most important scientific literature on the topic.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5
http://www.gmwatch.org/files/GMsoy_SustainableResponsible_Sept2010_Summary.pdf
,
Reading these reviews, as well as articles on the toxic effects of
incredibly small doses of Roundup on human fetal and placental
cells, certainly shakes one's faith in Monsanto's claims of its
being harmless.
In any case, neither Frank Chance nor the FOCP are the pesticide
police. They are not responsible for its application in Clark
Park, nor are they scientists equipped to judge its safety.
Clearly, the responsibility lies with the city and its agents (UCD,
landscape contractors, etc). How much Roundup was used in Clark
Park is only part of the story. How much of this pesticide has
been spread around the city at large? Perhaps that question should
be posed to the Parks and Rec people. I don't think it's
unreasonable to suggest that this is a potential public health
concern. After all, the city of Boulder, CO has banned its use.
Roundup and the crops genetically modified to tolerate it are now
hugely controversial in Europe and it is
likely that the debate about its safety will go on for some time -
there is billions at stake. At this
point, I don't think any one can say definitively whether the
application of Roundup in Clark Park does or does not pose a risk
to children, to pregnant women, or to
couples hoping to become parents. For now, people will have to
decide for themselves, I guess, how much uncertainty they can
tolerate when it comes to their health and their children's.
Mary
