So my girlfriends neighbor convinced her to allow spraying of roundup on the tree trunks (the landlord had them cut down recently). My concern (a 2nd spraying is scheduled) is that my gf has a 3 year old as well as vegetables in the same back yard.

I need good links/info on roundup, it's toxicity and how long it lasts once applied. I'll be doing my own research online but would appreciate any help.

Try and track some links, but I believe minimal contact i.e. spraying can cause cell mutation rough stuff

e2a Part 1 and 2 have some info on RU

Its made by Monsanto, evil bunch of people, I would recommend you don't use it.

Roundup

Thanks! unfortunately I need more practical, hard facts on why it shouldn't be used. Wiki and Greenpeace seem to think of is okay of applied correctly.

I would not touch the stuff ever and thats period .....

hope this helps



source



A weedkiller that kills a lot more than simply weeds? If it’s worse than the poison it’s no cure at all, says Pat thomas

A weed, as an insightful gardener once said, is just a plant growing in the wrong place. But to deal with the simple problem of plants growing in the wrong places, globally we spend millions each year on chemicals designed to kill them - chemicals such as Monsanto’s Roundup. The name will be familiar to GM watchers – all over the world food crops are being genetically modified (also by Monsanto) to be ‘Roundup resistant’, which allows farmers to spray this pesticide with impunity around their crops.

This irresponsible type of agriculture has led to increased resistance to the herbicide and the emergence of ‘superweeds’ – and thus increased sales of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, which farmers have to use more and more of in order to get the same effect. For instance, according to a new report by the US Center for Food Safety, per-acre applications of Roundup on soybeans rose by a factor of 2.5 (250 per cent) between 1994 and 2006. It took until 2002 for corn farmers truly to embrace GM, but between 2002 and 2005, glyphosate use on corn rose from 0.71 to 0.96lb/acre/year – a 35 per cent increase in just three years (see also box, opposite page). Thanks to Roundup, farmers worldwide are on a chemical treadmill they are finding it increasingly difficult to get off.

Since its introduction during the mid-1970s, global use of glyphosate has increased rapidly, and it is now the world’s most widely used pesticide. In 2002, the global sales for glyphosate amounted to around $4.705 billion and accounted for more than 30 per cent of the volume of total global herbicide sales. There are more than 70 glyphosate producers in the world (excluding China). With more than an 80 per cent share of the market, Monsanto is the biggest.

So busy are we focusing on the big agricultural picture of Roundup and Roundup-resistance that it is all too easy to forget the fact that millions of gardeners in the UK and elsewhere routinely use Roundup to fight weeds on the home front.

Most glyphosate-based herbicides are formulated with one or more surfactants. The surfactant in a herbicide works in the same way as the surfactant in your shampoo – it makes the active ingredients work harder. In a herbicide the surfactant spreads the solution across the leaf, penetrates the leaf and thus enhances the uptake of glyphosate by the plant.

Roundup formulations frequently make use of a class of surfactants known as polyoxyethylene tallowamines (specifically polyethoxethyleneamine, or POEA) derived from fatty acids from animals or tall oil (resin from pine wood). Some also contain a second active ingredient, a back-up herbicide that can help kill any glyphosate-resistant weeds. Chances are the hapless consumer won’t know any of this from reading the label because labelling laws only require manufacturers to list the active ingredient. Buy a glyphosate-based product like Roundup and you may never truly know what kind of toxic cocktail you are spraying around your garden (and then traipsing into your home).

Not knowing what you are using has tremendous health implications, since such data as exists suggests that it is not glyphosate on its own, but glyphosate in combination with surfactants and other pesticides that is most harmful. Given this, it is amazing that while active ingredients like glyphosate are closely regulated, ‘inactive’ ingredients like surfactants are not.

Roundup has long been promoted as being safe for humans and the environment while at the same time effective in killing weeds. It is therefore significant when studies begin to show that this herbicide compound is not as safe as its manufacturers claim.

In the late 1990s, a Swedish study published in the journal Cancer revealed links between glyphosate exposure and the development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer. Scientists warned then that with the rapidly increasing use of glyphosate the rate of this otherwise rare cancer could also increase.

More recently a group of scientists from the University of Caen, in France, found that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup at concentrations lower than those currently used in agricultural applications. The study of Ontario farming populations showed that exposure to glyphosate nearly doubled the risk of late miscarriages. It also found that the ethoxylated surfactant used in the Roundup formulation studied doubled the toxic effect of the glyphosate.

In 2002, French scientists found that Roundup activates one of the key stages of cellular division that can potentially lead to cancer. There is also research that shows that even brief exposure to glyphosate causes liver damage in rats. The research indicated that glyphosate acted in synergy with the surfactant used in Roundup to increase damage to the liver.

The label of Fast Action Roundup weedkiller claims it biodegrades leaving no soil residues. What actually happens is that glyphosate attaches itself, rather like a magnet, to minerals in the soil and remains more or less in situ until the soil is moved – by heavy rain, for instance. That is when the glyphosate can move into water supplies and have a more widespread environmental impact.

In April 2005, work by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh, US, suggested that Roundup is lethal to lifeforms other than plants – in this case amphibians. In an extensive study on the effects of pesticides on these ‘non-target’ organisms in a natural setting, the researchers found that Roundup caused a 70 per cent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86 per cent decline in the total mass of tadpoles. Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were nearly eliminated by exposure to the herbicide.

Monsanto disputed the findings, saying Roundup was not intended for waterways, but this is hardly a relevant argument. Because of its widespread use, Roundup can be found in most waterways as a result of runoff – and it has the potential also to contaminate surface waters. In fact, in one 1998 survey Roundup was reported to have been found in surface water in the Netherlands, in wells sited under electrical substations that had been treated with glyphosate, in seven US wells (one in Texas, six in Virginia) and in forest streams in Oregon and Washington.

You don’t have to go to a specialist garden centre to buy Roundup weedkiller; it is sold in the garden section of most supermarkets. The choice – buy a weedkiller and kill a weed – seems simple on the surface, but when you buy a product such as Roundup you are buying into a whole host of other issues – worldwide pesticide contamination, loss of biodiversity, increases in ill health and the support of GM crops – you may never had dreamed of.

Roundup reactions

Many people reason that Roundup would not be on sale if it weren’t safe, or that it is safe as long as you use it according to the manufacturer’s instructions. However,
accumulating data suggests neither assumption is correct.

Short-term exposure to glyphosate can cause breathing difficulties, loss of muscle control and convulsions. Farm workers exposed even to small amounts of Roundup – by rubbing an eye, for example – report swelling of the eye, eyelid or face, a rapid heartbeat and elevated blood pressure, all as a result of the residues transferred from
the hands after touching leaky equipment. Accidental drenching is known to cause eczema of the hands and arms that can last for months.

Roundup has never been fully tested for its cancer-causing potential. Although the US Environmental Protection Agency classifies glyphosate as a Group E Oncogen (no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans) this only because of ‘a lack of convincing evidence of carcinogenicity in adequate studies with two animal species, rat and mouse’ – in other words, the judgement is based on a limited number of studies of a limited number of non-human subjects.



Pat thomas is editor of the Ecologist
This piece first appeared in the Ecologist April 2008

Surely this means it`s systemic? And should be avoided at all costs?

We use it in low doses in the golf industry (greenkeeping ) and we have to put signs everywhere telling folks to wash their hands and not lick their balls! There have been cases of people being paralysed from it. Not good for pets. I wouldnt let a 3 year old anywhere near a 'treated' area...

yep ... spot on ratdog .... not bad for a tiler dude ... I'm impressed mate


riptd

Wouldn't use it anywhere near a 3 year old kid or where I'm growing food personally.

Double cheeky feker!!!

I think i`m dyslexic,i get word blind,or see words that are not there,is that the same? Wasn`t a great achiever at school,but i can talk my way out of most situations!!

there is a good documentary online about monsanto, cant remember its name, but it explains how it works. its a lot more detailed than this, but basically, farmers are supposed to buy monsanto's genetically modified seeds, which are modified to be resistant to roundup. this means they can grow their gm crops, spray with roundup, and afterwards, the only vegetation left standing is the roundup-resistant crops.

i dont know if its dangerous, but my instincts would be to avoid

There is already a few topics here on monsanto, including one with youtube video links. Also check the monsanto video link in post 2 of this topic.

Back on topic:





Thanks everyone! My apologies for not being more forthcoming in my first post folks. I was originally texting from my gf's place and in a bit of a panic. My gf's backyard was due to get a 2nd spraying while I was there.

I think I have convinced my gf (with the help of you good folks ) to not allow any more roundup to be sprayed in her yard. Her neighbor talked her into it (fuckin bitch!). Apparently the neighbor is a professional gardner and advised my gf to let her do it to get rid of some stumps left behind by the landlord cutting down some plum trees. The gardner warned her of the roots sending out sucker shoots. Oh the horror.

My gf's backyard is divided into separate garden plots (which actually look quite nice now that the trees have been cleared out). Luckily the spraying (on a hot, windless day, rare in san fran) occurred on a plot that is separate from the small veggie garden my gf has goin on. And as she lives on a 3rd floor flat, her little girl doesn't go down to the garden on her own to play. phew!

Another favor if I may ask? Boojum? Do you have any citations I could use? My gf has a masters degree and loves facts and studies.

Again, thank you everyone!

citations?

I'm afraid I don't, I just remember reading about roundup a while back. The main active herbicide in it is glyphosate, which has been shown to have some toxicity to humans. The problem with roundup is as ratdog pointed out, there are other chemicals, surfactants etc in it to increase the effectiveness of the glyphosate, but they also increase the potential toxicity to humans. It may be a minimal risk, but I'm not a fan of any kind of serious chemical herbicide being used near young children, because at the end of the day they are poisons, that's their job.

I'm actually going to need to be really nice to my gf now. She is probably feeling very very guilty. However I do want to talk to the City of San Francisco and find out why people can apply Roundup to areas where children play.

Found a very informative article on Roundup and Monasanto on Wiki. Here.

Using roundup to kill a tree Why?

Much easier and safer ways, have the trees been cut down and only the stumps remain? If so drill holes into the stump and fill with salt, creosote (not ideal but safer than roundup)

Yea it's to get rid of the stumps from fresh cut plum trees. LARGE plum trees. The stumps don't need to go. This idiot gardner convinced my gf that they needed to go.

Roundup wouldn't kill tree stumps effectively- It is really just for green herbaceous plants in active growth.

A brushwood killer e.g Vitax SBK would be needed, injected into drilled holes - glyphosate would have to be applied several times, and would cause more incidental damage than the SBK. Burn them out, or hammer a load of copper nails into the stumps, or any of Danzigs excellent suggestions. Plums will sucker a lot, and it can be a bit of a pain in a small garden.

I just chop off the suckers with a hoe as they emerge personally.

feck. Just leave the stumps alone. They're hurtin' nobody.

In case anyone wants to see, what looks like to me, the hardest (corporate?) science on Glyphosate, the active ingedient in Roundup, just go here.

Pretty geeky talk there.

There is quite a bit on this site... naturescountrystore.com/roundup/page3.html

The actual example i was on about involved a golfer becomimg paralizd from the waist down after a round of golf. It was in the greenkeepers union journal a few years ago, but i cant find it online...

So thanks all!

The Lady of the Tower has declined further advances from the well intentioned, but apparently very ill informed (or strong biased?) neighbor, who brings forth the vile liquids from the evil sorcerers from Monasanto. Give my Gentle Ladies advice, I've decided to not run a lance through this person.

The Lady consulted a list serv of folks she really trusts, and while the majority were of a like mind towards not using RoundUp, there were a couple of interestingly alternative perspectives.

What upset my Lady the most was that her neighbor claimed that there was no other alternatives to RoundUp in this situation. The Lady has since discovered that keeping the plum root trunk sprouts trimmed back is nothing. And Her garden is thriving without all the shade from the trees now!

Here is a copy from Her list serv buddies with names and details omitted to protect the silly. My apologies for repeated information in this topic. No time to review properly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monsanto itself describes glyphosate as "a broad spectrum,non selective herbicide active on most species of green plants". It in no ways targets "the unwanted plant's roots", and the safe as inert salt comes almost verbatium from their pr department. It is a hormone disruptor. It is the most widely sprayed agricultural herbicide and its use in homes I find even more disturbing since homeowners are ever less cautious and don't try to use as little as possible as do farmers for cost reasons.
The cancer and miscarriage rates are much higher than normal in agricultural communities caused by many chemicals including Roundup. There are many studies indicating severe problems from Roundup, the ones which most worry me are those that indicate that in amphimians it leads to hermaphrodites and inability to reproduce. (My sexuality and ability to keep the human species going is not something that seems worth trading for a way to quickly kill plants someone doesn't like.) The impending expiration of Monsanto's copyright on Roundup is whay fuels its efforts to produce GMOs, attempting to find a new "cash cow". The most widely used GMOs are Roundup Ready, plants that have been genetically alterned to withstand the spraying of Roundup on them. This then allows farmers to simply coat thier whole fields in roundup and "just the weeds die" leaving the gmo crop to grow in a barren field with "no competition". This will eventually lead to superweeds which will be harder to kill. I'm a big believer in the precautionary principle that states if something might cause severe or irrevesable damage to the ecosystem it's use should be restricted and the onus is on showing that it is safe rather than asuming it is safe and having to prove it is harmful.
I don't have handy all the citations for studies of the harm of Roundup but a qucik websearch will give you plenty. I have a degree in ecological agricutlure, I run a foundation's west coast ecological program and I own Seeds to Sauce a garden based culinary arts school so this is a subject matter I've extensively studied and researched.

You haven't ruined anything. If our ecosystem could be so easily ruined we'd all be dead by now. If you were a certified organic farm you would lose your certification but fortunately your garden is not. Hopefully all the replies the Ladle aren't overwhleming you either, I think our community can be a bit harsh on some subject matters.
On the plus side Roundup is not very persistent.. One application has not done a lot of damage to your garden and unfortunately it is just one of many applications which you are subjecting yourself too with the widespread use of Roundup.
I don't know of anything specificly to counter the effects of Roundup but generally rebuilding the health of your soil is where I would always turn. So your amending with organic compost is great. I would also do some compost teas. In particular I have found worm casting tea helpful. I'm assuming by "plum tree trunks" you mean that there were plum trees that got cut down and the stumps are resprouting? Digging out stumps is a bitch and pretty labor intensive but there aren't really any safe other alternatives.
I do also go landscape design work and consulting but I don't think you're looking to spend a bunch of money. So just retrun to your organic practices and don't stress over one use of Roundup. If that's the worst thing you've done to the environment or your own health you are way ahead of me and the vast majority of the country.
Let me know if I can be of any other help.
peace,



Most glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup are formulated with one
> or more surfactants. The surfactant in a herbicide works in the same way
> as the surfactant in your shampoo – it makes the active ingredients work
> harder. In a herbicide the surfactant spreads the solution across the
> leaf, penetrates the leaf and thus enhances the uptake of glyphosate by
> the plant.
>
> Roundup formulations frequently make use of a class of surfactants known
> as polyoxyethylene tallowamines (specifically polyethoxethyleneamine, or
> POEA) derived from fatty acids from animals or tall oil (resin from pine
> wood). Some also contain a second active ingredient, a back-up herbicide
> that can help kill any glyphosate-resistant weeds. Chances are the hapless
> consumer won’t know any of this from reading the label because labelling
> laws only require manufacturers to list the active ingredient. Buy a
> glyphosate-based product like Roundup and you may never truly know what
> kind of toxic cocktail you are spraying around your garden (and then
> traipsing into your home).
>
> Not knowing what you are using has tremendous health implications, since
> such data as exists suggests that it is not glyphosate on its own, but
> glyphosate in combination with surfactants and other pesticides that is
> most harmful. Given this, it is amazing that while active ingredients like
> glyphosate are closely regulated, ‘inactive’ ingredients like surfactants
> are not.
>
> Roundup has long been promoted as being safe for humans and the
> environment while at the same time effective in killing weeds. It is
> therefore significant when studies begin to show that this herbicide
> compound is not as safe as its manufacturers claim.
>
> In the late 1990s, a Swedish study published in the journal Cancer
> revealed links between glyphosate exposure and the development of
> non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer. Scientists warned then that with
> the rapidly increasing use of glyphosate the rate of this otherwise rare
> cancer could also increase.
>
> More recently a group of scientists from the University of Caen, in
> France, found that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup at
> concentrations lower than those currently used in agricultural
> applications. The study of Ontario farming populations showed that
> exposure to glyphosate nearly doubled the risk of late miscarriages. It
> also found that the ethoxylated surfactant used in the Roundup formulation
> studied doubled the toxic effect of the glyphosate.
>
> In 2002, French scientists found that Roundup activates one of the key
> stages of cellular division that can potentially lead to cancer. There is
> also research that shows that even brief exposure to glyphosate causes
> liver damage in rats. The research indicated that glyphosate acted in
> synergy with the surfactant used in Roundup to increase damage to the
> liver.
>
> The label of Fast Action Roundup weedkiller claims it biodegrades leaving
> no soil residues. NOT SO! What actually happens is that glyphosate
> attaches itself, rather like a magnet, to minerals in the soil and remains
> more or less in situ until the soil is moved – by heavy rain, for
> instance. That is when the glyphosate can move into water supplies and
> have a more widespread environmental impact.
>
> In April 2005, work by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh, US,
> suggested that Roundup is lethal to lifeforms other than plants – in this
> case amphibians. In an extensive study on the effects of pesticides on
> these ‘non-target’ organisms in a natural setting, the researchers found
> that Roundup caused a 70 per cent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an
> 86 per cent decline in the total mass of tadpoles. Leopard frog tadpoles
> and gray tree frog tadpoles were nearly eliminated by exposure to the
> herbicide.
>
> Monsanto disputed the findings, saying Roundup was not intended for
> waterways, but this is hardly a relevant argument. Because of its
> widespread use, Roundup can be found in most waterways as a result of
> runoff – and it has the potential also to contaminate surface waters. In
> fact, in one 1998 survey Roundup was reported to have been found in
> surface water in the Netherlands, in wells sited under electrical
> substations that had been treated with glyphosate, in seven US wells (one
> in Texas, six in Virginia) and in forest streams in Oregon and Washington.
>
> When you buy a product such as Roundup you are buying into a whole host of
> other issues – worldwide pesticide contamination, loss of biodiversity,
> increases in ill health and the support of GM crops – you may never had
> dreamed of.
>
> Many people reason that Roundup would not be on sale if it weren’t safe,
> or that it is safe as long as you use it according to the manufacturer’s
> instructions. However, accumulating data suggests neither assumption is
> correct.
>
> Short-term exposure to glyphosate can cause breathing difficulties, loss
> of muscle control and convulsions. Farm workers exposed even to small
> amounts of Roundup – by rubbing an eye, for example – report swelling of
> the eye, eyelid or face, a rapid heartbeat and elevated blood pressure,
> all as a result of the residues transferred from
> the hands after touching leaky equipment. Accidental drenching is known to
> cause eczema of the hands and arms that can last for months.
>
> Roundup has never been fully tested for its cancer-causing potential.
> Although the US Environmental Protection Agency classifies glyphosate as a
> Group E Oncogen (no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans) this only
> because of ‘a lack of convincing evidence of carcinogenicity in adequate
> studies with two animal species, rat and mouse’ – in other words, the
> judgement is based on a limited number of studies of a limited number of
> non-human subjects.
>
> Roundup in toxic to children and all living things!!!




hi all,

some very well-researched factsheets that i trust greatly after working on
pesticide issues for the past 8 years can be found on the website for the
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. the one on roundup can
be found at:

http://www.pesticide.org/factsheets.html#pesticides (look under
"glyphosate," the active ingredient in roundup)

you'll also find staunch critique here. on the soapbox for a moment, i
think we need to be very careful -- much more careful than the
regulatory system accounts for -- of chemical use and the potential
effects on human & environmental health. rather than an approach that
incorporates precaution, the regulatory system under heavy
industry pressure approves of pesticides & other chemicals with very low
standards for safety and no consideration of cumulative or synergistic
effects (studies, if they're done at all, are only for individual
chemicals -- an unrealistic assumption of the picture of our exposure in this
society). so i think it's worth asking if even really need to be using
chemicals such as roundup. for what it's worth, you can also find info on
alternative pest control on the NCAP website above, as well as at
http://www.panna.org/resources/advisor.

another consideration is use of roundup leading to weeds resistant to the
chemical:
http://www.panna.org/node/1688

anyway, there's the rant. apologies if it sounded too preachy! having
worked for many years on pesticide issues (mostly from the perspective
of farmworker & fenceline community health) for so many years, i have
very strong opinions.

incidentally, i'll be forwarding more info to the list in the coming
months -- there's a decision underway in CA about whether or not to
register methyl iodide as a pesticide (it's a highly carcinogenic
chemical currently used in laboratories to *induce* cancer in rats.
needless to say, this would be extremely bad news for communities in
agricultural areas). more info to follow later.

Californians for Pesticide
Reform, www.PesticideReform.org)




I am by no means a studied expert on this matter,
> but am instead going to offer the opinion
> of a trusted friend, an eco-psychologist,
> dad, arborist, etc., someone who is about as EC (Ecologically Correct) as
> they come.,
>
> A while back he bought a house in the flatlands of Berkeley
> with a neglected yard, filled with the dreaded, nearly impossible to
> eradicate
> Kikuyu grass , or even simply remove in a section to put in a vegetable
> garden instead.
>
> He used Round-Up, waited the advised waiting period
> and planted a lovely garden to feed his family,
> including small children and a nursing mother.
>
> I think in most anything it comes down to what risks versus benefit you are
> willing to accept.
> This starts with being an informed consumer.
> It also means that one should be following the directions
> of any labeled product- not using next to a watercourse,
> using proper protective measures during application,
> waiting the appointed time, etc.
>
> What makes Round-Up so attractive is precisely this breakdown
> that occurs over a short period of time. Perhaps it was my friend?s
> experience professionally as an arborist, or your friendly gardener?s
> understanding that alternates are probably very labor intensive,
> slow acting (laying mulch down to smother weeds, something
> probably pretty close to impossible with kikuyu grass), inefficient,
> and in the end expensive and unsatisfactory.
>
> I hope this helps. Not all verdicts are easy

Roundup won't do a thing to a tree stump, it'd be like attacking a tank with a fly-swatter.

Having said that, Roundup is pretty nasty stuff but I used to spray it on the banks of a river when cutting out paths and holes for anglers. This is, of course, years ago. The riverbanks in question would have been impossible to cut otherwise - in the past before the club used sprays, big gangs of 30+ guys would go down with proper scythes and mow everything down. These days, the only people going to cut a mile long stretch of 9+ foot tall, ULTRA DENSE riverbank growth were me and my nearly 60 year old dad.

We use a non-glyphos spray now after advice from the water board some years ago, for anyone who's about to come on and accuse me of ecocrimes. We didn't use it on the less dense growth on other parts of that water, or the other waters the club owns. The club, my dad, and I all had licences to use it, and we had been advised by the water board to use it in the first place.

We used to go spray the stuff on the path, and after a couple of days it was safe for us to go with the big strimmers and cut the holes... particularly if it rained in those days.

If it's sprayed downwind from the crops, and the little one is kept away from the area for a week (to be double sure) all will be well.

what you got to say about roundup is its SO BLOODY GOOD at the job it does. Too good. Literally within a few hours of spraying, anything it went on is dead and brown. Really, really powerful stuff. I've had nastier irritations with 2-stroke petrol than with roundup but you wouldn't go spraying petrol on your garden either. best to keep it off if possible.. best way to rid a tree stump is to dig it out anyway