Glyfosaatin uusi aika

[Heikki Jokipii]

Jos monista asioista ollaan Trumpin suhteen epävarmoja niin myös yleisemminkin tästä:

Roadmap for the incoming Trump administration: Friend or foe of US agriculture?

Ei yksin glyfosaattiasiassa, vaikka jatkankin tässä triidissä. Siirretään keskustelu tarvittaessa muualle.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tämä selvitetaan:

Viljelijöiltä kerätään tietoja glyfosaatin käytöstä

Ilman vertailukelpoisia tilastoja Suomi ei pysty osoittamaan, että kansainvälisesti ottaen kasvinsuojeluaineiden käyttö on meillä varsin maltillista.

Mutta kun tulokset saadaan...

Tilaston julkistetaan marraskuussa 2025.

... kyllä joku taho voi yhä repiä pelihousunsa siitä, että meillä sitä ainetta ylipäänsä käytetään. 

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tämä alkaa taas:

Glyfosaatin terveyshaitat ilmi isossa tutkimuksessa: Maaseutuvauvat alttiita kasvuhäiriöille

Yhdysvaltojen maaseudulla, missä glyfosaatin käyttö on lisääntynyt, erityisesti mustien ja naimattomien lapset olivat yli 60 kertaa muita todennäköisemmin alipainoisia.

Erot olivat pieniä. Mutta:

Tutkimus on vertaisarvioitu. Jotkut arvioijat nostivat esiin sen, että tutkimuksessa hyödynnettiin piirikunnan laajuista glyfosaatin käyttöä, eikä yksilöllistä altistustietoa.

Tutkijoiden mukaan tulokset viittaavat siihen, että glyfosaatin käytön säädökset voivat olla riittämättömiä.

EU:ssa glyfosaattia saa käyttää ainakin vuoteen 2033 asti.

(lihav. HJ)

Varmaankin jossain päin EU:ta nyt syntyy huuto, että sitä ei saisi käyttää enää lainkaan.

Seurataan, mitä tuosta lisää kuullaan. Mutta YLE:llä oli heti laittaa tuohon mm. nämä vanhat "kainaloartikkelit"

Kemianjätti Bayer maksaa syöpään sairastuneille yli 10 miljardin dollarin korvaukset glyfosaattijutussa (2020)

Tutkimus: Torjunta-aine glyfosaatin käyttö vähensi kasveille hyödyllisiä mikrobeja (2023)

[Heikki Jokipii]

Taas se on USA:ssakin täydessä vauhdissa:

Viewpoint: Anti-glyphosate hysteria pushed by RFK, Jr. and MAHA allies throws a dark cloud over modern agriculture

Suuri Glyfosaattisota.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tämä on IARC:ista yleisesti, mutta käsittelee sen merkitystä glyfosaattisodassa:

Viewpoint: Basil, clove, hand creams and perfumes contain killer chemicals? Here’s why the European hazard agency IARC is considered a running joke in the science community

Here is a primer on why the Lyons, France based International Association for Research on Cancer, the IARC, has become the favorite go-to organization for activist environmental Non-governmental organizations (eNGOs) and trial lawyers looking to score billion dollar verdicts litigating safe products like artifical sweeteners, Gardasil, talcum powder and glyphosate.

(lihav. HJ)

[Heikki Jokipii]

Glyfosaatin turvallisuus on hyvin hyvin varmistettu:

Viewpoint: Every independent risk agency in the world has concluded that the herbicide glyphosate is safe as used. What about its impact on wildlife, soil and watersheds?

Viewpoint: Every independent risk agency in the world has concluded that the herbicide glyphosate is safe as used. What about its impact on wildlife, soil and watersheds?

Mutta vastarinta kuitenkin jatkuu.

Tuo artikkeli on melko tasapuolinen. Jotkut haitat tuodaan esille. Piilottelematta.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Glyfosaatin puolustuspuhe:

Viewpoint: Scientist defends the safety of glyphosate. And explains why that matters

Linkki valitettavasti kirjautumismuurin takana.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Pikku analyysi siitä, mitä tapahtuisi, jos:

Weedkiller wars: What happens if Bayer abandons the herbicide glyphosate?

Koska tiesin patentin laukeamisesta, tämä oli minulle yllättävä tieto:

About 90 chemical companies across the globe produce it, more than 50 of them in China. One company still dominates the market with a 40% share: Bayer, which acquired its original patent holder, Monsanto, in 2018, although the patent for its original formulation, known as Roundup, expired in 2000.

(lihav. HJ)

Tavallaan eräänlainen johtopäätös:

Are there any non-chemical alternatives? Mechanical weeding does work but its very inefficient and results in the release of carbon from the soil, exacerbating climate change instability. The value of cover crops and biological controls is limited. The only strategy that currently works, now and for the foreseeable future, involves Integrated Weed Management. And that requires the best and safest pesticide available: glyphosate.

The sad irony is that a sizable faction of the environmental movement, in defiance of the scientific consensus, remains steadfast in its opposition to all agricultural chemicals, including glyphosate. Chemophobia has been part of our culture for decades, but it accelerated after a disputed evaluation of glyphosate issued in 2015 by the controversial International Agency for Research on Cancer, which evaluates whats known as a hazard. It controversially based its conclusion on three dozen studies out of more than three thousand available, concluding that glyphosate was a possible carcinogen to applicators; it did not hold that micro traces in food posed any known harm.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Glyfosaatista tässäkin on kyse:

Disrupt the global food supply? Trump officials dubious about RFK, Jr. MAHA plan to ban crop chemicals

Trumpin avustaja, RFK, ajaa linjaa, että glyfosaatti kiellettäisiin.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Kyllä yritys näyttää jatkuvan:

Will RFK, Jr. try to ban glyphosate weedkiller?

Ja luomuväki tällä puolen Atlantin taputtaa käsiään.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Kähinä asiasta siellä jatkuu:

Viewpoint: The health and environmental impacts of glyphosate

A federal reckoning over glyphosate is imminent as the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement gains a foothold with Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wielding influence across President Trumps cabinet. Banning or restricting glyphosate use in the U.S. will either force producers to incur higher costs by turning to alternatives or worsen the environmental impacts of agriculture.

Debate over the health and environmental impacts of glyphosate, the active ingredient in a range of herbicides including RoundUp, is not new. Concerns about its potential link to health conditions like cancer have led to numerous lawsuits against manufacturers of glyphosate-based products since the 1990s. After decades of paying billions in settlements and with 67,000 pending cases, the CEO of pesticide manufacturer Bayer recently warned that the rising costs of litigation could soon force the company to stop selling Roundup in the U.S. altogether. In what is being described as a last ditch effort,

Bayer, along with other manufacturers and farm groups, is lobbying for legislation in several states that would limit the extent to which they could be sued over failure-to-warn claims so long as their product labels comply with federal requirements related to human health risks set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). North Dakota and Georgia were the first states to pass the legislation into law earlier this year.

Artikkelissa on myös analyysiä siitä, mitä sitten tapahtuisi, jos Kennedy onnistuisi. Jotain tällaista:

All of the Commissions proposals should appropriately weigh the extent to which pesticide bans or restrictions would incentivize substitutions with more toxic products or lead to declines in agricultural productivity and increases in food prices. Implementing policies that fail to anticipate these follow on effects would not only have food security implications at home, but also jeopardize Americas global leadership as a food exporter. Further, the Commission should refrain from asserting misleading links between the use of glyphosate in non-food crops, dietary exposure, and human health outcomes.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Järkevä keskustelu glyfosaatista tuntuu olevan kaikkialla vaikeaa:

Viewpoint: A disturbing conversation about glyphosate with a science-denier

The intent of my previous column on glyphosate was simply to encourage some critical thinking. In it, I wrote: Glyphosate is an important piece of technology that benefits everyone. Both directly and indirectly. And as such, it deserves careful consideration to ensure we are not too hasty lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The column eventually made its way to No-Till Farmer. That spurred one reader to email asking me to call. The discussion quickly turned to his concern about farmers using glyphosate on their wheat crop prior to harvest. He mentioned some test results and asked: Would you like me to send them to you? I said sure! I am always looking to learn something.

Sitten kerrotaan, kuinka siinä keskustelussa kävi.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Suorakylväjä kertoo:

Why farmers are digging in their heals in defense of the weedkiller glyphosate demonized by activists

Glyphosate has become a scapegoat in a broader campaign against modern production practices. Activists have cherry picked data, amplified worst-case scenarios, and ignored the generations of farmers who have safely and responsibly used this tool.

Are there risks? Of course. That Is why we have labels and training and safety standards. But let us not confuse precaution with prohibition. The conversation around glyphosate reflects a deeper divide between people who understand food production and those who only consume it. Many in our country have the luxury of being disconnected from the land. They do not know what it takes to grow a healthy, affordable, and sustainable crop.

[Heikki Jokipii]

David Zaruk, itse tämän sodan veteraani, käy läpi Suuren Glyfosaattisodan tämän vaiheen:

10 years ago, the hazard agency IARC called glyphosate a likely carcinogen. It weaponized chemophobia, corrupted environmental groups and ignited a tort bonanza

Ten years ago this week, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released the full Monograph 112, that included a decision on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. The ten years of activism, opportunism and profiteering that followed this activist-manufactured event have reshaped the regulatory, agricultural and NGO campaign landscape for the next generation. It still stuns me to consider how a relatively benign substance and extremely important agricultural input could have been so easily hijacked by such a band of opportunists, cult ideologues and well-funded interest groups.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Hyvää tarkoittavan aktivismin huono seuraus:

Lawsuits and misinformation have led to replacing safe glyphosate with far more problematic pre-1974 weed killing formulations

The herbicides in the quiver when Roundup came to market in 1974 were things like Diquat, Paraquat, 2,4-D, and Dicamba. The acute toxicity of those herbicides made Roundup seem like a godsend.
[..]
Whether for farm use or in the white jugs sold at garden centers, if it said Roundup on the label, it meant glyphosate, at least until recently. Lawsuits alleging Roundup caused cancer led to the shift. The scientific data and the actions of regulatory bodies are not consistent and not fully aligned with legal judgments.

Jugs labeled Roundup at the garden center no longer contain glyphosate. Instead, they are mixtures of herbicides with completely different modes of action, with many of the problems Roundup addressed at its introduction. They harken back to some of the earliest classes of herbicides.
[..]
The Roundup story is the biggest technology rollback of all time. After 50 years of use, consumers are now forced to use technology that predates Roundups introduction, technology Roundup replaced because it was superior. Rolling back other technologies we use to 1974 seems laughable.

(lihav. HJ)

Tuo lihavoitu menettely on erityisen naurettavaa.