Blog Post

Peak bodies push back against glyphosate debate

Website Editor

Common weed killer RoundUp is sparking debate again, after an ABC Four Corners broadcast made the claim that RoundUp’s active ingredient glyphosate may contribute to cancer. Agricultural peak bodies have responded by calling for the debate to be based on the informed scientific evidence that suggests glyphosate-based products are safe.

Titled ‘The Monsanto Papers’ and broadcast on Monday night, the Four Corners episode centred around the alleged cover up of evidence linking the usage of glyphosate and the onset of cancer by RoundUp manufacturer Monsanto.

“Monsanto has engaged in a systematic and deliberate campaign to attack any science that says their product is not safe and to attack any scientist that has the courage to say something,” one lawyer remarks.

This follows a landmark US court case in August, where Monsanto was ordered to pay US$289 million in compensation to former school groundskeeper DeWayne Johnson. Johnson was diagnosed with terminal cancer (non-Hodgkin lymphoma) at age 42 in 2014, and accused the company of knowingly withholding information of the dangers of the weed killer. He is one amongst thousands of people currently suing the agrochemical giant.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in leading weed killer RoundUp, and is used commonly by families, farmers and gardeners across the globe. It is an important tool that allows allows farmers to manage weeds and improve crop protection, without which over two thirds of Australia’s crop production – totalling $20.6 billion – would be lost. The weed killer also reduces the need for farmers to till and plough the soil, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining soil health and moisture.

Glyphosate was first approved for use by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) in 1974. It has since been the subject of over 800 scientific studies and reviews that have found no causal links between glyphosate usage and cancer, including an in-depth scientific assessment led by the APVMA in 2016.

As such, the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) and Grain Producers Australia are pushing back against calls for further reviews. They state that the claims put forth by the Four Corners report – and the subsequent public alarm – are hinged on opinion rather than established scientific fact and evidence.

In her response to ‘The Monsanto Papers’, president of the NFF Fiona Simson expresses that the scientific evidence supporting glyphosate’s safety is overwhelming.

“There is simply no alternative, that is as safe and as effective as glyphosate, for these purposes,” Ms. Simson said. “It is essential we trust the science and preserve safe, effective tools such as glyphosate, that protect our environment and allow us to grow the produce we need to feed an increasingly hungry world.”

Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, David Littleproud, also issued a statement backing the APVMA.

“The weight of the objective scientific evidence shows when used in accordance with label instructions, glyphosate can be used safely,” he said.

By: Carla Wong




NEWS
16 Feb, 2024
HARDI Australia has long been at the forefront of technological development for Australian farmers, giving way to a game-changing solution to the perennial agricultural problem of weed control.
By Jessica Martyn 16 Feb, 2024
When it comes to building and maintaining a successful farming business in Australia, implementing the right solutions to deliver and preserve essential resources like fresh water is crucial – and in these ponds, White International is an authority more than 70 years strong.
16 Feb, 2024
After five decades of consistently setting new standards in forage harvesting technology, including perfect cut quality, ideal chop length, and efficient kernel processing, CLAAS has recently released a special edition JAGUAR 990 TERRA TRAC model at Agritechnica.
By By Jennifer McKee 16 Feb, 2024
In today's fast-paced world, embracing technology has become essential for industries to thrive, and the Australian agriculture industry is no exception.
04 Dec, 2023
As a Landcare group, one of our main interests is to increase ecological resilience in our local area. Many of our landscapes have been cleared of vegetation in previous decades, so we have the task of supporting landholders to plant trees and shrubs to replace those that are missing. The benefits of revegetation are manifold. They include providing habitat for a range of native animals; controlling erosion and salinity; increasing farm productivity through nutrient cycling and shade and shelter for stock; and drawing down carbon from the atmosphere. But as weather patterns become more variable and we experience more climatic extremes, we need to think about which plant species – and which plant genetics – are most appropriate in our revegetation efforts. We are forced to ask will our local plantings be able to survive our future climate? Up until recently, it has been common for people to preference locally sourced seed when re-planting. This has been based on the idea that such plants will be best adapted to local conditions. However, there is growing understanding among scientists and land managers that we need to shift our focus to plants that can persist as the climate changes. This involves looking at which plant species are most appropriate by focussing on species that have a wide distribution and grow in our area and also in hotter areas, and increasing the genetic diversity of our tubestock so they have the best potential to adapt over successive generations. Our Landcare group has been tackling this issue for the past several years, working with scientists and AdaptNSW to find the best way forward. There are several key steps involved: understanding our local future climate, analysing whether selected local species can survive in climates like the one projected for our area, and sourcing seed for those likely-to-survive species from a range of areas to increase the genetic diversity of our plantings. Planting the right species with good genetic diversity gives revegetation projects the best chance of survival into the future. It’s not just about making sure the individual tubestock will grow, but that future generations of those plants will be able to survive and thrive. Luckily there are some good resources available for farmers, land managers and groups interested in climate ready revegetation. The Royal Botanic Garden Sydney has launched the Restore and Renew Webtool ( https://www.restore-and-renew.org.au/ ), which is a wonderful way for people to incorporate both climate change and genetic information when sourcing seed or plants. The NSW Niche Finder is invaluable for those who want to dig further into climate variables and species distribution ( http://www.nswnichefinder.net/ ). For future climate information, the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology have joined forces to provide a user-friendly online tool ( https://myclimateview.com.au/ ). And AdaptNSW also provides projected climate change information for different regions of the state ( https://www.climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/projections-map ). The Yass Area Network of Landcare Groups also has detailed information about our work on climate ready revegetation and relevant resources our website: https://yan.org.au/projects/climate-ready-revegetation-project As the climate changes, our revegetation efforts are more important than ever. And we need to make sure that they are ‘climate ready’ so that their benefits persist well into the future.
04 Dec, 2023
Some weeks, Amy Pascoe spends more time with mushrooms than humans. In this Q&A the Little Acre co-founder talks stereotypes, innovation, and the problem with “Grown in Australia” labels.
Show More
Share by: