.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
23.3.05 [ The Andes Under Siege: Environmental Consequences of the Drug Trade - Publications ] 2 comments
Glyphosate has been the subject of an exhaustive body of scientific literature, based on independent research and subjected to peer review in the scientific community, that has shown it not to be a health risk to humans. Glyphosate is in fact one of the least harmful herbicides available on the world market. It kills only plants that are above ground at the time of spraying through contact with their leaves. Once glyphosate comes into contact with soil, it stops acting as a herbicide and is quickly broken down by microorganisms and biodegrades. Some glyphosate products are among the few herbicides approved for direct application to aquatic weeds or for vegetation control near ponds, streams, and waterways.
Toxicological studies have shown glyphosate to be less toxic than common salt, aspirin, caffeine, nicotine, and even Vitamin A. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has declared that glyphosate is non cancer-causing in humans and poses little risk for genetic defects. It is only slightly toxic to wild birds and practically non-toxic to fish. The minimal amount of the substance that fish, birds, and mammals retain is rapidly eliminated. Glyphosate is considered so benign that it is even used for vegetation control on the Galapagos Islands, one of the most fragile and environmentally sensitive areas in the world.
The Andes Under Siege: Environmental Consequences of the Drug Trade - Publications
But, if you don't trust the government (and who would in today's political climate?), then Oregon State has a seemingly unbiased evaluation of glyphosate. Keep in mind, I have never taken a pos-secondary science class; a biologist (like you!) is in a better position to evaluate reports like this.
Post a Comment