Despite promises, toxic chemicals are being sprayed in Bristol – progress is being made – Bristol Cable

That dead grass or dry weed club on a bench in the park may have been caused by a weed killer in the midst of a long-running dispute.

Glyphosate, originally developed to extract minerals from pipes and heaters in commercial hot water systems, was once again considered a weed killer by the barbaric agricultural giant Monsanto. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that in addition to other diseases, people are more susceptible to carcinogens.

Although the chemical was in a wide range similar to that of red meat and wood smoke, Monsanto tried desperately to disrupt the report, but the cancer connection burned the campaign waves to prevent it.

Now, years after a pledge by politicians to ban weed control glyphosate in Bristol, while the cable is under development, it could indicate that toxic chemicals are still being used extensively in the city. It is widely recognized that it has harmful effects on humans and the environment, including insect damage to plants, insects, and creditors.

The council is trying, and of course there are cost implications for non-pest options, and we need to have an honest discussion. ”

Edible Bristol founder and anti-glyphosate campaign Sarah Ven

In April 2016, a year after the World Health Organization (WHO) designation, Mayor Marvin Reese said: “It’s a postal code lottery about whether your family is directly exposed to these chemicals.” Reese was commenting on a council-led experiment on the use of vinegar instead of glyphosate to effectively control weeds in Cotham.

As a result, local campaigns criticized the experiment as “failed”, citing the remaining European cities as more efficient alternatives such as mechanical removal or heat treatment. “Frankly, he gave birth to a bull,” said one campaigner.

Within a month, Res was backed by a manifesto that promised to “stop the use of harmful pesticides” and to “prevent the use of highly harmful pesticides and ensure the safety of workers and contractors working on pesticides” (pesticides are pesticides). )).

But In 2017, the council reported on the results of the vinegar test. The report states that while the vinegar is partially effective, it may not be completely safe to avoid glyphosate. It will be more effective, which will affect the council’s legal mandate to protect the city’s land and infrastructure.

Like weeds, glyphosate continues to prune. A.D. In 2018, in the midst of litigation, a court in San Francisco awarded $ 289 million in damages to a school in Monsanto’s favorite Roundup glyphosate weed killer, and the company failed to warn enough about the dangers. The product. Although the compensation was significantly reduced following Monsanto’s appeal, the decision and others prompted them to take a closer look at the chemical world. In the UK, the trade union GMB, which represents workers who can use the product, called for the ban, and councils across the country began talking about eliminating its use.

Passing through activities

In January 2019, all councilors and the mayor voted in favor of the Anti-Glyphos Council initiative, a initiative launched by thousands of residents in Bristol. The movement called on the mayor to conduct more extensive experiments, report on the human and environmental effects of the chemical, and set up a task force to eliminate glyphosate within three years. January 2022

It is safe to say that glyphosate may not be the primary focus. But more than a year after the mayor was elected five years after the mayor was elected, and six months before the council decided to complete the plan, hundreds of liters of glyphosate were used in Bristol green spaces, parks, sidewalks and other lands. The council owns and manages.

Cable data shows the council has significantly reduced the cost of glyphosate-based supplies from £ 19,000 in 2017/18 to £ 9,000 in 2020/21. However, this does not apply to significant use of weed control by private contractors employed by the council. Information on this is not publicly available.

In July 2021, when asked if there were any actions taken by the council, the council refused to respond directly. “The city’s 10-year ecological emergency strategy, set up by organizations across the city, has reduced pesticide use by 50% by 2030,” a spokesman said.

He added that they intend to go above and beyond the plan as part of a broader and larger plan to improve ecological health and biodiversity in the city, such as a recent announcement to promote grass and deforestation.

However, Sarah Ven, a horticulturist, founder of edible Bristol and anti-glyphosphate campaigner, told Cable:

The council emphasizes that glyphosate is officially safe. For example, carcinogenic effects are also debated when parks are exposed to relatively low levels of exposure, such as agricultural settings.

However, a July 2021 study by scientists at the University of Vienna cast doubt on this. Although glyphosate is safe, almost all corporate-sponsored scientific studies, and officially licensed licenses, do not meet the basic scientific rigor requirements and do not have the type of test to detect cancer risk. The European Union (EU) is considering renewing licenses in the wake of the protests.

Race In 2016, he said, “Cities such as Edinburgh, Brighton, Glastonbury, Hamburg, Rennes and Livorno took the lead on this knowledge.” [of environmental and health impacts] To ban the use of glyphosate in public places. ” “Why didn’t we do it?” He asked.

In the absence of official action in Bristol, some residents and organizations have taken action. Many have promised ‘no spray,’ and the community around High Kingsding has reached an agreement with the council to take care of the weeds in a sustainable way.

Ven concluded, “The council is trying, and of course there are cost implications on non-pest options, and we need to have an honest discussion. The fact is that without glyphosate we will have slower roads and some more pests.

But you can call them wild plants and flowers and insects and pollen. Because improper preoccupation with ‘order’ does not save the world. ”

Leave a Comment