Mike-- Many thanks for your viewpoint. You said it better than I could. Jo Canning Vancouver Island -----Original Message----- From: pbs <pbs-bounces@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> On Behalf Of Mike Rummerfield Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:20 PM To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> Subject: Re: [pbs] Herbicides If, as you say, " it's important to look at the details wherein is contained the devil and you clearly cannot obtain accurate facts from "like-minded individuals" on social media", then it seems that all the research you've done and presented is from "like-minded individuals", and industry sponsored and published papers. It only takes a cursory search to find the refutation of your arguments for the 'safety' of herbicides, and glyphosate in particular. You could start with non Hodgkins lymphoma/Mayo clinic; plus the multitude of lawsuits involving individuals with non Hodgkins lymphoma and Bayer, the current owner of Roundup; Agent Orange/Vietnam veterans; lawsuits won in court resulting in Monsanto having to withdraw their claim that glysophate binds with soil particles, making it benign; The World Health Organization/glyphosate; California/glyphosate; glyphosate resistant Superweeds (although I suppose you could argue for Superhippeastrums) ; the list goes on and on and..................... The "organic chemicals" you refer to are organic in the sense that they contain carbon and hydrogen in their makeup (most organic compounds contain at least one carbon–hydrogen bond, hence the name hydrocarbon). This misleading argument has for many years fed into the confusion over, and the difference between, organic chemistry and organic standards regarding food production and the environment. Though they share the word 'organic', they are completely different subjects, though obviously intertwined. You say, "Glyphosate, for one is the 800 pound gorilla because it is so safe and useful". What is this statement based on? Is glyphosate useful? Yes (if you are willing to ignore the downsides). Is it effective at killing some weeds? Yes. Is it convenient and easy to use? Yes, very. Is it safe? * No *(see above). "There are approximately 280 million pounds of glyphosate applied to 298 million acres annually in agricultural settings (MRD, 2012-2016).Apr 18, 2019" This is *per year*. Follow the money. All the rationalizations for the continued use of herbicides do not make it safe. Denial and diversion have not proven to be effective strategies in matters of life. Don, I think the relevant issue here is not whether Hippeastrum is resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) or not. It is whether glyphosate is safe to use or not - not just safe for the Hippeastrum, but safe for other living things, including us. All areas of the world have their own set of weeds that are difficult to control. Yours are bermuda grass and nut sedge. In my area, two of them are quack grass and canary grass, and I detest them; there are others. Just try arguing with our ubiquitous Himalayan blackberry - you quickly become a torn, shredded, bloody mess. There are other strategies to dealing with these pests other than the application of glyphosate, though they may be less convenient and easy. I guess this all comes down to priorities - the short term convenience and ease of use vs. the longer term promotion of life. Most sincerely, Mike _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…