Thanks Nils, for so concisely covering many of the main points regarding RoundUp and a rapidly growing sentiment against its use in the EU. The same discussion is happening here in the Netherlands, and to a greater or lesser extent in many other European countries. I used to rely on it in my own gardens, 'back in the day'. With one hand over my eyes, so to speak, because I already suspected big problems but my laziness suggested I simply believe the words of Monsanto/Bayer that it was 'quickly broken down once in contact with the soil'. Sadly, now we know more of the reality, in terms of health impacts including cancer in those who use it, its migration and persistence in the water table, movement over great distances via soil dust blown by the wind, impacts on soil life including insect larvae but also the entire microbial community that makes soil a living substance. We know it migrates away from the application area. We know that organisms can build genetic resistance to it, not just GMOs but wild plants as well. We know that genes flow laterally as well as from generation to generation, with new organisms, particularly microbes, freely exchanging information between species in the form of DNA. It seems to affect human (so quite likely other creatures') immune systems and we know these effects can be passed down to subsequent generations. Sadly, in many areas, health and safety, both individual and community, have become politicized. I'm baffled by this, but it's increasing. We know how policy and regulations are shaped by the polluters. in many instances both in the USA and the EU, lobbyists for the polluters actually write the legislation! Yet somehow we pretend the fact that toxins have entered identity politics isn't a factor in the willingness to consider mountains of well studied evidence which shows how damaging these chemicals are. And not 'just' to other species or our own future generations. The damage is immediate (after all that's why we like to use it). The fact that studies are not funded, or not funded long enough, or worse, funded by the companies selling the products, who often donate heavily to both policy makers and to academic research institutes (both of who know very well 'which side their bread is buttered on'), cannot credibly be claimed as so inconclusive that we should just keep on using it. Remember, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Were the studies better funded, conducted transparently and without bias, published more accessibly, we would have more than enough evidence. As it is, we must do our own connect-the-dots exercises, and look at the network of impacts for ourselves. That really should not be a tough call for horticulturists or observant farmers. We have keen eyes for details. It's part of the fascination, and skills that come with the cultivation of plants. How we can summarily park an entire sector of study which so directly impacts the world we otherwise revel in, and has implications for ourselves, our loved ones, our communities and world is stranger than strange to me. Rant over :) Erik van Lennep, in central Europe where Spring is teasing us but I'm planting anyway. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 11:11, Nils Hasenbein via pbs < pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> wrote: > Glyphosate has a bad reputation in Germany now, following the > many hints that it may, in the long term and as a mass application, have > severe impact on insect populations, likely larvae development and > insect behaviour. > conclusion is that the main environmental problem with Glyphosate is a > > _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/… Unsubscribe: <mailto:pbs-unsubscribe@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>