Some EU countries want to continue to allow the herbicide glyphosate; another part wants a quick ban. The dilemma between the necessity for agriculture and the risk for public health concerns Bertie Steur, who does not think the discussion is pure.
Above all, I am a farmer and in favor of the sensible use of glyphosate as has been done in our country in recent years. Lately I have seen so many incorrect assumptions, half-truths and complete lies that I think there should be more room for a nuanced voice.
The discussion about glyphosate and the orange fields – this is how glyphosate would end up in our food – is absolute nonsense. Our crops are not Roundup Ready (genetically modified) crops if they come into contact with glyphosate.
Especially as a delicate seedling, they die. If any remains of glyphosate were left behind, nothing would grow. But studies show that glyphosate residue is in our food, how is that possible?
Non-visible use is a problem
I always say that the big problem with glyphosate is the use that is not visible, and that is twofold. Firstly, there are the Roundup Ready crops that are resistant to glyphosate and on which quantities are sprayed that are not even permitted in our country, but which are therefore absorbed by the crop and end up in the (import) product.
Corn and soy are two examples of which significant amounts come our way and are processed into all kinds of foods. The requirement that Brussels says that products from outside the EU must meet the same standards as crops grown within the EU is a nonsense and this is known.
In addition, there is the practice that was fortunately abolished in our country in 2019, it pre-harvest -spray over grains. The theory behind this was that the plant could be safely sprayed at a stage where the grain filling had stopped and therefore no longer absorbed anything, against late weeds and for a uniform ripening of the crop, which makes harvesting easier. There usually isn’t much rain around that time, so glyphosate has the ability to remain on the grain.
Some formulations are harmful, others are not
Glyphosate is said to be harmful to insects, according to a study. But when reading the report on this research, this appears to be different. There are different formulations (combinations of glyphosate and additives) on the market, and one formulation is harmful, the other is not.
The alternatives to glyphosate are, as a recent study by Wageningen University shows, not necessarily less harmful. If glyphosate disappears, either a combination of other means will be used to ensure that grass and/or weeds are cleared in the spring before sowing, or a mechanical operation.
In practice, mechanical processing means that the soil must be stirred vigorously to get rid of grass/weeds. It requires little imagination to imagine what this does to soil life and insects living above ground. In addition, the soil acts as a storage for CO2; When it is stirred vigorously, the organic matter in the soil decomposes and CO2 is released.
Doing nothing is not an option
Doing nothing against weeds is also not an option, in addition to direct competition for the crops, these plots will eventually be completely overgrown due to seed formation.
A ban on glyphosate will prove to be a pyrrhic victory and, due to global trade, a false sense of security for consumers.
Bertie Steur is a farmer