Forum Topic

Guy's blog Glyphosate

Guy when you say "has fairly clear evidence of hurting insects and less clear evidence it may be carcinogenic." What evidence?When making the decision to ban Glyphosate, why did you believe the alternatives suggested would work? How was it a surprise that they didn't. Any competent, knowledgeable gardener could have told you they wouldn't.Acid formulas and hot foam or steam are "mechanical" systems for removing weeds. They kill the top growth of plants by burning them. Glyphosate is  "systemic". It is absorbed into the plant and down into the roots, it stops cell reproduction, so as old cells die new ones aren't produced and the plant dies.Burning the top of the plant away will only kill plants with a weak root structure that doesn't store energy; annuals and recently developed perennial and trees. Perennials have evolved to store energy in their  roots. They die back in winter and then re grow in spring, so can recover from having their leaves burned off. Trees, once they have put on some growth, will recover from having leaves burned. This is well known so the most basic enquiries would have enabled you to understand that.We are going through a period of rejecting science. The anti vax movement being another example. I don't believe you have any evidence that Glyphosate harms insects any more than you had evidence that alternative methods of killing weeds would work.That people reject science in favour of what people who are not scientists say is regrettable, but you were a Council Cabinet member making a decision that has cost, I believe, in excess of £1 million in revenue, made pavements unsafe and left an expensive legacy of capital repairs needed to fix roads and pavements damaged by roots and being stabbed at with hoes.As a Local Authority you have a public body, The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) to advise you on managing risks. The HSE says that Glyphosate is safe for people and the environment.  In rejecting your own advisers advice you have cost the Council a huge amount of money. You have helped spread disinformation causing concern in the public by repeating assertions that have no basis, just like the anti vax movement. How do yo justify that?

Kathleen Healy ● 41d36 Comments

More information on why to avoid as much as you can!https://pasture.io/global-farming/glyphosate-roundup-debate-agriculture#:~:text=Sri%20Lanka%20also%20uses%20glyphosate,use%20these%20herbicides%20the%20most.

Philippa Bond ● 29d

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/02/glyphosate-weedkiller-damages-wild-bumblebee-coloniesPeople always need to look at a wider picture!

Philippa Bond ● 29d

You are peddling an untruth.  Look at the Science and look at the number of court cases concerning Monsanto, new owner Bayer and glyphosate and the arguments over its use.Yes, Ealing does spray and the weeds are coming straight up again. I got such a mouthful of chemical names when I questioned the operatives when I was in the midst of a family crisis that I never really followed it up.  They did say that they spray three times a year and they have to choose the time and weather carefully.  I find it interesting which plants don't seem to be bothered by it.  There are some plants that haven't died back at all and there are new seedlings growing almost immediately.  Of course they become immune to it and there really isn't any point to it if they don't clean or brush the pavements or gutters.  All the dead heads of the spring flowering trees (often so small they are actually unnoticeable on the trees - especially if you don't look) are still lying like a mat of seedling compost on the pavements and in the gutters. Pointless poisoning of us all.  It's in breast milk and urine.  It's known to be dangerous to insects, fish and animals.  How stupid are we that we think that just because consequences aren't immediately bad for us that they aren't there?  What legacy are we leaving for our children in their lives?The gutters can't be cleaned because of the numbers of cars permanently parked in the streets and the inability of Council and/or Contractor to organise the removal temporarily or permanently to enable this.I have heard from a friend in Brent that they have the same problem as in Chiswick where they have had what seems like a dumped or abandoned untaxed car in their road for months and have been unable to get any action from Council or Police.  It appears there are a tremendous number of cars that are  using the roads and cluttering them up which shouldn't be with no tax or insurance let alone the number of people driving them without having a valid driving licence.  What a mess! https://ecologycenter.org/factsheets/so-whats-the-problem-with-roundup/

Philippa Bond ● 30d

When you drive across the Richmond / Hounslow Borough borders it’s astounding to note what a mess Hounslow is. The stark difference in street cleanliness of the two Boroughs is amazing although litter, flytipping and general road maintenance is diabolical in Hounslow! Using Glyphosate has to be a good thing for tackling weeds especially as the scientific evidence is that it isn’t harmful to animals or insects.

Steve Taylor ● 33d

Thank you Mary.  There are also some other scientific papers that have been published too.  There are people who just don't want to make the effort to be more careful unfortunately.

Philippa Bond ● 35d

I was just using it as an example of the mess it is and the buck passing that goes on.  Ofwat for years would not allow the water rates to go up because as a privatised business the shareholders expected to get a dividend.  Now that there is the SPV super sewer to pay for and following public outrage on the state of our rivers, lakes and waterways following the lack of investment in  infrastructure the water rates have been allowed to be raised to pay for it.  Other restrictions have also been put on Thames Water to try to improve the water situation.  If you haven't seen the Thames Water documentaries you really should.

Philippa Bond ● 36d

Where do you live that 'the recycling is practically inexistent' (sic)? If, as you say, it's down to lack of drivers, it isn't presumably in a block of flats. The recycling efforts in Hounslow are generally very good with weekly collections of all sorts including food waste. There are some individuals who could play more of a part, however, in order to increase the total amount recycled.

Anne England ● 36d

Hello thereThe first post is asking for scientific evidence:Here it ishttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721004654one scientific article among lots of them.Now the council take decisions not because it is based in scientific evidence but because it is always trying to save money. The staff are not scientists, but more economists that feel they will reduce spending time cutting plants by hand. For government, working in a more sustainable way and reduce pollution and climatic change is seen like little important. I am shocked how Hounslow dont care about the environment. Recycling is not important, the recycling is practically inexistent where I live, they are sorry because they dont have drivers. Green areas are used for festivals and musicals, who cares about the fauna and native flore. So to add the cherry on the cake, now hounslow is using glyphosphates... "Cool"(?!)Saying people dont like glyphosphates are antiscience is misleading.

Mary Aguirre ● 36d

“ has cost Thames Water millions of pounds to get rid of the fatbergs the size of buses that”Nonsense. It has cost water rates payers millions. Thames Water has always paid shareholders millions in dividends.

Steve Taylor ● 36d

https://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=community&link=https://neighbournet.com/server/common/conthames087.htmIt has taken an MP years to get this through Parliament!Just look at the article above and what has happened with the use of wet wipes containing plastic which doesn't dissolve when wet and which have been flushed down our loos.However much Thames Water may be unpopular and despite all the problems they have they didn't privatise themselves. They have in the past taken legal action costing thousands of pounds to try and stop these companies making them and advertising them to customers as 'flushable'.  It also has cost Thames Water millions of pounds to get rid of the fatbergs the size of buses that they create in the pipes.We need to think more about the effects of what we do on our health and on the health of the environment.

Philippa Bond ● 36d

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/29/pesticides-antibiotics-animal-medicines-chemical-cocktail-britain-rivers-aoeMisuse IS a big problem because it is far too available and unless UNNECESSARY use is avoided of ALL of this stuff - and much of it is just used because of promotion, spin and laziness rather than necessity - that it is used - after all it isn't contained is it - it is sprayed - then it IS a problem.  It is now being found in our food and our bodies.  And yes it has killed and caused irregularities in creatures.  WE ARE EATING IT AND ARE BEING EXPOSED TO IT.  This is more of a problem for pregnant mothers and babies.It is Thames Water after all who gets to carry the can with all the dead and crushed leaves and tree flowers and bits and pieces that get washed down the street drains with the rain taking a lot of unseen chemicals with it together with what we flush and put down the sink.Please do some more research instead of just listening to the short-sighted immediate chink of money in your pocket.  It isn't hard to use a stiff brush. But it may actually be harder to find more volunteers to help and face up to change.Also highlight, copy and paste the article above into your browser and read it.  It is one of many concerning the dire state of all our waterways much of which is caused by the chemicals which are washed into them.

Philippa Bond ● 36d

'That Councils should somehow have the time, money and personnel to chase after and prosecute all residents and/or owners and keep on top of prosecuting those who have paved over their front gardens for parking is highly unlikely.  There are lots of things that we would like Councils to do but it seems that nobody or not enough people want to pay enough taxes to do this.'Tosh! Hounslow always used to enforce on these requirements, anyway, as explained as the Highways Authority - Hounslow legally would need to carry out the work to install a footpath crossover, which would also allow oversight of the correct type of hardstanding in a garden, so that's money in the bank to them and no cost to the council taxpayer. The 'Government burning of the regulations' is another daft statement because as far as I'm aware it is not law yet.

Vanessa Smith ● 36d

I’m with you on this Guy any doubt  don’t use it

Robert Ayres ● 36d

I will not engage with this any more. As I have said, I have looked at a lot of the research and the scientists are split on it.Some fanatics are desperate to see it used for reasons I don't try to understand.Others who are strong voices in this area in favour of protecting wildlife have the opposite view.Now I have people who don't use their name throwing accusations at me.I have no respect for that. At least Kathleen and Vanessa use real names.That's it - I will not repond to this again.

Guy Lambert ● 37d

Monsanto developed Glyphosate (brand name Roundup) in the mid 60's. It kills plants and nothing else and that was its problem - unless used very carefully, it would kill all plants in the area it was sprayed, not just the intended victim. In the mid 90's Monsanto developed "Roundup Ready" crops. You could spray all round them and all plants would be killed except those Roundup Ready. Soy, corn, cotton, sugar beet and alfalfa, resistant to Roundup were widely planted in the USA and farmers sprayed Roundup (glyphosate) everywhere around them to ensure a weed free harvest, This practice killed the local food supply for insects, reptiles and birds. It was not the glyphosate that did the damage, It was its misuse!. Glyphosate kills plants and only plants! AND there is not a single research report anywhere in the world that definitively links Glyphosate to cancer in  humans!Guy you have done Hounslow a big disservice from your ill educated position on Glyphosate and have cost us tax payers a very large sum of money as a result. In future it would be wise to do some research before you preach.

John O ● 37d

I think we all agree that front gardens should not be allowed to be totally covered in non-porous surfaces and paved to the detrimental loss of any planting. People often think that pots are the answer but they can be harder to maintain than a few flowering shrubs.  That Councils should somehow have the time, money and personnel to chase after and prosecute all residents and/or owners and keep on top of prosecuting those who have paved over their front gardens for parking is highly unlikely.  There are lots of things that we would like Councils to do but it seems that nobody or not enough people want to pay enough taxes to do this.Until or unless our drainage system in London is better designed and managed it will be very hard and expensive to succeed in sorting out water pollution although it can be greatly ameliorated by separating rainwater using water butts (years ago Councils and Thames Water offered reduced price ones) but no-one seems to have  the money or inclination now - or maybe the increase in water metering will help as we become more water stressed and more aware that we can suffer flash flooding as well as water shortages. There used to be something in the regulations on Council websites but somehow that seems to have disappeared about how much paving of any garden you are allowed.  Perhaps that was part of the Governmental burning of the regulations that caused all the problems with unregulated and unchecked planning, building, cladding and out of date and less clear Building Regulations in England compared to Scotland. Pesticide means something that kills pests and is a greater umbrella term for herbicides, fungicides, insecticides etc.

Philippa Bond ● 37d

Agree, Vanessa that is a problem. I read a book by Chris Packham on the loss of bio diversity in large parts of the countryside due to intensive, industrial, farming methods. The hopeful bit of the book was that the total acreage of gardens and parks in urban and semi urban areas was enough to replace what has been lost if managed for bio diversity.Hounslow as Local Authority could use the laws available to stop the loss of front gardens or at least ensure they have SUDS surfaces and are adapted legally. It could use funds raised to invest in skills to manage its parks and open spaces for bio diversity which would also make them more attractive and interesting to visit. For most people their local park is where they have the best chance of encountering wildlife. The money spent banning Glyphosate could have transformed parks.In signing off new spending Councillors should have a clear understanding of the the positive change the spend will achieve and how they know whether the hoped for change has happened.

Kathleen Healy ● 38d

It really amazes me that there has been so much criticism of the change in policy to permit Glyphosate usage in Hounslow which somewhat has overlooked the damage to our insect life and efforts at supporting biodiversity by the failure of Hounslow to take action against the loss of so many gardens to allow for car parking.Apart from the danger that could be caused to services under our footpaths by driving across them without a properly constructed crossover, which has to be carried out by the Highways Authority - L.B. Hounslow, there is the question of concreting or paving over the garden to provide a hardstanding for the vehicle.Of course what should be happening is that permeable surfaces are installed to allow for water to soak away, but if a council does not enforce the Highways Act covering the illegal driving over a footpath - then neither can they ensure that all gardens used for parking have a permeable surface. Hounslow has done no such enforcement/prosecutions for driving over footpaths since 2022, and quite possibly prior to that, according to an FoI. So as well as losing any grassed, planted areas that provide support for invertebrates and many insects, like bees and butterflies, neither is water conservation a consideration. Yet, Hounslow has installed 'rain gardens', what is the point of spending money doing that - yet, at the same time allow gardens to disappear under concrete?Why aren't the crop of 'weeding warriors' up in arms over this? Loss of habitat is one of the biggest threats, and if you added up all those small plots lost it would probably be a shocking amount. It should be possible for both parking, where necessary, and sustaining a habitat promoting biodiversity in an urban area to go side by side, but it would require Hounslow to care and start looking at the problem and enforce where necessary. This could also bring much needed money in to council coffers with the vehicle construction works needing to be carried out by them as the local Highways Authority.

Vanessa Smith ● 38d

Correlation isn't causation. Pesticides includes insecticides which are clearly damaging to insects.  Glyphosate is a herbicide.PAN who you reference is a small lobbying Charity that carries out no research.If we are to address the serious environmental issues we face we need to follow science and evidence. I and others have increased the number of insects and birds at Dukes Meadows by planting trees, hedges and meadows. 15 years ago on the advice pf local naturalist Mick Massie we filled the old paddling pools with gravel, donated by Barret Homes and planted wildflowers. Yesterday when I was there I saw grasshoppers and butterflies. Mick surveyed recently and found a rare wasp. Vanessa, with other volunteers were responsibly for the transformation of Northcote Rec into Northcote Nature Reserve, through a project that created a backwater and introduced plants and management to promote bio diversity. She volunteers on the project. The funding has run out for the Borough Ecologist and the Council is seeking funding. One Ecologist for a Borough the size of Hounslow is a thin resource. Hounslow owns so much land the opportunity to adjust management, informed by someone with knowledge to enhance bio diversity, is huge.In years to come when future generations look back in dismay and disbelief, one of the many tragedies they'll reflect on his how well meaning people, rather than lobby for things that would actually make a difference lobbied to have huge amounts of money spent to ban something that wasn't causing any harm and could actually be used to increase bio diversity. By for example removing monocultures of alien invasive species.My main wish would be that policy is driven by achieving outcomes, that are based on clear research and evidence, not pointless virtue signalling activity.

Kathleen Healy ● 38d

You need to relook at the evidence concerning the use of Roundup and Glyphosate on insects because you are not up to date.There is a very big problem with the reduction and lack of insects.  Years ago we used to have the wash the car windscreen after travelling down the motorway but today hardly any insects get squashed on the number plates or windscreen.Three friends who kept bees have lost them in recent years.  This could have been other pesticides being used but could also be glyphosate which science shows causes problems to bees.  Chemicals are causing problems including upsetting bees' sense of direction so that they are not finding their way back to hives but that isn't all.There are many reasons for a loss of insects and it can also include the way that hedges and shrubs are now cut to suit a timetable created by someone's diary or just the look of them rather than being pruned to suit the wildlife that relies on them for food and shelter or to lay their eggs on and the best time to prune each individual plant.  Growing so many plants just for their foliage also does not help.  Weather also causes problems as does this idea that all migrant wild flowers and garden escapes need to be treated so uncharitably and killed off when many of them are not a threat at all to pavements, walls or anything else.The Environment Agency has stipulated that street sweepings of leaves ie from pavements are not suitable for composting. All the chemicals that are included in those sweepings contribute towards that.  There have been calls for years for us to reduce the chemicals that we use because of the damage that we are doing.  The spin and publicity to use them just increases as this is big business.  So does the heavy professional lobbying of those committee members who have to vote on whether or not to agree to extend any certification for use of glyphosate.https://www.pan-europe.info/blog/european-parliament-crucial-dialogue-protecting-bees-and-bugs-pesticides

Philippa Bond ● 39d

Guy, this is what the co author of the study you refer to, Dr. Philip Landrigan, says;"strong reason to eliminate glyphosate from the production of foods consumed by pregnant women and their children." The rats were given Glyphosate in drinking water, daily over a period of two years.Cereal crops are sprayed with Glyphosate to ripen them before harvest. The grain is then processed and enters the food chain. Hounslow will be spraying it on paths, pavements and roads. Maybe there's a case to stop using Glyphosate to dry crops. Or more research needed. According to the study though only pregnant women and babies should avoid eating food containing Glyphosate. It is recommended that pregnant women and babies also avoid unpasturised milk and a few years ago foods containing uncooked eggs.Full quote“The findings from this carefully conducted study, and especially the observation that prenatal exposures of infant rats to glyphosate during pregnancy increase incidence and mortality from early-life leukemia, is a powerful reminder of human infants’ great vulnerability to toxic chemicals and strong reason to eliminate glyphosate from the production of foods consumed by pregnant women and their children,” concluded Dr. Philip Landrigan, study co-author and Director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good at Boston College.

Kathleen Healy ● 40d

There is no evidence of Glyphosate harming insects. If it is used to remove plants that could support insects then that will have a negative impact because of the loss of the plants, but so will hoeing or burning away weeds with vinegar.The Council has adopted an integrated weed management strategy. Minimise use of Glyphosate to where there is no practical or economic alternative.  Leave plants where they aren't a problem.Some may argue not to manage i.e. remove vegetation growing anywhere; roads, footpaths, invasive species, around trees. I think most people though want paths and roads that are safe and to avoid expensive ongoing repair from root damage.Alternatives such as salt are toxic to soil, so not good to use.Guy from things you have posted, I don't think you have checked authoritative sources of information or spoken to people from credible organisation such as the Environment Agency. I am familiar with what is considered good practise and governance in Charities. The Charity Commission guidance says trustees must seek appropriate professional advice and help when making decisions affecting Trust assets. The same should apply to Councillors, Council money doesn't belong to you personally, you are overseeing its spending on behalf Borough residents. What professional bodies or expert advice did you seek in maintaining the Glyphosate ban?

Kathleen Healy ● 40d

Have you seen the number of court cases concerning it in the US?It isn't just because of the cancers it may cause in humans but it is also the problems that we are having with the huge loss of insects - which people seem to forget are important to our world.  Nowadays people seem to be far less tolerant and I fear we are heading for another Silent Spring.https://www.reddit.com/r/GardeningAustralia/comments/1gmvna5/killing_weeds_between_pavers/https://www.buglife.org.uk/news/bugs-matter-survey-shows-ongoing-decline-in-uk-flying-insects/"Insects are critical to ecosystem functioning and services. They pollinate crops, provide natural pest control, decompose waste and recycle nutrients, and underpin food chains that support birds, mammals and other wildlife. Without insects, the planet’s ecological systems would collapse."Don't forget that companies were far more interested in their own profits than admitting that they knew their tobacco caused cancer.

Philippa Bond ● 40d

You can read, Andy.Read what the ECHA says.I won't repeat it again!It seems there is new research which they need to review. EU (and any public examination of scientific data) review will take some time.I am not fanatical. I don't know.In reality, nobody does.I remain on the fence until experts get to a consensus, and in any case, it is not a big issue personally for me. SOme people are very strongly against it in my ward. My job is to do what I can to have their preferences respected, so I go with the council's decision and will support those who want to weed their own roads themselves, thus avoiding Glyphosate which they thinl is dangerous.I rely on people who do to do the heavy lifting, and the matter of Glyphosate has been controversial for decades without any clear, widely agreed, conclusion

Guy Lambert ● 40d

"Glyphosate has lower acute toxicity to humans than 94% of all herbicides1 and many common household chemicals, including vinegar and table salt."https://extension.psu.edu/glyphosate-roundup-understanding-risks-to-human-health

Andy Herrick ● 40d

Guy, I don't read this as suggesting the EU is "still on the fence":"The most recent assessment was carried out between 2019 and 2023 by Member State Competent Authorities, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and showed that there is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban. This led to the renewal of approval of glyphosate in 2023."fromhttps://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances-safeners-and-synergists/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en

Andy Herrick ● 40d

Rock salt can be used to kill weeds, but it's a non-selective herbicide, meaning it will kill any plant it comes into contact with, including desirable ones. It works by dehydrating weeds and disrupting their internal water balance, causing them to die. Applying it to cracks in pavement or gravel can prevent weed growth, but be cautious around desired plants. How to Use Rock Salt for Weed Control:Direct Application:Sprinkle rock salt directly onto weeds, particularly at their base, or between pavers, stones, or in gravel areas. Salt Solution:Dissolve rock salt in water to create a solution, and then spray it onto weeds. Some gardeners add dish soap and vinegar to enhance the solution's effectiveness. Timing:Apply salt on a dry, sunny day when rain isn't expected to prevent it from washing away. Quantity:Use salt sparingly to minimize harm to surrounding plants and soil. Reapplication:Repeat the application as needed, as the salt's effect can dilute over time. Soil Damage:Be aware that salt can sterilize soil, making it difficult for anything to grow there for an extended period. Important Considerations:Non-Selective:Rock salt kills all vegetation, so avoid using it near desirable plants, including lawns, gardens, and trees. Soil Health:Salt can negatively impact soil structure and fertility, making it difficult for plants to absorb water and nutrients

Robert Ayres ● 40d

Oh and I should have added that the Environment Agency have said that the leaves swept off the streets aren't suitable for composting because those street sweepings are too polluted.

Philippa Bond ● 41d

Dear, dear Vanessa. If you're accusingme of thinking I know better, read what I have actually said, which in summary I don't know.I made no decision to stop using Glyphosate. I inherited a decision taken by someone else (don't really know who).I stayed with the policy on Glyphosate whilst I was on cabinet, despite a lot of hysteria pointed at me saying the streets a re a disgrace and a person in a £4M house in Chiswick teling me he was living in a toilet. (Yes, I quote).We stayed with that despite the criticism and various attempts to use alternative methods, none of which really worked.After it had nothing to do with me it was brought to the Parks Friends and Salamn Shaheen said he would do a scientific study. I pointed out that at least 100 such studies had taken place in theUSA with no solid conclusion . Same in the EU.I just looked at the EU situsation and find:"Will the carcinogenicity study carried out by the Ramazzini Institute as part of their Global Glyphosate Study (GGS) be examined by EFSA and ECHA?The Commission is aware of the publication of 10 June 2025 in the journal Environmental Health of some of the results of a study on glyphosate undertaken by the Ramazzini Institute as part of their Global Glyphosate Study (GGS).The Commission has mandated the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to ask the study authors to provide all raw data without delay, and when the data will be received, to conduct a robust and thorough scientific evaluation as to whether the new information, considered alongside all other available data, changes their previous conclusions concerning the hazard (ECHA) or risk assessment (EFSA) conducted for glyphosate.This work will be carried out based on the relevant procedures of the agencies.ECHA already concluded two times (in 2017 and 2022) that based on the available information, including animal data and human epidemiological data, and using a weight of evidence approach, no classification for carcinogenicity is warranted for glyphosate. Therefore the new information by itself does not immediately call into question the outcomes of the previous reviews.If, in the light of a review of the new information, ECHA or EFSA would confirm that glyphosate does no longer meet the approval criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 or indicate that the conditions of approval should be amended, the Commission will act immediately to amend or withdraw the approval, as appropriate."The EU are still on the fence and really, so am I. It is no longer something I have any council responsibility for and I am not a scientist. Perhaps Kathleen is, as she is passionately in favour of Glyphosate.I am an old socialist and by nature suspicious of research financed by a large multimnational, just as I was of Philip Morris and similar in the 70s. Because I carried on smoking for far too long I have an incurable, but seemingly manageable lung disease. Makes me cautious. If I had been in favour of a quiet life I would have reintruduced Glphosate when I was a Cabinet member, but I held on because we could contain the problem and I didn't think it was worth the risk to pollinators and possibly humans to reintroduce Glyphosate. At best, it's safety is unclear.The new cabinet has made a different decision and I don't demur from that, because I am not fanatical about it and I amguided by people who are actually expert.

Guy Lambert ● 41d

Ideally residents who are hale and hearty would clear the weeds in front of their property. What is off putting is people dropping their rubbish on the roads and pavements.

Chris Dakers ● 41d

"Take more care than accepting HSE etc" This is where the anti Glyphosate lobby is like anti vaxers. Those bodies you dismiss are independent public organisations set up and resourced to assess risk. You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Kathleen Healy ● 41d

I am perfectly aware that putting words into capitals is considered shouting on the internet but sometimes it is necessary because there are people who just do not listen and many people nowadays are most certainly pretty much incapable of reading anything let alone instructions which need to be carefully followed!You really need to do more research and take more care than just accepting what the HSE etc say in order to put ticks into your boxes.  You need to look at the bigger picture. From what you say you obviously have not even looked at any scientific papers.Yes, the Council tried doing something else so have many Councils.  It works best with residents co-operation.  It does tend to mean that more people are needed. It would be good employment and a learning experience for many people but they would have to be managed which is something you can't just do that from a spreadsheet.  I don't know how many other things the Council has tried.  We tend not to be told everything that is happening.  We find out later when the chickens come home to roost in this very politically polarised world.However, the greatest damage caused to pavements is definitely by VEHICLES driving over them, cracking paving stones and dislodging kerbstones and creating spaces for self-seeding plants to grow and not by the plants themselves. I've seen a plant of the dandelion family growing in its own personal circular hole in a paving stone made by the unprotected end of a scaffolding pole.  Councils and residents should be held more to account for following up on and making good the damage that is done by BUILDING works.  Buy cheap and you can be continuing to pay for a lifetime with the damage that can be caused.Don't forget that these chemical mixes become less and less successful with time as the plants you are trying to kill become resistant to them.  In the meantime we are all subjected to repeatedly breathing them in and ingesting them.There are some areas where there are really problematic plants which do need the very specialist and careful treatment by specialists with experience - but not everything everywhere does. Its horses for courses. 

Philippa Bond ● 41d

Putting things in capitals, which is shouting, doesn't make them right.It isn't companies "doing their own research and marking their own papers"The Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency and the EU assess Glyphosate as safe for people and the environment.Managing weeds in a garden or a patch outside your house isn't the same as managing thousands of miles of roads and pavements. The Council ran an experiment trying to do what you suggest. It has failed, cost a great deal of money, left pavements unsafe and damaged infrastructure.

Kathleen Healy ● 41d

The Science DOES NOT say that Glyphosate is safe to use. This has NOTHING to do with ANTI-VAXXERS or Trump or RFK.  In fact I believe that Trump actually wants to pass a Beautiful Bill to stop any restrictions on anything whether questionable or proven to be problematical - as glyphosate has been - which is why there are strict instructions and restrictions on how to use it - despite its huge availability which is likely to encourage its use or misuse rather than discourage it - because it is big business.There are huge corporations making a lot of money out of these chemicals and a lot of gullible people who think that because something makes life easier for them and has been 'passed' by an authority it is most definitely safe and therefore a cheap solution.  It is far easier to think about saving money and effort than to think any further and wonder why there are so many court cases being brought against the manufacturers and why people should be erring on the safe side and shouldn't be spreading it around and using it when there are - as there are - alternatives. Hindsight is a fine thing.When you have big companies doing their own research and marking their own papers and not providing all the information requested for a regulating authority as has been  alleged there is very good reason to be worried.  There is a tremendous amount of lobbying of those people who stand on these Committees.  It has only just been approved by committee and only for short extensions of time. The effects of tobacco and asbestos weren't and aren't automatically immediately noticeable.  With tobacco the dangers were deliberatly hidden for many years despite the knowledge of the danger being known. We now know there are problems with asbestos but we have masses of public buildings in the UK riddled with it and the advice is just that it is safer to leave it undisturbed than to disturb it.  Well that is cheaper than building a lot more new public buildings - but how often are workmen and teachers and other users of these buildings warned not to make holes in the fabric of the buildings or to take action when panels are kicked out and broken? There are very strict rules of how asbestos should be taken out and disposed of but we know that that often doesn't happen.  Diagnoses of mesothelioma aren't made immediately after exposure!Regular brushing of paving with a stiff brush will stop most seeds taking root.  Nowadays Thames Water seems  usually to be left to deal with all the dead flowers from flowering trees and dead leaves that are left on our streets until they are swept down the drains by rain.  These gutter gardens are what just about all the plants on the streets grow in!  The gutters never get swept because our streets have become permanent car parks and the Councils and Contractors seem to be unable to organise any regular cleaning. If residents sweep the streets where is the detritus supposed to be put?  I remember a newspaper article telling of a time residents were fined for sweeping leaves off the pavements into the road.  Now that garden waste is no longer allowed in the ordinary bin and soil is not allowed to be thrown anywhere - where do pavement sweepings go?

Philippa Bond ● 41d

Having read the hysteria presented locally, that is like so much currently, myopically short of actual fact and not entirely true.  Just possible in modelled scenarios.You could apply these risks to almost anything chemical in the average household. Even Vinegar.If you use it properly and responsibly, there is no risk.  There are places which use Glyphosate in a rather eyebrow raising ways. In the U.S. it is sprayed by vehicular machines in suburb and some places, using high pressure.I don't think that has ever been deployed here and most certainly not in urban populated areas.It has been used for a very long time with no actual reports of any direct impact.  However in this country Locally it is sprayed directly at low pressure to the plant or at risk areas like paving joints and wall lines. And closely.In a lot of districts the area if badly inflicted by weeds, the pathways are closed off for a short while whilst treated and reopened when the treated area has dried off which is usually quite quickly.Many think that that is a simple but prudent means to minimise any potential risk further.Stuff used prior going back to the post war years was far more nasty and killed everything. Glysophate simply kills to the root.It has to be remembered that many species of weed have incredibly ling tensile roots and can do a huge amount of damage. One pretty looking plant can have a root system capable of dislodging a 30kg paving slab.  Walls can be destabilised, ducting cables and sub surface infrastructure, seres and drains can all be seriously damaged in just a few seasons of growth, faster than trees.Wild plants and weeds also carry seeds, often have skin and respiratory irritants and toxins that can harm us and domestic animals.  Remember that most of our modern medicines and poisons are largely from plants and again if not used with care can be equally harmful.The cost of damage, increased insurance premiums and the unkempt look of residential streets and recreational areas - which are meant to be safe for all and devoid of harmful vegetation is a bigger risk against using targeted chemical preparations which can and are used in the most responsible of methods.The key is applying properly and in the safest possible way.  And the responsibility is really with those who oversee such operations , adhere to that.  Which in this country has been very much the norm for the past 40 years since safe handling regulations came about.

Raymond Havelock ● 41d

I support what has been said, it is true that weeds can be a source of food for pollinators, but that can be overcome by planting more pollinator friendly plants in our gardens, which a lot of us already do. It is equally true that weeds and the manual removal methods are damaging to footpaths and kerbsides, the science says Glyphosate is safe to use, and remember if we are to tackle the ever extending reach of invasive species it is the only thing that works, and Hounslow have recognised that for a long time. This whole matter has been blown out of all proportion with people posting on various social media sites - with headlines like 'Save Isleworth from Glyphosate' - really? We are talking about removing weeds not an immediate threat of alien invasion from little green men, let's get some perspective and stop the histrionics. It's bad enough we have RFK and his fellow nut-jobs in the USA trying to discredit the amazing achievements of mass vaccinations over many years, and these ridiculous scares being embraced by Trump. We've not long got over a pandemic and it is only because science came to the rescue in the form of a Covid vaccination that many of us are still here, and just look at how much utter nonsense has been spoken about that, and it still goes on.  The HSE has advised that Glyphosate is safe, are you really trying to tell us that you knew better?

Vanessa Smith ● 41d