The first legal action to seek compensation for harm caused by the weedkiller Roundup is progressing in an Australian court. A 54 year old Melbourne gardener has launched action against the makers of Roundup with a claim that exposure to its base chemicals have resulted in him suffering non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate and it is known that this can cause DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, cancer, kidney disease, infertility and nerve damage. The problem is that Roundup and similar products containing glyphosate is the wonder weedkiller without which agricultural commerce would be impossible. Not only is it the farmers best friend, it is also essential for councils and local government to economically maintain weed control on public land.
Roundup was originally the product name registered by American Agribusiness Monsanto but last year it was sold to the German chemical giant Bayer. Now it has been accused in a Supreme Court writ of ignoring the carcinogenic impact of this top selling herbicide.
The use of glyphosate has gone hand in hand with the genetics of crop development. Crops have been genetically developed to ignore the presence of glyphosate and hence spraying a thriving crop will only remove troublesome weed growth which would otherwise require expensive hand weeding. To many farmers, banning this aid would be unthinkable.
The problem is that Roundup has been on the market now for many years and it is sold widely in supermarkets and plant nurseries. One of the problems is that it is used by home gardeners and some may not be bothering to heed the safety precautions indicated on the pack. The fact that it is sold without restrictions may lead users to think it is harmless.
It is also possible that commercial use on farms has resulted in the dangers being downgraded. The people using commercial spraying equipment need to be suitably garbed and provided with air filtration and it is common to see workers in the field wearing little other than shorts and a sun hat. It is clear that the safety warnings need to be urgently upgraded.
No doubt the availability of where it may be sold will also get a closer examination. There is a public perception that goods sold openly in supermarkets must be safe because there would otherwise be stringent restrictions governing their sale. In fact, using many dangerous materials has the need for extensive training leading to the attainment of a license and this may be the ultimate need to ensure glyphosate safety.
The ultimate objective will be to ensure that home gardeners are aware that this product that they have so freely used in their garden does have danger if used incorrectly. Like most dangerous products, the risk can be eliminated if the user reads the instructions carefully - and uses common sense !
No comments:
Post a Comment